Fortunately, the officer survived with a fractured jaw, concusion, and a fractured vertebra of the neck...
http://blutube.policeone.com/Media/6189 ... way-crash/
http://blutube.policeone.com/Media/6189 ... way-crash/
Motorcycle Officer Ran Over- RAW VIDEO
- Thread starter cbpdogboy
- Start date
As someone who works in the emergency field, and an avid motorcyclist, this gets to me on so many levels.
Although I must say it was a stunningly ballsy move to park himself in the travel lane like that... and the outcome was precisely why I would never put myself in that situation.
(Would have been much easier and safer for the other units to accelerate and merge into traffic like a "normal" vehicle.)
Although I must say it was a stunningly ballsy move to park himself in the travel lane like that... and the outcome was precisely why I would never put myself in that situation.
(Would have been much easier and safer for the other units to accelerate and merge into traffic like a "normal" vehicle.)
Glad he made it, but it shouldn't be a surprise that parking a bike in the middle of an expressway lane ends badly.
It's actually surprising how UN often motorcyclists get hurt in Europe. Bikes are a lot more common over there and usually get to places better than cars (since most roads were designed to be ridden on horses). Plus all of the fees, training, and tests that it takes to get a license in most countries means they are better drivers than the average American.
No doubt you are right, but motorcycle crumple zones are pretty small and bikes make bad crash attenuators. 
At least they don't burst into flames when rear-ended.
At least they don't burst into flames when rear-ended.
Stendec said:No doubt you are right, but motorcycle crumple zones are pretty small and bikes make bad crash attenuators.
At least they don't burst into flames when rear-ended.
A motorcycle is just not as visible as any full size vehicle with a proper light set up. Its amazing this does not happen all the time with motorcycles being used to shut down lanes of traffic.
I'm sorry, the dumb ass is the retard in the yellow car that ran him over. What could he/she have possibly been doing to not see a motorcycle, let alone a neon yellow jacket smack in the middle of your lane??? The semi moved out of the way leaving enough time for that asshole to see the cycle.
There is NO REASON to ever use motorcycles as LEO transportation in my opinion! They can't be lit up enough to provide adequate safety, they aren't as safe as cars, and you can't even take anyone in custody or have a ride along.
Fast LT1 said:
I could think of a few things a motorcycle would be perfect for in LEO
[*]parking enforcment
[*]paperwork courier
[*]nailing assholes who go 50 through lightly traveled residential areas
[*]working DUI enforcement zones (along with vans or cars for transport)
I think in metropolitan areas where you can have seperate transport units this could actually be a very cost efficent option
Yes, lots of reasons why motors (or solos as they are called in some areas of the country) are a great asset. There is no such thing as a traffic jam, easier to hide for traffic enforcement purposes, you can lane split, cheaper on gas and other savings.
Lower profile and visibility can work for you as well. Can't tell you how often I will ride up on people and see them texting, with no seatbelt on, weapon/drugs/open container of alcohol in plain sight. Catching a running suspect is pretty easy too on a motor. You don't get that with a car. And of course it's hard to do motorcades and escorts without them and they come in very handy in big cities for demonstrations and crowd management. Motorcycles are also a solid community policing tool, as officers become more approachable and can hear/see more while on patrol. Lastly, internally, motor squads are a big motivator and value-added for LEOs.
Unfortunately, all these reasons don't make motor patrol any less dangerous. Defensive riding is still the name of the game every time you saddle up.
Lower profile and visibility can work for you as well. Can't tell you how often I will ride up on people and see them texting, with no seatbelt on, weapon/drugs/open container of alcohol in plain sight. Catching a running suspect is pretty easy too on a motor. You don't get that with a car. And of course it's hard to do motorcades and escorts without them and they come in very handy in big cities for demonstrations and crowd management. Motorcycles are also a solid community policing tool, as officers become more approachable and can hear/see more while on patrol. Lastly, internally, motor squads are a big motivator and value-added for LEOs.
Unfortunately, all these reasons don't make motor patrol any less dangerous. Defensive riding is still the name of the game every time you saddle up.
Fast LT1 said:
And for these few "bad" reasons, I can name just as many or more reasons to have them used in LEO.
-outside, so unobstructed hearing
-small, can get into nearly anywhere (sidewalks, parks)'
-fast, quicker than ANY car
-PR, gives the impression of the officer being "closer" with the public
-traffic enforcement, small so you can hide, and fast....
However, I wouldn't be using one to block a main thrufair, or an interstate. That's just a bad idea.
Fast LT1 said:
Ummmmm.... how about you bring a fully marked squad car down into the down town section of my district at 4 pm on Saturday and see how well you can get through the 3 lane divided highway lined with trees, with stop light controlled intersections every block with hundreds of pedestrians trying to get across the street and I'll have a Mary unit (motorcycle cop) race you 10 blocks.
I've watched a motorcycle cop make it from one end of the main road to the other side during rush hour in about 2 minutes for an unconcious/heart attack call. Shortly after watching the officer go by, I could hear the ambulance and the ladder truck coming. They had to wait for every light to turn green so enough cars could drive forwards and then pull off to the side of the road further down the street so they could get by. I literally sat in Taco Bell and was able to eat my meal in the time (~5 minutes) it took them to get to the other side of the main road. The mary unit was able to start CPR and actually SAVE THE PERSON'S LIFE because he got there as fast as he did, you take the officer out of the equation and I'm not so sure the truck or ambo would have made it there in time to revive the individual.
-Easier to navigate through hard situations
-More "undercover"
-Faster response times
-Not limited to roads
-Still transports a normal police officer with gun, taser, etc.
In our area, college football is bigger than any other pro sport. We gain an extra 90,000-100,000 people in our small city. We use motorcycle cops and even BICYCLE cops (and occassionaly a mounted horse patrol) for normal patrols. For high priority calls during football near the stadium you get at minimum 2 bikes/motor's and 1 Tahoe as a transport call. I'd say 70% of the time for calls such as fights, the motor/bike cop can make it to the scene and bring the situation under control before the patrol vehicle can even get there. They do have their uses.
Okay i will give it to you that it is easy in a big city, my favorite part of having a bike is being able to park it anywhere!
But for me the safety factor is first, i'd never give up a crown vic for a Road King for use as a patrol vehicle! Plus you can't ride in bad weather such as snow or ice, and if it rains yo ass gets wet! Oh and if you have a hard time hiding a crown vic to shoot radar then you just aren't being creative enough in my opinion!
But for me the safety factor is first, i'd never give up a crown vic for a Road King for use as a patrol vehicle! Plus you can't ride in bad weather such as snow or ice, and if it rains yo ass gets wet! Oh and if you have a hard time hiding a crown vic to shoot radar then you just aren't being creative enough in my opinion!
Fast LT1 said:Okay i will give it to you that it is easy in a big city, my favorite part of having a bike is being able to park it anywhere!
But for me the safety factor is first, i'd never give up a crown vic for a Road King for use as a patrol vehicle! Plus you can't ride in bad weather such as snow or ice, and if it rains yo ass gets wet! Oh and if you have a hard time hiding a crown vic to shoot radar then you just aren't being creative enough in my opinion!
True, but that's the reason that our motorcycle officers are assigned both a motorcycle and a Tahoe for each shift. They can freely switch between the 2 as much (usually as little) as they please.
rwo978 said:
Well do what we did, that is if you have a hand held radar gun, park the car out of sight, throw on your traffic vest, stand along side of the road, when you catch someone speeding step in the road and wave them over! You can do this all day and trust me it works better than any other technique, unless the speed limit is higher than 55, no way i would ever try that!
DaveCN5 said:
Which is one of the factors contributing to motor units being incredibly expensive to run, with a really marginal cost/benefit ratio.
Stendec said:
incredubly expensive? How?
Our motorcycles are cheaper than the Tahoes to buy, don't require anywhere near what it costs to outfit our Tahoes, and get MUCH better fuel mileage than a Tahoe. Usually the only time our motor officers get into their tahoe is either 1.) weather or 2.) during a busy situation they are needed for a transport. We have 13 Tahoes, 1 Suburban, 1 F-350, and 5 Harleys.
DaveCN5 said:
I think he means expensive as in the cost of providing both a motorcycle and an SUV for each officer (if that's the case)
ISU_Cyclone said:
We have more cars than officers on shift for the most part. So even if they weren't issued a Tahoe it would still sit in the back lot. We only have about 6 motorcycle officers out of 78 sworn officers.
ISU_Cyclone said:
Plus training, plus maintenance, plus specialized upfitting and uniforming, plus insurance, plus the extra expense of units to haul prisoners and equipment that the motors can't, plus weather restrictions. It isn't that scooters are bad, they are just more expensive than conventional vehicles when you factor in all the ancillary costs and restrictions. Same thing applies to mounted and aviation units.
It would be cool to have a bike and a cruiser, and I've heard of agencies that do that, but funding being what it is, not many could afford it. A fully equipped Tahoe that sits unused for any length of time is a wasted asset, unless you keep it for 15 or 20 years.
Stendec said:
Well that's the beauty of being a privately funded police department, we get what ever we want and it's not tax dollars that fund it. Our Tahoes are 2-3 years old and upfitted extremely well. We have more cars than officers for the most part. That's because during sporting events where we could have as many as 100,000 extra people in the city, just about every officer gets called in to work and we we need to be able to support the extra patrols. Not to mention we bring in State police, neighboring city police and county sheriff's as well. We have a football game this weekend and we will have approx. 200 officers on duty between 4 departments. So when we don't have a sporting event, we do have extra resources laying around to utilize.
I've never heard of a privately funded police department, except in the context of hospital, college or railroad police, plus a couple amusement parks. Must be nice.
Carbon dating would be needed to figure out how old some of our cars are.
Carbon dating would be needed to figure out how old some of our cars are.
\ said:I've never heard of a privately funded police department, except in the context of hospital, college or railroad police, plus a couple amusement parks. Must be nice./quote]
I'm 99% sure it's a college...from the picture.
fp13-2 said:I'm 99% sure it's a college...from the picture.
Gee, what gave it away? :lol: We are a very fortunate department and one of the best trained/managed/capable departments in the area. We do a LOT of mutual aid for K-9's, SRT (our version of SWAT), and accident reconstruction. Our fleet is set to be replaced in 2011 or 2012.
I couldn't make out the lettering on the truck. Gotta be a private school.
The university I started out at thought it would be a great idea if half our fleet were Suburbans. I have many fond memories of trying to fit the battlewagons through walkways, alleys and over-filled parking lots. Then finding out that the new lift arms at a garage entrance didn't rise high enough to clear the lightbar....seeing how many traffic cones could be stuffed into one....pulling the Presidents' car out of a snowbank....good times. But plenty of room for the jump-pack and lockjock collection
The university I started out at thought it would be a great idea if half our fleet were Suburbans. I have many fond memories of trying to fit the battlewagons through walkways, alleys and over-filled parking lots. Then finding out that the new lift arms at a garage entrance didn't rise high enough to clear the lightbar....seeing how many traffic cones could be stuffed into one....pulling the Presidents' car out of a snowbank....good times. But plenty of room for the jump-pack and lockjock collection
Back to the subject,
For comparisions, CHP uses motorcycle enforcement extensively and you would never see them try to do anything like this fellow in Holland did. A rolling roadblock is performed and if done effectively, a single motor officer can stop a 8 lane high speed traffic dead in approx 2-3 miles by lighting up and weaving back and forth across lanes while slowing gradually. Most of the time, they just create traffic breaks to enable a tow truck or sometimes a patrol vehicle push/tow a disabled vehicle from the center merdian to the right shoulder.
Anyone else use this method?
For comparisions, CHP uses motorcycle enforcement extensively and you would never see them try to do anything like this fellow in Holland did. A rolling roadblock is performed and if done effectively, a single motor officer can stop a 8 lane high speed traffic dead in approx 2-3 miles by lighting up and weaving back and forth across lanes while slowing gradually. Most of the time, they just create traffic breaks to enable a tow truck or sometimes a patrol vehicle push/tow a disabled vehicle from the center merdian to the right shoulder.
Anyone else use this method?
i have been riding motorcycles since 1990, an today's riders have more threats out there , that's why i sold my bike 3 yearsago, it got to unsafe to ride with these idiots today.
Driver is a complete idiot, it appeared he didn't even slow down. Even without lights how do you not see an object in the road ahead of you unless totally not paying attention. However a motorcycle, especially with the few lights it had is not a good idea to block traffic with on a road like that.
Hope he has a speedy and full recovery. That vertebrae injury is a rough one.
Hope he has a speedy and full recovery. That vertebrae injury is a rough one.
cbpdogboy said:
Wow. I think the biggest problem with that situation was the Lighting on the IDIOT behind the wheel ( of the car ). Granted, daylight and a zoom lens on the camera shows the bike to have a less than startling light package, but damn.
EVModules said:
If I had to close our interstate, this is how I would do it also. It's dangerous, but It can be done rather quickly if you are fortunate to have several people up front ( behind me ) that actually do what the common sense thing would be. Stay back.
As far as what the motor Officer did.. I would have done it a little different. Would it have mattered? Maybe not. I wont fault him for anything he did because theres no excuse for a motorist to hit him in this video. Broad daylight, not on a curve, no excuses. It appears there are strobes on the bike, and if they are visible from that video camera perspective than they are probably pretty bright. His first mistake in my opinion, and without seeing what the bikes warning lights look like, I would NOT have off-set the motorcycle, first. The rear warning lights are probably the brightest and I would have squared it up with traffic. Unless it has significant side-warning that cant be seen in the video. Second as the bus went by, I would have gotten OFF the bike and stood on the shoulder gesturing motorists to change lanes, or at least been standing where I was able to jump out of the way of the two idiots who hit the motorcycle and officer. It's one of those things that is probably done on a regular basis without incident. It's a matter of chance that, this time, a driver with his head up his ASS was on the roadway at the same time.
Hope he has recovered.
tx-leo@coptalk.net said:
The trouble isn't with the front row of motorists who noticed, but the other vehicles following. If there's a multi-vehicle pile up, one could argue effectively about the officer's discretion to slam shut traffic from 60 mph to 0 in a hurry. In Southern California, it's not uncommon to have secondary TC's as a result of the original TC as I've responded to multiples. Guess one has to take many factors into play with regards to density of traffic, weather, visibility, and road conditions. In rush hour, a single officer on foot can stop an entire 10 lane interstate in broad daylight as opposed to sparse traffic at 0200 in the morning. As with all emergency personnel, no one should be put into harm's way despite the necessity of the situation, otherwise known as "Sizing up & securing the scene" before rendering assistance directly.
I don't care for the fault of the motorist that hit him at all, zero. The blame actually rest squarely on the motor officer because he did not take into consideration of the safety of himself by the way he handled it despite what traffic laws says because sometimes, it contradicts with physics and human nature. Guess which two of the three doesn't get broken?
Quote of the day: Never drive faster than your guardian angel can fly. ~Author Unknown
EVModules said:
You are entitled to your opinion on the matter, but the Officer did nothing 'wrong'. I would have done it slightly different, but the same result would have likely happened with those two morons in their vehicles driving up on that road closure in that country.
Personally, I could care less about multi-vehicle pile-ups. Nobody was saying 60 to 0 in 2 seconds, or suggesting that method. People run into one another because they are #1 going to fast for conditions and #2 tailgating and #3 doing everything but driving.
I respond and handle crashes 2 miles from the original crash as well, its nothing new, and is the result of 1, 2 and 3 I noted.
As I said, I would have done things slightly different. But, even so, I think that asshat in the green car, and the minivan behind it would still have run into the bike and the officer, who had every legal right to close the road and did nothing out of the ordinary. It was not on a curve in the road, or crest of a hill. If so, I'd be the first one to say WRONG, close it before those road features. He may have made some assumptions that were a bad idea, but the responsibility of the crash, is the result of two motorists driving with their heads up their ass. If a crash occurs suddenly in front of me, should I instead, drive around the block and come back to it for fear of being run-into because I didn't gradually stop traffic? Or avoid the crash, stop safely come back around with a U-turn and block the road? And yes, the sad part is, until traffic slows down and backs-up, I have to watch that more than what I'm doing with the crash and people involved. Sad. The truck driver clearly was paying attention and the vehicles behind should have noticed the lane change and wondered why and moved over also. If the motorcop did something so erroneous, the truck would have hit the officer and the two smaller vehicle drivers would never have noticed. I've seen idiot drivers crash into fully marked, overhead lightbar equipped patrol vehicles blocking lanes in the same manor. SOMEONE has to come up to the road/lane closure first and start the chain of events to slow down approaching traffic.
My point is, don't monday-night-quarterback the officer so far as to say HE is responsible for that crash because thats completely bullshit. I would expect that from a couch troll watching television, but not someone who claims to be involved in emergency services.
tx-leo@coptalk.net said:
Of course, when all is said and done, the officer had every right to close the road and the motorists should be charged. That's not the issue. The issue is the officer failed to yield to two other factors which always supersedes the written law if there's a conflict. Those two factors are physics and human nature.
You just might have to if it isn't safe! The following videos is what we often deal with...
I should have clarified that I've "responded" to numerous TC's as a FF / Engineer during my days with San Bernardino Co FD & CDF, on and off duty. The very first thing we have to do before approaching any TC is to secure the scene before any type of aid is rendered and it MAY require assistance from CHP when conditions warrants it.
Regardless, I don't think it doesn't take much for anyone to see that the written law doesn't protect the officer from getting hurt. Sort of like pedestrians who thinks crosswalks are force fields because the law says motorist should stop and let them cross!
You (or that officer) can do what you want under the false protection that the law gives you but I'm not willing to be a dead hero and make my colleagues' job more difficult.