U-turn cop to stand trial

**chanceyy** · 12th June 2008, 10:37

Originally Posted by NordieBoy

Lost their lives?

my bad, thought that crash caused death, revised my post to read

Regardless of how long he has been an officer, he made a gross error in judgment & needs to be held accountable for it. After all riders were seriously injured

thanks NordieBoy

also just catching up on the posts ..

I have to agree Katman you are such a tool, sighs but there is no point in saying any more than that cause your the type of person who can not look at anyone else's point of view with objectivity, you have to be right !!

I will watch with interest the outcome of the trial & the evidence that is produced .. after all this will be a high profile case.

hmmm & I may very well be wrong (& I am sure Katman will let me know soon enough), but it is not required that you need at least 100 meters of clear visablity to overtake a vehicle, so would this not also mean 100 meters clear visability to execute a u turn?

also must add here on the gut buster ride when the TEC got his flat tire & I was half way up a passing lane on a twistie section of road when a vehicle passed & pointed back saying he has a flat tire.

I contemplated doing a U turn but as I did not have clear visability, even though it was 3 lanes, I deemed it to unsafe so I proceeded slowly til I found an appropriate place to turn around on the summit, off the side of the road, common sense has to come into play somewhere here ..

**_Shrek_** · 12th June 2008, 11:47

Originally Posted by chanceyy

hmmm & I may very well be wrong (& I am sure Katman will let me know soon enough), but it is not required that you need at least 100 meters of clear visablity to overtake a vehicle, so would this not also mean 100 meters clear visability to execute a u turn? ..

It's 100 meters through out the hole manoever when overtaking

am only assuming it would be the same in a U turn

not very good for a professional driver will rectify it asap
is there a

that could help with this please

good stuff MD i gave up at post 87 its like talking to a brick wall

**Ixion** · 12th June 2008, 11:57

Originally Posted by Katman

Yeah, I'm out of here too. But I'll leave you all with a parting though.

The cop was turning to pursue a speeding motorcyclist and seconds later was hit by two other bikes that were out riding that day with said speeding motorcyclist.

Draw your own conclusions.

(By the way MD, are you prepared to tell us what speed the radar locked onto you at?)

That doesn't follow. First bike was ahead of the others. Could well be that he had exited from the twisty section onto a straight and opened it up , as we all do. The ones back in the twisties could well have been still both under the limit and travelling at an appropriate speed for the conditions

(and from that photo, even I'd take that corner faster than 30kph).

**Patrick** · 12th June 2008, 20:13

Originally Posted by avgas

too many wrongs for there to be a right.
Yes the cop should get the book chucked at him. He could not handle his vehicle - those holdens not only have fantastic turning circles, but can rear wheel steel very well. Doing a 3 point turn is impractical on that road.
Yes the boys on bikes were doing wrong - but they are paying for that mistake right now. The cop is not yet.

They also have traction control - that MUST NOT be disabled... Unless you're stuck in the mud of course...

Still, could the bikers have done more to avoid this? The cop certainly could... but it can be a two way street to save your own arse.

I thought this is what Katman was saying. Oh well...

**Swoop** · 12th June 2008, 20:42

Originally Posted by sunhuntin

ummm, werent the so-far-unknown "speeder" and the two injured travelling in different directions, hence the need for the 3 point turn?

No, they were travelling in the same direction, North.

Originally Posted by chanceyy

...I contemplated doing a U turn but as I did not have clear visability, even though it was 3 lanes, I deemed it to unsafe so I proceeded slowly til I found an appropriate place to turn around on the summit, off the side of the road, common sense has to come into play somewhere here.

You did not have a quota to keep though.

**chanceyy** · 12th June 2008, 20:53

Originally Posted by Swoop

You did not have a quota to keep though.

no but if I had decided to turn in a inappropriate place then I could have made a gross error in judgment, was one of those yeah - nah find somewhere safer moments ....

**Jdogg** · 4th July 2008, 15:40

Anyone have any updates on this .......

**Racing Dave** · 16th August 2008, 16:16

The last newspaper article I saw on Tony Bridgman (June 11) said "A call over for the case would be held on August 15." Does anyone know what this means, and is there an update? Was he in the Nelson court yesterday?

**Patrick** · 17th August 2008, 21:01

Originally Posted by Racing Dave

The last newspaper article I saw on Tony Bridgman (June 11) said "A call over for the case would be held on August 15." Does anyone know what this means, and is there an update? Was he in the Nelson court yesterday?

Its a look to see when potential dates will be available for trial / hearing, suitable to all involved. Its been to depositions already, has it not?

**Racing Dave** · 19th August 2008, 20:20

Yes, he's been committed for trial, I'm just wondering when. There's been nothing in this week's Press, and they've been following the pre-trial hearings closely.

**Vacarious** · 19th August 2008, 21:07

the same thing happened to my mate a few months ago

he was just entering a 70k zone with a cop infront of him, the cop then pulls to the left so my mate goes to the right of him to get past and then the cop u turns right infront of him. mate goes over bars and lands unscared fortunately.

gets up has a few words to the driver and gets told "I didnt see you" from the cop even though it was around 6 oclock with his headlights vlaring in his rear view mirror.

mate was only on restricted licence riding a 750 but thats been written off as you could imagine.

i dont know the full story to wether or not he will get paid out, the police want to so i hear but their insurance company doesn't, if he does he will get a fine for breaching conditions of his licence and a few demerits.

oh and to top it off the police insurance company sent him a letter saying that the rider is liable for the damages even though the driver has been charged with dangerous driving.

im advising him to follow up on the accident and keep hounding them but it will be a while before he gets anything out of them

**Kiwi Graham:Me** · 21st August 2008, 07:34

Originally Posted by Racing Dave

The last newspaper article I saw on Tony Bridgman (June 11) said "A call over for the case would be held on August 15." Does anyone know what this means, and is there an update? Was he in the Nelson court yesterday?

A call over hearing is where a not guilty plea is maintained and a date for trial is to be set. Sometimes the defendant will enter a guilty plea at this hearing. However that doesnt seem to be the case in this instance. It lasts for just a few minuets.

**Okey Dokey** · 24th September 2008, 11:40

I'm wondering what the status of this case is now. Has a date for the trial been set? Be good to hear from anyone who has more recent information, thanks.

MD · 24th September 2008, 17:27

Originally Posted by Okey Dokey

I'm wondering what the status of this case is now. Has a date for the trial been set? Be good to hear from anyone who has more recent information, thanks.

Date not set yet.
The Police delivered my witness summons recently. No available court times left this year. So expect some time early next year.

The officer was a top bloke and working hard on this. His concern for the well being of all the riders involved impressed me. As much as I don't want to see them on the road, as much as I object to trafffic tickets and demerits, you just have to meet a nice one to remind yourself of the respect Cops deserve.