Police killing us again!

[NSR-Dan]

If it was a PFC (Private Fucken Civilan) driving the car, they`d be toast...and lose their licence.

Yeah but PFC's dont have bright flashing lights and fluresent markings on their cars.

Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".

[Jonno.]

Yeah but PFC's dont have bright flashing lights and fluresent markings on their cars.

Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".

Cop shouldn't have been there full stop; the only way he could catch someone that way was doing a dangerous U turn.
If it was a milk tanker or a car it would be different but it wasn't; it was a cop who was pursuiting a ute in aid of "public saftey".

That's what irony is.

[Max Preload]

Given the cop car was about 60 metres from the brow it is reasonable to assume that a collision was still going to happen. Given that a 50 kmh solid impact is similar to a grand piano being dropped on you from a first floor window, a bad outcome was highly likely.

That depends on the true geometric shape of the brow. The rider might well have been able to see the cop before the cop saw him just based on his height above his bike compared to the cop being below the top of his. The lights night have been on and the rider may have assumed the cop was just going straight. The cop likely wouldn't have been looking for vehicles approaching from the opposite direction immediately before the turn - he'd have looked to where he was going. If it was only then that the presence motorcycle became obvious he could have cut across while the bike was in full view and a lot closer.

And let's not overlook the fact motorcyclist's tiny helmet is fairly inconspicuous against the skyline compared to the roof of a white Commonwhore against the black seal so the bike could have again been closer with better vison without the cop actually seeing him.

The fact that a hill or obstruction to vision was involved makes things a bit tricky.
Yes the cop shouldn't have turned no argument there especially if he was not able to maintain 100 meters clear road throughout the manoeuvre and that will come out in the investigation.
But the rider has to be able to stop within the space available to him, in this case he wasn't robbed of the space to stop because he never new he had it in the first place just assumed like we all do from time to time?

As above, he may well have been robbed.

[Smifffy]

If there had been 5 serious collisions with milk tankers in identical circumstances since 2007, I for one would be calling for a review of the policies & procedures relating to milk tankers. Same goes for tractors actually.

There is a common denominator in these situations, and I shall call it the "Rosco P Coltrane effect"

[idleidolidyll]

Yeah but PFC's dont have bright flashing lights and fluresent markings on their cars.

Everyone will get pissed off and call for change but in reality there already is a law which is you must be able to stop in half your visual distance at all times. I think everyone is at fault.

The cop shouldnt of made a uturn where he did.
The biker waqs probably going to quick.
The Ute shouldnt of been speeding in the first place.

First its there should be no camera's cause it revenue generating
then its cops should not persue speeding vehicles because its dangerous to everyone.
really all everyone is saying "let us speed".

In a way yes, let us speed. In fact I've always believed bikes should be allowed to do 110 so they could legally get ahead of the most dangerous part of the road: amongst cars and trucks. For the sake of my life I'll do that anyway but I should have to break the law in order to keep myself safe.
And before you go there, going slower only means the idiots pile up behind you and do desperates to get past.

In the past the coppers were allowed to use their discretion and determine whether the 'offence' was dangerous or not. On a long straight road in Canterbury, on a sunny clear day with no traffic on the road, a bike is probably 'safe' doing 200kph.
However, in a 50kph area, near a school at 3.30pm; it is often unsafe to even do 50kph when that is the posted speed limit.

Problem is; the copper is likely to be hiding on that long straight in Canterbury because there is a hell of a lot of potential revenue to collect but there may be nobody watching school areas where folk doing 50kph are creating incredible danger.
So if a kid did run onto the road from between parked cars and got hit, is it safe to do 50 or even 40? Rhetorical of course: no, it isn't safe. Around a school at going home time it is rarely safe to do the legal speed limit.

The point is, it's police mentality created by government and senior police expectations that is a big part of the problem. Would that cop have done the U turn if the emphasis was REALLY on safety instead of speeding and revenue collecting?

[terbang]

What if it wasn't a cop car that was hidden by the brow of the hill, it could have been anything, do we have to ban breaking down, fallen trees, rubbish bins on windy days, stock, tractors slower vehicles, road works, slips?

More What if what if what if... Way too much what ifs here. Be careful you lot the sky may fall onto you as well...
Fairly well established Fact: Cop did a Uey without 100m clear road.
Historical Fact: Cops have done this before causing injury and peril to motorists.
Speculation: Rider was speeding.

And no we don't ban those things like fallen trees slips E.T.C, we manage them. But we should ban those that don't obey the 100m clear road rule and do a U turn without it..
What just happened is proof that the 100m rule is there for a damn good reason.

[Katman]

But we should ban those that don't obey the 100m clear road rule and do a U turn without it..

Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying.

[Jonno.]

Now there's an idea - we should be allowed to pick and choose which laws we can be arsed obeying.

Are you say people who download music should be held to the same repercussions as someone who murders?
Of course not because not all laws hold the same weight.

[Smifffy]

Are you say people who download music should be held to the same repercussions as someone who murders?
Of course not because not all laws hold the same weight.

Another "crime" that has little to do with anything except money.

[marty]

Can you please supply evidence that the rider was, in fact, exceeding the speed limit? Thanks.

and also, that there was only 60m visibility when the u-turn was initiated

[Katman]

Are you say people who download music should be held to the same repercussions as someone who murders?
Of course not because not all laws hold the same weight.

Any sane person would consider having sufficient visibility to safely perform a U turn and being able to stop within the distance visible to you as being very much on a par with each other.

[Mr Merde]

Another "crime" that has little to do with anything except money.

Havent you realised by now that money is the reason for everything.

Why is it that someone who pulls off a million dollar robery will get 20+ years inside whilst anothe who kills will get "life" and be out in 8 years if a good person.

The reason--- Money.

The police are only falling in line with everyone else and worshipping the all mighty dollar. If they kill someone in pursuit of such then its not their fault as they were only following orders. Mmm where have I heard that before?

[Jonno.]

Any sane person would consider having sufficient visibility to safely perform a U turn and being able to stop within the distance visible to you as being very much on a par with each other.

Any sane person would realised that unsafely performing a u turn and killing an innocent motorcyclist is not the same as being unable to stop over a blind rise where someone would not expect to have a cop pulling u turns.

If he was in a ute then it would have been bye bye mr. Fuzz and if police tried to charge him with failing to stop then the whole country would laugh in their faces.

[SPman]

People talk about..."being able to stop in the distance ahead", etc, etc, but, the risks of driving, like most of life, is a balance of probabilities to be weighed and acted on by all of us. Does everyone here slow right down when approaching the blind brow of a hill, in case there is something blocking the road! Probably not! Does everyone here ride with sufficient distance from the vehicle in front that they could stop in time if the vehicle miraculously stopped instantly from...whatever speed. Not stopped hard on full brakes, but instantly! No. Why...because such things almost never happen so our internal risk assesment drops it way down the scale and we carry on as if it won't, whilst (some of us) keeping a weee bit of margin, because , it might - but never really enough!
If people drove constantly aware of all the multitude of events that COULD happen on the roads, traffic would come to a crawling, erratic, standstill. So, to say Paul should have ridden in a manner that he would be able to come to a complete stop because of a blockage just over the brow of a rise, is not particularly valid. Is was a risk that was, perhaps, not as high on the scale as it should have been (given the number of prats that do U turns in similar positions), but is understandable. The only way you eliminate what he was doing would be to slow, markedly, approaching each and every rise, on high alert and covering the brake. And on the acceptable risk scale, most of us assume the road ahead will be clear and, at most, ease off on the throttle a bit.

Attempting a U turn, or worse, a 3 point turn, just over the brow of a rise, is less understandable. It is a risky manoeuvre, showing a total lack of thought and a cavalier disregard towards traffic, that was able to be easily eliminated (do it where the road is clear and visibility is good in both directions - as most sensible people would). On his risk assesment, habits of chucking U'ies to pursue errant motorists had over ridden his thought processes, and, throwing on the lights would warn off any traffic, wouldn't it...no worries mate!

This crash was not an accident! It was the result of a culmination of events that could have been averted if one or other of the parties had acted differently with regard to where he was!

[Katman]

It was the result of a culmination of events that could have been averted if one or other of the parties had acted differently with regard to where he was!

I think that's exactly what we're saying.

There is no one person at fault here.