Police killing us again!

[Smifffy]

That's the spirit.

Yup, the spirit of not all cops are fucktards even if some are, and the spirit of admitting when I've made an error.

You should try it some time.

[peasea]

Sad.

No it's fuckin' not, it's cause for celebration.

Sheesh. Drunk driving cop? Do me a favour, sad it isn't.

[rastuscat]

Great!!

Who measures these distances to a degree of accuracy that may be relied upon in a court of law?

Funny !! I sometimes enforce the following too close law, and it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

What we do is halve the distance that is legally required, and anyone closer than that is written a ticket. So at 50 km/h the required distance is 20 metres, and we only enforce those who are closer than 10 metres. A Commodore is 4.5 metres long, so if I see a gap that I can't fit 2 commodores in, the ticket is written.

I don't know anyone who enforces the following too close law 1 metre less than required, as it's too hard to judge accurately. Basically, there are enough people not even leaving half the required distance, we don't have to start looking at the marginal ones. Sad really.

[Smifffy]

Funny !! I sometimes enforce the following too close law, and it's like shooting fish in a barrel.

What we do is halve the distance that is legally required, and anyone closer than that is written a ticket. So at 50 km/h the required distance is 20 metres, and we only enforce those who are closer than 10 metres. A Commodore is 4.5 metres long, so if I see a gap that I can't fit 2 commodores in, the ticket is written.

I don't know anyone who enforces the following too close law 1 metre less than required, as it's too hard to judge accurately. Basically, there are enough people not even leaving half the required distance, we don't have to start looking at the marginal ones. Sad really.

Like shooting fish in a barrel eh Rosco?

Have you ever tried to fit those two commodores into a gap? Whilst mobile?

I think cameras in patrol cars could fix this easy.

[Max Preload]

You really are lolable.

Judging my ability to stop within the distance to my vanishing point is something I'm always doing.

Blind crests and blind corners are always treated in a 'what if' manner.

Twat.

I'm quite honestly surprirsed you don't get rear-ended. (I mean on the road, not 'recreationally'...)

[DIN PELENDA]

70 pages of talk, how about turn turn up to Paul Brown funeral tomorrow ?

[Horney1]

My maths eludes me to but I figure the cop would need to do about 200km/hr to catch the speeding car within 2 minutes and 5 kilometers (given a 30 second lead and instantaneous acceleration to 200km/hr). He could do it in about 1 minute and 2.5km/hr if he did ~300km/hr.

My understanding is that police are TRAINED to not think ( hahaha, of course) but rather to act. i.e. to take the guesswork out of the equation the thinking is already done on training day. Maybe their training manual could be ammended to include a session on "A car is speeding in the other direction, ***DON'T U-TURN***, STOP, LOOK, ***DON'T U-TURN**** , FIND A SAFE PLACE TO TURN "! These are the same people that want to run around my and your neighbourhoods at night with live ammunition in guns!!! Maybe they should run many more refresher courses of BASIC training to.

I wouldn't give a rats arse if the cop psych'd out after this either. The only problem is that whether we want to or not we will all take very good care of him financially! Grrr.

What a waste of a life to be taken out by a cop wanting to "keep our roads safe".
It IS CERTAIN that on this occassion the roads would have been safer without the police trying to intervene a speeding driver. I assume the speeding vehicle got home without incident as they probably do most of the time.... It's time less law emphasis was put on speeding...

[crazyhorse]

Its a sad thing to have occured yet again. Lets hope they make some changes to their protocol and this does not happen to anyone else. My thoughts will be with Paul's family and friends today

[PrincessBandit]

Like shooting fish in a barrel eh Rosco?

Have you ever tried to fit those two commodores into a gap? Whilst mobile?

I think cameras in patrol cars could fix this easy.

I'd like to think that experience with judging distances would get pretty good when your'e doing it all the time, so it's not completely unreasonable to accept that it can be done.
The issue of cameras in patrol cars is a good one, but again $$$ come into the equation and very few here (I'm sure) would want to contribute to the cost of it. Hell it might even mean that they get done - with evidence they can't wriggle out of. Also, there will always be situations where "the camera wasn't facing the right direction to show what happened" even if footage can give a reasonable indication of what might have happened.

[Swoop]

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

Well, measuring the distance from the car to the crest of the hill should be easily obtainable by SCU and that should be accurate within a few metres. Dunno about the speed of the bike, unless someone asks the rider.

The local with the "calibrated hearing" is not accurate, as we know.

[MSTRS:Me]

But surely if the issuing officer was present, and was pursuing a policy of improved road safety, then you would have been stopped and issued with the infringement notice prior to colliding with the vehicle/object in front?

No, why would he? As I was observing the law in leaving an adequate following distance. What he wouldn't know (until after the crash) was whether my brakes were good and/or I was paying attention.

[Katman]

I'm quite honestly surprirsed you don't get rear-ended. (I mean on the road, not 'recreationally'...)

It shouldn't come as surprising.

The suggestions made that it would require speeds as low as 30kph to achieve that stopping abiliity are nonsense.

The mere fact that consideration is given to the idea that there may be something over that blind crest or around that blind corner shortens the reaction time dramatically.

Speed then only needs to be kept at a generally accepted 'sensible' level.

[alan_w]

sorry about late entry first time here.

I was doing some mathematics on the cop/motorcycle crash and made a slightly interesting discovery, which DOES NOT BLAME ONE OR THE OTHER DUE TO A MILLION OTHER FACTORS but does have some interesting implications for our riding:

Assuming (1) the cop was 70m from the crest of the hill
(2) ‘standard’ conditions for stopping exist such as dry and level road with normal surface
(3) the rider sees the car as he gets to the hill crest and has a standard reaction time

Then if a biker was doing 100 km/h he/she could have completely stopped around 3-8m from the car.
If he had been doing 150 km/h and the same conditions exist then he would have hit the cop car at roughly 125 km/h.

wow! Especially considering that you cannot brake as hard on a downhill slope, non ideal road conditions may exist etc! That extra 50 km/h at the crest makes a shit load of difference 70m down the road.

food for thought, even if being aware of the possibility does shorten reaction time

[Katman]

The sad fact is that far too many motorcyclists (and, for that matter, road users in general) do not ride/drive giving anywhere near enough consideration to 'what if' scenarios.

If assumption is the mother of all fuck-ups, complacency is the father.

[MSTRS:Me]

The sad fact is that far too many motorcyclists (and, for that matter, road users in general) do not ride/drive giving anywhere near enough consideration to 'what if' scenarios.

Some, no doubt, never learned that 'skill'. Or have never had it demonstrated (shall we say?). Just like some go around being the 'what if' and have been lucky. So far. Or not...
Even though it shouldn't be...It's all a roll of the dice, for the most part.