Separate names with a comma.
Interested in talking motorbikes with a terrific community of riders?Signup (it's quick and free) to join the discussions and access the full suite of tools and information that Netrider has to offer.
Discussion in 'Politics, Laws, Government & Insurance' started by Farab, May 27, 2009.
Geez, I hope the $30k was above and beyond all medical expenses
i am assuming that's aside from insurance payouts 3rd party and what not.
Bit of a tough break. Sounds like an honest accident. For want of a switch (having the overhead lights on) the copper probably could have avoided all this. Still, the lapse in judgement should have consequences but that sounds overly harsh.
But the lights wouldn't necessarily have made the U-turn safe.
Edit: there's also the situation -> the police are theoretically chasing a mcyclist to save them from killing themselves, but the method this person chose far outweighed the danger of the mcyclist going a few ks over. Slow u-turn on a known ride route with obviously little vision in at least one direction.
Sounds a bit like that one recently over here... that was an off-duty officer.
Not that this will set precedent or anything being in NZ... but still. Hmmm a little more training on appropriate U-Turn / chase techniques perhaps?
That is a good result. Here's hoping the cases(s) in Australia go as well.
That is an extremely narrow minded statement. If it had been a logging truck doing the speed limit instead of a couple of bikes, do you think the lights would have saved the Police Officer's life? No. He would still have been a smudge on the road.
This officer, like one over here, attempted an unsafe U-turn that would have resulted in any citizen being charged with unsafe or negligent driving, even if no accident occured. He got what he deserved.
Bullshit, if the primary safety influencing factor was poor visibility in fog the lights could have made *all* the difference. Besides, my statement was very general. "sounds like", "probably", and I think personally the judgement seems harsh.
Also, surely *some* responsiblity has to rest with the riders, travelling at a speed too fast for them to stop/avoid an obstacle is technically an offence. The speed *limit* is not the "mandatory speed".
Well I found your statement very offensive, and still do. The officer performed an unsafe U-Turn. I haven't researched the whole incident, but I don't recall any mention of fog in the original report. I think you are speculating, or proposing possible, but not the actual conditions. The judge decided the motorcyclists where travelling at as little as 104Km/h. Hardly over the limit. The officer did the U-Turn just around a bend. The judge was on the side of the motorcyclists, and rightly so.
If it had been a logging truck instead of two motorcyclists, the officer would have in all likelyhood died.
Read some more of what the judge said:
the way I read it, the cop did a u-turn to go after a motorcyclist, but not the 2 he actually hit while performing the u-turn
Well they hit him, because his patrol car was across both lanes when the motorcyclists came around the bend. But yes, he was doing a U-Turn to pursue another motorcyclist.
Tough shit princess. The simple fact is if the riders were riding too fast to stop in time for an obstacle then they weren't riding to the conditions, nor to the letter of the law. Just because the speed *limit* is 100 doesnt mean thats a suitable speed for every corner.
I agree what happened is unfortunate but the blame cannot rest 100% with the police. Sure, they may have chosen a shit spot, and should have sirens on, and yes they should face some sort of discipline for that, but I think that the sentence was far too excessive and the riders have been handed a free pass, to be honest.
The article only confirms this. Travelling at 100kph around a curve too tight to reasonable apply brakes on or react to hazard at that speed? Come. ON. It's begging for trouble, one day, and probably qualifies as dangerous driving, or "not driving to the conditions" etc. I think the cop should take *some* responsibility but I can see his side of the argument for refusing to take any. Beleive it or not, it's NOT *your* road just because your in that lane.
Well, as you can't keep it civil, I shouldn't expect you to see the flaw in your argument, so I wont try further to point it out. (You didn't read what the judge said, did you? That was the judge. Someone who knows the law and yet condemned the officer for his actions.)
Next time you are doing a canyon run around Adelaide, let me know, and I'll see if I can arrange for a truck to be parked across the road around a bend in front of you. See who you think would be at fault then. Maybe that would bring the message home.
Mate, you obviously have next to zero country motorcycling experience, and as such are talking completely out of your backside. Anyone who does a three point turn (or u-turn) on a narrow gorge road in the vicinity of a corner (or a rise) should be thrown in jail, no ifs buts or maybes. It is one of the most stupid and selfish acts that can be performed with a motor vehicle. The fact that an experienced police officer did this and showed no remorse for his actions is completely beyond the pale.
I am also disgusted in the arrogance police officers have in attempting to navigate country roads in 1.8 tonne pursuit vehicles at speeds greater than what an experienced motorcyclist travels on a 200 kg sports motorcycle, all for the sake of a $200 to $300 fine. Safety evidently doesn't enter into the equation. The police: putting your lives at risk to enforce taxation law.
Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and go and ride on a narrow damp leaf-strewn country road with next to zero visibility through corners, trafficked by logging trucks pushing the limits of traction and reckless coppers in hotted up V8s exceeding the speed limits, taking each corner at a speed at which you can brake in time for someone who has positioned their car across both lanes so you have zero chance of counter-steering around them.
We'll see how long it takes you to get cleared up from the rear end or driven off the road by someone who overtakes you out of sheer exasperation or disregard for your safety. You're nothing but another arrogant keyboard jockey who sees everything in black and white from the comfort of their seat in front of their computer.
Trucks pulling out in front of me happens all the time in the hills, quarry's etc, and dont even try to tell me judges are infallible. There wouldn't be 4 million levels of appeal in nearly every democratic system of justice if they were.
Listen up, just because a lot of people break the law and drive like retards, all the time (and yes, I know what it's like) doesnt mean that when shit happens, you should get a free ride for being one of them. How are things supposed to change if the "but he did it first" argument is always used.
I'm not excusing the copper, at all. I think quite rightly they should be punished. It's not black and white, what I'm saying that a proportion of the blame should be assigned to the motorcyclists. Maybe that wasnt a consideration under the charge the copper was facing, who knows.
Why are we getting personal? I'm having someone getting whiny because I dont agree with them, and a 24 year old ZZR250 "speed demon" talking to me about how much they know about country riding, neither of which have much bearing on the case.
Keep digging. The hole you are in may break through to China yet. :roll:
Nice post speed_demon. :grin:
*sighs*. NR's so quick to condemn yet so slow to realise their own inherent bias in the riders favour in every single news thread. It's getting tiring. Hows that rod
Well you've missed the point again. I'm not showing bias, as it wouldn't have mattered whether it was two motorcycles, a car, a 4WD, or a truck, I would still condemn the officer. I would condemn him on a 4WD forum if it was a 4WD that hit him. As this is a motorcycle forum, I am condemning him here.
Whatever came around that bend was going to hit the police vehicle. The only difference was the extent of injuries and damage incurred, unless of course the oncoming vehicle swerved off the road and down the mountain side. Then there may have been fatalities no matter what the vehicle involved was.
If the bikes were only doing 104 Km/h, then they were within tolerance of the speed limit. Also, while it is a legal requirement to keep a safe distance from the vehicle travelling in front of you, and to be able to stop should they stop, it is not a legal requirement to be able to stop if someone blocks the road, or enters from a side street and blocks your lane. So the riders were (possibly, if they weren't doing 116Km/h) doing no wrong.
Of course we know that as riders we need to be more aware than any other vehicle users, and we need to go above and beyond the legal requirements to keep safe. This includes being able to avoid any obstacle that presents itself, within reason.
However, in this case I agree with the judge, and think that the officer was completely at fault. 100%. This is because road users have the right to reasonably expect that the road ahead will continue and will not be blocked unexpectedly. Without that expectation, all road users would have to travel at a speed that resulted in no injuries (or damage) if they were to hit something at any time. Say about 5 Km/h. We all know that is unreasonable if our road systems are to function at all.
Much better on the civility, by the way.
I dont think this is correct at all, in the case of "not a legal requirement to be able to stop if the roads blocked". Someone backing out a side lane is a different matter.
No, they do not. It's an assumed right.
Actually I've just realised that being in NZ, a fairly hilly country, the laws and community attitudes might all be completely different. Essentially, we're all blowing it out our ass.
Happy to agree to disagree in any event.
Well, I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I don't think I am blowing it out my ass.
I would be impressed if anybody could find any law that said a driver was expected to be able to stop if any obstacle blocked the road at any distance in front of them without warning. On the contrary, laws around the placement of roadwork signs a distance prior to any obstacle show that the law does indeed support the idea that drivers should receive reasonable warning of conditions ahead.
Judges in both countries have in the past upheld assumed rights where they meet reasonable expectations. For example, a reasonable expectation is that you can walk down to the shops without being attacked, robbed, or killed, and therefore people have the assumed right to take such a walk.
But enough for now. Let's see what others have to say, if anything.