Police motorcyclist injured by falling tree

[NighthawkNZ:Me]

he got his knickers all knotted...

oh wait ...

he got his knickers in a twist

[doc]

As well they should. The roading authority responsible for the particular road should have been onto assessing likely dangers posed by trees etc and dealt with them.

Next you will want them to be accountable for corners.

The system can't be held accountable for the extra risk of riding a bike.

If you want to ride a bike you have to be accountable for that decision.

Well thats the way I look at it.

[Katman]

Next you will want them to be accountable for corners.

The system can't be held accountable for the extra risk of riding a bike.

If you want to ride a bike you have to be accountable for that decision.

Well thats the way I look at it.

Yeah, but that's just your opineion.

[Griffin]

Another person's bad luck with a UFO-tree isn't permission to give up on being an alert responsible motorcyclist.

umm... yeah, ok - thats not quite what I was suggesting. I was merely pointing out that no matter how prepared you are - you can still be taken out by some totally unforseen freak event.
In no way am I implying that we should adopt the mindset "ah fuck it I will just wear shorts and jandals and ride like a retard".

Funny how in a forum you can write something and it gets taken totally out of context, just shows how fickle the written word is...

[MSTRS:Me]

Next you will want them to be accountable for corners.

The system can't be held accountable for the extra risk of riding a bike.

If you want to ride a bike you have to be accountable for that decision.

Well thats the way I look at it.

And you think a falling tree is no danger to a caged motorist?
Of course the risks of riding a bike are greater than other forms of transport. But that does not absolve a roading authority from ensuring the safest possible roads. Some things may be unforeseen, but with years of experience behind them, Transit (whatever their name) should recognise the signs of impending 'trouble'.
Then there is the other side of the coin...
Recently, Transit removed 20+ large trees near the roadside (on both sides) on the southern approach to Taradale/Napier on SH1/50 Expressway. Formerly, this was a rather lovely entrance to Napier, but now is bare. No-one had ever run off the road into one of these trees, nor had any of them lost a branch onto the roadway. The trees were healthy about 50 years old and had grown about 1/3 of their lifespan. When this section of road was re-designated SH1, Transit stepped, in citing the 'dangers' posed, and removed the trees. Yet they will leave others which are much more likely to cause a problem. Go figure.

[Badjelly]

...Transit stepped, in citing the 'dangers' posed, and removed the trees. Yet they will leave others which are much more likely to cause a problem. Go figure.

So you're criticising Transit for a) removing trees and b) not removing trees. Surely you can see that deciding which trees pose a sufficient danger to be removed and which don't, is a difficult judgement, with which someone will disagree, especially with hindsight. So either way you will be criticised, often for both at the same time. Much like CYFS really. It almost makes me weep for the poor bureaucrats .

Edit: Oh and by the way, I voted Labour, so I'm hardly your classic redneck-libertarian rebel outlaw Kiwibiker who bitches about the nanny state, but I think they should generally leave the trees there and accept that from time to time one of them might fall on the road. Shit happens.

[gijoe1313]

I think this thread needs to turn to a new leaf ... I'm pining for some more witticisms that will carve greater heights of wisdom and hope it won't splinter into the usual diadactics of KBism

And lets hope the guy gets back on the horse and log in to see the way we papered the nets with our musings ...

Time to make like a tree and leave I think ..

Actually the greenies might be up in arms due to the fact that a carbon emitting vehicle damaged part of gaia's inhabitants!

[MSTRS:Me]

So you're criticising Transit for a) removing trees and b) not removing trees. Surely you can see that deciding which trees pose a sufficient danger to be removed and which don't, is a difficult judgement, with which someone will disagree, especially with hindsight. So either way you will be criticised, often for both at the same time.

Hmmmm. I can see how you could take that meaning from my post.
Not at all, actually. I criticise what I perceive to be their poor judgement as to which roadside feature (tree or otherwise) that is likely to be a danger.

[slimjim]

What...Gees how's The Tree..
yes also saw something on tv last night about another lot of trees cut down..
O some of the branchs were touching powerlines and causing power out's..
fucking tosser's...should have moved the power cables instead.. 50-60yr old tress gone..

well sound's like the rider is gona recover..

wonder if they were testing out their newer FJR's...hear that they are testing a few different models of bikes..they seem to be going away from the breemer's

[Badjelly]

I criticise what I perceive to be their poor judgement as to which roadside feature (tree or otherwise) that is likely to be a danger.

...But that does not absolve a roading authority from ensuring the safest possible roads....

(I have selectively quoted a couple of things you've said. I apologise if you think I'm distorting your meaning.)

I don't think a roading authority should aim for the "safest possible" roads. If that was really their goal, they'd start by banning motorbikes, cyclists and pedestrians, not to mention cars > 10 years old. Safety is just one of many considerations.

In the specific case of the tree that fell onto (or into the path of) the police motorcyclist, how many trees would they have to remove between Franz Josef Glacier and Nelson to eliminate the possibility that one would fall down a cliff and onto the road?

I don't know about the Napier/Taradale trees. I presume the problem here was that someone might run off the road into them. It's hard to know how far to go in protecting people from themselves.

I'm just suggesting that it's easy to criticise in hindsight, harder to make these judgements when you may be held accountable and will undoubtedly have someone second guessing you. Just ask Wayne Barnes.

[MSTRS:Me]

I agree it is not possible to remove all danger. Or dangerous trees. It's the inconsistency that I find 'troubling'. The Taradale trees had been there for 50 years without a problem. Whereas, a tree with an undermined root system was ignored - and it fell on a biker (bad luck on his part in being at that time/place).

[Big Dave]

Meh, just shows shit can happen.

Anywhere.

Mate of mine's brother was a patched member (in aus).
Exact same thing killed him dead.
Karma that.

[Big Dave]

I think this thread needs to turn to a new leaf ... I'm pining for some more witticisms that will carve greater heights of wisdom and hope it won't splinter into the usual diadactics of KBism

And lets hope the guy gets back on the horse and log in to see the way we papered the nets with our musings ...

Time to make like a tree and leave I think ..

Actually the greenies might be up in arms due to the fact that a carbon emitting vehicle damaged part of gaia's inhabitants!

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. You'll get pulped or at least a visit from special branch and then you'll be rooted.

[Swoop]

So, one of the police riders branched off to form a splinter group???

[Katman]

So, one of the police riders branched off to form a splinter group???

Don't be a sap.