U-turn cop to stand trial

[unrealone]

And there in lies the end our debate *wipes forehead*.

Wish the bikers a full recovery and justice is served to the Police officer.

[dipshit]

I know this and I was not disputing that. I am talking about the signs being helpful in helping you decide on an appropriate speed for the corner.

The signs are there to give you an indication on how tight the corner radius is.

Of course they have nothing to do with how much visibility *you* may have (you could be in a low sports car or sitting high up in a truck)... and how quickly *you* can stop *your* vehicle.

This is where engaging the grey matter and taking some responsibility for your own safety comes in. If you are incapable of this then it would probably pay to stick to public transport.

[Headbanger]

If you want to be that cut and dry about it... what the bikers did is as stupid as driving through a red light at a busy intersection with their eyes closed... no defence for that either.

Nope, if you want to put the bikers into my intersection scenario, They would have been going through the green light. Perhaps a tad too fast but without any evidence of this its a moot point, The car should not have been where in was, In their direct line of travel.

[Dakara]

Ok, huge debate raving about "Riding at a speed allowing you to stop in the visibe distance ahead". Yes it's in the road code, so point taken.

Now, what does the road-code say about U-turns?

Making a U-turn

You are normally allowed to make U-turns, as long as the road is clear in both directions and it is safe to do so. Make sure you have enough room to complete the turn and don't create a hazard for oncoming vehicles.

You aren't allowed to make U-turns if a 'No U-turn' sign is displayed.

So, if the corner was a "30kmph" corner, then I strongly doubt a U-turn would be obeying the above.

[Katman]

So, if the corner was a "30kmph" corner, then I strongly doubt a U-turn would be obeying the above.

And once again........

No-one is disputing the fact that what the cop did was stupid.

[MD]

Why are you forgetting the motorcyclist?? He is the one that road his bike into the stationary object.

Who's the dipshit. As reported on TV3 and newspapers - the car was in motion half way through it's turning manoeuvre when it came into the Riders sight and was still moving as they hit it a few seconds later. Must be bloody space age 2108 technology brakes on your bike then?

Exactly. That's why it's a bit harsh having a bunch of internet experts convicting the riders of going too fast when there's a good chance that they were quite able to stop in the length of lane visible to them, but that lane suddenly got filled by a cop car.

Clint

Thank you.
Katman and imdying really need to extract themselves from this discussion before they make bigger fools of themselves. The facts will come out at the trial. Don't forget to come back and apologise.

Lets go over the FACTs that are already known to the public.

The Riders did have clear visiblity of THEIR lane around the bend- so why the hell would they do 30 in a 100 zone in perfect summer conditions. They can't see through solid rock to where an opposing car was parked off the edge of the seal..about to pull out into their sight.

Even if the Bikes had not come along, the u-turn resulted in the car's under carriage lifting the front wheels off the ground and the car was stuck, blocking the entire westward lane side of the road. Look at the pictures!

The bikes impact/debris clearly shows that where the car ended up was not where it was at the instant that the bikes hit it. The bikes and their debris and the car damage don't line up- why? Because the car was still moving through it's turn from left to right as they hit it. Look at the pictures!

I really want to buy the brakes that katman, dipshit and imdying have on there bikes. They must be @#$% amazing. Please contact BMW so they can mass produce them like when they introduced ABS to the world.

[dipshit]

Who's the dipshit. As reported on TV3 and newspapers - the car was in motion half way through it's turning manoeuvre when it came into the Riders sight and was still moving as they hit it a few seconds later.

Some of you people need to get a grasp of quotes and reading. That comment wasn't talking about the original incident. I was replying on another comment... this is why I had it in the quote.

Originally Posted by unrealone
Comments about "What if it were a tree, or a cat or a dog" or whatever are silly - if it were a tree, well that's just plain bad luck really, who can be blamed? No one, not the tree, it couldn't make a conscious decision to not fall on the road."

"Why are you forgetting the motorcyclist?? He is the one that road his bike into the stationary object."

http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...6&postcount=91

Do you see how a conversation takes place?

Must be bloody space age 2108 technology brakes on your bike then?

What are you talking about?

[terbang]

Try reading your road code again...

"You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:

• you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes."


If you commit yourself to a corner that doesn't have much visibility ahead, how quickly will you be able to stop when cranked all the way over onto the ragged edge? Even modern sports bikes will have a lot of trouble. An owner of a R6 was even commenting how the bike feels like it wants to stand up in a corner when only moderately braking. This is one area where cars, especially ones with ABS, have it all over bikes.

Anything could be around that next corner. A fallen branch, a cow, even a rock as some other R6 rider experienced recently.

If you leave no margin for era or the unexpected, then you are taking a role of the dice.

Yeah yeah we all know that, but its also just common sense, common dog fuck (call it what you like) or just using yer grey matter, that parking or doing a Uey across the road in the middle of a corner is pretty stupid, especially for a road professional. Right? But we all know what the u turn motivation was here eh, get that speeding biker and keep the roads safe for everyone else. Right?

[Katman]

Katman and imdying really need to extract themselves from this discussion before they make bigger fools of themselves. The facts will come out at the trial. Don't forget to come back and apologise.

If, after the legal proceedings are over, the riders receive from the judge total absolution of any responsibility for the course of events (note I didn't use the word 'blame') I will be the first to stick my hand up and say I got it wrong. However, if it transpires that there was, in fact, something they reasonably could have done to avoid or lessen the severity of the incident then I hope you will also acknowledge that what I, and others, have been saying has been perfectly reasonable.

[imdying]

Lets go over the FACTs that are already known to the public.

Sure, if you consider what's in the media to be facts. Mind you, if that were the case, they wouldn't need a trial.

why the hell would they do 30 in a 100 zone in perfect

Why indeed? Probably because:

They can't see through solid rock

Even if the Bikes had not come along, the u-turn resulted in the car's under carriage lifting the front wheels off the ground and the car was stuck, blocking the entire westward lane side of the road. Look at the pictures!

That maneuver itself, even if executed cleanly, could've left shit strewn across the road, which in itself could've fucked the bikes coming too fast around a blind corner. Admittedly crap on the road is much less likely to cause a bin than a fookin huge police car

I really want to buy the brakes that katman, dipshit and imdying have on there bikes. They must be @#$% amazing. Please contact BMW so they can mass produce them like when they introduced ABS to the world.

Don't know what you're on about... the idea that we're introducing is not that super brakes will save you, just the relying on your own abilities to pull up in an inadequate amount of room is foolhardy, and that you'd be better off treating blind bends with caution to reduce the likelihood of needing to in the first place.

If you think we're saying that the cop is not to blame then you're wrong, we're just putting out the suggestion that perhaps the bikers put themselves in harms way unnecessarily, and that by riding appropriately round a blind corner, they might've saved themselves a lot of grief. Being in the right is all well and good, but doesn't comfort your widow much I imagine.

Yes that suggestion isn't nearly as relevant in this case should it be shown the the policeman actually pulled out in front of them whilst they were in sight of each other, but I will never apologise for suggesting that, as a concept, it might well serve to keep more of us bikers alive.

[dipshit]

Yeah yeah we all know that, but its also just common sense, common dog fuck (call it what you like) or just using yer grey matter, that parking or doing a Uey across the road in the middle of a corner is pretty stupid, especially for a road professional. Right? But we all know what the u turn motivation was here eh, get that speeding biker and keep the roads safe for everyone else. Right?

Newsflash. As long as there are other people around and they have petrol to put in their cars... you will continue to run across other road users doing stupid things. It is as inevitable as the sun rising tomorrow.

Learn to deal with it and minimise your risk.

[MD]

And I'm sure you realise that is not the case in this particular incident.

Actually it pretty much described this incident i.e. a car approaching in the opposite direction to you decides to occupy you side of the road without warning.

Try reading your road code again...

"You can drive at any speed under or equal to the limit, provided:

• you can stop in the length of clear lane you can see in front of you on a road with a centre line or lanes."
...

.

Sorry if I misquoted you before.
Lets try this quote of yours. Much better.
The reason your comments annoy me is that they could have easily stopped in the clear lane of road that they could see ahead of them. That was until a car pulled out from an obscured position on the opposite side of the road to them.
Have a look at the scene photo I put on the original thread here back in December. They gave an understanding of what each party could see.
edit- here:
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/sh...=62178&page=27

I shouldn't say anymore until after the trial. I'm keeping to what has been made public so far.

Here's food for thought though. Why did a passing Doctor at the scene go public in the Chch Press, making a statement that she would take a private prosecution against the Officer for his behaviour at the accident scene, if the Police didn't?

[Deano]

You tell em MD.

[Badjelly]

And there in lies the end our debate *wipes forehead*.

If only

[Katman]

Look at the pictures!

Pictures can easily be deceiving.

However, I'd like to see a photo taken from the position the cops seat would have been at prior to the turn looking towards where the bikes were coming from and also a photo from where the cops car would have become visible looking in the direction the bikes were heading. Can anyone post them up?