Completely Un-pc Vote

**750Y** · 13th May 2003, 19:38

I think all in all this is a bad day for the victim's family/friends, us motorcyclists and the Police alike. No one wins. I guess there will be pressure again for someone in Wellington to make a call now as to how much the risk of life is worth in the context of a traffic offence. (comparing it to something).
The cops sat down at the table & entered into a deadly game & threw their chips into the middle, upping the stakes, pity their bluff was called when the dealer pulled the joker.

**Blackbird** · 13th May 2003, 20:01

Not naming names, but there was a person who did a runner about 18 months ago, errr.... "somewhere" in the vicinity of Taupo and will never, ever, do it again. The adrenaline was running amok and that person's riding turned to complete crap. He was shaking so badly when he came to a stop after realising that he'd got away with it that he could barely hold the bike up. All that for not paying proper attention to the rear view mirrors....

You cross the line into SERIOUSLY BAD PERSON territory when you run and it just ain't worth it. Like Nousforaname said: pull over, eat humble pie and hope for the best.

**bikerboy** · 13th May 2003, 20:12

The police's roll in all of this is called contributory negligence.

Cause and effect: The effect was a running biker, the cause was the chasing police. The worst case senario if the police didn't chase; no speeding ticket. The worst case senario of the chase; possible death due to accident. The biker was foolish. The police should know better, as this has happened before.

Two lives were worth far more than a speeding ticket. The police obsession with speeding blinded them to the risks of high speed chases, yet again. They could have gotten the license number and as in all tickets, make the owner prove it wasn't them. Then they could have called off the chase more than a millisecond before the bike hit the car.

**MikeL** · 13th May 2003, 20:55

This is an interesting moral dilemma, regardless of the legal aspects ("contributory negligence" on the part of the pursuing officer - who's going to prosecute??). In retrospect the decision to continue the chase was clearly wrong, yet at what point does the balance shift between acceptable risk and unacceptable risk? If, as I believe, any chase at above-legal speeds runs a dramatically increased risk of serious injury to the offender compared to the same rider/driver doing a similar speed without being pursued, how can we justify the pursuit at all? And that's without considering the risk of injury to an innocent third party. If we accept the principle that it is better for 10 guilty men to go unpunished than for one innocent man to hang, we should accept that there may have to be limits to enforcement when the possible consequences of that enforcment are out of all proportion to the seriousness of the crime. I know that the full story of this tragic accident is yet to be told, but regardless of the precise circumstances I still get an uneasy feeling about the whole question of police chases. Could it be that the pressure to fulfil an arbitrary quota of tickets influenced the decision to continue the pursuit? If I were the police officer involved, I think I'd be finding it hard to get to sleep tonight...

**Kwaka-Kid** · 13th May 2003, 21:17

Well i hope he has the best damn sleep hes ever had and eats a big meat pie too, congratulations to him for carrying out what he is paid to do.

You cant put an exact figure/measure on how high risk is... Simon wrote his bike off @ 20kmph or whatever and could have died... I came off @ 160 and could have walked home to auckland from puke... Alrite you maynot think this is exactly relevant but all i msaying is its really iffy... and secondly about this chase.. we dont know the half of it.. from what ive heard. THE FIRST OFFICOR SPOTTED THE BIKE DOING 195kmph.. so if this is true (and sorry if i misheard) he wasnt even being chased and doing fucking high speed! this to me sounds like a drug run.. also that they mentioned his bag to land 40m away.. hmm.. bag full of? now before i go on to say i think he was prolly doing a meth run, just by the sounds of the start.. even if he wasnt being chased.. this/an accident was likly to occur... if he was travelling @ these speeds. Just dont put it on the cop.. the cop did not reach over his shoulder and wind that throttle open, the cop did not tell him to run away. The cop merely did his job and dont try to put the whole "could this have been because of the ticket bs" thing on him... damn when im in hte force and if i saw some1 whizz by @ that speed id be dead set on taking him out even :@ hes a threath to anyone/thing WITHOUT any cops chasing him.. so i doubt he can do much worse with them chasing.. i say knock a car into the back of the bike and wed all be right, thats what should be allowed...

**Kwaka-Kid** · 13th May 2003, 21:29

well the 2nd car in the chase was a police dog handler unit.. now do you REALLY THINK that a big heavy slow as a mofo dog handler ute can actually pressure someone on a bike? Your fucking kidding me :P my cb250RS would piss all over it. You see, why would a man be speeding so hard? its hard t obeleive hed do it for fun.. and out those areas i know that there have been some meth runs.. so whats a cop to first assume? so if this bag does contain meth, the cops mighta saved all yo daughters and sons from becomming hardout meth addicts and committing suicide not long after

- you never know?

well i spose the main point im trying to get across is the difference between the Dog in the Police Unit, and the Fuckwit on the bike. You see the dog on one hand, Did not "choose" to do 170kmph or whatever, no no, it had no option in it at all... the fuckwit on the other hand did... he was in control of the motorvechile, he chose, HE CHOSE to run the risk of his/others lives.. it was his bad decision making alone that lead to the death of a young girl. If he had of lived, i say he aught to be up for a Murder charge.

Aside from the differences in opinion - i think all our thoughts go out to the unfortunate girl in charge of the other vechile tonite... rip

**SPman** · 13th May 2003, 21:37

I sorta agree with U

**Coldkiwi** · 13th May 2003, 21:51

lets ignore your drug runner theory for a second (being that its based on speculation and if I was a drug runner, i'd do my run (like most sensible druggies) trying to attract as LITTLE attention as possible). I think the odds of a biker doing 195kmhr for fun are RATHER good.... kawhia anyone? coromandel? miranda straights? hunua straights? sounds familiar to any of us on large sports bikes? Do all of us that own bikes easily capable of 200kph do drug runs? piss off!

but regardless, the cops should realise that a chase is futile at those speeds. They're much better (and more effective) to put up a road block ahead and get the chopper up there.. that's what they have radios and proceedures for. Its not a case of 'if we don't pursue we won't get the guy'... this is the 21st century KK... we've HOPEFULLY proceeded past cops and robbers mentality of a 1930's movie flick.

I think the police proceedure of NOT pursuing over 150kmhr is very well founded (like they get enough training to do it near those speeds safely anyway). Why bark yourself when you have a dog ...or eagle?

and finally. KK, if you've got an attitude of wanting to take a motorist or biker 'out' because they're going too fast, you'd better not end up in a hearing in court because of that attitude if I'm on a jury! We have a military (ok, sort of!) for attitudes like that. The cops are there to protect EVERYONE, not act the judge, jury and executioner. I trust the police academy will make this clear to you in the fullness of time. God help us if they don't!

**750Y** · 13th May 2003, 22:16

woa! that bit about the meat pie was a bit ott.
has someone been watching americas most wanted again?
I've heard that 195kph is nothing for many riders.
that's a heck of a lot of drug runners.
what gave him away? the triumph? the bag? or the northland location? or d all of the above.
will I have to wait an extra 2 days for my P now?

**aff-man** · 13th May 2003, 22:50

Well kk i agree and disagree with you sure the biker was an arse for doing high speeds but the cops ,in my opinion, were even bigger arses. The have radio's ,set up a road block and if he gets away with it he'll probably do it again and probably get caught. But if he hears the sirens ect what is it doing but pushing him on to greater speeds (and greater f#$k-ups). It was my understanding that the police were only allowed to travel 50kph over the speed limit is this a myth???? And if so are those cars built to go that fast i mean sure police cars are fast but kepping up with a bigger bike??? It really confuses me as to what they were thinking to much american television maybe.

As to the unfortunate innocent(s) - no-one deserves to go out due to the reckless arseness of others -rip

**Dave** · 14th May 2003, 09:01

One of my contracts was to look after the police vehicle when I worked at Ford.the police dog vans are equipped with XR6 or holden FE2 suspension and get better maintenance /have more care spent on them than any patrol car does.I have seen a speed camera photo of a dog van in central auckland going through an intersection with all 4 wheels off the ground.Believe me,If they wanted to play chasey,they would give it their best effort.

**What?** · 14th May 2003, 14:29

Yeah - why start a chase when someone does a runner? There are much safer ways to apprehend someone who has been substantially naughty. So why?

Coz it's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase. Truth is, the cops ENJOY a good high speed chase. Just the same as we enjoy going fast sometimes, too - it's just they get to do it with a degree of impunity.

**Kwaka-Kid** · 14th May 2003, 16:17

haha firstly: dave - i dont care what suspension they got in them.. ive seen them and been told about them.. they are not fast compared to a modern bike... Secondly it was 9pm @ night.. its shit hard to see a plate @ that speed.. so that ideas gone.. and also there were point the rider could have turned off @... the chances of catching him are just so much lower... i say use all means needed to catch the fucker, throw everything at him... and then if the rider is ABSOLUTLY SO-F-INGLY stpuid enough to try and run? then hes the same dumbarse that is likly to hit a car travelling @ high speed without police anyway. + with a friggin black triumph speed tripple, if he had any skill im sure he would have been far enough away from the final cop car within 30 seconds to even hear the lights.. so how would he have known they were still chasing? ok.. so if he thought they had stopped.. and was still ruing just in case.. do we just NOT even enter a chase @ all because of the risk? so say sombody is doing 110 on a motorway and we engage in persuit.. and he accelerates.. do we then decide to tell all the force just to abandon? because if the guy gets away real fast like on a bike.. he will keep on pumping if hes stupid enough in the first place to run like that... then he will hit a car and kill your daughter, aswell as himself escaping any punishment. meh :S

**Kwaka-Kid** · 14th May 2003, 16:21

oh and lastly

affman-

"set up a road block and if he gets away with it he'll probably do it again and probably get caught"

fact is he prolly WONT get caught.. and only get better... untill he hits a car randomly without any police and you all start whining "Ohh what are the police doing to get these hoons off our streets!! pay them less!"

And i think the force should harden up, get some military training.what happen to the days of the old cops.. it was better back then.. If your speeding, fair enough.. but when i try to pull you over and give you your punishment and u run.. I will try and use any means needed to get you off that bike and close enough to me to smack you one! :P or just give u a ticket..

harden up!