U-turn cop to stand trial

[Katman]

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

Sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say.

I'm asking if, in order to stop in the length of road visible to you, you need to be doing 30kph, is doing "about 95kph" sensible?

And I don't think the powers that be have ever made the blanket statement that 100kph is safe but 101kph isn't.

[HenryDorsetCase]

I need more time than I have at present to answer that. I can see where your argument is going though.

[imdying]

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's all that particular piece of road is safe at, then I really have to doubt the sanity of anyone travelling at 'about 95' through it. I mean really, what would've happened if it'd been a rock fall? A broken down car? A full size fuck off cow? A head on between a campervan and a bus blocking the entire road?

The cop was a retard, but he wasn't the only one, not by a long shot. Fortunately that'll probably be what will save his bacon.

[unrealone]

Sorry, I don't quite get what you're trying to say.

I'm asking if, in order to stop in the length of road visible to you, you need to be doing 30kph, is doing "about 95kph" sensible?

And I don't think the powers that be have ever made the blanket statement that 100kph is safe but 101kph isn't.

Regardless, the onus is on the Police Officer... He pulled the dangerous (or careless) move not the Biker. Suggesting ways these bikers could've avoided this accident is meaningless.

Comments about "What if it were a tree, or a cat or a dog" or whatever are silly - if it were a tree, well that's just plain bad luck really, who can be blamed? No one, not the tree, it couldn't make a conscious decision to not fall on the road - unlike the cop that COULD make the decision to not make a dodgy U Turn.

The point being as that these two would most likely still be riding today had it not been for the stupid action of this police officer.

I think everyone else has said what I was going to say in regards to punishment of this cop. It's pretty damn black and white to me.

[imdying]

Regardless, the onus is on the Police Officer... He pulled the dangerous (or careless) move not the Biker.

Travelling at 95 in a place that only 30 could be safe isn't dangerous? Hell, I'd be charging the biker with dangerous, and dropping the cops charge to careless.

[unrealone]

Travelling at 95 in a place that only 30 could be safe isn't dangerous? Hell, I'd be charging the biker with dangerous, and dropping the cops charge to careless.

Was there a sign or something saying that the SPEED LIMIT is 30 for this corner? It may seem lame to say 'well no one told me' but to be honest people rely on these 'speed limits' and 'recommended speeds' to gauge how fast they take a corner.

Personally, corners that I don't know I do definitely slow down, but I doubt that I would slow to 30 for a medium right hander (in a 100K zone) unless conditions were very wet.

The bikers did not break the law, the police officer has - end of story right there really.

[Deano]

Ya see. Losing their jobs because of that is wrong. They're just folk like everyone else why should they get extra done. Pay the same penalty as everyone else no more no less.

I lost a job as a delivery driver once because I lost my licence. I could have done office duty for the suspended time but the company was looking for an excuse to save some money on salaries. Unlike the cops who are in short supply and more are sorely needed.

[_Shrek_]

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.

HDC sorry for being a bit slow on the up take "BUT YOUR POINT IS"

cop does u turn in front of 2 bikers on a blind piece of road end result a big mess
they are "taught safty first" for them & public he is a professional end of subject

bikers traveling at 95-100 kms on a road most of us like to do when we go down the Bullar when in fact we should be doing 60-70 kms again end result big mess goes with the territory
but they are still victims of an unnecessary accident

[Katman]

Personally, corners that I don't know I do definitely slow down, but I doubt that I would slow to 30 for a medium right hander (in a 100K zone) unless conditions were very wet.

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph that you would need to be doing 30kph in order to stop within the distance visible to you is not 'safe'. You might do it 99 times out of 100 and get away with it thereby making you believe that it is 'safe'. However, that 1 time out of 100 when things turn to shit you have to accept a large part of the responsibility for that shit.

[clint640]

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

From the pics of the accident scene that were circulating when this happened, it looked like a distinct possibility that the HP car had pulled out in front of the bikes from his lane as he did the 3-point turn manuever. So the poor buggers on the bikes may have come around the corner, seen a clear lane in front of them and then been confronted by a car swinging across out of the less visible inside lane.
Joining the cop in saying that they were definitely going faster than they should have been is probably jumping to conclusions a bit.

Clint

[unrealone]

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph that you would need to be doing 30kph in order to stop within the distance visible to you is not 'safe'. You might do it 99 times out of 100 and get away with it thereby making you believe that it is 'safe'. However, that 1 time out of 100 when things turn to shit you have to accept a large part of the responsibility for that shit.

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph where there is no indication that it should be taken at a lower speed is not your fault.

I agree that maybe they could have been going slower, but really, would it have made a difference when someone unexpectantly swings out from the other side of the road? No, it wouldn't. Are you going to ride or drive around at 10KPH because someone possibly might swing out from the other side of the road? I doubt it.

Is that clear enough for an anti-biker such as yourself?

[imdying]

Was there a sign or something saying that the SPEED LIMIT is 30 for this corner?

The SPEED LIMIT (Why the caps? I can read fine...) is a maximum, not a target to aim for. The Road Code is pretty clear on you being required to always adjust your speed to the conditions, and you being required to be able to stop in the road you can see ahead.

Personally, corners that I don't know I do definitely slow down, but I doubt that I would slow to 30 for a medium right hander (in a 100K zone) unless conditions were very wet.

Shrug... you'll potentially die because of it... no loss to me I guess.

The bikers did not break the law, the police officer has - end of story right there really.

I'm not sure whether being able to stop in the road you can see is law, or just what the Road Code recommends... someone else will know though... officers?

[Katman]

From the pics of the accident scene that were circulating when this happened, it looked like a distinct possibility that the HP car had pulled out in front of the bikes from his lane as he did the 3-point turn manuever. So the poor buggers on the bikes may have come around the corner, seen a clear lane in front of them and then been confronted by a car swinging across out of the less visible inside lane.
Joining the cop in saying that they were definitely going faster than they should have been is probably jumping to conclusions a bit.

Clint

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the cop car was hit near the left hand front and rear wheel arches.

[imdying]

So the poor buggers on the bikes may have come around the corner, seen a clear lane in front of them and then been confronted by a car swinging across out of the less visible inside lane.

Yep, entirely possible, and if the courts find that, I'm sure they'll burn/fine/whatever him as appropriate

Let me spell it out to you.

Taking a corner at 95kph where there is no indication that it should be taken at a lower speed is not your fault.

Is that clear enough for an anti-biker such as yourself?

If the corner being blind isn't an indication to you to slow down, then you're an accident waiting to happen.

Being pro survival isn't anti-biker.

[Ixion]

Whilst being able to stop in the clear length of road ahead is both a legal requirement, and wise practcie (though lamentably often ignored - NZ worst motoring dereliction), there will always be situations where it is not possible.

For instance you might be travelling along in your labne, nothing whatsoever in front of you. When without warning, an oncoming vehicle swerves out of HIS lane right in front of you at the last second. Stopping in such a case would be physically impossible.

The requirement to be able to stop presumes that other traffic sticks to its own lane. If you are on the wrong side of the road (or sideways!) you are in the wrong.