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

[Katman]

Where did you get this from? It used to be that you had to be able to stop within half the clear distance ahead!

That is on a road with no centre line.

On a road with a centre line it is the distance visible to you.

[Marmoot]

That is on a road with no centre line.

On a road with a centre line it is the distance visible to you.

Btw what difference would a centre line make if you have a patrol car wedged across both lanes?

U-turn should be banned. 180 degree turns should really only be committed without exposing the vehicle to both sides of the road. E.g., using a road side/runoff/turning area, driveways, or side roads..

[Katman]

Btw what difference would a centre line make if you have a patrol car wedged across both lanes?

What do you mean "what difference would it make"?

If you can stop within the distance visible then there is very little chance of hitting anything. (Unless of course, a vehicle is driving towards you on your side of the centre line).

[Winston001]

Being frustrated with the minimal and barely accurate news reports, I have made my own enquiries. Incidentally the Otago Daily Times has the best report of sentencing http://www.odt.co.nz/58043/police-pa...osts-him-60000

For those who think Bridgman was convicted for being a liar, that's wrong. Here is what the judge said - "You thought at the time you were doing your duty in trying to apprehend a speeding motorcyclist and you made an awful mistake."

My earlier posts were not quite right - hate that. Here are the correct facts.

Bridgman was ultimately convicted because the jury visited the crash scene. This is unusual, but it meant they got to see how narrow the road is and the tight corner.

The NZ Police do not use insurance, they paid out directly for the bikes. All done some time ago.

The reparation ordered of $30,000 is payable to each motorcyclist. It represents compensation for post traumatic stress and emotional harm. It is payable by Bridgman personally, not the police.

I'm a bit shocked about that myself because it seems an extraordinary sum given what others pay - or don't pay.

Bridgman offered $20,000 each at the hearing so its hard for him to argue with the final result. He isn't a wealthy man but PERFd last year so 30 years superannuation should be enough to pay up.

[ynot slow]

Speed at impact???????

Are you suggesting they didn't even bother to brake?

Or are you suggesting they were doing more than 104-116kph as they came around the corner?

And besides, what part of 'being able to stop within the distance visible to you' don't you understand?

You don't (want to) understand do you,my comment was directed at the fact some press and people are saying speed WAS a factor,then adding maybe was.The crash unit could not say what speed they were doing,hence no prosecution to the injured riders due to the cause being blamed on them.

Of course they tried to brake wtf,the fact as I understand is the cop did a stupid manouvre on a narrowish road requiring 3 attempts,maybe to close to the corner,bikes travelling(no speed mentioned)couldn't stop in time.Most instances if you crash into a vehicle you will be prosecuted due to the fact you haven't stopped in time,therefore riding/driving to close to vehicle in front,a few exceptions to the rule granted.Pretty hard to miss if the object is moving accross the road,they turn one way and brake then the car moves back into their line wham.

No way am I blaming the riders,the blame is the system where it seems revenue from road ticketing is more important than solving crime,certainly more profitable(as he looks at speed camera ticket),feel sorry for the cops I know,they are human,and if they caused an accident like this would damn well show more remorse than this one.

Where did you get this from? It used to be that you had to be able to stop within half the clear distance ahead!

My point in driving/riding exactly,double the stopping in wet weather,the 2 second rule is a guideline not gospel according to Pete(r brock).

[Ixion]

Being frustrated with the minimal and barely accurate news reports, I have made my own enquiries. Incidentally the Otago Daily Times has the best report of sentencing http://www.odt.co.nz/58043/police-pa...osts-him-60000

For those who think Bridgman was convicted for being a liar, that's wrong. Here is what the judge said - "You thought at the time you were doing your duty in trying to apprehend a speeding motorcyclist and you made an awful mistake."

My earlier posts were not quite right - hate that. Here are the correct facts.

Bridgman was ultimately convicted because the jury visited the crash scene. This is unusual, but it meant they got to see how narrow the road is and the tight corner.

The NZ Police do not use insurance, they paid out directly for the bikes. All done some time ago.

The reparation ordered of $30,000 is payable to each motorcyclist. It represents compensation for post traumatic stress and emotional harm. It is payable by Bridgman personally, not the police.

I'm a bit shocked about that myself because it seems an extraordinary sum given what others pay - or don't pay.

Bridgman offered $20,000 each at the hearing so its hard for him to argue with the final result. He isn't a wealthy man but PERFd last year so 30 years superannuation should be enough to pay up.

Thank you. That clarifies matters.
A pertinent quote

Defence lawyer Garry Barkle said Bridgman's offending resulted from a split second decision to pursue a speeding motorcyclist as part of local and national police policies to combat speed

I suggest that the silver braided ones should bear some responsibility also. The sentence seems a stiff one : although the location was totally unsuitable to try to turn (I passed through there a few months ago and noted the fact), Bridgman may have felt under a duty to pursue the elad machine, based on orders from on high. Some responsibility should be assigned to the obsessional and hysterical attitude toward minor speeding of the police senior ranks.
However, the way that the police establishment turned on Bridgeman after the event suggests that maybe there were already outstanding issues within the force.

[nadroj]

Maybe he needed some "boy racer" training on how to do a handbrakie?

[Katman]

You don't (want to) understand do you

You said...........

I read a report that the crash unit couldn't accurately say the speed at impact was,roughly 104-116km if I recall

If that were the case then you are suggesting they either were going a whole lot faster as they went into the corner or they didn't brake before the impact.

What part of your post am I failing to understand?

[terbang]

The outcome of this case leaves a resounding message, drive like a farken idiot and hurt/kill a bunch of people and your gonna have to pay some money to your victims. Regardless of who you are. And that's a good outcome.
Now back to splitting hairs on semantic legal interpretations of the kiwi bush lawyers mythology.

[MSTRS:Me]

... but PERFd last year so 30 years superannuation should be enough to pay up.

Did he? I was of the belief that he retired, and that as ex-MOT he couldn't perf?

[Winston001]

The outcome of this case leaves a resounding message, drive like a farken idiot and hurt/kill a bunch of people and your gonna have to pay some money to your victims. Regardless of who you are. And that's a good outcome.

Well sort of, and I really do wish it was that simple. However I suggest you check out the sentencing day at any busy District Court. Judges do occasionally order payments to victims but usually in the hundreds of $ not $thousands.

The example already given here of $10,000 reparation paid by the guy who hit a little girl in a forecourt shows inconsistency. Why wasn't she worth $30,000? Indeed why not $100,000?

What about the hundreds of drivers who are never ordered to pay anything? Like the ones who have deliberately driven into crowds and maimed/killed people. Why does Bridgman have to pay $60,000 for a momentary mistake - made because he was doing his job - when countless others pay little or nothing?

[Winston001]

Did he? I was of the belief that he retired, and that as ex-MOT he couldn't perf?

Fair call, you are probably right. He would still have had the public service super scheme, and/or probably the police scheme which could have entitled him to a lump sum withdrawal - although he may have just kept it going. Don't know.

[RantyDave]

If the officer was 'working' when he screwed up and his employer (NZ Govt) sets the tone and targets for his actions.... how come his employer does not have any financial responsibility here??

Yeah, I don't get this either. It's like suggesting that the bank worker who screwed up and dumped $10M in some dodgy bastards accounts is now liable for the ten mill. Errrr, nope.

If I were a Policeman I'd be somewhat concerned about this. Scummy! - WTF, surely you have liability insurance at work? Particularly given that the line of work can occasionally involve twatting people with a big stick.

Dave

[RantyDave]

He's still an arsehole:http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/n...rs-actions-sad

Oh, well done. That is some very interesting stuff in there...

Bridgman, who had been in the police for 35 years, had resigned from the force as a result of getting little support from police following the accident ..... The officer in charge of the case, Senior Sergeant Tony Bernards of Nelson police, said outside the court he was "extremely disappointed" that Bridgman had shown no compassion for his victims. "It was all about him."

Or "Yes, he does give the Police a bad name and has been doing so for a long time. We hate him."

Bridgman had been on a salary of $87,000

Those are some damn expensive speed cameras we have out there...

The judge said the crash had financial implications totalling $127,000 for Mr Collins and $119,000 for Mr Russell.

Take any particular ride, multiply it by a one in one thousand chance of getting injured and it suddenly starts to look like a very expensive pastime - and that's without considering whether or not you'll be killed. Hmmmmmm.

Dave

[Fatjim]

There are no winners in this case.

After reading that latest report, I can kinda (at a stretch) sympathise with Bridgeman.

1. 35 years in the "force" has got to make you fairly cynical, and you'd be fairly institutionalised in terms of accusing accident participants, its police 101. The guys a wanker, but thats what this kind of work tends to do to you. (Mind you, some would say you'd have to be a wanker to aspire to give out traffic tickets and attend traffic accidents for a living).

2. He leaves the job after giving his working life to it with 160k, has to pay 60k, plus legal fees and ends up woth a minimum wage job. The Po po should have coughed up for this. I would expect my employer to carry the can if I made a genuine mistake at work, even if I tried to cover it up.


The only positive that I can think of is that Brent now rides a Tuono.