Whangarei Police chase

[Lou Girardin]

The report has just come out into the double fatal where the rider of a Speed triple hit a car while he was being chased.
Typical bloody whitewash, it seems the cops did nothing wrong. Except that the 2nd cop car didn't pull out of the chase when the first car did.
It seems that the 2nd car pulled into the path of the bike which then hit the car the dead girl was in. But apparently that's OK.
It also seems that Police logic says that if you check someone's speed at 147km/h on a straight clear road. It's then OK to chase him for 20+ km's at even higher speeds in order to further 'road safety'.
Policing in NZ has become a f***ing joke.
Lou

[marty]

come on lou. what other factors were there? what does the report actually say?

[Lou Girardin]

That's basically it. The report said that the speeds reached were 'undesirable', but in the context of the situation, were acceptable. It also said that the Police claim that they had pulled out of the chase was incorrect. Which is also what witnesses to the incident said.
I just don't believe that two dead kids were worth it, for a lousy speeding ticket.
Some people will say that the biker should have stopped, and maybe he should have. But; I know from a lot of personal experience, that after a chase over that distance, with adrenaline pumping, few people are capable of rational thought, including the cops in the chase.
Lou

[wkid_one]

full article

Fatal police chase met policy - report

03 October 2003




Police involved in a Northland chase that ended in two deaths, reached "undesirable" speeds, but complied with police policy, an investigation has found.




The chase on May 12 this year resulted in the deaths of motorcyclist Kuran Brunton, 29, who was trying to escape police, and Erin Burgess, 18.

Ms Burgess was killed when Mr Brunton's motorbike crossed the centre line and collided with the car she was driving.



The chase occurred after police clocked Mr Brunton's motorbike on radar at 147kmh. When an officer tried to get Mr Brunton to pull over, he slowed down, then when the officer pulled to the side of the road, accelerated away.

Detective Superintendent Steve Shortland, of police national headquarters, who conducted the investigation, said the pursuit reached high speeds across the Ruakaka and Mata straights, 29km southeast of Whangarei.

"While the speeds were undesirable, the road conditions were such that both the (police) Communications Centre, that controlled the pursuit, and the subsequent investigation agreed that there was compliance with the police pursuit policy," Mr Shortland said in a statement.

However, the investigation found that a police claim at the time of the crash that they had pulled out of the chase was wrong.

Shortly after the crash residents living near the scene questioned whether police had actually pulled out of the chase.

Mr Shortland said one police car pursued Mr Brunton for 26km before deciding to abandon the chase when his driving became erratic.

But a second vehicle which had positioned itself ahead of Mr Brunton in the hope of slowing him down or diverting him pulled out in front of him near the crash scene.

He said this vehicle was passed at speed by Mr Brunton's motorbike which crashed into Miss Burgess' car shortly after completing the manoeuvre.

The police vehicle was still technically in pursuit at the time with siren and flashing lights.

Mr Shortland said while the police pursuits policy, which did not place a restriction on pursuit speeds, but directed that a chase should not endanger the safety of any person, was complied with, there were lessons for police in the crash.

These involved the "issuing, receipt and implementation" of abandon pursuit instructions. The second vehicle in the police chase had not stopped pursuit at the time of the crash, even though the first vehicle had, he said.

Mr Shortland said the police investigation found that the crash was caused by a combination of high speed and a section of road in poor condition.

The bend on which the accident happened was programmed for repairs the next day.

Mr Shortland said as a result of the investigation he had recommended that police change their vehicle pursuits policy so that abandon pursuit instructions applied to all vehicles involved in a chase, whether they were in direct pursuit or not at the time.

Ms Burgess, from Auckland, died on the way home from visiting her sick grandfather in Whangarei. Her grandfather died 11 hours after her.

The police investigation into the chase was referred to the Auckland Crown Solicitor, who had concluded that there was no criminal or disciplinary liability on the part of the officers involved, Mr Shortland said.

The investigation file would go to the Police Complaints Authority for review. The Whangarei Coroner will also hold an inquest into the deaths.

[Big Dog]

Originally posted by Lou Girardin
It also seems that Police logic says that if you check someone's speed at 147km/h on a straight clear road. It's then OK to chase him for 20+ km's at even higher speeds in order to further 'road safety'.
Policing in NZ has become a f***ing joke.
Lou

What??? where did the riders responsibility go?
If he didnt do a runner in the first place there would be two less funerals this month.

I get a little fed up with hearing how its the cops fault when a high speed chase goes wrong If they don't chase them down they will just crack the taps every time they see a flashing blue and red light set.

As a nation we can be a little hypocritical, we cheer when the bad guys get run of the road in the movies, we snicker at the F@#$wits that appear on world scariest police chases and mutter things like only in America.

While I agree that if a chase is endangering the public the police have a responsibility to minimise the hazard to the public, part of minimising that risk is to catch the F*&^wits in the first place.

If your gonna do a runner accept you face Four options,
A) You might get caught even if its not for a few days! High probability! & you just made things worse!

B) You might get badly disfigured!High probability! & you just made things worse!

C) You might get dead! Medium probability! & you just made things worse for the survivors!

E) You might get away and have a story to tell down the pub with your mates who now think your a twit. Unlikely.

Is it worth it?
I guess that depends on the punishment for the crime they were trying to stop you for. I've heard of people dying doing this over a speeding fine..... much less than the value of their life to their family or the cost of a funeral.
I did a runner once and got away with it. Young, stupid, I learnt from it. My pathetic excuse? I thought they would take my bike license off me. I had never had a ticket before and thought that I couldn't live with the automatic 6 month suspension (min) if I got caught (180kmph, dagerous riding -front wheel up- on a restricted).
Is it worth it to you ?

[bikerboy]

You forgot to blame Triumph Big dog.

After all a police car pulling out in front of a "speeding" vehicle (bike) traveling at any highway speed, causing a sudden direction change is not a possible cause of an accident.

It's Triumph's fault for building a motorcycle for the rider to speed on that caused the accident.

Let's face it, the police played a significant role, as did the rider, BUT, the police should know better, and again as has happened in the past they were found to have no culpability in the events.

Same old same old !

[Big Dog]

Originally posted by bikerboy
You forgot to blame Triumph Big dog.

After all a police car pulling out in front of a "speeding" vehicle (bike) traveling at any highway speed, causing a sudden direction change is not a possible cause of an accident.

It's Triumph's fault for building a motorcycle for the rider to speed on that caused the accident.

Let's face it, the police played a significant role, as did the rider, BUT, the police should know better, and again as has happened in the past they were found to have no culpability in the events.

Same old same old !

All true but it comes back to the chain of causation (real legal term) the first significant event that contributed that could not be reversed by future action was the rider making the descision to do a runner.
If he had not done a runner the cops would not have been obliged to give chase.

The cops at no time had the opportunity to reverse his action (short of knocking him off like they do to cars). He had plenty of opportunity to reverse the polices decision to give chase by just stopping.

Triumph action was reversible by the rider. They built a machine capable of speeding and put speed in the name. This action was reversed by the rider when he purchased the bike by providing his license as proof he was able to operate the machine within the law, including not speeding, thereby negating the blame of the previous participants the bike shop and triumph.

The police need to be able to do their job, protect the public from those who would do them harm, and enforce the law. If they are not allowed to give chase what is the alternative? Illegalise anything that could cause death?
No guns, knives, baseball bats, pipes, cigarettes, alcohol, bikes, cars, trucks (you get the point) etc

How far do you go do you go with it? Do you ban sleeping because 5/8 of people die in their sleep?

this is the same website that people are always saying "yes but its an accepted / calculated risk". This rider took what he thought was a calculated risk and died. the moral I get from this story is not wrap the world up in cotton wool but don't gamble what you can't afford to lose.

[wkid_one]

I must agree with Big Dog - the rider was the one who made the decision to run - none of it would have happened if he didn't run.....therefore he is accountable for the accident.  No one made him run

[marty]

it's buyer-beware guys and girls. same thing could've happened on a scooter - police chase at horrific 60km/h speeds and rider has a head-on with semi. is it still the fault of the police?
we all need to be responsible for our own actions. triumph dude was.

[Antallica]

Yet another reason for Northland cops to give me and my fellow riders hell.

I also notice them eyeing us up a lot more now, better get my restricted before I get pulled over.

[jrandom]

Originally posted by Antallica
I also notice them eyeing us up a lot more now, better get my restricted before I get pulled over.

Sheeeet, yeah, bro, get on with it. In the same boat myself, overdue... got pulled over for no apparent reason t'other day going down a 50km/h road doing about 55... cop followed me for a while and then turned his lights on. Said it was for a 'license check'.

And then he pointed out that he'd *also* been following me down the motorway at 95... and that's exceeding my learner's limit by 25... BAD jrandom!

I think he believed my story about the L-plate coming off the last time I dropped the bike and me not getting around to buying a new one (ahem). If he'd nailed me for that and doing 95, 'twoulda been $800...

Fortunately he was nice about it, didn't give me a ticket, told me to hurry up and do the restricted test.

Phew. *Really* must pop up on Monday and book it at the LTSA...

[bikerboy]

Sorry guys but you are WRONG. Bigdog's reversal of action is nonsense.
Causation is the factor which is of paramont importance. Not who is right, wrong, evil, good,or just doing their job.

Biker speeding = accident: unlikely by itself.
Cop stopping biker = accident: no
Biker doing runner = accident: possible.
Cop chasing biker = accident: odds greatly increased but not definitive
Cop "pulling out in front of biker traveling at excessive speed previously refusing to stop = accident: near certainty

Why you may ask, because the cops knew the guy was running, therefore unlikely to stop. So what option does a speeding driver have other than stop if a car pulls out in front of you? Swerve or attempt overtaking. At a high rate of speed this is a dangerous manuever, and given the road was badly surfaced, near a corner and the fact the rider had gone too such lengths to avoid arrest you have a near certain accident in the makingin the event of oncoming traffic. At the very least a predictable event easily avoided by the cop.

Yes the biker set into motion all that followed but the public is known to exhibit bad driving skills and decisions. The cops are supposed to be better trained and better at accessing potential harm. The cop should have recognised the potential danger and staged his block in an straight section of road where the biker could see the block, have plenty of time to stop and ensure no other traffic would be involved.

The biker was WRONG and shares the guilt. BUT the cops acted in a dangerous contributory manner buy setting up a dangerous scenario. All of which resulted in the loss of life of an innocent bystander.

[mangell6]

To be totally illogical who made the decision to

A) Ride the motor bike.
B) Exceed the speed limit.
C) Evade duly authorised persons.
D) Not recognise that the corner was due for repair.
E) Be in the car on the other side of the road.

Now I understand, it is the car drivers fault cos she should not have been there as the person who made the decision to break the law came around the corner. Get a grip!!


How is this for a cause and effect.

If person had not been "breaking the law" the police would not have been involved.

While a 'few' of the Highway Patrol are complete dickheads and others have to meet quotas laid down by Helen blaming the Police in this particular case blaming the police is bullshit.



Mike

[MikeL]

If someone, for whatever reason, makes a decision to break the law, must he or she assume the entire responsibility for any and all consequences? Even if the actions of others could prevent those consequences? And what if a tragic outcome would in all probability not have occurred if a decision had not been taken to intervene in order to stop the offender? And what if that intervention was in itself dangerous, with a high probability of causing an accident?

I'm with bikerboy on this one. To blame the rider entirely is too simplistic. The police have a difficult job, but that does not absolve them from a share of moral responsibility. The internal police report was predictably a whitewash - how could it be otherwise? "The cause of the accident was a combination of high speed and poor road condition." Obviously. So the actions of the police officer pulling out in front of the bike played no part in the chain of cause and effect??

I don't defend the law-breaking on the part of the rider, but to place all the blame on him is manifestly unfair. He wanted to evade a ticket, sure, and he was reckless. But criminally negligent? To me, the crucial issue is whether he would have crashed into that car if the police car hadn't pulled out in front of him. In a previous discussion of this issue, I said that if I were the police officer involved, I would have a troubled conscience. Several people disagreed violently with my opinion. Fair enough. But I still hold that view.
Like Lou Girardin, I question whether the price paid for enforcing the law was worth it. In their official reports, the police can never ask that question. They must always allocate blame appropriately. But in their private moments, do they never have doubts?

[SPman]

I agree with BB on this one.  If any private citizen pulled out in front of a speeding vehicle, for whatever reason and caused a double fatality, they could expect to be charged with anything up to "careless use of a motorvehicle causing death"! Being in part responsible for a tragic death shows as much lack of judgement on the part of the officers concerned, as did the riders original decision to run and is equally as reprehensible, in my opinion!

But of course, being police, in the great New Zealand tradition, it was someone elses fault and they can get away with it!