Officer charged over motorcycle crash

[Jantar]

.... What's the bet his defence is the guys were speeding and contributed to the accident??!! There is every chance he genuinely believes that - doesn't mean his belief is reasonable, but it does explain his lack of sorry or interest in the riders. ....

Well that claim is unlikely to stand up in court. He said that when he started the turn the road was clear. Obviously while doing the turn he would have been watching the edge of the road as there isn't much width to the road, and it was stated that the first he was aware of the motorcycles was at the first point of impact. So how could he judge the speed of a bike he didn't see?

[rwh]

Well that claim is unlikely to stand up in court. He said that when he started the turn the road was clear. Obviously while doing the turn he would have been watching the edge of the road as there isn't much width to the road, and it was stated that the first he was aware of the motorcycles was at the first point of impact. So how could he judge the speed of a bike he didn't see?

By the simple fact that they hit him ... they were unable to stop in the distance they could see. Nothing to do with posted limits; putting a number on their speed makes no difference.

Richard

[Grahameeboy]

Brilliant! 2 guys are in hospital as a result of his actions and he is embarrassed.

Must be a Kiwi then!!

I see, the old: "I did not see you". But he even got that wrong, as it is: "Sorry, I did not see you"

Yep, the old ones are the best.

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

[Grahameeboy]

Genuinely believes they were speeding?? LOL gimme a break he's only trying to cover his donut eating arse by trying to make it look like this accident was caused by the riders when it was his own fault by doing a Uturn in a stupid place.

He is still human..........and many drivers claim the same.

[Cary]

Cripes...don't hang the guy. I'm sure when it's all weighed up the benefits to NZ of him being a traffic cop outweigh everything else.

Na bugger that it's to good for him, drawn n quartered i say.

[Aitch]

At the risk of sounding like a wet blanket, is this matter not sub judice? Is it legal to speculate on the outcome in a public forum? Perhaps one of our resident legal eagles can clarify the matter for me....(A real legal eagle, not one of the bush variety please)

[Nasty]

At the risk of sounding like a wet blanket, is this matter not sub judicae? (sp?) Is it legal to speculate on the outcome in a public forum? Perhaps one of our resident legal eagles can clarify the matter for me....(A real legal eagle, not one of the bush variety please)

The wikipedia is interesting on this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_judice

[slopster]

Don't forget, this officer probably genuinely believes the guys were speeding and should have been able to stop. If you genuinely believed something - would you admit guilt?

Thats not the point they shouln't have to stop. The car doing the U-turn/3point turn has to be able to do the turn without the other car having to take any evasive action at all.

[rwh]

Thats not the point they shouln't have to stop.

It's one of the points. If they had been able to stop, the accident wouldn't have happened, and they'd have been able to swear at the cop much more comfortably.

Richard

[Hawkeye]

It's one of the points. If they had been able to stop, the accident wouldn't have happened, and they'd have been able to swear at the cop much more comfortably.

Richard

Coming around a bend at 90k and meeting a car stopped. There are two possible escape routes. Left or right of the car.
However, in this case there were no escape routes. There was a car, on a very narrow road, parked sideways. Therefore protecting both escape routes.
Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

[swbarnett]

Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

After any accident you ask yourself "What could I have done to prevent it?" Cornering at 30km/h would, in all likelihood, have prevented the accident. The question is one of who acted reasonably. In my opinion the bikers did, the cop didn't.

[Ixion]

..
Or are you suggesting that we all ride at 30k around any bend just incase there is a car sideways on the road.

Well, sometimes that's what it takes. Bear in mind, as Mr Spudchucka (I think) said: it could have been any sort of shit round the corner; fallen tree, slip, crashed car etc.

One of the principles of defensive driving is to do whatever it takes to avoid danger. And that often does mean going round a corner at a speed that is dictated by visibility , not by what you, or the bike, may be capable of .

So we may regret that the riders did not ride defensively, ensuring that they were able to stop for any hazard in the road.

But the other principle of defensive driving, and much more important, is never to do anything that puts yourself OR OTHERS in danger. And on that basis the cop failed miserably and totally. So we may condemn the cop for actively endangering other road users. He is not entitled to do that which endangers others and rely on their vigilance to compensate for his negligence.

The bikers could have been more careful. The cop should have been more careful.

And his trying to justify his actions by claiming the bikers were speeding is contemptible . Even if it were true it would not be a valid excuse. You do not endanger anyone else on the road, regardless of whether they may be themselving breaking the law.

[Squiggles]

And his trying to justify his actions by claiming the bikers were speeding is contemptible . Even if it were true it would not be a valid excuse. You do not endanger anyone else on the road, regardless of whether they may be themselving breaking the law.

Well said.

[scumdog]

And his trying to justify his actions by claiming the bikers were speeding is contemptible . Even if it were true it would not be a valid excuse. You do not endanger anyone else on the road, regardless of whether they may be themselving breaking the law.

I disagree.

Any motorist should expect approaching vehicle to be doing 'about' 100kph when making a right turn, backing out of a driveway, doing a U-turn or whatever.

If said approaching vehicles were doing 150kph+ it would be unreasonable to expect the motorist as above to take that into consideration.

I'm NOT saying this applies to the Buller Gorge crash.

[Ixion]

Legally, you may (or may not) be correct. But my comment was made in the context of defensive driving. The whole point of defensive driving is that you do not do what is 'reasonable'. You do whatever is required to keep yourself and other road users safe. Reasonable or not. Because when someone is dead (biker or cager) it is not really much consolation when people say "Well, what I did was reasonable". Yes, it may have been reasonable. But the crash still happened.

F'instance it may certainly be reasonable for me to assume that the cager staring at me has seen me. But reality says he may not have (even though he should have) , so I'll defensively assume he hasn't.

Failure to keep left is as much against the law as speeding. Legally, I may assume going round a corner that oncoming traffic will stick to its own, correct, side of the road. But defensively, I know that they don't . So I will make allowances for the possibility of a car on my side of the line. That may not be reasonable, but it's safe. Not putting myself or others into danger; doing whatever it takes to keep out of danger;

Defensive driving isn't about reasonable. It's about doing whatever it takes. You don't win any prizes for being right on the road.