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

[spudchucka]

where did you get that evidence from???



or is that speculation?

I heard he was turning.

and we cynically dont think the cops will treat the driver like anyone else....

[edit]
you think its bad blaming the cop before the evidence is out, dont you think it might be worse blaming the guy(s) who are seriously injured from this without knowing any evidence?

I'm not blaming anyone.

Look at the pictures again, if he was moving at all it would have been very slow and certainly wasn't in the direction of the flow of traffic.

[Grahameeboy]

In some cases a stationary vehicle is deemed not to be at fault. For example if for any reason you enter a controled intersection on a red light and stop in the middle of intersection (stationary) and the vehicle on the green crashes into the red, the 'green' vehicle may not be liable. The reasoning behind this is that the moving vehicle should be able to avoid the stationary vehicle. Not too many people are aware of this............but the cops are. I'm picking that the cop has stated that his vehicle was stationary. Guess on my part but whose going to bet against me? You??

There are many instances where if the vehicle was moving it would be at fault but 'stationary' can shift the liability away from it. I believe that this is the tack that the police driver is betting on, coupled with the fact that he has claimed the bikes were speeding. And Spud is right when he states that the courts accept evidence from officers on this. I'm reading a 'cop out' (pun intended) on this and I'm dammed if I'm going to wait months before expressing my reasoning for it.

This site would be very boring indeed if we all sat back and waited for the official findings.

Skyryder

So if a car pulls out, stops across your path and you hit it, you could be at fault cause you should have avoided it.

Do not know the accident location but to be honest, doing a u-turn at or near a blind bend is bloody dangerous because a cop should know the potential folly ahead and that he is a potential hazard to traffic energing from the bend.......a u-turn should only be done on a completely straight road with visibility for at least a few hundred metres.

If he had stopped, I suspect what he was doing was closer to a 3 point turn which requires stopping to select reverse etc and this is even worse so he would have to stop and a Holden is a long car so if it was stopped it probably would have taken up over half the road so limiting avoidance options.

It seems to me that the cop's mind was on the pursuit ie adrenalin pumping etc and he just didn't think

[Skyryder]

a very good point

The cops on record as stating that the road was clear when he commenced the turn. Apart from the impossibilty of estimating the bikers speed to any degree of accuracy all the three point turns I have performed have require my sole attention. Given the 'fact' that two bikers crashed into the vehicle I can only conclude that the cop was doubly focused on what he was doing if only so that he could perform the manouvre in as shortest time as possible.

For those of you who believe that the cop should be given the benifit of the doubt until this investigation is over all I can say is THE COP PERFORMED AN UNSAFE MANOEUVRE AND TWO BIKERS WERE INJURED. If you want to dispute facts dispute that one.


Skyryder

[Grahameeboy]

The cops on record as stating that the road was clear when he commenced the turn. Apart from the impossibilty of estimating the bikers speed to any degree of accuracy all the three point turns I have performed have require my sole attention. Given the 'fact' that two bikers crashed into the vehicle I can only conclude that the cop was doubly focused on what he was doing if only so that he could perform the manouvre in as shortest time as possible.

For those of you who believe that the cop should be given the benifit of the doubt until this investigation is over all I can say is THE COP PERFORMED AN UNSAFE MANOEUVRE AND TWO BIKERS WERE INJURED. If you want to dispute facts dispute that one.


Skyryder

Agreed.............simple basics.

Looking at the cop car it was not badly damaged so was speed a factor?

Anyway, off now as Nats wants to play on the computer.........she will not go in her standing frame until she plays Alphabet Express.......geeze, talk about negotiation

[spudchucka]

322

Here's the Stuff articles again:

http://stuff.co.nz/4310146a19754.html

http://stuff.co.nz/4312187a24035.html

And the police media release:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/updat...e.html?id=5370

[Maha]

So if a car pulls out, stops across your path and you hit it, you could be at fault cause you should have avoided it.

Shit yeah.....those bikers should be charged with 'Failing to stop'......

[spudchucka]

Speculatively speaking, turning in the middle of a narrow bend without adequate visibility could have played a major part in this accident..

Yes. That's what I said.

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.

[Skyryder]

So if a car pulls out, stops across your path and you hit it, you could be at fault cause you should have avoided it.

If the car pulled out and you hit it in say the middle of the road and suddenly stop you could be at fault. Different if say you hit the car in the process as it was pulling our from the kerb. In the exampe that you have given if the car had to stop for say a cat etc as against useing a cell phone one could argue for stopping for a cat but useing a cell phone you might have a problem in justifying stopping in the road for that.

A stationary vehicle can be deemed to be the 'lesser' of the contributing factor. If the cop has said that he was stationary, and I have no reason for thinking that he has done so, then this could be used so as to reduce his culberbility. A biker has claimed that the cop has said that he was speeding so from the outside my conclusions and suspicians are justified along with others who think as I do on this.

Skyryder

[spudchucka]

Put it in perspective. The cop who allegedly said, "You were speeding" was just involved in the crash and probably in shock. Furthermore, he is a subject of the enquiry, not the person conducting they enquiry. His alleged comment will have no bearing on the outcome.

[Skyryder]

Put it in perspective. The cop who allegedly said, "You were speeding" was just involved in the crash and probably in shock. Furthermore, he is a subject of the enquiry, not the person conducting they enquiry. His alleged comment will have no bearing on the outcome.

No it won't but if he states to the enquiry that the bikes 'were' speeding In all probability they will take his 'experiance' into account.

Skyyrder

[Grahameeboy]

If the car pulled out and you hit it in say the middle of the road and suddenly stop you could be at fault. Different if say you hit the car in the process as it was pulling our from the kerb. In the exampe that you have given if the car had to stop for say a cat etc as against useing a cell phone one could argue for stopping for a cat but useing a cell phone you might have a problem in justifying stopping in the road for that.

A stationary vehicle can be deemed to be the 'lesser' of the contributing factor. If the cop has said that he was stationary, and I have no reason for thinking that he has done so, then this could be used so as to reduce his culberbility. A biker has claimed that the cop has said that he was speeding so from the outside my conclusions and suspicians are justified along with others who think as I do on this.

Skyryder

So what you are saying then that the moving vehicle is at fault because it should have avoided the stopped vehicle? Agony of the Moment is the issue and a driver cannot be held liable for acting in the agony of the monent so if say he just froze, due to the hazard presented, and braked to avoid rather than swerve to avoid then that does not make him liable.

In the cat situation, how can the driver of the moving vehicle be contributory. The driver who pulled out and then stopped for the cat still left it late to pull out anyway as is often the case.....is it reasonable to stop for a cat to avoid an even bigger accident? Did he stop for an apparent reason..Pheasant Case in Binghams Law which is English but can still apply over here where the driver who stopped for no apparent reason and was shafted in the rear was deemed liable.

The question is whether the driver of the moving vehicle did anything negligent to contribute to the accident. If he did not then there is no joint tortfeasor so the driver who pulled out and stopped for the cat would be deemed liable. After all, if you see a vehicle pull out you may just slow a little but would expect the vehicle to join the flow of traffic and could not forsee a cat, if of course there was a cat.

I think the way of thinking you raise is very antiquated (not you) because it is all about negligence.

[Grahameeboy]

No it won't but if he states to the enquiry that the bikes 'were' speeding In all probability they will take his 'experiance' into account.

Skyyrder

To be fair though how could he accurately assess the speed factor whilst contemplating a possible pursuit and doing a u-turn / 3 point turn at the same time. It could be argued that his mind was on other things at time.

If a cop could say a vehicle was speeding then why do they need lasers etc....at best it is a guess on his part.

[Grahameeboy]

Shit yeah.....those bikers should be charged with 'Failing to stop'......

But they did stop................when they hit the cop car!!

[eliot-ness]

Here's the Stuff articles again:

http://stuff.co.nz/4310146a19754.html

http://stuff.co.nz/4312187a24035.html

And the police media release:

http://www.police.govt.nz/news/updat...e.html?id=5370

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't there two bikes involved, as reported in the 'Stuff' article, not one with a pillion as the police media release stated.

[Grahameeboy]

If the cop said to the guy that he was speeding that is dodgy..........a lot of accident occur because a driver fails to see another vehicle but they go into defence mode and assume that speed was a factor because they truely believe that it was clear when they commenced their manouevre............no reason why even a trained highway cop cannot fall into the same trap.

http://www.newcops.co.nz/GetStarted/...Qualify/Step/1

Does not say anything about driving ability. But you need to be a competent swimmer?