View Full Version : Police cause SV650 to crash...
Possibly a repost but I searched 10 pages and did other searches.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5c4_1388933726
Lots of questionable practice from both sides of the fence that could be debated all day, but 90mph in the wet when it's foggy is always a bit more risky!
They were going too fast (if the reading was accurate) if so, the distance between said copper & the bikes at that speed is ridiculously short.
the_lone_wolf
05-01-14, 07:19 PM
The bikes shouldn't have been going that fast BUT, and we're talking Nikki Minaj sized but right here...
The only bikes the coppers are going to be pulling over are going to be travelling faster than the limit, and the ones travelling more quickly are going to be more likely to be pulled
Logically it would have been prudent to give them ample stopping distance, and then some buffer on top of that...
In fairness... One did stop :-D failure to look ahead meant the next couldn't stop in time
You should not travel faster than you can see to safely stop on your side of the road.
If it wasn't an officer in the way how about an animal like a pheasant or sheep?
Rider error.
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 08:25 PM
speeding or not,its f@cking stupid stepping out to stop a bike in the fog,he could have just taken down his registration number,but lets just face it they aint got any thing better to do with there time,and we all know doing 10mph over the speed limit is a worse crime then robbing a old lady,and from my travels on the roads at night,its about time they pulled over all those cars that have lights out,about one in twenty,but that might! actually make the roads safer,rather then causing the accident
You should not travel faster than you can see to safely stop on your side of the road.
If it wasn't an officer in the way how about an animal like a pheasant or sheep?
Rider error.
At the time of going round the corner and exiting his path was clear & nothing to stop for. The officer steps out about 20-15 metres from the bikes to signal them to stop. from '90' that isn't much time or space no matter which way you cut it.
Biker Biggles
05-01-14, 08:29 PM
You should not travel faster than you can see to safely stop on your side of the road.
If it wasn't an officer in the way how about an animal like a pheasant or sheep?
Rider error.
Not strictly the case though.If someone pulled out of a side road and you couldnt stop it would be their fault legally.The cop essentially "pulled out" in front of the bikes and one couldnt stop in time.Legally I reckon the cop could well be to blame there,even if from an "advanced driving" perspective the bike should have had better forward vision.
Fallout
05-01-14, 08:33 PM
Stupid traffic stop! However, the other two bikes stopped fine. Maybe if the SV rider has used his front brake this vid would never have made it to liveleak.
First biker should have lowsided into the cop :)
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 08:39 PM
Not strictly the case though.If someone pulled out of a side road and you couldnt stop it would be their fault legally.The cop essentially "pulled out" in front of the bikes and one couldnt stop in time.Legally I reckon the cop could well be to blame there,even if from an "advanced driving" perspective the bike should have had better forward vision.never make it to court,even when it is 100 percent there/police/ambulance etc which ever emegency service's fault,not saying they are immune to prosecution but shall we say its a up hill challange
Red Herring
05-01-14, 09:36 PM
Can't say I'd advocate stopping bikes on a speed check like that...... however it's not just the officer who hadn't thought things through.... Learning curve all round I'd say, natural justice has been served so not much to be achieved by taking either party to court.
Specialone
05-01-14, 09:38 PM
You should not travel faster than you can see to safely stop on your side of the road.
If it wasn't an officer in the way how about an animal like a pheasant or sheep?
Rider error.
Have to agree, considering first rider stopped no problem, total rider error, he wasn't looking and panicked, he could've just gone round him and pulled up after.
Spank86
05-01-14, 09:40 PM
If the first rider hit the cop I'd say it could have been the cops fault, the second rider hit a guy in front of him who braked.
That's always going to be the guy at the backs fault.
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 09:42 PM
Can't say I'd advocate stopping bikes on a speed check like that...... however it's not just the officer who hadn't thought things through.... Learning curve all round I'd say, natural justice has been served so not much to be achieved by taking either party to court.i bet the cop wouldnt have jumped out in the path of the oncoming traffic if it was a articulated lorry
Red Herring
05-01-14, 09:46 PM
i bet the cop wouldnt have jumped out in the path of the oncoming traffic if it was a articulated lorry
An articulated lorry wouldn't have needed stopping.....:D
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 09:51 PM
An articulated lorry wouldn't have needed stopping.....:Dsingle carrage way 60mph limit,lorry 40mph,they can be done for speeding just like us
and i know its going off the subject a bit,but every single lorry going up a dual carriageway at 56mph,(which they all do)is speeding,never seen one pulled over
21QUEST
05-01-14, 10:01 PM
The second rider appears to have written a cheque which his skills set couldn't cash.
That said, what a daft and stupid stop by the Copper
Personally, I wouldn't be happy(even in a car)being stopped by a Copper in such conditions and location.
Getting the bike stopped wouldn't an issue but putting a(mine) life in unnecessary danger would be....what if the vehicle behind was a car/bus/ lorry and not a bike?
Hopefully, everyone was okay.
Red Herring
05-01-14, 10:04 PM
If I have to be serious I would concede that you have a very good point, especially on the single carriageways. On dual carriageways however there is a very strong argument that it is actually safer to let the lorries do their 56 plus as it tends to be speed differential between vehicles on multi-lane roads that causes the problems.
Of course, Transit vans and such like are the worst offenders of the lot....
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 10:11 PM
If I have to be serious I would concede that you have a very good point, especially on the single carriageways. On dual carriageways however there is a very strong argument that it is actually safer to let the lorries do their 56 plus as it tends to be speed differential between vehicles on multi-lane roads that causes the problems.
Of course, Transit vans and such like are the worst offenders of the lot....arnt transit vans are allowed to to 80 to keep up with the cars,just like the lorries doing 56mph,all to keep the multi-lane roads running,just dont ask me what i drive,but it is white!!
Red Herring
05-01-14, 10:14 PM
arnt transit vans are allowed to to 80 to keep up with the cars,just like the lorries doing 56mph,all to keep the multi-lane roads running,just dont ask me what i drive,but it is white!!
Something like that...;)
arnt transit vans are allowed to to 80 to keep up with the cars,just like the lorries doing 56mph,all to keep the multi-lane roads running,just dont ask me what i drive,but it is white!!
Non car derived vans are subject to the same speed limits as Goods vehicles, 60mph on a DC. 3.5T Luton vans are only allowed in lane 3 of the motorway so long as they are empty-carrying no load at all.
Specialone
05-01-14, 10:17 PM
My new transit is limited to 70 :( got to get the ecu modified to remove it.
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 10:56 PM
Non car derived vans are subject to the same speed limits as Goods vehicles, 60mph on a DC. 3.5T Luton vans are only allowed in lane 3 of the motorway so long as they are empty-carrying no load at all.no,Goods vehicles (not more than 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight),apart from 30mph limits they areallowed to do 10mph more then a hgv,so that 30 in a 30, 50 on a single carriageway 60 on a dual carriageway and 70 on a motorway so thats, van 30 50 60 70 and a hgv 30 40 50 60
Specialone
05-01-14, 10:58 PM
I'm sure i read vans are supposed to do 10mph less on mways and dual carriageways, car derived vans are exempt.
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 10:59 PM
I'm sure i read vans are supposed to do 10mph less on mways and dual carriageways, car derived vans are exempt.
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
Non car derived vans are subject to the same speed limits as Goods vehicles, 60mph on a DC. 3.5T Luton vans are only allowed in lane 3 of the motorway so long as they are empty-carrying no load at all.
no,Goods vehicles (not more than 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight),apart from 30mph limits they areallowed to do 10mph more then a hgv,so that 30 in a 30, 50 on a single carriageway 60 on a dual carriageway and 70 on a motorway so thats, van 30 50 60 70 and a hgv 30 40 50 60
I'm sure i read vans are supposed to do 10mph less on mways and dual carriageways, car derived vans are exempt.
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
Type of vehicle
Cars and vehicles (including dual-purpose vehicles and car-derived vans up to 2 tonnes max laden weight)
Built-up areas mph 30
Single carriageways mph 60
Dual carriageways mph 70
Motorways mph 70
Vans and ‘car-derived’ vans
Most vans are under 7.5 tonnes laden (loaded) weight and must follow the speed limits for goods vehicles of the same weight.
‘Car-derived’ vans weigh no more than 2 tonnes when loaded and are based on car designs, for example:
Ford Fiesta van
Vauxhall Astra van
Fiat Punto van
Peugeot 207 van
Renault Clio van
Specialone
05-01-14, 11:19 PM
I drive to the conditions anyway so I'm exempt :)
Fordward
05-01-14, 11:30 PM
First bike had to do a full on emergency stop and handled it very well. The forks were on full compression and the front tyre was chattering on the tarmac as he came to a halt. Perhaps his bike had ABS.
Second bike if you look at his helmet cam couldn't see the copper walk out as his view was obscured by the first bike, the first bikes brake light wasn't that obvious because of the fog. At that speed he was probably looking past the first bike at the road ahead anyway. He had less time to react and his braking skills weren't up to scratch, but how many of us can honestly say we practice our emergency braking, know exactly what we can and can't do, and would have certainly have done a better job of it. He wasn't doing much more than 10 mph when he hit the back of the first bike so he wouldn't have been much more than a bikes length further in stopping.
Third bike could see the copper walk out and had a much greater distance to stop.
The copper is a complete KNOB and he's lucky the first bike didn't either bin it first or hit him.
suzukigt380paul
05-01-14, 11:36 PM
First bike had to do a full on emergency stop and handled it very well. The forks were on full compression and the front tyre was chattering on the tarmac as he came to a halt. Perhaps his bike had ABS.
Second bike if you look at his helmet cam couldn't see the copper walk out as his view was obscured by the first bike, the first bikes brake light wasn't that obvious because of the fog. At that speed he was probably looking past the first bike at the road ahead anyway. He had less time to react and his braking skills weren't up to scratch, but how many of us can honestly say we practice our emergency braking, know exactly what we can and can't do, and would have certainly have done a better job of it. He wasn't doing much more than 10 mph when he hit the back of the first bike so he wouldn't have been much more than a bikes length further in stopping.
Third bike could see the copper walk out and had a much greater distance to stop.
The copper is a complete KNOB and he's lucky the first bike didn't either bin it first or hit him.first bike is a vfr750,so no linked brakes,no abs,but has anti dive forks
littleoldman2
05-01-14, 11:41 PM
If I were either biker I don't think I would have made the two videos public without some good advice and where did the shots from behind the PC come from?. Perhaps I / we need to take a deeper look at the videos.
Red Herring
05-01-14, 11:49 PM
https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits
Careful mate, you're letting a whole profession down......:)
First bike had to do a full on emergency stop and handled it very well. The forks were on full compression and the front tyre was chattering on the tarmac as he came to a halt. Perhaps his bike had ABS.
Second bike if you look at his helmet cam couldn't see the copper walk out as his view was obscured by the first bike, the first bikes brake light wasn't that obvious because of the fog. At that speed he was probably looking past the first bike at the road ahead anyway. He had less time to react and his braking skills weren't up to scratch, but how many of us can honestly say we practice our emergency braking, know exactly what we can and can't do, and would have certainly have done a better job of it. He wasn't doing much more than 10 mph when he hit the back of the first bike so he wouldn't have been much more than a bikes length further in stopping.
Third bike could see the copper walk out and had a much greater distance to stop.
The copper is a complete KNOB and he's lucky the first bike didn't either bin it first or hit him.
Agree with this.
What exactly the muppet copper was thinking I have no idea. How he thought the correct way to pull a speeding biker (or any vehicle for that matter) was to step out in front of them I have no idea. If I was on the first bike having had to brake like that then get hit from behind i would be immensely not chuffed.
Basically the copper was the cause of the accident, same as anything pulling out onto the road in front of fast moving traffic causing said traffic to emergency brake would be. I can think of no argument to support that being a safe way to pull someone over...
chris8886
06-01-14, 12:18 AM
If I were either biker I don't think I would have made the two videos public without some good advice and where did the shots from behind the PC come from?. Perhaps I / we need to take a deeper look at the videos.
along my thoughts too when I first saw the video, it looks fairly fake to my highly untrained eye!!
where did the shots from behind the PC come from?.
If you look closely at around 20 seconds in, you can see two people standing behind the copper and a camera stand.
I personally think the copper was a total idiot. No justice was served. I feel bad for the first biker. Looks like the second bike took his left leg out and that must have hurt.
littleoldman2
06-01-14, 12:35 AM
If you look closely at around 20 seconds in, you can see two people standing behind the copper and a camera stand.
I personally think the copper was a total idiot. No justice was served. I feel bad for the first biker. Looks like the second bike took his left leg out and that must have hurt.
I know how it was filmed. What I cannot understand is why the police would allow it to go public yesterday when it was supposed to have happened so recently. The guy behind the PC must have been filming for the police or with their permission. So how did the poster of the vid get all three videos together. Seems a bit off to me
ToySoldier
06-01-14, 12:43 AM
id say the police took his video and probable used it to blame the rider and probable do him for dangerous driving as well
I know how it was filmed. What I cannot understand is why the police would allow it to go public yesterday when it was supposed to have happened so recently. The guy behind the PC must have been filming for the police or with their permission. So how did the poster of the vid get all three videos together. Seems a bit off to me
Ah I get ya. Personally if I was either rider (particularly the first), I would have requested a copy of the police video as well as the other riders shot as well, so getting all 3 wouldn't be too much of an issue.
Although I don't know. Are the police legally obligated to provide video evidence of a crash you're involved in if they have it?
BanannaMan
06-01-14, 01:41 AM
I know how it was filmed. What I cannot understand is why the police would allow it to go public yesterday when it was supposed to have happened so recently. The guy behind the PC must have been filming for the police or with their permission. So how did the poster of the vid get all three videos together. Seems a bit off to me
In the US, Police can confiscate cameras if they are suspected to contain evidence. (which all these do)
Is it the same in the UK???
Still seems a bit off to me as well.
The copper was clearly the cause of the accident, stepping out in front of any speeding vehicle in the fog. :rolleyes:
But 90mph in the fog? Really?
Two fools looking for an accident, the results were inevitable.
Shame the cause didn't get to experiance a wee bit of the results.
yorkie_chris
06-01-14, 08:36 AM
Kn*bhead pedestrians jumping out in front of traffic are a real hazard.
Of course, Transit vans and such like are the worst offenders of the lot....
Oh aye, tell that to north yorks police and you'd be preaching to the choir, been stopping vans recently for doing 60 on NSL single carriagway.
Nice of them going after the scum of the earth worst offenders so we can all sleep easy in our beds eh.
Fordward
06-01-14, 09:56 AM
If the CPS hold evidence against you that they intend to use in a prosecution, you are entitled to a copy in order to prepare your defence. That's probably how they got the video.
The bikes are not faultless, they were going far too fast for the conditions. The copper has probably been stopping slower motorists that way all day long, but as soon as the copper saw 90mph on the speed gun, he should have known they'd have real difficulty stopping and realised stepping out was a bad idea. Not only did he fail to think about the stopping distance, he didn't think much about self preservation either and put himself in a really dangerous situation. He's the one who is supposed to be trained in road safety. He created the hazard in this situation.
I can't say I'd have stopped any quicker or better than these bikes, but what I can say is if I were on the first bike, when I got close enough to realise the copper wasn't intent on actually getting in the way, and I wasn't going going to hit him, I'd have released the brakes and gone past him, then pulled a U turn further down the road. If during an emergency stop an escape route presents itself it's almost always safer to take it and let the bike roll and steer, than risk locking your wheels in a straight line. Also would have protected him from the bike behind.
The second bike will probably still get done for careless driving if they charge him with it, because he was going far too fast for the conditions and did fail to stop causing a collision. Once in court charged with an offence it actually doesn't matter anymore how stupid the copper was, the only thing that is under scrutiny is how well the defendant reacted to it.
ClunkintheUK
06-01-14, 10:21 AM
The copper is a knob.
Yes the bikes were going too fast, and deserve to be done for speeding. But causing an accident to stop a potential accident is stupid. The cop was hidden from the SV by the VFR at the front. It looks like the SV saw the brake light and let off the throttle at least (which at 9K rpm would provide quite a lot of engine braking) not realising that it was an emergency brake situation, untill he was right on him. The SV was still in the corner at this point.
In his (SV rider) situation I would be looking to extend my braking distance by going either side of the VFR in front (which is what I think he did) but then that bl00dy copper was dithering and getting in the way there too.
Sid Squid
06-01-14, 11:29 AM
If it wasn't an officer in the way how about an animal like a pheasant or sheep?
Rider error.
True, however I would hope that policemen should have a bit more nous than sheep though, no?
Unwise actions on both sides.
The officer's actions were the trigger for the accident, not the cause. The cause was poor planning and emergency stop execution on the part of the second bike. The actions of the officer and the first bike contributed to it but did not cause it.
Well that's in my humble opinion anyway.
Turns out that whilst not completely fake, or staged... it was being filmed as part of a road safety campaign that ironically went wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiKQl7B2y8
Specialone
06-01-14, 01:10 PM
Turns out that whilst not completely fake, or staged... it was being filmed as part of a road safety campaign that ironically went wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiKQl7B2y8
Was just about to post this too, i think we all suspected it wasnt just a genuine case, too many camera angles, poor copper position etc etc
Mr Speirs
06-01-14, 01:14 PM
Apart from it being staged as it were, as it was the isle of man which much of it has no speed limits, were these guys actually speeding in the first place?
Spank86
06-01-14, 01:24 PM
If you look closely at around 20 seconds in, you can see two people standing behind the copper and a camera stand.
I personally think the copper was a total idiot. No justice was served. I feel bad for the first biker. Looks like the second bike took his left leg out and that must have hurt.
I've heard tell that it was actually a road safety video gone wrong.
Allegedly that's a road on the isle of man?
EDIT: I see it's been noticed by others too. Funny how stuff that seems a bit funny, usually is.
Wideboy
06-01-14, 01:27 PM
Apart from it being staged as it were, as it was the isle of man which much of it has no speed limits, were these guys actually speeding in the first place?
No they weren't as its on the mountain section which is no limit 24/7. I thought I recognised it when I watched it.
Normal road rules apply apart from national speed limits. Balls to the wall as they say. TT week its all one way so you can ride it like a track.
ChrisCurvyS
06-01-14, 07:38 PM
I thought everything looked decidedly retro. The bike salesman's trackie top would probably be illegal now.
Red Herring
06-01-14, 10:03 PM
A road safety training video for who.....the police? I'd say that was one of their more effective attempts! Just glad the motorcyclists were so public spirited as to sacrifice themselves in that way!
Red Herring
06-01-14, 10:19 PM
If you want to make a proper road safety ad then you have to go down under, one of their best.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvLaTupw-hk
Specialone
06-01-14, 10:32 PM
If you want to make a proper road safety ad then you have to go down under, one of their best.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvLaTupw-hk
Never seen that before RH, quite amazingly well presented.
Fordward
07-01-14, 12:02 AM
Doesn't really matter if they were speeding or not. About 2.5% of motorcycle accidents are attributed to exceeding the posted speed limit, but 65% are attributed to excessive speed for the conditions. I think we all know that a speed limit has little bearing upon what is actually safe.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk
Wideboy
07-01-14, 08:21 AM
Well it does seeing as everyone says they're speeding......
Specialone
07-01-14, 08:29 AM
Not speeding, excessive speed for conditions.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 09:04 AM
How so? The argument is now that you should not travel faster than you can see/stop but who sets the guide lines of how fast you should travel in wet foggy conditions with no speed limit? . Firstly (I have only watched the vid once so could be wrong here) you could see the copper so thats the viewing argument possibly gone. Secondly, it's a sad pc state if every road user has to drive along worrying whether or not some pleb is going to jump out in front of them. Whether you agree or disagree that the policeman was to blame, it is for the courts to decide but when you think about it he was still the cause of the accident, if it wasn't staged you could argue as to why the policeman was there with a speed gun in the first place and why he stopped them.
And now all of that is completely irrelevant as there is no speed limit for them to be caught speeding and it was staged.
My point is all needs to be over now, much like the biker gang in NY vid this vid has sparked ridiculous arguments between cage drivers and bike riders all over social media. Bikers are of thinking that "the policeman should be beheaded in the name of jihad" and car drivers in the mind set of "the bikers should be be made to kill there entire family and killed themselves, what happens if a child was playing football ontop of that mountain next to a busy main road).
Red Herring
07-01-14, 09:23 AM
Bikers are of thinking that "the policeman should be beheaded in the name of jihad" and car drivers in the mind set of "the bikers should be be made to kill there entire family and killed themselves, what happens if a child was playing football ontop of that mountain next to a busy main road).
People who think like that are the cause of the issues we have today, not the police or the riders. They are simply something these sad individuals can focus their animosity on at this particular time.
Specialone
07-01-14, 09:43 AM
Gav, as much as I love you, 90mph in the fog on that road is excessive speed, whether the speed limit is 100, 200, or unlimited.
What a lot of people are failing to see is the copper, although staged, is irrelevant, a hazard can happen at any time, a sheep stepping out is far more likely than a copper with a hi viz jacket on, a sheep would be way harder to see in the fog too.
I've had a sheep step in to the road on me a few times but the worst was in October over the top gear road in Brecon, I was doing a fair old speed and came over a crest and there the sheep was just trundling into the middle of the road with his mate, it was wet but clear conditions, had it been foggy I wouldn't have seen it until much later.
Luckily I managed to shed a lot of speed off by which time the sheep had heard the faint growl of my arrow can and started to bugger off.
If I had collided with that sheep it would've been totally my fault, not the sheeps.
It's just one of those days.
Someone on hear got a big fat claim against them were a pedestrian idely walked into the road.
Can't blame the biker for riding along and hopeing nothing is going to jump out on you.
In this case. Two of the bikes stopped Ok.
The SV had a bit of target fixation and possibly could have got more from the front brake.
If your going to exceed the posted and see fluro, just after your heart sinks and you contemplate 3 or more points, be prepared for a stop.
But in fairness there was enough room to go round the other bike. If he'd aimed at the copper he'd had jumped out the way I'm sure
Wideboy
07-01-14, 10:18 AM
People who think like that are the cause of the issues we have today, not the police or the riders. They are simply something these sad individuals can focus their animosity on at this particular time. when it turned out the guy in the NY video was paralysed and in a coma people were saying things along the lines of "good he deserved it" or "shame he isn't dead" and no one actually knows if he was involved in it or just a bystander. Only the people that were there and did the deeds are the people that know what happened. Even the plods can't know definitively what actually happened.
Gav, as much as I love you, 90mph in the fog on that road is excessive speed, whether the speed limit is 100, 200, or unlimited.
What a lot of people are failing to see is the copper, although staged, is irrelevant, a hazard can happen at any time, a sheep stepping out is far more likely than a copper with a hi viz jacket on, a sheep would be way harder to see in the fog too.
I've had a sheep step in to the road on me a few times but the worst was in October over the top gear road in Brecon, I was doing a fair old speed and came over a crest and there the sheep was just trundling into the middle of the road with his mate, it was wet but clear conditions, had it been foggy I wouldn't have seen it until much later.
Luckily I managed to shed a lot of speed off by which time the sheep had heard the faint growl of my arrow can and started to bugger off.
If I had collided with that sheep it would've been totally my fault, not the sheeps.
But it is of our opinion that he is traveling to fast. I have ridden the piece of road a few times at considerably swear wordy speed that was a lot faster than he was (ok not in fog) and it's surprisingly a very safe road to do it on.
If some pleb jumps out onto the motorway and gets clobbered by someone doing 70 mph in damp conditions is it then the drivers fault?. It's all very well for us to form an opinion on a video but without actually being there its not really valid as you can't see 100% of all the different circumstances. As for the sheep, the sheep still caused the accident whether it's your fault or not.
These kind of videos amuse me (much like the comments section on the daily mail site) as people form such ridiculous outraged opinions on very little information which is bias and usually wrong.
Spank86
07-01-14, 10:19 AM
How so? The argument is now that you should not travel faster than you can see/stop but who sets the guide lines of how fast you should travel in wet foggy conditions with no speed limit? . Firstly (I have only watched the vid once so could be wrong here) you could see the copper so thats the viewing argument possibly gone. Secondly, it's a sad pc state if every road user has to drive along worrying whether or not some pleb is going to jump out in front of them. Whether you agree or disagree that the policeman was to blame, it is for the courts to decide but when you think about it he was still the cause of the accident, if it wasn't staged you could argue as to why the policeman was there with a speed gun in the first place and why he stopped them.
And now all of that is completely irrelevant as there is no speed limit for them to be caught speeding and it was staged.
My point is all needs to be over now, much like the biker gang in NY vid this vid has sparked ridiculous arguments between cage drivers and bike riders all over social media. Bikers are of thinking that "the policeman should be beheaded in the name of jihad" and car drivers in the mind set of "the bikers should be be made to kill there entire family and killed themselves, what happens if a child was playing football ontop of that mountain next to a busy main road).
if you hit a vehicle in front of you then you were either going too fast or too close.
assuming that vehicle was either travelling in the same direction as you or was parked legally.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 10:22 AM
if you hit a vehicle in front of you then you were either going too fast or too close.
assuming that vehicle was either travelling in the same direction as you or was parked legally.
But you can't travel too fast on a road with no speed limit.
Spank86
07-01-14, 10:26 AM
But you can't travel too fast on a road with no speed limit.
yes you can.
You can travel too fast while below the speed limit, for example on a corner on a country road.
I've seen 30mph corners on 60mph lanes and if the police saw you crash at 50mph you WOULD be done for dangerous driving, or due care and attention.
He went up the back of the vehicle in front, he didn't hit the policeman, that would be different.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 10:41 AM
But without knowing his version of why he went up the back on the bike it's being blamed on his speed which is wrong. He could have not being paying attention, falen asleep, had a seizure, brakes failed and on and on and on..... multiple reasons.
ClunkintheUK
07-01-14, 10:43 AM
I think it highlights admirably the issue of not riding for a while, then getting on a 'big' bike and trying to keep up with people who have lots of recent experience, even if you would have been able to keep up 15 years ago (i have heard that this is the single most fatal accident prone group on the road).
It seems to me that there was ample stopping distance for the speed and the fog (the VFR and the Ninja stopped just fine). The SV made a mistake, one that is easy for an inexperienced rider to make, not using the front brake properly in an emergency stop and needing to emergency stop as he mis-read the change in speed of the VFR, again easily done. Reading comments (i htink on youtube) everybody was fine, the SV rider said it was entirely his fault, though I still think the police man was a bit of a knob there.
ClunkintheUK
07-01-14, 10:43 AM
He said he didn't apply his front brake properly (youtube comments)
Spank86
07-01-14, 10:46 AM
But without knowing his version of why he went up the back on the bike it's being blamed on his speed which is wrong. He could have not being paying attention, falen asleep, had a seizure, brakes failed and on and on and on..... multiple reasons.
If he'd been going slower he would have stopped in time, you can hardly deny that from the evidence?
With regards to not paying attention or falling asleep that's both the riders fault and if his breaks failed they did a remarkable job of locking up on it.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 10:53 AM
If he'd been going slower he would have stopped in time, you can hardly deny that from the evidence?
With regards to not paying attention or falling asleep that's both the riders fault and if his breaks failed they did a remarkable job of locking up on it.
If you can say then that he should have been going slower you can then say the poliman shouldn't have jumped out into the road.... and we're back to the previous page again.
Fair dues to the guy on the SV for fessing up.
Humans make errors.
It's how we learn from the that makes a difference.
Spank86
07-01-14, 11:20 AM
If you can say then that he should have been going slower you can then say the poliman shouldn't have jumped out into the road.... and we're back to the previous page again.
It doesn't matter what the policeman did because he hit the bike in front not the policeman.
The reason the bike in front stopped is largely irrelevant.
If we were out riding and I stopped for a dear/child/rabbit/fallen branch/sex with a sheep, and you went into the back of me it would be exactly the same.
If however I hit whatever I was trying to stop for it may not be.
I'm not saying he definitely should have been going slower but if not slower then he should have maintained a larger gap between him and the bike in front. Depends on visibility.
Fordward
07-01-14, 11:26 AM
a sheep stepping out is far more likely than a copper with a hi viz jacket on, a sheep would be way harder to see in the fog too
If I had collided with that sheep it would've been totally my fault, not the sheeps.
But the sheep example can't be used to exonerate the copper of any blame, it can only be used to show fault on part of the rider (not that I'm suggesting you are trying to). A pedestrian is supposed to give way. A copper asking you to stop is supposed to give you reasonable (not 'only just possible') time in which to do it.
"Blame" in the sheep situation also depends on the circumstances. Remember when you were riding behind me in the Cotswolds and a pheasant flew out of the hedge 20 feet in front of me at 60mph? I ducked and just missed it, but didn't even have time to touch the brakes. Had it been a sheep running out of a hole in the hedge I'd have hit it. You can only be expected to allow stopping distance for hazards you can see.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 11:40 AM
Ok lets try this again. Watch the on board footage on the video. Arguably the bikes are traveling at roughly the same speed (you have to asume the kwak is). Vfr stops, sv doesn't and kwaker does. So where is speed the issue?
ClunkintheUK
07-01-14, 11:45 AM
Cos the SV rider is not as good/experienced as the VFR and Kwak. His speed is excessive for him.
Specialone
07-01-14, 11:47 AM
But the sheep example can't be used to exonerate the copper of any blame, it can only be used to show fault on part of the rider (not that I'm suggesting you are trying to). A pedestrian is supposed to give way. A copper asking you to stop is supposed to give you reasonable (not 'only just possible') time in which to do it.
"Blame" in the sheep situation also depends on the circumstances. Remember when you were riding behind me in the Cotswolds and a pheasant flew out of the hedge 20 feet in front of me at 60mph? I ducked and just missed it, but didn't even have time to touch the brakes. Had it been a sheep running out of a hole in the hedge I'd have hit it. You can only be expected to allow stopping distance for hazards you can see.
Very true but if you ride to be able to react to hazards then you have more chance, if that day it was foggy and you'd been doing 90, would you have avoided it?
Specialone
07-01-14, 11:49 AM
Ok lets try this again. Watch the on board footage on the video. Arguably the bikes are traveling at roughly the same speed (you have to asume the kwak is). Vfr stops, sv doesn't and kwaker does. So where is speed the issue?
The issue was the rider was riding at excessive speed for his ability and stopping distance, had he changed those parameters, ie, been riding at say 80, and /or increased his following distance, the situation wouldn't have occurred.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 11:59 AM
Says who? Who's to say the other two hadn't passed their test that day? You don't know these people and the only information going is what has been written in the comments boxes. The sv rider wasn't concentrating, you can see the vfr braking before the sv, in both front and back on boards. Unless you know for fact that this person was a newb then that's not excessive speed. Not paying attention and whop. Just like most rear end accidents.
It's all based on opinions.
You need to look at the YouTube Video "Stuarts Grand Day Out".
theirs better video on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiKQl7B2y8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Spank86
07-01-14, 12:14 PM
Ok lets try this again. Watch the on board footage on the video. Arguably the bikes are traveling at roughly the same speed (you have to asume the kwak is). Vfr stops, sv doesn't and kwaker does. So where is speed the issue?
different bikes.
Different riders.
You're supposed to ride to your bike and your skills not the bike and skills of the guy behind or in front of you.
I'd crash an Austin allegro if I tried to keep up with a Ferrari.
Says who? Who's to say the other two hadn't passed their test that day?
It doesn't matter.
They both stopped fairly handily showing their assessment of their abilities was fine.
The SV didn't and if he wasn't paying attention then that just shows he should have been further away or slower to compensate for that.
different bikes.
The SV didn't and if he wasn't paying attention .
I think the SV rider was saying "Im ready for my close up" ;)
Specialone
07-01-14, 12:21 PM
Says who? Who's to say the other two hadn't passed their test that day? You don't know these people and the only information going is what has been written in the comments boxes. The sv rider wasn't concentrating, you can see the vfr braking before the sv, in both front and back on boards. Unless you know for fact that this person was a newb then that's not excessive speed. Not paying attention and whop. Just like most rear end accidents.
It's all based on opinions.
Nobody has said the other two weren't noobs, I do know he was going too fast for his abilities/conditions because he crashed, the others didn't, don't take a genius to work that out, couldn't care if he'd been riding every day for 40 years, he made a bad judgement and it's plain to see on the video his ability wasn't as high as his speed.
I fail to see how anyone could defend or justify that speed in those conditions, it had an inevitable outcome for one of them.
I love debating this...:)
Specialone
07-01-14, 12:22 PM
You need to look at the YouTube Video "Stuarts Grand Day Out".
theirs better video on there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiKQl7B2y8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Already been posted twice mate...
Wideboy
07-01-14, 12:49 PM
Road racers,wsb and bsb racers and motogp riders crash, doesn't make them inexperienced.
You see the vfr brake with no response from the sv until the "oh feeeecccckkkk" moment. That's not because of how fast he was going that's because he wasn't looking at the vfr with its brake light on. I fail to see how that can be blamed on the conditions when the other two manage to stop. The vfr rider see's his signal to stop and the kwak rider see's his signal to stop.
Already been posted twice mate...
Just thought Wideboy might relax a little if he took a look at it and breathed.
Spank86
07-01-14, 01:00 PM
Road racers,wsb and bsb racers and motogp riders crash, doesn't make them inexperienced.
they choose to push the limits and take the risk of crashing.
You see the vfr brake with no response from the sv until the "oh feeeecccckkkk" moment. That's not because of how fast he was going...
If he'd been going slower his reaction time would have covered less ground, as would his breaking time.
that's because he wasn't looking at the vfr with its brake light on. I fail to see how that can be blamed on the conditions
Well in fog the break lights are less noticeable so you could say they contributed, less attention is needed when break lights are clearer and less attention is needed when you can stop faster e.g. in the dry.
when the other two manage to stop. The vfr rider see's his signal to stop and the kwak rider see's his signal to stop.
Sound like it's not the policeman's fault then if the other two stopped fine, must be other factors.
Wideboy
07-01-14, 01:21 PM
Who says I'm not relaxed? My original point is that basing you're opinion on a shot clip of video with no information only the video comments is ridiculous, that they weren't speeding as what was originally claimed and the fact that the bikes where traveling at roughly the same speed and yet only two of them saw the signal to stop and did so. Now its because the rider was inexperienced (nothing to prove that) and he was traveling too fast despite going at roughly the same speed as the other two, that stopped. So now the opinion has shifted to rider ability and not overall speed which is what I originally said wasn't the reason :confused:
And I didn't say it was the policemans fault. He was the cause/catalyst of what happened, not to blame.
If we were out riding and I stopped for a dear/child/rabbit/fallen branch/sex with a sheep, and you went into the back of me it would be exactly the same.
Ooooooer missus where is the youtube vid for that one !!!
Specialone
07-01-14, 01:33 PM
Nobody said the other two riders weren't going excessively fast either, they just handled the hazard better, it was still excessive for the conditions, regardless of speed limit.
Mr SV might have just had brain fade.
We can only hope they new were the stop was supposed to happen for there video.
If they had been filming all day he might have got tired.
As it's a staged stop you can't blame the police man.
And the vfr chap performance is good. As is the Quaker
Simply the chap on the Sv got it wrong. And he did comment he didn't give it enough front brake.
Unfortunately as they broke things a second take was not on the cards.
Spank86
07-01-14, 01:47 PM
Who says I'm not relaxed? My original point is that basing you're opinion on a shot clip of video with no information only the video comments is ridiculous, that they weren't speeding as what was originally claimed and the fact that the bikes where traveling at roughly the same speed and yet only two of them saw the signal to stop and did so. Now its because the rider was inexperienced (nothing to prove that) and he was traveling too fast despite going at roughly the same speed as the other two, that stopped. So now the opinion has shifted to rider ability and not overall speed which is what I originally said wasn't the reason :confused:
And I didn't say it was the policemans fault. He was the cause/catalyst of what happened, not to blame.
I haven't read the comments. The only thing you need additional information for would be the things you've suggested such as the rider not concentrating etc.
HOWEVER all other things being equal the rider would have stopped and reacted in less road space if he was going slower. That's indisputable.
His experience in actual terms is also not the issue, it's only an issue relatively, he clearly wasn't experienced enough to cope with what happened because there were several ways out of the situation none of which he took. Reduced speed definitely would have prevented the accident and increased visibility might have, I think it's safe to say purely from the video that speed and conditions were the problem and conditions always include the riders ability.
Red Herring
07-01-14, 01:53 PM
....... You can only be expected to allow stopping distance for hazards you can see.
Actually mate if you want to get all Roadcrafty (and I have a vague recollection that in your case I can...) you base your riding plans on what can be seen, what cannot be seen and what can reasonably be expected to happen.
In this case the SV rider could clearly see his mate up ahead, he didn't have a particularly good view beyond his mate because of the fog, and given the speed they were doing it is entirely reasonable for him to expect his mate to have to anchor up suddenly. I don't think anyone can argue the SV rider got it wrong.
Additionally knowing what I do about what the copper should have been doing I can confidently say he was totally out of order. Anyone doing what he was doing is required to carry out a risk assessment, which includes the suitability of the site and the prevailing conditions. That assessment is dynamic and must be reviewed fat all times, and especially if the circumstances change (fog for example).
Like I said earlier on, both SV rider and copper were lucky to get away with it. The only person I felt even remotely sorry for was the VFR rider, just hope the SV rider was a mate of his and not a random stranger!
Wideboy
07-01-14, 02:27 PM
Yes you could say that if he was going slower he would have had more reaction time but to say that excessive speed was the reason he crashed is wrong, there was no speed limit and as the other two managed to stop in a controlled manner then they were travelling at a speed that they could stop from which was mentioned earlier on in this thread. So that either points to his ability or not concentrating not the overall speed. Which was my original point.
Fordward
07-01-14, 02:47 PM
if that day it was foggy and you'd been doing 90, would you have avoided it?
Until I was in that situation on that bike I honestly don't know, how well maintained are the brakes, what tyres are on it, I would normally be positioned more to the left for a right hand bend and so would have seen the coppers hi viz sooner, I would certainly have used the front brake better than him, although I rarely brake hard on a bike so I'm not that confident about my emergency braking ability, so TBH I'd probably have said feck the hard braking altogether and taken an escape route.
I leave a 2 second gap in the dry and a 4 second gap in the wet, precisely so that I never need to find out. :lol:
The guy on the VFR did a good job of stopping in that distance anyway. Shame he didn't just think 'feck you, I'm not stopping in that time from this speed', and ride past him.
Fordward
07-01-14, 03:02 PM
you base your riding plans on what can be seen, what cannot be seen and what can reasonably be expected to happen.
I agree with you completely, but my post said 'depends upon the circumstances'. Your positioned to the left for an upcoming right hand bend, and a sheep pops out of a hole in a hedge 20 feet in front of you. A no point could you see over the hedge to see if there's animals in the field. Totally invisible until it appears. I don't believe anyone expects, anticipates or even plans for that before it happens. Your not going to ride past every tall hedgerow at 30mph in case it happens.
A loose sheep visible on the grass verge 200 ft in front of you, well then I have no sympathy for someone who hits it.
Advanced riding and roadcraft is about minimising risk, it can't eliminate it. There will always be a tiny minority of accidents where the rider got fecked over by fate, not many, but the circumstances do exist.
These guys were doing 90 on a two way country road in poor visibility, they didn't really have any sensible riding plan at all.
Spank86
07-01-14, 03:11 PM
Yes you could say that if he was going slower he would have had more reaction time but to say that excessive speed was the reason he crashed is wrong, there was no speed limit and as the other two managed to stop in a controlled manner then they were travelling at a speed that they could stop from which was mentioned earlier on in this thread. So that either points to his ability or not concentrating not the overall speed. Which was my original point.
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?
Fordward
07-01-14, 03:18 PM
You can only be expected to allow stopping distance for hazards you can see.
And RH I think you may be taking this a bit too literally.
If approaching a hump back bridge, you ensure you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear, ie: the crest of the hump, in doing so you are allowing stopping distance for whatever may be on the other side of the hump that you can't see.
Which contradicts what I've said above, but you can see that it's blind, so you can allow stopping distance for it. You need to see that there is a potential for danger somewhere, before you can be expected to plan for it. If due to covering foliage you can't see the hole in the hedge....
Red Herring
07-01-14, 04:06 PM
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.
A fox. Rabbit etc don't need a need a big hole in the hedge to emerge from.
If you hit one or just go "§hite" grab a handful of brake you can still bin it.
You can't worry about everything. It's a balance
Fordward
07-01-14, 04:20 PM
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.....
These guys could see the layby too, and if he was positioned better he would have been able to see the copper standing in it earlier. So it's not unreasonable to expect a hazard to develop. But these guys weren't riding to an advanced standard.
All I was trying to get across is that you can't compare the copper to a sheep, and and say it was entirely the riders fault. It's a 50/50 or a 60/40.
Fordward
07-01-14, 04:29 PM
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.
vBulletin® , Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.