National Radio interviews Tooman and BRONZ re: fatal biker accident

[phill-k]

The issue is one of competence,not honesty

I was more referring to the suggestion that we won't find out the full facts of the case, as far as competence is concerned, I'm not sure you could label this officer with the experience he has as lacking competence, after all he has been in the "job" a long time and if he was incompetent surely that would have be noticed before now. However one of the questions that needs to be answered is who was the passenger and what influence did that have on the officers decision to commence the manoeuvre. As the officer was an experienced officer it would be easy to label his actions as grossly negligent, and perhaps this will happen. As we have had previous incidents of this nature, and an individual was not only found guilty of causing injury to riders as a result of his similar action but also received what was a substantial award against him would indicate that a policy review was in order. If the policy review has not be undertaken, the person ultimately responsible for that could be deemed to be incompetent, if policy does exist governing this action then that reinforces the labelling of this as grossly negligent, but it still does not remove the potential for the rider contrbuting to the incident.

[nodrog:Me]

......- I've had a clapped out 82 Hiace loaded with bikes up to 175kmh, the owner says he's gone faster. Pretty sure it was only a four speed too.

ha, you come on here preaching on and on about fuckin road rules and then you spit this out!

pot is that you?

[Pixie]

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.

Some have commented that the damage looks to be from a low speed impact.

From my own experience: I ran into the back of a stationary skyline at around 20 km/hr after braking from 100 km/hr (a moment of inattention).The impact crushed the car up to the rear window. I landed next to the rear wheel of the car-no injuries.
The car was written off.
It looked like I was doing 150km/hr when I hit

[Pixie]

I was more referring to the suggestion that we won't find out the full facts of the case, as far as competence is concerned, I'm not sure you could label this officer with the experience he has as lacking competence, after all he has been in the "job" a long time and if he was incompetent surely that would have be noticed before now. However one of the questions that needs to be answered is who was the passenger and what influence did that have on the officers decision to commence the manoeuvre. As the officer was an experienced officer it would be easy to label his actions as grossly negligent, and perhaps this will happen. As we have had previous incidents of this nature, and an individual was not only found guilty of causing injury to riders as a result of his similar action but also received what was a substantial award against him would indicate that a policy review was in order. If the policy review has not be undertaken, the person ultimately responsible for that could be deemed to be incompetent, if policy does exist governing this action then that reinforces the labelling of this as grossly negligent, but it still does not remove the potential for the rider contrbuting to the incident.

I'm sorry.By definition the three point turn on that piece of road is incompetence of the highest order.
You are far too forgiving.

[Katman]

I landed next to the rear wheel of the car-no injuries.

A bit different from the picture we're dealing with here.

(Unless you're suggesting something far more sinister than has been mentioned yet).

[R-Soul]

Avoidable accident? Probably. Crash Scene Investigators look at three probable causes to any fatal accident.
The Environment/The Vehicles/The Drivers.
I think its best we await their findings as to why someone died in this particular accdident.

Go back to Daniels death on the Southern Motorway....was it the Vehicle/the Environment or the Rider?
Some would say the Rider (because he was doing a wheelie), some would say the Environment (because he hit a cheescutter barrier) and some would say it was bike (because it broke in half)
Truth is (if we are to be honest here) all three eliments played a part in his death.

Like Paul Browns brother has said '' theres alot of talk about what happened but thats not going to bring my brother back''.

In law they look fro what was a causal "nexus" - that first factor without which no other cause would have occurred. I would have to say that in this case (and without knowing the facts), it was probably the wheelie...

[R6_kid:Me]

ha, you come on here preaching on and on about fuckin road rules and then you spit this out!

pot is that you?

I don't remember saying that I adhered to them all the time? I was simply pointing them out.

[R-Soul]

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.

There are lots of scenarios - the cop may have pulled out directly in front without having looked properly (looking over his shoulder at speeding ute), or reversed back into his path, or the bike may have been speeding.

Also keep in mind that while skid marks are present, the level of braking achieved by skidding the tyres would have been affected by the change of elevaton of the road as it comes over the rise - the bike would have lost traction to a large extent from the elevation change.

[nodrog:Me]

I don't remember saying that I adhered to them all the time? I was simply pointing them out.

you should join the police force.

[Crasherfromwayback]

Also keep in mind that while skid marks are present, the level of braking achieved by skidding the tyres would have been affected by the change of elevaton of the road as it comes over the rise - the bike would have lost traction to a large extent from the elevation change.

Only 'if' the marks are directly after the drop in the road...otherwise the suspension would be quite well loaded up and traction good.

[R6_kid:Me]

you should join the police force.

I don't like the uniform.

[onearmedbandit]

In law they look fro what was a causal "nexus" - that first factor without which no other cause would have occurred. I would have to say that in this case (and without knowing the facts), it was probably the wheelie...

Totally agree. No wheelie = no frame snapping = no impact with cheesecutter. The corner that took the use of my arm I've ridden many times since. Was it the decresing radius that contributed to my accident, the negative camber? Can't be because every other time I've ridden it I've made it to the other side. Guess it must've been me that ws different that day.

(I am in no way making any comparison or comment in regards to the main topic at hand as I know little of the facts of that accident.)

[StoneY]

I don't like the uniform.

Maybe the uniform does not like you my friend?
:-)

[Pixie]

A bit different from the picture we're dealing with here.

(Unless you're suggesting something far more sinister than has been mentioned yet).

The point I was making is that a bike can do a surprising degree of damage to a car even at low speed.
You can't just look at a picture and derive the velocity of a bike by the damage done to the car without extensive knowledge of the car's structural design

[phill-k]

The point I was making is that a bike can do a surprising degree of damage to a car even at low speed.
You can't just look at a picture and derive the velocity of a bike by the damage done to the car without extensive knowledge of the car's structural design

But you can assume that as the rider ended up some 30mtrs away the speed required to propel him such distance is more than a low speed collision