Re: Claton Rivert death and Questions Swirl around SIU investigation.
I find it very ironic, when a member posts here that the police want to talk them about an alleged offence the FIRST advice from most members is "say nothing don't even go meet with them". Yet when the roles are reversed and it is a cop, (who has the same rights as everyone else), then they are condemned for not talking, (not referring to your post specifically Greyghost). Also this "principle" of not having to talk to the SIU isn't as a result of any politician, it has been ruled on by the courts. If the officer was forced to speak to them then nothing the officer said could be used in a court case as it would be a violation of their charter rights.
The witness wasn't the one making the turn she was merely stating that the bike was traveling so fast, (her opinion), that it wasn't visible 30 seconds before it passed her. That was to demonstrate how easily he could be missed. Try it go out to a back road without lighting, park on the shoulder then have a friend approach you at speed, using only your mirrors and a shoulder check see how close the bike is before you can see it, (of course this wouldn't be the same as you are specifically looking for a single headlight), the officer likely did what we all do looked quickly and not seeing two headlights missed the single light.
As for the seeing a headlight, again it depends when the officer looked, the bike may not have even entered his field of vision at the point he looked, (giving consideration to it's speed). Of course one could reverse the roles and ask why didn't the rider see a fully marked, (with reflective items) on the side of the road and slowed in case it did pull in front of him? Seeing that even with the skid mark the rider only slowed by at most, (according to the figures in the SIU release) slowed from a max of 154 to 142 km/h, "may" indicate he didn't see the cruiser either. He may have been still focused on the witnesses car he had just passed. Remember there were traffic cones in that area due to construction. Could the bikes headlight been blocked from the officer's view behind one of these cones?
The failure to yield or not turn in safety charge also wouldn't apply as the investigators concluded that considering all factors, (Road grade, lighting, speed of he bike) that a "reasonable person" wouldn't have seen or anticipated the bikes presence.
None of this information was released in the statement from the SIU, (they never publish their entire investigative reports, although the family and lawyers will at some gain access to it).
Sadly, if the law allows not talking, that is the best bet for everybody. Nothing good ever comes from talking. Personally, I think that an on-duty officer should be forced to talk, but that's not the way the law is, it's our fault for electing idiots (decades of them).
The investigation is a little shady in that it talks about how he was so hard to see due to poor lighting conditions, it was 11:15 at night, didn't he have a headlight on? The witness said she didn't see the bike 30 seconds before it passed her, if I'm doing a u-turn, I am checking 2 seconds before I turn, not 30.
Although it appears there are not reasonable grounds for a criminal charge here, it closely mimics the UK Go Pro video where the turning vehicle should be charged with failure to yield or turn not in safety as a minimum (potentially careless as there really is no excuse for not seeing a headlight on a dark road at night).
