Did you drive MR.Jacksons ute as well? Maybe you should give your statement in court then......Also dont forget to factor in the approximately 10% speedo error on your hiace at that speed!Originally Posted by R6_kid
Hardcore Biker
Did you drive MR.Jacksons ute as well? Maybe you should give your statement in court then......Also dont forget to factor in the approximately 10% speedo error on your hiace at that speed!
For whom the bell tolls
No haven't, but like I said, it won't be hard to prove either way if that is his only defence.
KiwiBitcher
where opinion holds more weight than fact.
It's better to not pass and know that you could have than to pass and find out that you can't. Wait for the straight.
Hardcore Biker
Of course it wont be but for all we know Mr.Jacksons diesel ute has 300K Miles on the clock and fuck all compression left and probably will only make it to 130km/h on the other hand it could be some turbo V8 beast
...all iam saying is that as much as your hiace is a similar vehicle (well it has also 4 tyres) it doesnt prove anything in this case...
For whom the bell tolls
You obviously never read my signature then.
KiwiBitcher
where opinion holds more weight than fact.
It's better to not pass and know that you could have than to pass and find out that you can't. Wait for the straight.
Hardcore Biker
Touche!
Highway Biker
not to mention this was on a crest. the cop came over the crest (at probably 100kmh) and saw him coming up the other side at 154kmh. i would say most diesel utes cannot acheive much more than 160kmh indicated on a flat, let alone an uphill. i know a mazda bt-50 can achieve at best 170kmh(indicated, which is probably 154 actual) on the flat.
someone made a good point. if it was a general public person who did the u turn and the guy was killed there would be charges of reckless negligence, murder, etc etc etc within minutes.
lets just let the investigation take place before getting too worked up hmm'kay!!
Highway Biker
from another thread:
Making a turn over a no-passing line
You can cross over the solid yellow no-passing line (if it is safe to do so) when making a turn to enter a driveway or side road.
However, bear in mind that no-passing lines are often marked where visibility is limited, so special care is required. It may be safer to turn further along the road, where visibility is better.
the cop was not entering a driveway or side road, it was not safe to do so, and so someone dies.
simple. cop was at fault. there is no way at all to apportion any blame on the rider. on the road, you are supposed to watch the car in front of you, and be ready to react to what they are doing. hence why nose to tail incidents 99% of the time are the fault of the following car. you are simply not required to ride/drive in a way which takes into account what people in the oncoming lane are doing. if you suddenly do a u turn in front of a moving vehicle, which then hits you, YOU ARE ALWAYS AT FAULT!!
you are not:
supposed to worry about cars in the other lane.
required to assume that vehicles are going to be illegally parked in your lane over a crest (such as a stock truck)
Forum whore
I certainly hope you base your riding practices on more than just words in a book.
Forum whore
Yeah, I posted that quote from the Road Code due to comments on one of the threads about the yellow lines. You've bolded and underlined the last bit, but remember, this is the Road Code and not legislative. There is no offence for doing a u-turn across a single or double yellow line, the only offence is crossing it when overtaking someone moving in the same direction so they are pretty much irrelevant here. All they indicate is that there is limited visibility. It is performing a turn at a point of limited visibility that gives rise to careless driving causing death, which is what a member of the public would no doubt be charged with here.
I feel sorry for the cop because it has ruined his life, I feel sorry for everyone who knew Paul because it will affect them forever, and I feel sorry for Paul. Remember, that could have been anyone of us coming over the crest. Anybody who talks about riding at a speed that enables you to stop in the length of clear road you can see in front of you is either talking out of their arse or living somewhere very flat. Either way, they are not in the real world.
Forum whore
Maybe he was trying to give his civilian "ride-a-long" a good show on a dull day?
Forum whore
No one knows that the car "spun".
Maybe the cop at least had enough brains to try to get the car out of harms way from the next unsuspecting victim that may appear over the crest.
Forum whore
The issue is one of competence,not honesty
Hardcore Biker
this sort of statement is an example of why this forum seems unable to hold an informed intelligent conversation - I can certainly spin some bullshit if this is what you are referring to, but in this thread out of respect to the deceased I have wanted to contribute to the actual lessons that may be learned.
Yes I do ride, along with many others, at a pace where I can hopefully stop or at least have only a slow speed impact should I come round a corner or over a crest in a hill and find something in my lane. That does not mean I take every corner and crest of a hill at 30km, rather I might back of to 95km. I ride for the simple pleasure of riding, along with a desire to stay alive, hence as an inexperienced rider I come here to learn.
It is very obvious from the skidmark before impact and the damage to the car as well as the distance the deceased ended up from impact that the speed at impact was substantial. Taking the information we know - stopping distances as an example, you can begin to work out that if the car was 60mtrs from the crest, the skidmark before impact was 30mtrs and the avoidance manoeuvre began as soon as the vehicle was spotted he was doing well in excess of the speed limit at the crest - 112km stopping distance 96mtrs, thus 60mtrs down the hill the speed would have been significantly less, the damage less and possible survival. However if as an experienced rider he spotted the obstacle as the vehicle was completing the first stage of the turn, and decided to go around the vehicle on the wrong side of the road, but the vehicle began reversing and this option closed, he may then have commenced braking - again if doing the speed limit the skidmark or damage would be substantially less, an indication of whether this is what occurred can only be determined by the scene examination, likewise science will also be able to indicate impact speed. Others have tried to point out the cop is the only person to blame, yes his actions began the catalyst to the accident but the riders actions may well have also contributed.
Last edited by phill-k; 22nd April 2010 at 11:10. Reason: following post
Don't judge me based upon your ignorance.
Forum whore
You might want to go back and edit your last sentence.
The instructions are simple...
There are lots of facts in this (and every other) case. The only fact that we know for sure at this stage, is that it was a goddamned stupid place to try and turn. For that alone, the cop carries the greatest culpability in what happened.
Let us not forget that the bike was going downhill...therefore stopping distance would be somewhat greater. That is one thing that the SCU will be able to tell us, along with the likely speed at point of braking and at impact. We may even find out whether the cop reversed into the gap...
Do you realise how many holes there could be if people would just take the time to take the dirt out of them?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks