Police killing us again!

[Parlane]

Damn!

I believed it when some here said he would not ever be charged or if he was he'd get off...shoot, wou'ld a thunk KBers would get it wrong?

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5429...re-court-hears

Time for the bullshit ^

"A motorcyclist who crashed into a police car as it did a u-turn had an illegal tyre and would not have got a warrant, a court has heard."

"Under cross examination today Waikato Serious Crash unit investigator Senior Constable David Tidmarsh told the court that Brown's motorcycle had a slick front tyre which would not have allowed it to pass a warrant of fitness test.

Tidmarsh said while the tyre was not a factor in the crash and would likely have increased the grip available given the dry road conditions at the time it was illegal to use on a road registered motorcycle."

[Katman]

Time for the bullshit ^

Care to point out what part's bullshit?

[Parlane]

Care to point out what part's bullshit?

Hopefully you can accept a (twisted) summary:

The police officer could not safely make the turn, BUT the motorcycle was fitted with a tyre that was not warrantable at the time of the crash.

Defense:
Even though the tyre was not the cause of the crash, and actually decreased stopping distance in the conditions at the time, we will still make sure to mention it.


I say twisted, because obviously I am biased as it is a personal summary.
Reason I said bullshit, was because the mentioning of the non-WOF standard tyre meant nothing. It was a waste of time mentioning it. Which is what I call lawyer bullshit, the lawyer to me seems to be trying to make the motorcyclist out to be the one in the legal wrong therefore the cop was legally right..


Obviously the speed of the bike here is a true concern, the fact is, that if it wasn't the cop, it could have been anything else, rock fall etc, debris on the road.

[Katman]

Defense:
Even though the tyre was not the cause of the crash, and actually decreased stopping distance in the conditions at the time, we will still make sure to mention it.

So the tyre decreased the stopping distance.

Are you trying to tell us that he was probably travelling at the top end of (or above) the estimated speed?

[Parlane]

So the tyre decreased the stopping distance.

Are you trying to tell us that he was probably travelling at the top end or above the estimated speed?

Ahh, a very valid point. But I also assume that their measurements for their calculations of stopping causing skid marks are based on that type of tyre. Friction bias?

[Katman]

Ahh, a very valid point. But I also assume that their measurements for their calculations of stopping causing skid marks are based on that type of tyre. Friction bias?

I would be inclined to assume that their calculations are based on standard stopping distances for standard road going tyres.

Plus, we're talking about a motorcyclist for whom extreme braking technique would have been second nature.

[MarkH]

[url]Tidmarsh said while the tyre was not a factor in the crash and would likely have increased the grip available given the dry road conditions at the time it was illegal to use on a road registered motorcycle."

I don't really see what relevance this has - the rider isn't the one being prosecuted. Sure he was most likely speeding and his tyre was overdue for replacement, but the trial is about the police officer's actions on the day.
There were 2 people involved, both are each partly to blame for the outcome, the rider paid for his part in the crash with his life, now it is up to the courts to decide on what is a suitable punishment for the police officer for HIS poor judgement that contributed to the accident that cost a man his life.

Since the tyre didn't contribute to the crash and no one is looking to charge the deceased rider for having his bike not up to warrantable standards then what relevance does that fact have for this case? Except for a way to push some blame onto the other party of course. They even say that the tyre probably helped since it was a dry road, so in this instance the illegal tyre was actually better than a legal one.

To me it seems obvious that if the rider had been riding slower he would have had a better chance of stopping or at least scrubbing off enough speed so that the accident wouldn't have been fatal. But it is also pretty obvious that if the police officer had chosen his spot to perform a 3 point turn more safely there would not have been an accident and the rider would probably still be alive today. For his actions maybe the rider deserved a speeding ticket and even a ticket for the illegal tyre too, but he certainly didn't deserve to lose his life. I'm hoping the judge can look past the attempts to blame the rider and see that the police officer failed in his duty of care to the motoring public and rule accordingly.

[Parlane]

I would be inclined to assume that their calculations are based on standard stopping distances for standard road going tyres.

Plus, we're talking about a motorcyclist for whom extreme braking technique would be second nature.

I stand corrected (again). In that case, my defense is that the evidence that it was not possible to complete a safe U-turn on that part of the road is enough to show that the defendant should be charged for careless use of a motor vehicle.

[riffer]

Sorry Parlane, you're clutching at straws.

In the interests of full disclosure, this sort of evidence MUST be presented. And of course, the media will report it.

FACT. The motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre.

Everything else is your personal spin based on your biased opinion.

[Parlane]

Sorry Parlane, you're clutching at straws.

In the interests of full disclosure, this sort of evidence MUST be presented. And of course, the media will report it.

FACT. The motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre.

Everything else is your personal spin based on your biased opinion.

Fact; the motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre that was more suited to the conditions than a warrantable tyre.

By choosing how much of the facts you disclose, you are putting a personal spin on it too.

[riffer]

No.

Listen carefully. I'll talk slowly.

In a court of law ALL evidence must be presented.

It is a FACT that the tyre was not warrantable.

Anything else is simply opinion.

There is no conspiracy theory.

[riffer]

And good luck to you presenting a slick to a WOF centre.

[k14]

Fact; the motorcycle had a non-warrantable tyre that was more suited to the conditions than a warrantable tyre.

By choosing how much of the facts you disclose, you are putting a personal spin on it too.

I disagree with what the so called expert said. Go and see how hot a front slick gets from riding on the road in a straight line. A road racing slick needs to be above 100c to provide decent levels of grip, if they aren't then they have virtually no grip at all. The article said there were 2 skid marks left by the rider. I am guessing he stamped on both front and back brake at the same time. If a front tyre is at the right temp it will never lock from a sudden application of brakes, the bike will just endo. Not trying to take the blame away from the cop for doing the stupid u-turn, but the rider was stupid for running a racing tyre on the road.

[Parlane]

No.

Listen carefully. I'll talk slowly.

In a court of law ALL evidence must be presented.

It is a FACT that the tyre was not warrantable.

Anything else is simply opinion.

There is no conspiracy theory.

It is a FACT that the slick tyre provided better braking power than a normal road tyre under the conditions at the time of the crash.

Edit: Or not ^

[riffer]

Didn't make any difference to the result though did it?

So why do you have a problem with it being presented as evidence?

In every case of this type they need to look at all the factors.

One factor was that the motorcycle was in unwarrantable condition.