Bikers collide with Police car in Buller Gorge (1 December)

[Usarka]

throw a ball straight up in the air at one precise point it will be stationary.

was the ball moving?

[spudchucka]

Isn't that also just speculation? From the crash photos I have seen I believe it very unlikely that the the HP car was stationary.

OK, lets just say then if it was moving it appears that it would have been at a very low speed and in a direction close to 90 degrees opposite to the direction of travel relating to the two bikes.

[spudchucka]

throw a ball straight up in the air at one precise point it will be stationary.

was the ball moving?

There's a lot of balls moving around here, mostly because people are playing with them far too much.

[Jantar]

OK, lets just say then if it was moving it appears that it would have been at a very low speed and in a direction close to 90 degrees opposite to the direction of travel relating to the two bikes.

I agree completely on direction, but speed would be very hard to determine. He would have either been braking (most likely) or acellerating (least likely) quite hard. Doing a 3 point turn in that location at a constant low speed would be more like Dangerous than simply Careless.

However, like you, I am waiting for the SCU report.

[Usarka]

There's a lot of balls moving around here, mostly because people are playing with them far too much.

and you wonder why everyone things cops are arrogant dickheads who look after their own

take your own advice, stop speculating and stop posting shit. nothing worse than a hypocrite.

[Edit:] disclaimer: i dont think all cops are arrogant dickheads, just the ones that are arrogant dickheads

[Skyryder]

I think the way of thinking you raise is very antiquated (not you) because it is all about negligence.

That I raised were just that examples where you could justify stopping as where it would be difficult.

Bottomline if find yourself going through a set of red traffic lights and stop stationary in the centre and a car hits you you have a defence where as if your are moving you don't. On a bike it's a different story for a different reason.

I only mention this as there has been some speculation that the cop car was stationary when hit and if it was it will be taken into consideration by the SCU. I'm not saying I agree with the stationary concepts as it does not apply if you rear end a vehicle but if for example a wheel falls off and the car settles in the middle of the road it up to moving vehicles to take all avoidence to 'bypass' wheeless vehicle. It's not entirely clear cut but as I said a stationary vehicle has a defence antiquated or not.

Skyyrder

[Skyryder]

There's a lot of balls moving around here, mostly because people are playing with them far too much.

I think your problem spud is out on the street you expect all and sundry to kowtow to your uniform and warrent. On KB it does not work that way. We are all equal here.............. loony or not.


Skyryder

[Skyryder]

Skyryder
I agree with you in regard to Scott Watson, a shonky investigation from start to finish, and we have a lot of parallels here.
Jumping to conclusions on the flimsiest of evidence.
Suppositions being treated as fact
Vilification of one party to create a good versus evil scenario
I could go on but I'll jump to a conclusion and assume it wouldnt be worth the trouble
My personal view is both parties share responsibility for this crash. How it will be apportioned will be determined by the scu investigation.

We are not a court on here JB or part of the justice system Much of what KB is about is the very thing that you have pointed out. On eyball to eyeball situation I would be much mofe diplomatic and concilitory to the other view. It could be argued that this is the better approach and on the surface I would agree. Hopwever I take great delight in posting provocitive comments. That does not mean that I can not justify them. I have fun on here. Just hope that some enjoy what I write. I do.

As for both parties sharing responsibility for the crash.................... bollicks. Fact. Cop perfomed a manourve (three point turn........two bikers injured. Fact. No evidence to date that bikes were at fault.


Skyyrder

[chris norman]

Has anyone got an update on how the riders are?

[Skyryder]

Has anyone got an update on how the riders are?

Best post to date. No I have not.


Skyrder

[terbang]

We are splitting hairs here on small legal points, moving, stopped, wheel over the edge and stopping rules ETC... Not seeing the wood for the trees perhaps. Sure the SCU will gather lots of stuff and I suspect lawyers will pounce on some of that to try and weasel their clients a better deal. But the common sense question here, and whats really being debated is: Does anyone here think, bearing in mind the result, that our professional road user showed good judgement by doing a three point or U turn on that particular part of the road?
So, who are we at KB? Investigators? No. A court of law? No. However we are a bunch of people who know a fair bit about riding motorcycles, we do a fair bit of it OK. So I suspect none of us really want to face a turning car during a bend. Right? Hence the interest and debate on this thread. Remember we represent a fairly big crossection of the motorcycle community here with many collective K's under our belts so it would be fair to say that we, as a community, know more from a riders perspective than any SCU investigator or lawyer or whoever. I guess truckies, faced with a similar situation, would just say "oh well, he took his chances and I need to hose my truck down", different for us though eh..!
We need to have our say on this incident.

[spudchucka]

I think your problem spud is out on the street you expect all and sundry to kowtow to your uniform and warrent. On KB it does not work that way. We are all equal here.............. loony or not.


Skyryder

OK, so we've moved on to judging me personally now have we. That's all very interesting coming from someone that has never seen me work "out on the street". On KB all I'm doing is setting the ledger in balance, you can take heed or not, I don't care.

[Shazz]

(I'm almost tempted to suggest organising a protest ride against the attitude of a depressingly large number of motorcyclists. You know the one - "I'll ride however the fuck I want, and if you don't like it, go fuck yourself".)[/QUOTE]


Hey I like this suggestion, let me know when you got it going. I will be in.
With bells and whistles.

[JimBob]

As for both parties sharing responsibility for the crash.................... bollicks. Fact. Cop perfomed a manourve (three point turn........two bikers injured. Fact. No evidence to date that bikes were at fault.

Skyyrder

I take it that in your view it is 100% on the cop unless some contrary evidence comes to light.
The view that it is 100% on the bikers unless some contrary evidence comes to light is equally valid.
So when the factual hard evidence is in we will be in a better position to hold web court
I would be very surprised if the bikers dont carry some of the can for this crash. Perhaps not enough to stop a prosecution of the cop.
(By responsibility I mean personal as well as legal responsibility)

Reportedly doing 90-95 around a blind corner.
Was this a reasonable and prudent speed to do around this particular corner?
Bearing in mind they obviously couldn't see very far around it.
So whether we like it or not, speed around this corner may have been a contributing factor even if it was within the speed limit.

The trouble with this bloody country is its always someones else's fault
just an observation

[Mrs Busa Pete]

I have read most of this and i have 1 question and 1 answer.

Question

Officer said that the road was clear for his u turn wright but if you are on a blind bend how could he of seen that the road was clear. I mean if the bikes could not see him doing a uy how did the cop see if they where coming.

Answer it has been said they where traveling at 90/95. Is anyone able to tell us the speed limit for that road.