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

**spudchucka** · 16th December 2007, 21:30

Originally Posted by MSTRS

Well, Excccuuusssee me.
I merely stated that a cop who is bereft of ethics should be sacked.

Know him personally do ya? Or are you some sort of clairvoyant too?

**MSTRS:Me** · 17th December 2007, 11:43

Originally Posted by spudchucka

Know him personally do ya? Or are you some sort of clairvoyant too?

No. I don't need to, to have an opinion based on reported behaviour. And if that opinion is subsequently proved misguided, I'll apologise. Cos that's what ethical people do....
And yes, perhaps I am... I 'see' no broomstickectomy in your future since, being elective surgery, it will not be provided free of charge.

**spudchucka** · 18th December 2007, 13:19

So why was it that you said he should be sacked, and where was that reported again?

**scracha** · 18th December 2007, 14:27

Originally Posted by Dynamytus50

You may mock it but it doesnt change that fact that it is very true that Traffic Cops are excellent at telling wether someone is speeding by simply looking at the vehicle.

Can I just say that's complete and utter bollocks.

Get well soon to the riders concerned.

If the copper involved has his arse on the line then any comments from him about "the bikes were speeding" should be taken with a pinch of salt. I'm sure he/she feels bad about it though.

MD · 19th December 2007, 16:27

Just heard on the telly that campbell Live will be covering this story tonight.

I wonder what their take on it will be...?

The latest NZ Autocar magazine has given this incident two wally of the year awards.

**Deano** · 19th December 2007, 16:47

Originally Posted by MD

The latest NZ Autocar magazine has given this incident two wally of the year awards.

In what way MD ?

MD · 19th December 2007, 17:50

Originally Posted by Deano

In what way MD ?

Someone showed me the magazine. from memory it was a series of "wally of the year awards"
The writer gave one for the Buller Gorge police car vs bikes crash for wally policing attempting a u-turn in a narrow gorge like the Buller, just to issue a speeding ticket.
Then they awarded the cop a wally for his contradicting statements that;
1. "he didn't see the bikes"
and
2. "you were speeding"
edit- to clarify, his radar was still locked on the bike that he was turning to pursue so he didn't use that to determine that the 2 bikes were speeding.

**Usarka** · 19th December 2007, 18:13

That fucking cock of a cop. "it wasnt a pursuit, a pursuit is only when the motorist is aware they are being followed"....

Who fucking cares? its semantics that dont mean shit in the reality of the situation (like we dont have quotas we have performance targets).

**Pixie** · 19th December 2007, 21:48

Originally Posted by MD

Then they awarded the cop a wally for his contradicting statements that;
1. "he didn't see the bikes"
and
2. "you were speeding"
edit- to clarify, his radar was still locked on the bike that he was turning to pursue so he didn't use that to determine that the 2 bikes were speeding.

Classic Arse Exposure Reduction Measures by a guilty pig.
1."he didn't see the bikes" - An excuse for the stupidity of the action.

2."you were speeding" - Try to get a shaken and injured victim to admit guilt.

**Pixie** · 19th December 2007, 22:23

Originally Posted by spudchucka

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 true.
Each vehicle coming around a blind bend/crest and encountering an obstacle in it's path will have exactly the same warning.With the exceptions that the 2nd vehicle may get brake light warning from the first and the 2nd vehicle's escape options may be limited by the actions of the first vehicle.

**Pixie** · 19th December 2007, 23:36

Originally Posted by Skyryder

I 'would' be amazed if it was true. But I have been informed by an optician who has done some research on this and his findings were, that it is opticaly impossible to accuralty measure speed with an oncoming vehicle. As we parted he said if the human eye could do this there would be no need for compulsary stops or give way signs as we could judge the speed of the oncoming vehicle. He also pointed out that it is more difficult to judge the distance of a vehicle with the lights on. Now there's clue here and we all know that with oncoming vehicle with lights we use more caution. Perhaps you and Spud can confer as you both seem to believe that it can be done. So how...........I await with interest as I believe others will too.

Skyryder

To judge the speed of an object coming directly towards us,we use the apparant rate of change in size to determine it's velocity.
This is only efficient at closer distances and is responsible for the "looming" effect.Wide objects are easier to judge than narrow ones,thus bikes are particularly difficult to judge.
Cops may be using other clues than just visual to judge the speed of vehicles accuratly,such as body roll on corners or road noise coming from the target.

**spudchucka** · 20th December 2007, 05:20

Originally Posted by Pixie

Not true.
Each vehicle coming around a blind bend/crest and encountering an obstacle in it's path will have exactly the same warning.With the exceptions that the 2nd vehicle may get brake light warning from the first and the 2nd vehicle's escape options may be limited by the actions of the first vehicle.

It is true as you have said.

I have been on plenty of group rides in the past where brake lights apparently mean nothing, which is why I don't group ride any more.

**ynot slow** · 20th December 2007, 06:04

Originally Posted by Usarka

That fucking cock of a cop. "it wasnt a pursuit, a pursuit is only when the motorist is aware they are being followed"....

Who fucking cares? its semantics that dont mean shit in the reality of the situation (like we dont have quotas we have performance targets).

As people say and top cops,polititians WILL NOT,admit is they are revenue gatherers.Hence the reason to do a u turn on a narrow road,just below a crest.The bollocks of the area commander saying the lights were not on and therefore not a chase,wtf,once the car was turned around and behind the bike the fucken lights would be on,that is IF there was a bike.

If the bikes did this or you did the same manouvre whilst sitting your license test you would fail or be done for dangerous/careless use.

**ynot slow** · 20th December 2007, 06:08

The biker interviewed,stated speed at 95 km.They did the correct thing in my mind,i.e choose best place to hit,the front one would have looked to swerve and thought no good swerving to right and taking the other guy out behind,and/or risk head on to any other traffic,so swerve left try to miss the gravel and grass on road verge,or hit bonet of car.

To their families hope you have a good xmas and they recover in time.

**Skyryder** · 20th December 2007, 06:34

Originally Posted by Pixie

Cops may be using other clues than just visual to judge the speed of vehicles accuratly,such as body roll on corners or road noise coming from the target.

Oh please. Body roll and noise to judge the speed of oncoming bikes 'accurately.' What planet are you on?

Skyryder