Officer charged over motorcycle crash

[scumdog]

Soooo, when Farmer Brown (we got a lotta them down here) in his tractor with a trailer on behind is about to pull out of his paddock onto the main road you're saying he should take into consideration the approaching Subaru (or whatever) may be doing 155kph instead of the proscribed 100kph??

[Hawkeye]

Well, sometimes that's what it takes. Bear in mind, as Mr Spudchucka (I think) said: it could have been any sort of shit round the corner; fallen tree, slip, crashed car etc.

One of the principles of defensive driving is to do whatever it takes to avoid danger. And that often does mean going round a corner at a speed that is dictated by visibility , not by what you, or the bike, may be capable of .

So we may regret that the riders did not ride defensively, ensuring that they were able to stop for any hazard in the road.

While I agree that we all have to drive defensively, and believe me, I ride like a nana, there is also being practical.

A friend of mine was driving along (in a cage) at 40k in a 50k limit. Kid came out from between 2 parked cars just as he reached the driver's door of the first car. He had no chance of stopping in time. Whilst you can drive defensively, in this case he would have had to be driving at 15k to miss the kid. (thankfully he was able to turn enough to catch him with the side rather than full on).
What I'm saying is you can never ride to handle every eventuality. With extreme's like coming around a sweeper at 90k to find a cage parked sideways, the only way to ride defensively is to leave the bike at home.

[Ixion]

Soooo, when Farmer Brown (we got a lotta them down here) in his tractor with a trailer on behind is about to pull out of his paddock onto the main road you're saying he should take into consideration the approaching Subaru (or whatever) may be doing 155kph instead of the proscribed 100kph??

Correct. If Farmer Brown is driving defensively. Because reality is that the said Subaru MAY sometimes be doing such a speed.

Look at it from another view point. If Farmer Brown looked down the road, saw the said Subaru, said to Mrs Brown beside the tractor " Shit that Subaru thing is motoring, he's going way way over 100kph. Still if he WERE only going 100kph, I'd have time to cross the road without him hitting me. So I'm going to do it anyway , if he hits me it's his own fault, cos he's speeding". Is Farmer Brown being reasonable, let alone defensive?

Of course, we would hope the Subaru driver was ALSO being defensive, and thinks "Hm, there's a farmer on a tractor. Bet he won't make allowances for the fact that I'm going a tad faster than some. Better be ready to slow down/stop/avoid"

So in an ideal world, the Subaru slows down (to avoid putting himself in danger); Farmer Brown waits (to avoid putting others in danger) ; both wave a happy gidday to each other , and once the Subaru is past, Farmer Brown crosses the road.

Of course, as Mr Hawkeye noted, sometimes in the real world , things don't work out perfectly, and we all sometimes have to push the envelope.

Which is why I say that we may regret that the riders were not able to stop. Ideally , they would have allowed for an obstruction round the corner. But we don't live in an ideal world. They had no reason to suspect a danger. The cop did have reason to suspect a danger - he knew (and must have known) that he was creating one. We therefore condemn his actions.

Don't put yourself in danger; don't put others in danger. Do whatever it takes to achieve that. It's really very simple.

[Conquiztador]

With extreme's like coming around a sweeper at 90k to find a cage parked sideways, the only way to ride defensively is to leave the bike at home.

Totally agree!!

Next Cold Kiwi will be soo different. All on foot...

[scumdog]

Correct. If Farmer Brown is driving defensively. Because reality is that the said Subaru MAY sometimes be doing such a speed.


Don't put yourself in danger; don't put others in danger. Do whatever it takes to achieve that. It's really very simple.

I would not criticise a farmer for putting a Subaru driver in danger in the above circumstances - Darwin rules!
After all, how many times do YOU (or anybody) look long enough at approaching vehicles to 'accurately' judge their approach speed (especially if they're approaching from both directions) before making a right turn out of a side-road/driveway?? (In fact a shit-load of people don't LOOK - they glance - at best)

On your last sentence - I think I might stay in bed tonight....

[swbarnett]

in this case he would have had to be driving at 15k to miss the kid.

While I'm not advocating travelling at high speed in close proximity to parked cars I think this illustrates my point about timing. If your friend had been travelling faster they would've past the spot in question before this kid had a chance to put themselves in danger.

[Winston001]

Soooo, when Farmer Brown (we got a lotta them down here) in his tractor with a trailer on behind is about to pull out of his paddock onto the main road you're saying he should take into consideration the approaching Subaru (or whatever) may be doing 155kph instead of the proscribed 100kph??

Eerrraarrggghhh........confession time. If you substitute BMW R80RT for "Subaru" you have exactly the situation I found myself in a few days ago. I was er.. testing out my fairing extension for stability etc and since it was a windless day needed to simulate wind pressure. Acceleration seemed the best method.

So a few hundred meters ahead of me Farmer Brown began pulling out on the road with a humungous tractor. By the time I realised he wasn't going to wait for me to pass I was right on him - happily he stopped and I braked heavily.

Clear straight road, beautiful day, very sudden. My fault entirely and a lesson learned.

So I agree with Ixion about driving defensively and that being in the right isn't much comfort after the accident. At the same time all motorists are entitled to assume other roadusers are acting lawfully. If this were not the case, we'd have anarchy or nobody would drive above 30k.

[FJRider]

No doubt this thread would be just as long if the guy that did the u-turn wasnt a cop.I think not.

Bikers KILLED near Fairlie . . . THE THREADS WERE JUST AS LONG IF NOT LONGER...you make a mistake on the road, people CAN die. I dont know anybody thats IMORTAL...just lots of lucky bikers

[FJRider]

It's one of the points. If they had been able to stop, the accident wouldn't have happened, and they'd have been able to swear at the cop much more comfortably.

Richard

Its not just a point, its LAW. You must be able to stop within HALF the distance of CLEAR road ahead. Traveling at Posted speed limits OR NOT.

[rwh]

Its not just a point, its LAW. You must be able to stop within HALF the distance of CLEAR road ahead. Traveling at Posted speed limits OR NOT.

Aargh. Covered several times - on a laned road, it's the whole distance. The rest of the argument stands.

Richard

[rwh]

Coming around a bend at 90k and meeting a car stopped. There are two possible escape routes. Left or right of the car.
However, in this case there were no escape routes. There was a car, on a very narrow road, parked sideways. Therefore protecting both escape routes.
Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

Well, 30k may be excessively slow in many cases, but that's the general idea, yes. You must be able to stop in the distance of clear road ahead. Many go faster than that, and I probably do at times. I'd give it a damn good go, though, and hopefully wouldn't be traveling very fast by the time I hit.

Richard

[rwh]

A friend of mine was driving along (in a cage) at 40k in a 50k limit. Kid came out from between 2 parked cars just as he reached the driver's door of the first car. He had no chance of stopping in time. Whilst you can drive defensively, in this case he would have had to be driving at 15k to miss the kid. (thankfully he was able to turn enough to catch him with the side rather than full on).
What I'm saying is you can never ride to handle every eventuality. With extreme's like coming around a sweeper at 90k to find a cage parked sideways, the only way to ride defensively is to leave the bike at home.

The two situations are rather different. If you have seen the road to be clear, then suddenly it becomes obstructed (by children running out, or a campervan rolling towards you or whatever), there may well be little you can do about it. You can of course make a judgment about whether this is a likely location for children to run out between parked cars, but there will be situations you can't avoid.

In the Buller Gorge case though, it seems agreed[1] that the car was already obstructing the road by the time that bit of road came into view, so there should have been time to stop.

[1]The rider said he came round the corner and the car was there. The cop said he couldn't see the motorcyclists when he started his turn. This seems consistent to me.

Richard

[slopster]

Its not just a point, its LAW. You must be able to stop within HALF the distance of CLEAR road ahead. Traveling at Posted speed limits OR NOT.

It depends on exactly how it happened. Imagine yourself going round a corner consious of being able to stop in the amount of visible clear road. You pass the apex see 200m up the straight and wind on the throttle and then suddenly 30m ahead a car turns into your clear lane. I don't know exactly what happened but doing a 3 point turn anywhere where visibility is restricted is fucking retarded.

[Jantar]

It depends on exactly how it happened. Imagine yourself going round a corner consious of being able to stop in the amount of visible clear road. You pass the apex see 200m up the straight and wind on the throttle and then suddenly 30m ahead a car turns into your clear lane. I don't know exactly what happened but doing a 3 point turn anywhere where visibility is restricted is fucking retarded.

It appears that this is closer to what has happened than the road being blocked by a stationery policer car. According to MD in the orinional thread, the IPCA have established that the bikes were not speeding, which means that they were travelling at less than 28 m/s (100kmh) and were capable of stopping had the road remained clear. Even if the cop car was only travelling at 10 kmh during the 3 point turn, the road would have gone from clear to blocked in less than 2 seconds.

[rwh]

According to MD in the orinional thread, the IPCA have established that the bikes were not speeding

I obviously missed that post - I only saw a news article that mentioned a careful lack of comment on whether the bikes were speeding.

Richard