Honda XRV Forum banner

21 - 40 of 69 Posts

·
Craigypops
Joined
·
6,747 Posts
Got to disagree with you there mate.
I have to disagree with you. ;)

It was speed and awareness that was the contributing factors to the incident not the police officer.
The contributing factor to the accident WAS the police officer, not the speed and awareness because if he'd not stepped out, then there would not have been an accident.

Should he have let bikes doing +95mph in bad conditions to carry on doing so? There's only one answer and as a responsible safety officer thats no, the speed is above all speed limits so rightly or wrongly it's illegal.
He should only stop them if safe to do so, stepping out into the middle of the road is, obviously, not the safest method.

As for the copper jumping out infront of an artic, would there be a need for him to do it to a fully loaded lorry? Would a fullyloaded lorry be travelling well above the speed limits? definatly not, so there would be no reason for him to try unless he wanted to check the load weight of the lorry
Why definitely not? Why does it have to be fully loaded, why does it even have to be that road? why could it not be speeding? Travellers statement stands as far as I'm concerned; the copper wouldn't step out in front of an artic to stop it for speeding because he wouldn't want to get flattened by it, is my guess.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
The Angry Pasty Muncher
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
I have to disagree with you. ;)



The contributing factor to the accident WAS the police officer, not the speed and awareness because if he'd not stepped out, then there would not have been an accident.



He should only stop them if safe to do so, stepping out into the middle of the road is, obviously, not the safest method.



Why definitely not? Why does it have to be fully loaded, why does it even have to be that road? why could it not be speeding? Travellers statement stands as far as I'm concerned; the copper wouldn't step out in front of an artic to stop it for speeding because he wouldn't want to get flattened by it, is my guess.
Disagree with all of that, JUST WATCH THE VIDEO.

Bike 1 comes past the apex and the policeman steps out in plenty of time. BIkes 2 is coming into the apex exit at 3 seconds and bike 3 is nowhere to be seen.

Plenty of reaction time for all bikes. Bike one stops safely and clear away from the police officer with plenty of distance from the police officer at 5 seconds the second bike then starts to react to the first bike being stationery and at 9 seconds the third bike is stationery with a large gap between the carnage and the police officer.

CONCENTRATION AND SPEEDS OF THE SECOND RIDER ARE WHAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT, NOT THE POLICEMAN.

If the policeman was the issue for safety how did bike 1 and 3 not end up runnig ver him or having an accident.

Put you personal views of police to one side and just watch what that video shows, assuming it shows the whole events of what was happening on that stretch of road. The only conclusion you can reach is that bike 2 was unable to stop in time. I'm no fan of some of the police knowing how stupid they can be but nothing shows police negligence in that video.

Whole incident in my book is down to the SV rider. If we have a judge or QC on the forum i would be open to seeing his / her verdict of the events
 

·
Bloody furriner
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
I don't think mr copper would step out like that if it had been a speeding lorry, as he'd be flattened and obviously wouldn't want that.

I don't think mr copper would have tried to stop the speeding bikers by backing his car across the road in front of them at that distance, as that would be clearly irresponsible.

I do think mr copper showed some ill judgement in escalating a dangerous situation into an actual accident and only barely got away from being injured himself. That can't have been the right thing to do and I do think he needs to have a talking to about that. ;-)

Also, screaming "just watch the video" is a bit of a poor argument, we're all watching the video, we just happen to disagree on its interpretation. I'm watching the video and thinking, yes they're a bunch of idiots for speeding and numpty #2 really needs to pay more attention, but 3 seconds from copper starts to walk into the road to first bike stationary isn't all that much. Especially if they're speeding.
 

·
The Angry Pasty Muncher
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
Rubberchicken;830441 I do think mr copper showed some ill judgement in escalating a dangerous situation into an actual accident and only barely got away from being injured himself. That can't have been the right thing to do and I do think he needs to have a talking to about that. ;-)[/QUOTE said:
What would the copper have done if the bikes stopped 10-15ft the other side of him ? probably nothing and bike one shows it was done in a safe braking distance as he managed to stop with ease. Should bike 1 have thought "i'll roll on a bit here as the prick behind me isn't going to stop in time" just to make life easier for bike 2.

The other thing i would like to know is who was filming it all, somebody filmed the bikes and the police. If it was the police why did they leak it to this video website
 

·
Bloody furriner
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
I was wondering that, yeah. Not only were they all conveniently filming, but both sides have been edited together by someone...

Still, you're making assumptions as well. Bike 1 stopped, fact. "With ease" is interpretation, unless you have something personal to tell us about that video. :p

Up there you mention personal views of police and putting them aside. Indeed, though it seems to be you having the hangup that police can't do wrong and shouting down any opinion to the contrary.
The bikers going way too fast for conditions doesn't seem to be a controversial point of view here, it's the role of the policeman that is. I'm of the opinion that they were all not using their best judgement, including mr policeman. ;-)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
Got to disagree with you there mate.

It was speed and awareness that was the contributing factors to the incident not the police officer. Should he have let bikes doing +95mph in bad conditions to carry on doing so? There's only one answer and as a responsible safety officer thats no, the speed is above all speed limits so rightly or wrongly it's illegal. We've all been above those speeds and it's bad luck for the guys that got caught but it is there own faults. If they were doing 40mph could they all of stopped, if they were doing 40mph would they have been pulled in by the officer.

As for the copper jumping out infront of an artic, would there be a need for him to do it to a fully loaded lorry? Would a fullyloaded lorry be travelling well above the speed limits? definatly not, so there would be no reason for him to try unless he wanted to check the load weight of the lorry
He could have stayed at the side of the road and signalled the rider to stop instead of stepping out. He was not going to be able to grab the bike and wrestle it to a halt so placing himself at risk was to no benifit. That was the stupid action.
As for steping in front of an artic, there are plenty of reasons to pull one over than speeding and I am willing to bet he wouldnt be as keen to place himself there.
Additionally, indicating to the rider to stop by placing himself in the middle of the road will have made the first bike rider stop sharper than neccessary in the circumstances, causing the following vehicle to collide with him. Keeping to the side would maybe have let the bike overshoot the officers location but stop anyway. Again, not excusing or absolving the riders, just commenting on a less than proffesional professional.
 

·
The Angry Pasty Muncher
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
I was wondering that, yeah. Not only were they all conveniently filming, but both sides have been edited together by someone...

Still, you're making assumptions as well. Bike 1 stopped, fact. "With ease" is interpretation, unless you have something personal to tell us about that video. :p

Up there you mention personal views of police and putting them aside. Indeed, though it seems to be you having the hangup that police can't do wrong and shouting down any opinion to the contrary.
The bikers going way too fast for conditions doesn't seem to be a controversial point of view here, it's the role of the policeman that is. I'm of the opinion that they were all not using their best judgement, including mr policeman. ;-)
The "with ease " statement comes from the fact that watching the bike as it decelerates and comes to a halt it is balanced through the whole manouvre no other reason. The bike is controlled and not twitching or stepping out, so i would say the manouvre was completed with ease. Trust me my opion of the police is torn both ways with them i have met some very fair coppers and some absolute knobs. Also depending which bike im on can make my view change. Never been pulled by the police in this country on the Varadero for anything, out on the offroaders i've been pulled a few times just to make then feel they've made there presence known, does however help if they know what they are talking about when it comes to offroading as i've beaten a few cockey coppers in arguments who thought they've known it all when i 've been pulled in my area



He could have stayed at the side of the road and signalled the rider to stop instead of stepping out. He was not going to be able to grab the bike and wrestle it to a halt so placing himself at risk was to no benifit. That was the stupid action.
As for steping in front of an artic, there are plenty of reasons to pull one over than speeding and I am willing to bet he wouldnt be as keen to place himself there.
Additionally, indicating to the rider to stop by placing himself in the middle of the road will have made the first bike rider stop sharper than neccessary in the circumstances, causing the following vehicle to collide with him. Keeping to the side would maybe have let the bike overshoot the officers location but stop anyway. Again, not excusing or absolving the riders, just commenting on a less than proffesional professional.
He could have stayed at the side of the road but it may have had less impact on the rider to stop through
 

·
Deer Dodger
Joined
·
3,199 Posts
I think that, given the conditions, the policeman should have pointed the gun whilst standing on the verge.
On the other hand, the 2nd rider should have/ could have pulled up in time. Depending on the "shape" of the road, would he have expected a static on that side of the carriageway ? simple answer is ---" should have allowed for any inconsistencies" ?? yes I think :confused:
 

·
Craigypops
Joined
·
6,747 Posts
Put you personal views of police to one side
Personal views of police? I fail to see how you have come to the conclusion that I've let some issue with the police cloud my judgement? Had it been a pedestrian that stepped out, then I would have come to the exact same conclusion.

CONCENTRATION AND SPEEDS OF THE SECOND RIDER ARE WHAT CAUSED THE ACCIDENT, NOT THE POLICEMAN
Shouting it does not make it correct ;)

The concentration and speed were a factor in the accident but not the cause, the cause was a man stepping out into the middle of the road (the policeman) in front of moving traffic, thus causing the first vehicle to break and the second vehicle to hit the first. Had said man (the policeman) not stepped out, the first bike would not have braked and the second would not have hit him.

Which video are you watching?



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
The Angry Pasty Muncher
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
Shouting it does not make it correct ;)

The concentration and speed were a factor in the accident but not the cause, the cause was a man stepping out into the middle of the road (the policeman) in front of moving traffic, thus causing the first vehicle to break and the second vehicle to hit the first. Had said man (the policeman) not stepped out, the first bike would not have braked and the second would not have hit him.

Which video are you watching?[/QUOTE]

Don't undertand i'm typing not talking ???? :confused::confused:

If they were travelling at safe speeds there reaction times would have stopped all 3 bikes safely if the officer stepped out, but they weren't and bike 2 did not react fast enough to the changing circumstance that is what caused the incident, bike 1 had enough reaction time and brought the bike to a halt as did bike 3.

Either way there insurance companies will sort it out one way or the other and the rider of bike 2 will feel like a cock now it's gone viral for eveyone to see
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
Don't undertand i'm typing not talking ???? :confused::confused:

Either way there insurance companies will sort it out one way or the other and the rider of bike 2 will feel like a cock now it's gone viral for eveyone to see
I think youre right re rider 2, I think he grabbed the front brake at the last minute and didnt brake fully, he only had the end two fingers on the pivot end of the brake lever.

PS I think typing in capitals is the on line equivaent of SHOUTING.
 

·
Ridden for years
Joined
·
2,805 Posts
I have to disagree with you. ;)
The contributing factor to the accident WAS the police officer, not the speed and awareness because if he'd not stepped out, then there would not have been an accident
Craig, I don't want to be too critical of your view, but how can you say that!!

It could have been an animal, pedestrian, anything. Just because it looks like a quiet road, doesn't mean carte Blanche riding and damn the rules.

95 in fog! Throw the book at him... No, the whole damn library.
 

·
Craigypops
Joined
·
6,747 Posts
Don't undertand i'm typing not talking ???? :confused::confused:
ALL CAPPS WHEN TYPING IS THE TEXT EQUIVALENT OF SHOUTING ;)

If they were travelling at safe speeds there reaction times would have stopped all 3 bikes safely if the officer stepped out
Not necessarily. Just because you are travelling within speed limits and at safe distances does not mean you can always stop in time.

but they weren't and bike 2 did not react fast enough to the changing circumstance that is what caused the incident, bike 1 had enough reaction time and brought the bike to a halt as did bike 3.
But it isn't the `cause` of the accident, it's a `factor` in the accident. He may well have been travelling at a safe speed and distance and still collided with the first bike for a number of reasons, maybe he glances away to his right just at the wrong time. That in itself would not be the cause of the accident but a factor, the cause of the accident would still be some idiot stepping out into the road.

Let's put it another way, you're driving down a road (30mph limit) at 30mph on a clear dry day and a pedestrian steps out right in front of you from behind a parked vehicle and you hit them. Who caused the accident? You weren't speeding or driving dangerously but the fact that they stepped out from behind a parked vehicle gave you no time to react and you hit them, did the pedestrian cause the accident or you? I'd say it was the pedestrian who caused the accident.

Now, let's say it's the exact same scenario but you are travelling at 35mph and are speeding, the fact that you are travelling 5mph over the limit makes no difference in terms of being able to stop before hitting the pedestrian, who's `caused` the accident? I wouldn't say you had caused the accident, I'd say that yes you were speeding and some could argue that it may be a factor but it definitely didn't `cause` the accident, the pedestrian caused the accident by stepping out.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
Bloody furriner
Joined
·
5,009 Posts
He could have stayed at the side of the road but it may have had less impact on the rider to stop through
I'm fairly sure that him not walking out into traffic and causing a pile-up would've had less of an impact on the riders, yes. :rolleyes:


If they were travelling at safe speeds there reaction times would have stopped all 3 bikes safely if the officer stepped out,
If they were travelling at safe speed none of this would've happened because the officer wouldn't have walked into traffic, well duh. :) If they'd gone for a ride a day later none of this would've happened either. ;-)


Either way there insurance companies will sort it out one way or the other
No they won't. Not the other. The insurance companies will sort it out exactly one way: Speeding, therefore get stuffed you won't get a cent.

Which is all besides the point we seem to be discussing, namely the actions of the policeman. The policeman won't even be part of the insurance decision, and will just be another policeman making a mistake thereby making a given situation worse (which is exactly the opposite of what they ought to be doing) and getting away with it because far too few people ever seem to really look at this sort of thing other than to point the full blame at whoever is not the policeman. Which cheeses me off no end...
 

·
Craigypops
Joined
·
6,747 Posts
Craig, I don't want to be too critical of your view, but how can you say that!!

It could have been an animal, pedestrian, anything. Just because it looks like a quiet road, doesn't mean carte Blanche riding and damn the rules
Critique away me old son, it's all fun :D

Had it been an animal, pedestrian or anything else then that would have caused the initial accident due to stepping out onto the road. I'm not saying rider speed and awareness doesn't play a part and it's obviously a factor in the accident but it's not the cause because if it doesn't step out then there's no accident.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 

·
The Angry Pasty Muncher
Joined
·
6,170 Posts
Not necessarily. Just because you are travelling within speed limits and at safe distances does not mean you can always stop in time.

Let's put it another way, you're driving down a road (30mph limit) at 30mph on a clear dry day and a pedestrian steps out right in front of you from behind a parked vehicle and you hit them. Who caused the accident? You weren't speeding or driving dangerously but the fact that they stepped out from behind a parked vehicle gave you no time to react and you hit them, did the pedestrian cause the accident or you? I'd say it was the pedestrian who caused the accident.
I find that difficult but not impossible to believe. Knowing how generous the highway code braking distances are in relation to modern braking systems there's no real reason you shouldn't be able to stop in time when travelling at the correct speeds


As far as i'm aware if you hit a pedestrian at any speed the driver is cautioned and charged with careless/ dangerous driving or with out due care and attention which can only be over turned by a court
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,964 Posts
Look at the system in place for lollypop ladys to get cars to stop. They remain at the side of the road and indicate with the lollypop. If a vehicle hits the lollypop no one is injured ( hopefully). A policeman damages as easily as a lollypop lady. If there is a procedure for one, then its good for another.
Ps did you know that the black oblong in the middle of the lolltpop was so the teacher (who originally undertook lollypop duties) could record an offending vehicles registration in chalk :D
 

·
Craigypops
Joined
·
6,747 Posts
Knowing how generous the highway code braking distances are in relation to modern braking systems there's no real reason you shouldn't be able to stop in time when travelling at the correct speed
You could hit a pot hole as you start to brake causing a wobble, a bird could fly out and distract you, you could ride over a manhole cover that causes a slight slip, you could sneeze at the wrong time etc... any of those things could have happened whilst riding at a safe speed that could possibly cause the rider to still not brake in time and these would be a factor in the accident but not the cause, the cause would still be the numpty stepping out onto the road.

As far as i'm aware if you hit a pedestrian at any speed the driver is cautioned and charged with careless/ dangerous driving or with out due care and attention which can only be over turned by a court
I have no idea about that, I don't know enough about that particular law. I was using that particular example to illustrate what I was trying to say about someone causing an accident of some kind and how other things could be a factor but not a cause.



Never pay again for live sex! | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! | Chat for free!
 
21 - 40 of 69 Posts
Top