National Radio interviews Tooman and BRONZ re: fatal biker accident

[Crasherfromwayback]

U mad?

Yeah, u mad.

Please, push the keyboard away from you until your time of the month has passed, and you feel free to rejoin civilised society.

I have no doubt that his riding abilities were much higher than my own. Any difference, I suggest, might have been in our attitudes towards riding on the public roads. Especially, if he rode on the road like other of his "Coro Demons" crew that I have seen.

Anything else is probably a figment of your clearly fevered imagination.

Me...mad? Nope. Just get fucked off when I read shit from prepubescent wankers that think they're way better/smarter and wiser than they actually are. Get back to me when your balls drop and you have your own computer. You're slagging off a dead man that can't defend himself. That makes you a cunt as well as a wankstain.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Re-read the sentence. Taking particular note of "in the length of clear road". It does not differentiate between what object is stopping the lane from being clear.

How 'bout you re-read the "Blind crest" bit first then? "in length of clear road" isn't meant for "car in the middle of the fucking road over blind crest".

[R6_kid:Me]

How 'bout you re-read the "Blind crest" bit first then? "in length of clear road" isn't meant for "car in the middle of the fucking road over blind crest".

Correctomondo! It refers to the fact that you can't see over the crest, and therefore should only be travelling at a speed for which you can stop in the distance between you and the point at which you can see no further over the crest.

[PirateJafa]

poo knob fucking cocksmoker oily wankstain fudgepacker shit fucking Cuntman retard fucked wanker balls cunt wankstain.

Is this what happens when people get old?

Why would anyone ever want to grow up if this is all you have to look forward to? Dementia AND Tourette's rolled into one package?

[onearmedbandit]

Re-read the sentence. Taking particular note of "in the length of clear road". It does not differentiate between what object is stopping the lane from being clear.

How does this work if a car suddenly pulls out in front of you from a parked position on the side of the road, while you are travelling at 50km/h in a 50 zone? From what you're implying we should ride/drive at a speed where you can stop safely when a vehicle 10m suddenly pulls out. I'm not trying to be a smart arse, but your quote above of

In any situation where you hit a vehicle already in your lane, you're liable for failing to stop.

is simply not accurate.

[blueblade]

When you ride a bike, it doesnt matter how "in the right you are", you are the one who is going to come out worse off in any car vs motorcycle collision. So if you want to become an old motorcyclist you will learn to assume that every parked vehicle with a driver at the wheel is going to pull out on you. You will also assume there is the possibility of an unexpected solid object in your lane around every blind corner or over every blind crest. That doesnt mean you creep around every corner at 30 kays so you can stop - but it should mean that you have enough margin up your sleeve to take significant evasive action. Its called defensive driving and I would venture to suggest that most "older bikers" have either mastered it - or been exceptionally lucky ........so far.

[Ronin]

One of the press articles mentions 30 metre skid marks. Which fits almost exactly with that calculation. The only imponderable is how much speed he had left when he hit. Which equates back to how far he flew after impact. So far the press has 7 metres, 30 metres, and 100 metres. take your pick.

It's also possible that a rider as experienced as he was would have been able to swerve and brake, he might have been trying to go round the rear.

Something else to consider in the calculations. Paul was passing over the brow of the hill when he would have had to apply the brakes (from the info we have), we all know how light a bike feels when doing that. It would increase the stopping distance substantially I would have thought. Cambell Live showed a line which I assume is Paul's braking mark curving out to the right so the observation that he went to go around the back is a pretty good guess. Now if the cop was doing a 3 point turn (and he really had to be there) then the car could well have been in reverse.

[discodan]

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

[MSTRS:Me]

When you ride a bike, it doesnt matter how "in the right you are", you are the one who is going to come out worse off in any car vs motorcycle collision. So if you want to become an old motorcyclist you will learn to assume that every parked vehicle with a driver at the wheel is going to pull out on you. You will also assume there is the possibility of an unexpected solid object in your lane around every blind corner or over every blind crest. That doesnt mean you creep around every corner at 30 kays so you can stop - but it should mean that you have enough margin up your sleeve to take significant evasive action. Its called defensive driving and I would venture to suggest that most "older bikers" have either mastered it - or been exceptionally lucky ........so far.

Exactly. Caution coupled with commonsense and certain amount of 'faith'

[Katman]

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

Have you got an answer to the question in post #63?

And define "better".

[Crasherfromwayback]

Have you got an answer to the question in post #63?

I have. Hell no. But the speeds I do on a race track are well different to the speeds I do on the street.

[Kornholio]

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

Lol, he wouldn't know how to turn on a computer... he even hated his cellphone, he sure as hell wouldn't have the time to sit around here bitchin all day... He would let ya know what he thought and discussion would be over unless you made a very valid point

RIP mate

[phill-k]

I'm a returned bike rider, having ridden when a youngster, and now with only 6000km as I work through the licensing system, I joined KB to learn, I also have watched the DVD's and read as much as I can, including the Police riders handbook to better MC, I read these bloody posts firstly to learn but now more so out of amazement that such bitch fighting can and does go on, I'm guessing my time here will probably come to an end as I'm in it for the fun but want to stay alive and unfortunately KB seems to be headed down a “road”. I don’t much enjoy the abuse. (see me comment at the bottom of this post.)
On with the reason for my post:
There have been some very good posts on this tragic subject but as far as I can determine limited facts are actually known about this incident as yet.
The Police car
Attempting to reverse direction when initiating a pursuit – width of road and photographed position of vehicle indicates this was not possible in a single manoeuvre.
Vehicle crossed a yellow line to complete manoeuvre.
Impact was approximately 60mtrs from limited visibility crest in road.
Officer had local knowledge of road, and probable traffic conditions.
Motorcyclist
Very experienced rider, whose skills unless impaired would have been first rate.
Also had local knowledge
As reported in herald was following Boss / Friend in utility vehicle, this person has been reported as stating he might have been speeding, was not a witness to accident and returned later to scene.
The science
From the above mentioned book
At 50mph (80km) stopping distance is 53mtrs
At 70mph (112km) stopping distance 96mtrs
Stopping distance = reaction time & braking
Skid mark 30mtrs
Impact moved vehicle through 45degs and possibly more – force required
Damage to vehicle, bike, and rider
Victim thrown for some distance
From the scene and taking into account the information the SCU has they will be able to work out at what stage the vehicle was at in its turn, the amount of visibility available to the rider, the probable speed at IMPACT as gauged from the energy required to shunt the vehicle, I’m sure they will take into account, braking distances and effects on the bike as it came over the rise. The SCU will determine the cause – few accidents have but a single cause, thus contributing factors will also be accessed, and from that a finding will be made on the cause of the accident and any contributing factors. I believe that the cause is already apparent from the evidence we can see, the vehicles manoeuvre in a restricted visibility area as evidenced by the vehicles location and the yellow line painted on the originating side of the road. However the interest here is any contributing causes to the accident, I assume all the bullshit I’m reading here is about that.
Again from said book motorcycle handling is a system of control made up of 5 phases and I won’t go on but they are as follows Information, position, speed, gear, and acceleration.
All the above is constantly accessed, with information guiding the rest, within information comes the external environment, including clear visibility ahead.

What I’m attempting to understand and this is becoming a real issue with my riding (note limited experience) is the operation of a MC beyond (a) one’s ability – pretty much understood and as this improves (b) the visible road ahead,– some obstacle on road not yet visible. I’m just not prepared to ride at a speed that is beyond what I perceive is my ability to if not stop my MC bring it to a speed where any impact will be at least low speed. Thus if the road ahead is not visible that information effects the other 4 stages as noted above, I can’t comment of the crest in the picture as I’ve never ridden that road, but I assume it probably can be taken at a speed somewhere near the speed limit, some of the idiotic comments on here about slowing to 30km are just not helpful to constructive discussion, as can be seem from the stopping distances above slowing to 80kms would have given the opportunity to probably either stop or at least impact at a speed that survival was possible.
As a NZer I have a belief that our police force is very probably one of the most honest in the western world, more importantly I don’t think the outcome of this investigation is important enough to world politics that there will be an absolute whitewash, the officers involved in our SCU could only volunteer to undertake that sort of work (bit like a gynaecologist) if they had an absolute belief that their work helped to further understanding of road safety, I would doubt they would want their science tainted to cover a single officers position, overall our system of fines and demerits appears on a world basis to be fairly light, just look at Aussie for instance.

My final comment as per introduction above, to those who wish to post in reply telling me to fuck off, if you don’t mind I’ll make up my own mind as to when or if I choose to do this.

[Katman]

I have. Hell no. But the speeds I do on a race track are well different to the speeds I do on the street.

Unfortunately, all too often the speeds that some motorcyclists do on the road are not that far removed from those seen on a track.

And ultimately the racetrack is a far safer environment.

So if there's the need to consider what is over the crest on a racetrack why wouldn't you apply the same consideration to the road?

[R6_kid:Me]

How does this work if a car suddenly pulls out in front of you from a parked position on the side of the road, while you are travelling at 50km/h in a 50 zone? From what you're implying we should ride/drive at a speed where you can stop safely when a vehicle 10m suddenly pulls out.

A vehicle pulling out and 'suddenly' appearing in your lane is not the same as a vehicle that was already (or potentially about to be) in your lane before it arrived into your field of view.

Don't bother Crasherfromwayback, no point in argueing with morons on the internet (Pirate, Katman, R6).

Paul was a much better rider than those three guys and if he couldn't avoid the cop car then they would have had no chance. I doubt that he would be on here analysing how he would have behaved differently and how it was thier fault however.

Cheers, good to see you can make a judgement call on me without having met me or seeing me ride. I haven't called his riding skills into question - he was a National Champ in Motard racing so I have no doubt that he'd be able to hand my ass to me on a bike. That doesn't mean that he was 'riding to the conditions' at the time of the accident though.

My logic is that if he was doing a speed for which he could stop in the distance of clear road in front of him he probably wouldn't have hit the police car at a potentially fatal speed.

Is it really fair to assume that one person is guilty until proven innocent and another is innocent until proven guilty?

People are saying that the cop is the only person to blame in this situation, I'm just saying that judgement on blame and fault should be held for the time when all the facts are presented.

RIP Paul - and for those who knew him I mean absolutely no disrespect to him.