NZ Police public image

[Rainbow Wizard]

We have a mate who's recouperating from totalling a brand new R6 a few weeks ago whilst on a test ride! OK, OK, not really his fault it seems as a truck was turning onto the road in an area of double yellow lines, out of view on the other side of a crest. OUCH. Wrote the R6 off.

EDIT
Low down on the R6 lay down is that some dipwit police supervisor (not the cop who attended the scene, he's cool) wants to bust our mate for careless use of a motor vehicle. I ask you? How the hell does he think he's gonna make that one stick! Seems he thinks that because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions.

1) He can't prove the separation between the vehicles at the time the truck commenced crossing the highway.
2) The truck driver said he didn't see the bike until it was too late.
3) The rider couldn't have anticipated the trucks manoevre because he didn't have any distant view of the truck, the crest of the road concealed it from view.

Typical agro cop attitude that gives them the bad rep that is so prolific these days.

[Indoo]

I was breath tested on Thursday night. I'd had about 4 wines and a meal .

For many people that amount of alcohol would put them close to, if not over the limit. It certainly would severly impair your judgement and driving ability on the roads.

I have since heard many reports of cops exclaiming after a breath test that registers under what they can bust us for "That's a failed youth".
Why friggin bother.
I rest my case.

Maybe to inform that person that they should watch how much they drink in future, for all the cop knows this person is just a teaspoon of alcohol short of failing the general test. Ive seen what drunk drivers do and i have no sympathy for people who get there precious little nose outa joint when a cop gives them a shake up. You should'nt consume any alcohol and drive, let alone enuff to fail the youth limit.

[Pixie]

Igor, RW was not complaining about being stopped and breath tested, he was complaing about the cop's attitude. I too have been the victim of this type of police humour, and I assure you it is not funny to be told you have a failed breath test when you know you aren't over the limit.

Perhaps you can explain how the cop who makes this type of comment is helping to prevent, as you put it, "ya whole family will be killed by a drink driver and u left as a quadraplegic".

Turn the tables.
Look intently at the cop's cheek and say that the mole on his cheek(if he has one)looks just like the one that your mum had that had turned cancerous and that he would be wise to get it checked by his GP.

[Rainbow Wizard]

For many people that amount of alcohol would put them close to, if not over the limit. It certainly would severly impair your judgement and driving ability on the roads.

You're missing one ingredient here, the fact that the first wine was started at 8:00, the last one was finished at 11:15, the meal was in between. Intoxicated I was not, impaired I was not, judgement I had exhibited, misrepresentation was the cop's choice and for that he loses cred.

[spudchucka]

We have a mate who's recouperating from totalling a brand new R6 a few weeks ago whilst on a test ride! OK, OK, not really his fault it seems as a truck was turning onto the road in an area of double yellow lines, out of view on the other side of a crest. OUCH. Wrote the R6 off.

EDIT
Low down on the R6 lay down is that some dipwit police supervisor (not the cop who attended the scene, he's cool) wants to bust our mate for careless use of a motor vehicle. I ask you? How the hell does he think he's gonna make that one stick! Seems he thinks that because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions.

1) He can't prove the separation between the vehicles at the time the truck commenced crossing the highway.
2) The truck driver said he didn't see the bike until it was too late.
3) The rider couldn't have anticipated the trucks manoevre because he didn't have any distant view of the truck, the crest of the road concealed it from view.

Friggin wanker cop, typical areshole that gives them the bad rep that is so prolific these days.

Careless is easy to prove.

Point three will see your mate screwed. Not to mention this little fact, "because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions".

Oh, and charging people when offences are committed, thats what cops do. So I guess that is typical of them and perhaps the cop is an arsehole and a wanker but if doing their job as they should be is contributing to bad rep then I guess they should just stop charging people when offences are committed and sit around reading "How to win friends and influence people". Then when people crash their nice new R6's we could just give them a chocolate fish, give them a hug and tell them to be a bit more carefull next time.

[Ixion]

..
3) The rider couldn't have anticipated the trucks manoevre because he didn't have any distant view of the truck, the crest of the road concealed it from view.
..

Not wanting to start a flame war or anything, and my commiserations to your mate. But I think that failing has to be the most common driving fault in NZ. If you can't see over the top of the hill , then SLOW DOWN. It's just the same as a blind corner.

For once, the Road Code is both clear and sensible. Ensure you can stop within the clear space of road visible ahead. If there's a hill crest in the way assume SomethingBad is over the crest.

Gives me the shits when I see cars and bikes flying over blind crests at speed. You can never know what's going to be on the other side.

[Rainbow Wizard]

Careless is easy to prove.
"because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions".

Oh, and charging people when offences are committed, thats what cops do. So I guess that is typical of them and perhaps the cop is an arsehole and a wanker but if doing their job as they should be is contributing to bad rep then I guess they should just stop charging people when offences are committed and sit around reading "How to win friends and influence people".

So you're going along the road, clear view as much as the road permits, someone pulls out onto the road immediately in front of you and you hit them and YOU'RE the careless one!
If they can't define or prove the distance between the two vehicles when the turn was commenced and that it was equal to or exceeded the distance necessary to stop at that speed then they cannot prove careless use. They are wasting their time and our money.

Iam not suggesting people should not be charged with offences but I am saying that the cops should be on solid ground and not fantasies when and if they do so.

[spudchucka]

So you're going along the road, clear view as much as the road permits, someone pulls out onto the road immediately in front of you and you hit them and YOU'RE the careless one!

So in your mates case he is approaching a blind crest. He can't see the truck pulling out and the truck driver can't see him either. Even though your mate has a clear view, as much as the road permits, he comes over the crest of the hill and can't stop short of the truck, crashing into the back of it.

A prudent driver would have slowed down and taken enough care to ensure that if another vehicle had just pulled out onto the road on the other side of the hill then he or she would be able to stop short and avoid a collision. Assuming that the road is clear is careless and in your mates case he crashed as a result of his carelessness.

[Ixion]

So in your mates case he is approaching a blind crest. He can't see the truck pulling out and the truck driver can't see him either. Even though your mate has a clear view, as much as the road permits, he comes over the crest of the hill and can't stop short of the truck, crashing into the back of it.

A prudent driver would have slowed down and taken enough care to ensure that if another vehicle had just pulled out onto the road on the other side of the hill then he or she would be able to stop short and avoid a collision. Assuming that the road is clear is careless and in your mates case he crashed as a result of his carelessness.

Gotta say Mr Spudchucka is right. It's the single worst fault of NZ drivers/bikers. Assuming that the road will be clear on the other side of the hill. We have a lot of blind crests , and too often I've found SomethingNasty on the other side. Zooming over a crest at such speed that you can't stop WITHIN THE CLEAR VISIBLE road (which may not be very much road until you're over the crest) is careless.

You just have to SLOW DOWN. Once you're over the hill and can see what's on the other side, you can speed up again (assuming it's safe to do so of course). But until you can see the other side you have to slow down until you can stop in the distance you CAN see.

If the road doesn't "permit" much of a view, well, that's all you've got. Make sure you can stop within it.

Sometime I help matters along by standing up to get an advance look.

[scumdog]

THATS A SHIT ATTITUDE FOR A POORLY PAID PUBLIC SERVANT, IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE DOING A BAD JOB IN THE FORCE JUST LOOK AT STU KEARNS , WHAT A CUNT

We're only paid to do the job, - if you want a good attitude as well? - that's extra!!

[Rainbow Wizard]

Gotta say Mr Spudchucka is right. It's the single worst fault of NZ drivers/bikers. Assuming that the road will be clear on the other side of the hill....If the road doesn't "permit" much of a view....Make sure you can stop within it.

Gets me to wondering about cornering also, where all the time we drive in anticipation of the road being free of obstacles.

Maybe I've just highlighted another opportunity for the pollies and federali to tax us. Next they'll be planting orange cones just around the tight LH corners and if we don't stop before we hit 'em then we'll be charged with careless use!

Much more profitable than a simple speeding ticket eh!

[spudchucka]

Gets me to wondering about cornering also, where all the time we drive in anticipation of the road being free of obstacles.

Maybe I've just highlighted another opportunity for the pollies and federali to tax us. Next they'll be planting orange cones just around the tight LH corners and if we don't stop before we hit 'em then we'll be charged with careless use!

Much more profitable than a simple speeding ticket eh!

Not profitable at all by the time you take into account the Court processes and all the wages of court and police staff. The miserable $130 you will end up paying in costs is f*&K all in comparison.

And yes, if you come fanging it around a tight LH corner and you crash off after hitting a road cone then you could be charged with careless use.

Bottom line is that you should be anticipating and identifying potential hazards and driving appropriately. If you fail to do this and you crash then you have used a motor vehicle carelessy. End of story.

[Ixion]

Not profitable at all by the time you take into account the Court processes and all the wages of court and police staff. The miserable $130 you will end up paying in costs is f*&K all in comparison.

And yes, if you come fanging it around a tight LH corner and you crash off after hitting a road cone then you could be charged with careless use.

Bottom line is that you should be anticipating and identifying potential hazards and driving appropriately. If you fail to do this and you crash then you have used a motor vehicle carelessy. End of story.

Quite reasonably, since the cone could just as easily be a cow, a broken down truck, or a small child who has wandered off whilst her parents picnic by the roadside.

[Lou Girardin]

THATS A SHIT ATTITUDE FOR A POORLY PAID PUBLIC SERVANT, IF YOU WANT AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEONE DOING A BAD JOB IN THE FORCE JUST LOOK AT STU KEARNS , WHAT A CUNT

At least he's consistant. Was the same in the MOT

[Lou Girardin]

Careless is easy to prove.

Point three will see your mate screwed. Not to mention this little fact, "because the R6 didn't stop before hitting the truck that the rider is guilty of failing to ride according to the conditions".

Oh, and charging people when offences are committed, thats what cops do. So I guess that is typical of them and perhaps the cop is an arsehole and a wanker but if doing their job as they should be is contributing to bad rep then I guess they should just stop charging people when offences are committed and sit around reading "How to win friends and influence people". Then when people crash their nice new R6's we could just give them a chocolate fish, give them a hug and tell them to be a bit more carefull next time.

C'mon Spud, that little beauty would see all parties charged in every accident. Failed to stop when someone fails to give way?