U-turn cop to stand trial

[Katman]

"You were speeding"

WTF? Was he sitting accross the road on the exit of a blind corner pointing his laser out the passenger window?

What a twat.


99% of coppers give the rest a bad name.

So you buy the "about 95 kph" story, do you?

[Swoop]

So you buy the "about 95 kph" story, do you?

Well who can say what the truth is?

The cop? No, because he was stopped across the road.
The biker? Yes, because he was travelling through a windy road and could read the speedo.
Or were you there and can give an eye-witness guess at the speeds? Please enlighten the viewers.

[Katman]

Well who can say what the truth is?

The cop? No, because he was stopped across the road.
The biker? Yes, because he was travelling through a windy road and could read the speedo.
Or were you there and can give an eye-witness guess at the speeds? Please enlighten the viewers.

And it wouldn't surprise me if you actually believed what you've just written.

Because, of course, motorcyclists never lie to save their arses.

[Headbanger]

So you buy the "about 95 kph" story, do you?

The Anti-Biker has arrived.

I'm with you on this one, Those nasty bikers should have apologised to the cop, for hitting his car.

Lmfao.

[98tls]

Well who can say what the truth is?

The cop? No, because he was stopped across the road.
The biker? Yes, because he was travelling through a windy road and could read the speedo.
Or were you there and can give an eye-witness guess at the speeds? Please enlighten the viewers.

Since when did the truth matter on here?

[Swoop]

Because, of course, motorcyclists never lie to save their arses.

I doubt lying about speed would have been on his mind while laying there with a broken pelvis...
Once again, who else could provide a truthful statement of the bikers speed?

The Anti-Biker has arrived.

I'm with you on this one, Those nasty bikers should have apologised to the cop, for hitting his car.

Also, apologising for bleeding all over his road would have been nice.

[Mikkel]

See - I knew, given time, we'd find something we agree on.

I'll have to cry myself to sleep tonight then...

And as for the "You were speeding" comment, I actually missed it! That makes me sick.... I said above that I felt a bit sorry for him, but fuck that! Even if the biker was doing 250kmph, to make a comment like that while someone's obviously seriously hurt is just disgusting... from anyone... and this guys a Cop! I hope the Judge/Jury see it the same way... it's virtually a confession. He knows he fucked up, so went straight onto the defensive.

I'm just wondering how many here have been involved in a "high-speed" accident? How many recall their state of mind immediately after the accident? How many can recall in detail exactly what happened leading up to and after the accident?

My point being, that while 'you were speeding' is a cunty thing to say to a fella who's just fallen off his motorbike - shock will do funny things to your brain. Besides let's remember that there was an exchange of words before this that have not been disclosed in detail - except I read the news article as if that exchange having been rather heated, and understandably so!

It's not that different from blaiming someone who smacked into you - although down the line you might be found to be at fault. And there are plenty of people on here who have expressed sentiments that they would do anything to get away from carrying the blame for an accident - and that admitting liability is the last thing you should do. Same difference.

Besides, 80km.... 100km.... 120km... 200km... who cares, you come around a blind corner with a car blocking the road, your gonna hit it regardless.

Well that's the thing really. If they had been doing a speed that allowed them to stop in their visible distance it wouldn't have happened. The difference between 95 km/h and 110 km/h could very well be a broken pelvis. And 200 km/h would probably have turned you into a human jigsaw puzzle.

[Toaster]

...If anything cops get hammered more than us normal types if found guilty.

Absolutely true and then there is also all the internal police disciplinary proceedures too... demotion being one possibility or loss of career or inability to futher his career.

[terbang]

Nice sentiment mate but you forget this is "kiwiwhinger" and any thread with "cop fucks up" related to it brings out all the interweb bad arses out there that get wood in cyberspace.

Kiwiwhinger? The greatest whingeing I see around here comes from the wannabe kiwis, whineing about the likes of their ADSL connection woes and the hoops they have to jump through for immigration.

More like ¨Kiwi can´t accept responsibility for my own actions¨ (or lets hide behind ACC). If I fuck up in my job, then I will lose my licence to do so (if I survive) which would then render me useless in my primary role. Out the door I would likely go. So the trick is, know your responsibilities, take them seriously and face up to them when you get it wrong.
In this case it seems that this ´professional driver´ and his buddies doesn´t want to do this.

[imdying]

Personally I believe he should be done for careless use of a motor vehicle causing injury. The situation would not have been dangerous provided the motorcyclists had been able to stop in the distance they could see ahead.
But he most definately chose a bad place to do his U-turn - as such he was careless... I don't think dangerous will stick - but careless should!

I agree, bike was going faster than he was able to stop in, so not entirely the cops fault.

This particular cop is obviously a cunt, it seems that he tried to shift the blame onto the victim.

No, he's just not stupid. Anyone that admits fault at the scene is stupid.

He shouldnt lose his lively hood for that though, he has probably been a copper for the last 30 years and never had anything like this happen before, he should lose his licence, but not the job,

Exactly. Besides, if we strung up every officer who made a mistake (like every other human), then our understaffed force would be even more royally fucked.

"You were speeding"

WTF? Was he sitting accross the road on the exit of a blind corner pointing his laser out the passenger window?

If by going faster than he could brake in is speeding, then yes, the biker was speeding.

[HenryDorsetCase]

Well that's the thing really. If they had been doing a speed that allowed them to stop in their visible distance it wouldn't have happened. The difference between 95 km/h and 110 km/h could very well be a broken pelvis. And 200 km/h would probably have turned you into a human jigsaw puzzle.

You really need to go look at the scene. I know that stretch of road very well having been a white water kayaker for years. that river is paddler central.

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility. (the question of "why" remains to be seen, but isnt really that relevant). Because he is a "professional driver" then his standard of accountability is, and should be, higher than that of an "average" driver: its the same principle as the standard applied to professional people (lawyers, accountants) dealing with their professional responsibilities: the standard is higher than for the ordinary punter.

I feel sorry for all involved, but taking the guy's occupation out of the equation, the legal position seems pretty clear.

[Katman]

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

If that is the case, do you think that "about 95kph" is sensible? What if it had been a fallen tree or an animal blocking the road?

[yod]

You really need to go look at the scene. I know that stretch of road very well having been a white water kayaker for years. that river is paddler central.

If this accident happened where i think it did, the speed that would "allow them to stop in the visible distance" would be about 30kph. Seriously.

Simply put, the driver (who happened to be a cop) made a stunningly bad call to do a three point turn on a road with limited visibility. (the question of "why" remains to be seen, but isnt really that relevant). Because he is a "professional driver" then his standard of accountability is, and should be, higher than that of an "average" driver: its the same principle as the standard applied to professional people (lawyers, accountants) dealing with their professional responsibilities: the standard is higher than for the ordinary punter.

I feel sorry for all involved, but taking the guy's occupation out of the equation, the legal position seems pretty clear.

bloody hell mate, you might wanna keep sensible comments like that for another forum - this is KB after all

[mark247]

this thread is definately going to have to go into PD, these comments are just far too mature

[HenryDorsetCase]

If that is the case, do you think that "about 95kph" is sensible? What if it had been a fallen tree or an animal blocking the road?

Yes, eminently. Why the powers that be have deemed that 100kph is perfectly safe but 101kph is not.