3 point turn cop on trial

[mdnzz]

Maybe there would be less deaths each year if these incompetent drivers were banned for life!

In a perfect world maybe, but statistics prove that regardless most recidivists offenders don't care about driving bans.

[Patrick]

Surely that the cop thinks that the bikes in question were exceeding 100kph is subjective and irrelevant, as it's without evidence/proof and so not acceptable in court.
In the UK I was told this sort of evidence was not accepted, ie no proof. Even an eye witness to an accident can't say the vehicle was going too fast unless they have a calibrated speeding device

I'm not a lawyer but if this sort of evidence is accepted then an unfortunate precedent would be made going against the international norm - well UK law, Euro law and US?

In this, there are matters of physics... Tyre marks, impact marks etc.... NOt fabricated, not made up, not anything. Just simple math.

2. If there is an accident, forensic analysis of it may tell what speed you where doing, and that's quite accurate.

As above.

use the bottomless pockets of the taxpayer to cover his arse.

Nope. No legal aid. The taxpayer is paying for the Prosecution, not the Defence.

,did he get asked to perf

If he is ex MOT, he doesn't get to perf. Only cops who were cops before the merger get to perf.

Just had the distressing experience of seeing a woman discharged on a similar charge (u turn) - only in that case she killed my mates son who was on his motorcycle. The family are devasted.

Blamed the dead man? Sorry to hear of the loss. A poor decision, in my opinion... the "casue" of the crash is the U turn, plain and simple.

And for the record, the serious crash unit know how fast the bikes were going. Physical evidence rarely lies.

More of the physics and math thingy....

Any an all evidence against the motorcyclists will certainly be presented in court, however a spanner here.

What if they were speeding?

Does that exonerate the driver from failing to ensure the safety of other road users during the course of his
maneuver? For not thinking that at any second another road user could round that blind corner?

Surely at the days end people are responsible for their own actions.

If the bikers were speeding the prosecute them for that, but still prosecute the driver for his inattention that contributed to the accident.

The U turn in the poor location is the cause. The speed is a contributing factor, but not the cause.

There's a big difference between being 'blameless' and knowing that your actions contributed to an eventual outcome.

What is careless?

Doing a U-turn in a questionable location or travelling at such a speed that you couldn't stop if you were confronted with a tree that had fallen onto the road in your path?

If this is about the tree that fell, right at that moment, into the immediate path of MUPPET, then no, that is not careless. If it is of a tree that fell onto a road, then along came MUPPET 30 seconds later, who couldn't stop in time... there is a difference...?

one of my boys got knocked off his bike last year by a old coot going through a comp stop, he said i didnt see him he must have been speeding, despite several witnesses saying he wasnt speeding the cop that turned up at the hospital asked him 5 times how fast were you going trying to catch him out

Nope. Its on the crash form. "Speed at time of accident." Just form filling, not catching out, especially if witnesses were already saying he wasn't speeding. Very very few don't know... and those ones are usually the ones in the wrong anyhow....

[Katman]

If this is about the tree that fell, right at that moment, into the immediate path of MUPPET, then no, that is not careless. If it is of a tree that fell onto a road, then along came MUPPET 30 seconds later, who couldn't stop in time... there is a difference...?

No, it wasn't said about that incident at all.

I could have used any number of examples of something lying on the road.

[Winston001]

Blamed the dead man? Sorry to hear of the loss. A poor decision, in my opinion... the "casue" of the crash is the U turn, plain and simple.

What happened to my friend's son is worth knowing about. A car outside shops u-turned and the son hit it while riding his bike. Dead. The road behind her was obscured by a stopped van waiting to turn into a park.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/1757475

The woman driver's defence was that he was speeding. Witnesses disagreed.

The bike had sliders fitted which the defence said were devices fitted on racing bikes. We know thats arrant nonsense but it sounds plausible to non-bikers.

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The judge clearly found this a difficult case and reserved his decision but ultimately found her Not Guilty.


[72] After carefully considering and weighing the evidence as presented in the case, I consider that it is more probable than not the defendant was careless and that the manner of her driving was a real cause of injury to Ms Stewart and the death of Mr Moreton. However, that is not enough to secure a conviction. The prosecution must prove its case to the standard of beyond reasonable doubt before I can find the defendant guilty on either charge. That is a higher standard of proof than has been achieved by the prosecution in this case.


[73] I conclude that the prosecution have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant was careless. There is, in my view, a reasonable possibility that the Suzuki motorbike was travelling at excessive speed and that its presence on the roadway could not reasonably have been foreseen by the defendant.


[74] I conclude that the prosecution have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s driving was the real cause of death of Mr Moreton or the injury to Ms Stewart. It is reasonably possible that excessive speed and loss of control of the motorbike were the real causes of the collision, and hence the resulting death and injury.


[75] For the foregoing reasons, I find the defendant not guilty on both charges. The charges are therefore dismissed.


A D Garland
District Court Judge.

[cheshirecat]

RE Patrick

Good read

thanks

[MSTRS:Me]

The bike had sliders fitted which the defence said were devices fitted on racing bikes. We know thats arrant nonsense but it sounds plausible to non-bikers.

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

So where was the forensic evidence? Not important, since it was 'only' a motorcyclist that was killed?
"See there, y'honour...skid knobs...ergo he was speeding"
Quick fellas, get yer knobs off. Best defence yet to get off a speeding charge. Precedence, don't you know.

FFS, Winston, your mate must have been gutted.

[peasea]

Update

http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/n...r-Buller-Gorge

[peasea]

Nope. No legal aid. The taxpayer is paying for the Prosecution, not the Defence.


....

Are you sure? Your source?

[JimO]

I




Nope. Its on the crash form. "Speed at time of accident." Just form filling, not catching out, especially if witnesses were already saying he wasn't speeding. Very very few don't know... and those ones are usually the ones in the wrong anyhow....

they already interviewed him at the accident site and asked how fast was he going.....also anybody riding without a L plate that should have one be aware one policeman went over the bike looking for a reason to give him a ticket.

[Indoo]

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

Heh, funny how they can bring it up on the defence side, imagine if the prosecution could bring up all the convictions of a defendant so that the judge/jury could infer that he was likely to commit crime.

If the witnesses, serious crash evidence and the evidence of the pillion stated that he wasn't speeding and the only 'evidence' that he was is the fact that he had previous speeding tickets, sliders and the fact that the Defendant didn't see him ergo he was speeding (of course bikes never get hit because people don't 'see' them), it seems a ridiculous decision and based more on the demographics involved, ie young reckless motorbike rider vs middle aged sensible mom than anything else.

[MarkH]

[74] I conclude that the prosecution have not established beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant’s driving was the real cause of death of Mr Moreton or the injury to Ms Stewart. It is reasonably possible that excessive speed and loss of control of the motorbike were the real causes of the collision, and hence the resulting death and injury.

I kinda think the prosecution should have done a better job here, maybe been a bit more forthright in their assertions about the victims speed (and should have researched crash bungs and carefully explained to the judge their purpose) and a strong suggestion that the defendant had failed to see the motorcycle due to its smaller size and failing to take due care rather than the speed of the motorcycle being anything other than within the legal limit. But I guess it is sometimes hard to prove anything either way conclusively.

I don't think the judge was saying that there was any evidence that the motorcycle was speeding, just not strong enough evidence that it wasn't possible. But I personally think that the statements from the pillion passenger + independent witnesses should be enough to show that the motorcycles speed wasn't a cause here. I guess the defendant was very lucky that I am not a judge and wasn't deciding this case, I suspect that I would have come up with a different verdict.

[Winston001]

So where was the forensic evidence? Not important, since it was 'only' a motorcyclist that was killed?
"See there, y'honour...skid knobs...ergo he was speeding"
Quick fellas, get yer knobs off. Best defence yet to get off a speeding charge. Precedence, don't you know.

FFS, Winston, your mate must have been gutted.

Yeah he's pretty angry and sad. Its like his son died twice - and is now to blame for the accident. Which is clearly untrue.

Heh, funny how they can bring it up on the defence side, imagine if the prosecution could bring up all the convictions of a defendant so that the judge/jury could infer that he was likely to commit crime.

Its an awful irony: no-one can refer to the defendant's previous convictions, but a dead victim?.....open slather to smear him.

I kinda think the prosecution should have done a better job here, maybe been a bit more forthright in their assertions about the victims speed......

I don't think the judge was saying that there was any evidence that the motorcycle was speeding, just not strong enough evidence that it wasn't possible. But I personally think that the statements from the pillion passenger + independent witnesses should be enough to show that the motorcycles speed wasn't a cause here. I guess the defendant was very lucky that I am not a judge and wasn't deciding this case, I suspect that I would have come up with a different verdict.

I'm satisfied the police did a good job and they certainly expected a conviction. This trial took place over two separate days because the defence called expert evidence to counter the police forensic findings. It was just enough to persuade the judge there was a reasonable doubt.

[Pixie]

Because that is the New Way (tm) and this is the 21st Century where NOBODY accepts responsibility and are always quick to point the finger at 'somebody else' when they're in the cack.

It's not JUST the Police that do this - hell, I'm sure they learned off the public they deal with so often...

It's the Kiwi way! Brought into law the day the ACC act absolved all New Zealanders of ever having to accept fault

[MSTRS:Me]

"Defence lawyer Garry Barkle had previously told the jury that Bridgman had a clear stretch of road of well over 100m in front of him when he did the turn, but was hit by the motorcyclists as they were speeding.

Tasman district police specialist crash investigator Simon Burbery told the court on Tuesday that it would take between nine and 9.3 seconds for Bridgman's patrol car to carry out the three-point turn at the scene of the crash.

He said Bridgman would have been able to see up to 120m in front of him while doing the turn.

It was possible a vehicle travelling about 100kmh which had not been within view at the start of the turn would arrive at the scene within the time it took to make the turn, Mr Burbery said."

At 100kph, a vehicle will travel 250m in 9 secs. Make of that what you will.

[Katman]

At 100kph, a vehicle will travel 250m in 9 secs. Make of that what you will.

At 100kph how short a distance can one stop in?

Shorter than 250m I imagine.

Make of that what you will.