Bikers collide with Police car in Buller Gorge (1 December)

[Ixion]

Lets remember this Cop did not wake up that morning and think, Today to be different I'm going to go out and inflict pain and suffering on some motorists and stuff up their lives. His intention like other days would have been to patrol the roads as usual.

No. Of course he did not. But maybe he did wake up and think "Today, I'm really going to crack down on speeders, and get my ticket count up. And get Senior Sergeant off my back , griping about our district perrformance indicators. Speeders, watch out". Which determination would colour his decision to do a turn in an unwise location.

Also, most people seem to be assuming that the car was stationary when the first bike came round the corner. There's no evidence of that, and it's more likely that the car was still swinging across the road (someone commented that those Commodores have big blind spots, too) . First rider hit it by the front wheel and went over the bonnet (his statement). By the time the second rider arrived 2 seconds later the car was stopped across the road. He hit at the rear (almost made it round the rear ? ) , and wasn't lucky enough to go over. Difficult to take effective avoidance action when you encounter a large obstacle just as you exit a corner.

The one exception to the "stop in clear distance ahead" is when someone turns in front of you, without warning.

[Fatjim]

Here's my prediction, and going by the rugby world cup you'd be a fool not to put a twenty on it.


The rider of the first bike will be prosecuted.

The riders of the other two will be warned.

IF the police issue a statement then it will essentially say that in HINDSIGHT, the police officer possibly should not have performed a three point turn in that location, but the speeding is dangerous and taken very seriously by the police blah blah blah and the rider of the first bike is the root cause of the accident.

[Fatjim]

Also, most people seem to be assuming that the car was stationary when the first bike came round the corner.

Hard to imagine the portable pig sty was stationary at all until hit by the first bike.

[Skyryder]

Assuming bike one applied the brakes its a safe assumption that bike two would have had more warning, at least two seconds more if they were following the Peter Brock rule.

Not neccessarily so. The assumption that you make is based on the so called two second rule. The two second rule is applied to moving vehicles travelling at the same speed so as to reduce rear end crashes. It can not be applied to a stationary vehicle or one nearly so at the end of a bend.

The two bikes have been reported at traveling about 90 to 95k's. We do not know the diistance between bike one and bike two so unless you are privy to information denied to us bike one could have crashed before bike two was round the bend. So brake lights do not apply.

Even if both bikes were in closer proximity the brake lights of bike one may not have been a factor for bike two to avoid the cop car. (The big unknown here is the exact position that the cop car did the u turn in relation to the end of the bend and the visual distance oncoming traffic had to avoid any obstacles when exiting the bend.) The cop car to all effects was in a stationary position. Perhaps not completly stopped but nearly so in the three point turn. Bike two would not have had any more warning than bike one reguardless of the any brake lights that may have been employed. The corner had not changed the car had not changed which leaves a simular distance at which both bikes saw the danger..............and a simulare distance in which to take evasive action............which clearly they were unable too..............because the cop perfomed and unsafe manouvre. I don't need to wait for reports red tape interviews etc. to see who is at fault on this one. And I make no apology for my cynicism in this. I watched the interview by the cop on Sunday night and it was a PR job to mitigate circumstances in the polices drivers favour. He called the manouvre a U Turn............... it was not. It was a three point turn. There is a difference and that is why the cop called it a U Turn. It is performed faster and there more acceptable.

Skyryder




PS We can all speculate and that is what makes this thread interesting. What is not under speculation is that the cop claimed the bikers were speeding. I for one would like to know what this is based on.

[mstriumph]

........................You risk perpetrating an injustice, or at least making an arse of yourself, if you take a position before being in possession of all of the facts.

erm ......... like a proportion of the police force, you mean?








.... do tell? well, true, it's the west aus police that are currently in the news but ........... it's no co-incidence that the term 'fit up' has entered the language

[mstriumph]

Originally Posted by NighthawkNZ
If riding single file and at the same speed (what ever that may be) the first bike hits... there is no reason why the second wouldn't hit as well...

Oh sure, that's a given....... assuming of course the rider of bike two was either asleep or stuck up bike ones exhaust pipe.

... and YOU are the one that is saying that WE have prejudged the situation?

[Skyryder]

By my count I've made four posts in this thread, (this is the fifth).

I have not openly supported either the bikers involved, the cop involved or the police as an organisation.

You looneys get so fired up and start beating your cyber chests whenever there is a story in which a cop may have screwed up you all get tunnel vision and are blind to the fact that the known facts are minimal at this stage.

You know how it goes Skyrider, sort how in murder cases where the bodies are never discovered but there's a local scum bag that might fit the profile quite nicely the police can be accused of having tunnel vision, deciding he's the guilty party and then building a case to support their assumption that he did it????

On the face of the little I know about it it does appear to me that the main likely causative factor will be a miss-judgement or poor decision making on the part of the cop. However the bikes could also have been doing warp factor nine and not in the cops field of view when he began the U-turn.

I do find it interesting that two bikes collected him. Were they riding two abreast? Seems a little odd to me considering it was a fairly narrow and winding section of road, (its a gorge isn't it?).

Most bikers I've ever ridden with ride single file through gorge type roads, they tend to want to enjoy the corners and use the whole width of available lane to flick the bike around the twisties. Which is something they can't do that well two abreast.

If they were riding single file and not doing warp factor nine then at least the second rider should have had a better chance of avoiding collision, having just seen his mates fate?

Speculation, granted but having been to my fair share of crashes these are the questions that run through my mind, not how high can we hang this poorly trained, quota lusting, revenue gathering highway patrolling piece of crap.

I know the extent that the serious crash teams go to and have seen the reports that they produce. They will investigate the crash completely and totally honestly. The factors involved will be known, in time.

If its totally the cops fault then go ahead and bay for his blood but at the moment you're just engaging in a virtual vigilante, get the posse together, ride out and hang the bastard from a tree crusade.

We're all pissed off whenever bikers get hurt regardless of the circumstances but it wouldn't hurt people to just shut their mouths and wait for the facts.

There has been some criticism for those that see the police hierarchy making statements that are designed to minimize the culpability of the driver. I refer to the statement made on Sunday night of the U turn. It was not a U turn but a three point turn. I've commented on this so will not repeat myself. You accuse others of speculation and deride me for this when you your self are guilty of the same offence. I am referring to your comments on two abreast and related speed matters.

Yes we all could wait for reports etc but the internet and forums are not committee of enquires, they do not have to produce reports etc. They respond to current events and are made up of various types of individuals in this case those that have an interest in bikes.

As a matter of interest the road would be much more dangerous for bikers if there was no HW patrol. We would bear the brunt of that by way of deaths and injuries. But I expect other road users that includes the police to drive in a safe and lawfull manner. This accident was not an error of judgement but a calculated risk that resulted in injuries of two innocents.



Yes that is one alternative, keeping our mouths shut. The other is to hit the ignore button and only leave those that agree with you. But no ones doing that. Are you??

Skyryder

[mstriumph]

Thats precious, coming from the font of impartiality that is Scumdog.

..............

was gonna say that i personally find his comments a darn sight more balanced than most ........ credit where credit is due and all that?

[nudemetalz]

Without getting into the politics and blame, I read that the 2 bikes were written-off.
One was a 2006 Benelli 900 and the other a Ducati 999. Quite a few $$ worth !!!

[spudchucka]

... and YOU are the one that is saying that WE have prejudged the situation?

This whole thread is one big assumption. That line you quoted was obviously a piss take FFS!

[spudchucka]

. I am referring to your comments on two abreast and related speed matters.

Couldn't be bothered reading beyond this line.

At least I stated that it was speculation first. See the difference between that and the rest of the thread??? Jesus H Christ this place is a fucken drain on my patience!

Plus I said "these are the questions that run through my mind", not, "I'm a self appointed expert on what ever I feel like being an expert on today and this the truth because I decided it was or because some news paper published it so it most be true"!

[spudchucka]

Not neccessarily so. The assumption that you make is based on the so called two second rule. The two second rule is applied to moving vehicles travelling at the same speed so as to reduce rear end crashes. It can not be applied to a stationary vehicle or one nearly so at the end of a bend.

The crash happened on a bend. The stationary vehicle appeared to be in the middle of the bend. There also appeared to be trees lining the road, a hill or cliff on one side and a drop off of some sort on the other.

Because of the curve and the other factors mentioned the first bike would not be able to see the stationary vehicle until they had clear view past these obstacles. The two second rule has no bearing to this bike.

The second bike, following at a safe distance no doubt, can't see the stationary vehicle at the same moment as bike one, because of the curvature etc. However, he would have likely seen his mates brake lights come on or see the bike swerve or perhaps he even noticed the sudden eruption of brown lumps from the rear of the bike.

So, unless he was asleep or riding two abreast he should have had more warning, at least two seconds if he is good boy, than his mate did before seeing the stationary vehicle.

It is obvious that the two second rule would have help the second rider to some degree.

Once again I couldn't be bothered reading past the first paragraph so no comment on what ever the hell you said after that.

[Marmoot]

The crash happened on a bend. The stationary vehicle appeared to be in the middle of the bend. There also appeared to be trees lining the road, a hill or cliff on one side and a drop off of some sort on the other.

Because of the curve and the other factors mentioned the first bike would not be able to see the stationary vehicle until they had clear view past these obstacles. The two second rule has no bearing to this bike.

The second bike, following at a safe distance no doubt, can't see the stationary vehicle at the same moment as bike one, because of the curvature etc.
...
...

And it is wise to do a 3-point turn in this scenario?
A Highway Patrol police should have known better...


A hypothetical scenario, lets reverse the situation:
Same spot, same weather and time, a driver is pulling a 3-point turn, then a police car/bike goes around the bend and hit the turning car smack on.
How long would it take till the turning driver gets prosecuted...

[spudchucka]

How long would it take till the turning driver gets prosecuted...

As long as it takes to be properly investigated, which is something none of you lot have very much of an idea of at all.

[Coldrider]

And it is wise to do a 3-point turn in this scenario?
A Highway Patrol police should have known better...


A hypothetical scenario, lets reverse the situation:
Same spot, same weather and time, a driver is pulling a 3-point turn, then a police car/bike goes around the bend and hit the turning car smack on.
How long would it take till the turning driver gets prosecuted...

This has happened in Auckland, and that case was settled out of court by the police a month ago, a U turning vehicle collided with a police dog wagon, with lights on, no siren.
There is plenty of 'common law' built up on this, and anyone who has been charged with U turning dangerously will be watching very closely.
There will be no 'good' outcome of this instance no matter what, and the worse case scenario is that U turns can be made when they are morally bankrupt, so to speak.