3 point turn cop on trial

[MSTRS:Me]

Of course the cop had 'up to 120m' visibility when he started the turn. If those bikes had been 121m away then....
And of course the patrol car was more-or-less across both lanes at the mid point of his manouevre. No escape route for them.
On a road like that the rule is 'stop in the clear distance ahead'. I don't know what an average stopping distance is from 100kph but I'd assume that 121m isn't quite enough. At least for most of us. Because of the distance eaten up in the time taken to 'process and react'. And who of us would slow 'enough' upon approaching a corner of this nature on a major highway?

[Katman]

And who of us would slow 'enough' upon approaching a corner of this nature on a major highway?

Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

[scumdog]

Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

Yep.

And often know I couldn't.

[Headbanger]

Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

Nope.

I know well enough what I and the bike can do without having to "ask myself" on every corner.

[puddytat]

Every corner, out on the open road, I look to the vanishing point and constantly ask myself "could I stop in that distance?"

Don't you?

Yep,every corner...followed by" Fuck I couldve gone fasterer"

[rastuscat]

Interesting too that the car he was driving has curtain airbags. That means the A-pillar is thick as a thick thing.

A few days later a cop in an identical car hit a motorcyclist up near Maramarua in very similar circumstances. He checked a vehicle at speed,, flicked a U-turn and hit the motorcyclist. Hadn't seen it.

Airbags are our friend, but big thick A-pillars aren't.

[MSTRS:Me]

Yep.

And often know I couldn't.

Exactly!
And one time in a million, we find out for sure. Doesn't make us the cause of such an incident. Involved, yes, the primary cause, no.

[scumdog]

Interesting too that the car he was driving has curtain airbags. That means the A-pillar is thick as a thick thing.

A few days later a cop in an identical car hit a motorcyclist up near Maramarua in very similar circumstances. He checked a vehicle at speed,, flicked a U-turn and hit the motorcyclist. Hadn't seen it.

Airbags are our friend, but big thick A-pillars aren't.

Right on the button!!

The cynic in me says; they fitted those airbags to protect you in the crash you got into because the pillars holding said air-bags are so thick you couldn't see around them well enough to see what was coming.......

[Pwalo]

Interesting too that the car he was driving has curtain airbags. That means the A-pillar is thick as a thick thing.

A few days later a cop in an identical car hit a motorcyclist up near Maramarua in very similar circumstances. He checked a vehicle at speed,, flicked a U-turn and hit the motorcyclist. Hadn't seen it.

Airbags are our friend, but big thick A-pillars aren't.

Too true. The pillars in modern cars are thick enough to be a real hazard as far as visibility goes. Motorists simply don't appreciate how much can be hidden behind them.

It's still no excuse to do a manouvre such as a u-turn without sufficient visibility though.

[Patrick]

No, it wasn't said about that incident at all.

I could have used any number of examples of something lying on the road.

Gotcha.... Good call!

What happened to my friend's son is worth knowing about. A car outside shops u-turned and the son hit it while riding his bike. Dead. The road behind her was obscured by a stopped van waiting to turn into a park.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/manawatu-standard/news/1757475

The woman driver's defence was that he was speeding. Witnesses disagreed.

The bike had sliders fitted which the defence said were devices fitted on racing bikes. We know thats arrant nonsense but it sounds plausible to non-bikers.

The young man's speeding infringements were brought up by the defence. Strictly these are irrelevant but by doing so, the defence suggested he was likely to speed, plus sliders = u-turn driver must be given the benefit of the doubt.

The judge clearly found this a difficult case and reserved his decision but ultimately found her Not Guilty.....

Soooo wrong....

Unfortunately, the prosecution is not privvy to the defence case. The defence however, is entitled to anything and everything, either to be given in evidence or not....

Sounds like the sliders was a broad side to the Prosecution. One of my bosses has slider knobs on his bike, only so if it falls over he won't dent the buggery out of his pride and joy. He rides like a nana apparently, so there is a simple explanation......

Attacking the credibility of the dead one is just so wrong. Why the pillion and witnesses, who all agreed speed was not a factor, were so ignored is beyond me. I assume serious crash attended and did their calculations???????

This is a poor decision (but I see that there was an expert defence witness, and can't help but wonder if the judge was baffled by bullshit or not...)

they already interviewed him at the accident site and asked how fast was he going.....also anybody riding without a L plate that should have one be aware one policeman went over the bike looking for a reason to give him a ticket.

Any vehicle involved in a crash is given a going over.....

Heh, funny how they can bring it up on the defence side, imagine if the prosecution could bring up all the convictions of a defendant so that the judge/jury could infer that he was likely to commit crime.

If the witnesses, serious crash evidence and the evidence of the pillion stated that he wasn't speeding and the only 'evidence' that he was is the fact that he had previous speeding tickets, sliders and the fact that the Defendant didn't see him ergo he was speeding (of course bikes never get hit because people don't 'see' them), it seems a ridiculous decision and based more on the demographics involved, ie young reckless motorbike rider vs middle aged sensible mom than anything else.

+1..........

Can an appeal be considered?

The sliders can be explained. His credibility was attacked. Does she have history of any sort?????? If so, she can be "exposed."

I kinda think the prosecution should have done a better job here, maybe been a bit more forthright in their assertions about the victims speed (and should have researched crash bungs and carefully explained to the judge their purpose) and a strong suggestion that the defendant had failed to see the motorcycle due to its smaller size and failing to take due care rather than the speed of the motorcycle being anything other than within the legal limit. But I guess it is sometimes hard to prove anything either way conclusively.

I don't think the judge was saying that there was any evidence that the motorcycle was speeding, just not strong enough evidence that it wasn't possible. But I personally think that the statements from the pillion passenger + independent witnesses should be enough to show that the motorcycles speed wasn't a cause here. I guess the defendant was very lucky that I am not a judge and wasn't deciding this case, I suspect that I would have come up with a different verdict.

See above. Defence is entitled to the Prosecution case in its entirely. The Prosecution is not entitled to the defence. It is a one way street.

At 100kph, a vehicle will travel 250m in 9 secs. Make of that what you will.

At 100kph how short a distance can one stop in?

Shorter than 250m I imagine.

Make of that what you will.

Even at 125, they should have been able to stop short.....

Is the call, though, that he did the turn into their path?
He didn't see them, even though they were there to be seen?

Either way, they had less than 120m to stop in... if this is the case....

Right on the button!!

The cynic in me says; they fitted those airbags to protect you in the crash you got into because the pillars holding said air-bags are so thick you couldn't see around them well enough to see what was coming.......

Gotta say, the new Common Whores blind spots are enormous nowadays....... front and rear at the 45 degree angles and then some.....

[Grahameeboy]

Of course the cop had 'up to 120m' visibility when he started the turn. If those bikes had been 121m away then....
And of course the patrol car was more-or-less across both lanes at the mid point of his manouevre. No escape route for them.
On a road like that the rule is 'stop in the clear distance ahead'. I don't know what an average stopping distance is from 100kph but I'd assume that 121m isn't quite enough. At least for most of us. Because of the distance eaten up in the time taken to 'process and react'. And who of us would slow 'enough' upon approaching a corner of this nature on a major highway?

Actually if you are doing 66mph (100kph) you should be able to stop in 84m including stopping distance.

If you cannot stop in 120m you would have been doing 125kph or more assuming good tyres (which stop you of course)

So really no escape routes required if keeping to the speed limit.

So if the cop did (I emphasis) have 120m of clear view then a) the bikes were there and he did not see them or b) the bikes were not in view

Food for thought

[Nasty]

Actually if you are doing 66mph (100kph) you should be able to stop in 84m including stopping distance.

If you cannot stop in 120m you would have been doing 125kph or more assuming good tyres (which stop you of course)

So really no escape routes required if keeping to the speed limit.

So if the cop did (I emphasis) have 120m of clear view then a) the bikes were there and he did not see them or b) the bikes were not in view

Food for thought

Rather strange that i can find no road rule that says you must be able to see anything wtih U Turns .. so I am assuming that the passing rules thing applies at least a little here.

At the end of the manuver you need to be able to see 100 meters ahead ... what it doesn't state is how many meters you need to be able to see at the beginning of a manuver - as with the u-turn done it a rather strange place ... may have always seen 100 meters .. but they would not necessarily been clear - as this was a windy piece of road .. oh well ... don't quote me on it .. seems strange that you can do such a strange move on that piece of road.

[MSTRS:Me]

Actually if you are doing 66mph (100kph) you should be able to stop in 84m including stopping distance.

If you cannot stop in 120m you would have been doing 125kph or more assuming good tyres (which stop you of course)

So really no escape routes required if keeping to the speed limit.

So if the cop did (I emphasis) have 120m of clear view then a) the bikes were there and he did not see them or b) the bikes were not in view

Food for thought

[pedant mode] 62mph = 100kph [pedant mode]

So assuming all is 'normal' we can be reasonably sure that we can stop from 100kph in about 100m. Both riders who hit the cop car say they weren't speeding (at least at that point). Bridgeman says they were. We can understand that if they were within that 100/120m zone when the cop pulled across the road, then he never saw them, they 'came out of nowhere', therefore it might look as though they were speeding (to him). We do not know what the SCU boys findings are yet. So at this stage it is he said/she said.

[tuonowill]

My 2c:

If the police car could see 100m before he u-turned that means that the last x metres he could see were actually the road's arc as it dissappears around the last corner he drove through (presumably the cop was going slow looking for a place to turn).

As we all know motorcycles can't brake hard while cornering - the front never has enough grip in reserve after the cornering load.

So the bikes' braking distance is actually 100 - x metres, x being the distance the bikes would cover before being able to straighten up enough to brake hard - which could be as little as 50m. 50m is a big ask for anyone from 100kph.

I reckon if the corner reduced the bikes' ability to brake, then the cop is in the wrong (morally) but may be let off by the courts because as has been discussed there is nothing prescriptive in the road code for u-turns and visibility distance (or is there?). Is the road code subjective or prescriptive about u-turns?

[Badjelly]

Too true. The pillars in modern cars are thick enough to be a real hazard as far as visibility goes. Motorists simply don't appreciate how much can be hidden behind them.

As you turn, the area obscured by the A pillars moves, so a stationary object that's behind them will come into view. But an object moving at the right (wrong?) speed and direction move with the obscured zone. Then it suddenly appears, on a piece of road you thought you'd already scanned.

No excuse etc.