View Full Version : Police cause SV650 to crash...
PS: Even if this was a staged and planned emergency stop, it doesn't absolve the copper of blame, he should have said 'no, it's too dangerous', or if it wasn't planned he should have seen the speed they were coming at, the distance that they were away, and said 'feck that, I'm not walking out there, they can go back and film a second take'.
I bet he wouldn't have walked off the hard shoulder of a motorway into the carriageway with traffic approaching from that distance.
If 'Stuart' told you to jump off a cliff in order to help with his safety video, would you do it?
If I'd been the Kwak or VFR rider and Stuart had told me to do 90mph in the fog, then all pull an emergency stop together in a straight line, for the sake of filming a safety video, I'd have told him to get stuffed.
There's probably a bit of film makers licence going on.
I don't think that the police would like you to actually do 90 on a unrestricted single carriage way.
It doesn't matter what the policeman did because he hit the bike in front not the policeman.
Actually I think it does matter.
Who's to the say the second bike would have stopped in time and not hit the copper had that first bike not been there? Or if the first bike had managed to swerve around the copper and the second one take him out? Nobody knows where the second biker was looking or how much attention he was paying.
Few people ride perfectly. The copper should know that. Which is why I'm amazed at how is actions are being compared to that of a sheep.
Let's suppose their were deaths in this scenario. Two bikers who were not able to stop in time because a copper thought "oh they look like they're riding a little pacey, let me jump out in front of them". I know who I'd blame. His actions alone directly put those peoples lives at danger. Had he not jumped into the middle of the road, it would not have happened. The copper's an adult. Not a child or some roadkill animal.
Specialone
07-01-14, 05:43 PM
either one of which means that the speed was excessive for HIM (OR he was too close to the bike in front, they are two sides of the same coin, the slower you are going the closer you can be).
If you go out for a ride do you peg your speed to what is safe for valentino rossi or what is safe for you?
I would suggest that you can see the fog, you can see your mate ahead, and you can see the speed that you are both doing. Given that you are both riding at the limit of your view (being able to stop in the distance you can see to be clear) it is not unreasonable to expect that should your mate have to demonstrate that measure he will be stopping quite quickly.....
I think Wideboy is confusing "speed limit" with "excessive speed".
A speed limit is set by law, (in this case there isn't one), excessive speed is speed that is to high for the circumstances. These circumstances are all encompassing and will take into account the riders ability, so what may have been appropriate speed for one rider may well be excessive for another, even if they are following each other along the same road at the same time. The SV rider didn't appreciate what was happening up ahead in time to react to it safely (for whatever reason) so his speed was excessive, he got it wrong.
I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks the speed was excessive for those conditions, especially for the SV rider, just because the other two riders didn't bin it, doesn't automatically mean their speed was correct, they got away with it that's all.
If that was the case, me speeding doing 60 past a school with a 20 limit would be ok as long as I didn't crash.
Specialone
07-01-14, 05:47 PM
Actually I think it does matter.
Who's to the say the second bike would have stopped in time and not hit the copper had that first bike not been there? Or if the first bike had managed to swerve around the copper and the second one take him out? Nobody knows where the second biker was looking or how much attention he was paying.
Few people ride perfectly. The copper should know that. Which is why I'm amazed at how is actions are being compared to that of a sheep.
Let's suppose their were deaths in this scenario. Two bikers who were not able to stop in time because a copper thought "oh they look like they're riding a little pacey, let me jump out in front of them". I know who I'd blame. His actions alone directly put those peoples lives at danger. Had he not jumped into the middle of the road, it would not have happened. The copper's an adult. Not a child or some roadkill animal.
The sheep is just a symbol, it could be any reasonable hazard, as I said earlier, on a mountain road, you're more likely to see a sheep than a cop in hi viz.
Another scenario, going along a road, car in front slams his brakes on for no reason, you shunt it up the back, who's fault?
It's yours in the eyes of the insurance, end of, that's how all the Asians in Brum are getting their whiplash claims in, happened to my best mate in his transit.
The sheep is just a symbol, it could be any reasonable hazard, as I said earlier, on a mountain road, you're more likely to see a sheep than a cop in hi viz.
Like I said, there will always be careless or inattentive riders/drivers. But the point is, this hazard was brought on because the policeman deliberately jumped out onto a road where he thought people were riding too fast. In my opinion, that changes the whole situation and is not comparable to any generic hazard on the road.
Specialone
07-01-14, 06:25 PM
The copper was a knob and shouldn't have done it, but the fact that the first rider stopped, in the eyes of the insurance, absolves the copper IMO and places blame on the SV rider, he even admits it was all his fault on the YouTube comments.
Spank86
07-01-14, 06:30 PM
The copper was a knob and shouldn't have done it, but the fact that the first rider stopped, in the eyes of the insurance, absolves the copper IMO and places blame on the SV rider,.
which was basically what I was getting at.
It would be different if the first bike had gone down or hit the copper or a million other things but the situation we see is one bike cannot stop quick enough when the bike in front does.
That's it.
I agree that the cop ought to get a bollocking from his boss but that's quite apart from the accident.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 06:33 PM
I'm relieved to hear that I'm not the only one who thinks the speed was excessive for those conditions, especially for the SV rider, just because the other two riders didn't bin it, doesn't automatically mean their speed was correct, they got away with it that's all.
If that was the case, me speeding doing 60 past a school with a 20 limit would be ok as long as I didn't crash.
no it wouldn't what kind of comparison is that?! you'd be breaking the speed limit and the law. I'm not confusing speed limit with excessive speed, my argument is that they weren't at excessive speed because A) there is no speed limit and B) the others stopped whilst going at the same speed thus proving that as a group they weren't riding at a dangerous speed for the conditions. I really don't know what is so hard to understand by that :confused:.
you can quite clearly see on the clip the VFR brake with no response from the sv rider. As I've said already ](*,). To me this says that he wasn't paying 100% attention to the VFR. If you can see the brake light on a video then you can sure see one in first person. After he fails to respond he then panics when he could have gone round.
Amadeus
07-01-14, 06:38 PM
This thread (not the video) does show what coppers have to go through and why they make good coppers.
Going back the fact we know its a staged event for a film.
The brief might have been 3 bikes ride up the hill as fast as you like and a Police man or somebody that looks like one will stop you. Maybe the bikers were having to much fun when and forgot they were getting stopped.
yorkie_chris
07-01-14, 06:54 PM
Almost like a really elaborate version of "look dad no hands"... "look dad no teeth"...
Ok hands up.
Who's had a police officer jump out like that in the last 20 year's.
Red Herring
07-01-14, 07:52 PM
.... I'm not confusing speed limit with excessive speed, my argument is that they weren't at excessive speed because A) there is no speed limit and B) the others stopped whilst going at the same speed thus proving that as a group they weren't riding at a dangerous speed for the conditions. I really don't know what is so hard to understand by that :confused:.
you can quite clearly see on the clip the VFR brake with no response from the sv rider. As I've said already ](*,). To me this says that he wasn't paying 100% attention to the VFR. If you can see the brake light on a video then you can sure see one in first person. After he fails to respond he then panics when he could have gone round.
The speed limit has no bearing on deciding if the riders speed was excessive for the circumstances. The circumstances vary from rider to rider, in this case the rider of the VFR could see where he was going and was paying sufficient attention to what was going on to be able to carry the speed that he had.
The rider on the the SV didn't have as good a view, may or may not have been paying appropriate attention (you suggest he wasn't) and there have been various suggestions that his skill level did not appear to be on a par with the others..... All in all this adds up to the fact that he couldn't deal with the circumstances that developed at the speed he was riding at. This means his speed was inappropriate in that it was excessive.
yorkie_chris
07-01-14, 07:56 PM
Too much fannying about with rear brake and not enough filtering to figure out how to go for a gap properly. Bloody poofs.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 07:58 PM
But excessive for the conditions?
Specialone
07-01-14, 08:04 PM
But excessive for the conditions?
Yes 100%, I'm a little shocked you think otherwise tbh mate.
suzukigt380paul
07-01-14, 08:06 PM
Ok hands up.
Who's had a police officer jump out like that in the last 20 year's.yes,about 2 years ago,most probably 30yards away from me,one sunny evening on a country road on my little two stroke,and at 40mph with expasion chambers it sound like a rg500 racebike doing 90 mph,the young copper jumped out of a field gateway on the opposite side of the road with his speed gun in his hand,but i was going slow enough to stop near him,thinking if im going to be done for speeding,i might as well know about it there and then,told me it was a 30mph, and i was doing just over that,and have a nice day and take it easy
Wideboy
07-01-14, 08:26 PM
Yes 100%, I'm a little shocked you think otherwise tbh mate.
I think otherwise as the two other riders managed to stop.
Specialone
07-01-14, 08:28 PM
Love you Gav :)
I think otherwise as the two other riders managed to stop.
it was more the poor rider that caused the crash as has been mentioned-he failed to see the obstacle, reacted instead of responded, panicked and f'd up by getting target fixation.
Anyone else (I would like to think) would have used the front brake correctly and instead would have chosen to go round the other side of that bike, not between him and the copper . . .
Specialone
07-01-14, 08:51 PM
it was more the poor rider that caused the crash as has been mentioned-he failed to see the obstacle, reacted instead of responded, panicked and f'd up by getting target fixation.
Anyone else (I would like to think) would have used the front brake correctly and instead would have chosen to go round the other side of that bike, not between him and the copper . . .
My point is, just because you didn't crash at 90, 120, 180 mph doesn't mean the speed was correct for the conditions.
My point is, just because you didn't crash at 90, 120, 180 mph doesn't mean the speed was correct for the conditions.
Neither am I, speed in this case was a contributing factor but not the cause. Poor rider skill was the cause of locking up the brakes and poor planning. I am agreeing with Gav that he was going as fast as the others yet none of them crashed. He crashed due to poor riding skill.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 09:03 PM
Love you Gav :)
it's too late for sweet talk, we are now virtual enemies
Wideboy
07-01-14, 09:04 PM
as for spank, well enough has been said about that one
otaylor38
07-01-14, 09:05 PM
Perhaps next time he will stand just one step into the road and flag them down, that way the bikers might have felt they could slow down in more time. Rather than by that point.
Cant see him standing infront of a van thats doing 90mph to stop it like that. He'd be dead by now
Specialone
07-01-14, 09:09 PM
it's too late for sweet talk, we are now virtual enemies
I know you don't mean that sweet cheeks :)
Spank86
07-01-14, 09:25 PM
as for spank, well enough has been said about that one
You already tried to kill me once.
Red Herring
07-01-14, 10:16 PM
Neither am I, speed in this case was a contributing factor but not the cause. Poor rider skill was the cause of locking up the brakes and poor planning. I am agreeing with Gav that he was going as fast as the others yet none of them crashed. He crashed due to poor riding skill.
He crashed because he was going to fast for the conditions, and the conditions include his obvious lack of talent. Appropriate speed selection is an individual thing.
There are several "causes" of the crash, or contributory factors as they like to be called, and sure speed was one of them, but so was the police officer, the fog and his mates ability to stop quickly under full control. Had any one of them not been there it wouldn't have happened.
Fordward
07-01-14, 10:31 PM
Another scenario, going along a road, car in front slams his brakes on for no reason, you shunt it up the back, who's fault?
What if the car had pulled out from a side road give way line without looking and you shunted it up the side? Who's fault then?
What if a pedestrian walked off the pavement without looking and you ran them over? Who's fault then?
In both scenarios you had right of way and the other driver or the pedestrian have to give way.
in the eyes of the insurance, absolves the copper IMO and places blame on the SV rider.
No, the copper was not running along the road and the bike took him out from behind. This is the same as the above two scenarios. The copper was not in the road, he walked into it from the side into the path of the oncoming bikers. The bikes had right of way.
Insurance wise fault would be on the SV rider, but the insurance claim is from the VFR rider against the SV rider, it doesn't absolve the copper of anything. Had the VFR rider binned it the copper would be at fault.
Fordward
07-01-14, 10:45 PM
Ok hands up.
Who's had a police officer jump out like that in the last 20 year's.
I've had a school crossing patrol do it. In a 30 limit he walked out 2-3 parked cars lengths in front of me, put his sign out with one hand and made an arms length stop sign with the other. All he could see was my roof over the top of the parked cars (all people carrier and 4x4), so with my eye level six inches below the roof I had no chance of seeing him. 30 mph is 44ft per second and the average car is 14-16 ft with perhaps a foot gap between each. Highway code stopping distance (yes I know they are out of date) is 75 feet.
Luckily I was only doing about 20mph (as that was the appropriate speed for the conditions, passing parked cars, school time) and I stopped in time. I still got charged with careless driving and spent a day in court to get a not guilty verdict.
Well done for fighting the man.
Makes the whole helmet cam thing seam a better idea. As I m sure it would have helped too
Bluepete
08-01-14, 11:47 AM
Nothing to see here.
Move along, moooove along!
Pete ;)
SvNewbie
09-01-14, 12:57 AM
Luckily I was only doing about 20mph (as that was the appropriate speed for the conditions, passing parked cars, school time) and I stopped in time. I still got charged with careless driving and spent a day in court to get a not guilty verdict.
Why did it go to court if no one was hurt?
Fordward
09-01-14, 01:06 AM
Do not need to hurt somebody to be accused of careless driving. Tomorrow when not on tapatalk Ill try to find you a link to a thread with all the details.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
ClunkintheUK
09-01-14, 07:53 AM
Then why, almost every time we hear about someone having a near miss, particularly on a pushbike, with a muppet behind the wheel do we hear the words form a lot of police officers "Well there was no collision so there is not a lot we can do"?
Then why, almost every time we hear about someone having a near miss, particularly on a pushbike, with a muppet behind the wheel do we hear the words form a lot of police officers "Well there was no collision so there is not a lot we can do"?
Cos thats life,
Sucks at times
ClunkintheUK
09-01-14, 09:05 AM
Fair point.
Fordward
09-01-14, 10:20 AM
http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=135778
Just to dispel some crap in the first few pages of the thread, the sign does not mean school crossing patrol ahead as intimated by some, it means 'children crossing', and is used anywhere children regularly cross the road, play parks, shopping centres, swimming pools, etc. Finding one anywhere on a residential housing estate doesn't tell you much other than look out they may be kids about.
Got to say hats off to you.
Most would likely buckle under the pressures.
Do you think a dash cam may of been helpful?
Spank86
09-01-14, 10:37 AM
Then why, almost every time we hear about someone having a near miss, particularly on a pushbike, with a muppet behind the wheel do we hear the words form a lot of police officers "Well there was no collision so there is not a lot we can do"?
What they usually mean is that they don't think it's worth pursuing since it's one persons word against another and no way to prove anything without ant damage or independent witnesses (who even if they exist often wouldn't waste a day in court)
Fordward
09-01-14, 11:04 AM
Got to say hats off to you.
Most would likely buckle under the pressures.
Do you think a dash cam may of been helpful?
Thanks, it was a lot pressure as you can probably tell from the tone of the OP.
Yes, a dash cam would have helped. I drive throughout the day for work and so get mixed in with all the other sales reps, consultants, white van man and truck drivers, and I am more and more tempted to invest in a dash cam system every week.
Last week I had some idiot tailgaiting in heavy rain on lane 2 of a dual carriageway at 75 mph so close that I couldn't see his headlights in my mirror, they had disappeared below my rear window sill. I saw him approach and he must have been doing 90-100 mph. I lifted my foot as gently as I could and slowed by a few MPH to extend my forward stopping distance and continued my over take of the flow of traffic in lane 1. As soon as he got a gap only just big enough (not big enough for me to return to lane 1 without tailgaiting the next car) he undertook me, forcing me to brake as he cut back out in front of me, waving a wnnker sign and hitting his horn as he went past. The corners of his bumper and mine must have been inches apart both at the back as he started the undertake and at the front as he cut back out in front of me, and he can't have missed the rear offside corner of the car I was overtaking by more than a foot or two. Then he raced off again back up to 90-100mph with a plume spray from the surface water off the rear of his car. He was clearly upset because firstly I was in his way, then because I slowed down.
I would like a dash cam but I think in a car you have to have one in the front windscreen and one in the back for it to be effective, and I hate having cables everywhere to power accessories and switching them on and off manually every journey would be a pain, especially if one of them is in the rear screen. I'd like a system that is permanently installed with hidden wiring, and just starts recording when you switch on the ignition and overwrites old footage when the storage is full. Set and forget CCTV if you like. That's not cheap.
Fordward
09-01-14, 11:18 AM
The other thing with a dash cam is accidents tend to happen because both drivers have made some kind of mistake, in the wrong place at the wrong time. The only reason insurance companies have hard and fast rules in apportioning blame is because they can't prove the actual circumstances.
We are all human and we all make mistakes. A dash cam can incriminate you just as easily as it can protect you.
If I had an accident, the dash cam system would need to be concealed enough that police attending the scene didn't know it was there, so that I would have an opportunity to review the footage myself before deciding whether to use it as evidence.
Some one on hear did a link to the eprances mini.
It's small and a you tube video from the gadget man looked to fit the bill of size and capabilities.
Not over 80 notes. Worth a punt?
Fordward
09-01-14, 12:35 PM
Some one on hear did a link to the eprances mini.
It's small and a you tube video from the gadget man looked to fit the bill of size and capabilities.
Not over 80 notes. Worth a punt?
Thanks for that link, looks like a good bit of kit, but not too easy to conceal. Was thinking more along the lines of a small bullet cam with the box containing the intelligence elsewhere. I also don't want £80 quids worth of kit permanently hanging from the windscreen to attract thieves. If you want one in the rear too that's £160.
Thanks for that link, looks like a good bit of kit, but not too easy to conceal. Was thinking more along the lines of a small bullet cam with the box containing the intelligence elsewhere. I also don't want £80 quids worth of kit permanently hanging from the windscreen to attract thieves. If you want one in the rear too that's £160.
Yes it's always a bit of a compromise
The video of it in the car it looked Ok
My Nissan has a black area next the mirror. So be less obtrusive than if I put it in the volvo.
The excess on the. Juke collision was £300. So it would have earned it's keep
It's like insurance
A pain to find what you need and what you think you need.
But things go wrong your glade you took the time to find the right thing.
yorkie_chris
09-01-14, 01:04 PM
Someone must make multi-channel recorders (CCTV it's dead common) so you'd only need to switch one thing on/off.
Some one on hear did a link to the eprances mini.
It's small and a you tube video from the gadget man looked to fit the bill of size and capabilities.
Not over 80 notes. Worth a punt?
Mine has arrived today apparently. Will put a pic up in the other thread when in home.
Mind you this looks rather out of order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ2CgxhMXs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Fordward
14-01-14, 07:54 AM
Mind you this looks rather out of order
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LQ2CgxhMXs&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I suspect he was getting ready to stop the vehicle behind, the rider didn't even have to swerve or brake, a little bit thoughtless on behalf of the copper and he probably doesn't ride a motorbike, but that rider is making a mountain out of a molehill and putting it on youtube and making a fuss about it with slow replays, etc, is just childish.
It looks like he was about to stop the next vehicle or one close by as he is the stopping officer for that site. The rider had to do nothing.
Much a to do about nothing.
If hes that worried about safety he might want to adjust his mirrors so he can see something not just squeeze though gaps imo.
Specialone
14-01-14, 08:43 AM
Yep, the only pleb there is the guy filming.
Yes it is clear that the officer is looking past the motorcycle. Plus I don't like the position the bike has adopted.
But it's not a staged clip.
Pedestrians can also suffer target fixation.
Fordward
14-01-14, 09:38 AM
To step closer as you pass will have no impact on a car driver, it could freak a motorcyclist out a bit as they are more vulnerable and don't have a door and a passenger seat between them and the copper, the copper probably doesn't realise that, so he stepped out just the same as he would have done alongside a car. A bit of retraining in terms of 'give motorcyclists a bit extra space' wouldn't go amiss, but still the rider has very little to complain about really.
Spank86
14-01-14, 11:07 AM
His foot moves about 6-8 inches.
His body barely shifts at all.
Definitely the biker making something out of nothing.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.