Hit by an unmarked police car
Discussion
hman said:
Eclassy said:
What ever happened to observation that so many on this thread like to quote in other accident/driving related threads?
A car turning across a road and a biker crashing into them is completely different from 2 cars travelling in the same direction and one hitting the other bang on in the rear.
When the police travel at such speeds, I thought their training kicked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
If I am driving at 70mph in lane 1 of motorway and a large truck joins lane 1 at 35mph, who will take the blame if I ran into thw back of the truck?
This - a 1000 times this.A car turning across a road and a biker crashing into them is completely different from 2 cars travelling in the same direction and one hitting the other bang on in the rear.
When the police travel at such speeds, I thought their training kicked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
If I am driving at 70mph in lane 1 of motorway and a large truck joins lane 1 at 35mph, who will take the blame if I ran into thw back of the truck?
Edited by Eclassy on Friday 15th May 07:32
If I'm driving at 70mph in lane 1 and a truck joins lane 1 at 35mph then I would:
1) Vehicles don't just appear on motorways, it's the norm to have a slip lane so would either see the slip lane or the road sign making me aware that there is a slip lane joining the carriageway.
2) Now I know that there's a slip lane and/or large lorry joining I would be more aware of my surroundings and start to plan my manoeuvre to the next lane over...it's almost like I'm giving way to the lorry and pre-empting that I'll be travelling faster than him and fully understand that his intention will be to join lane 1. It's definitely not going to be a surprise to see him coming in to lane 1
3) I'd now change lane accordingly
If I didn't do any of the above, I'd probably end up forcing the lorry to brake / have accident as I come up alongside him, or I'd need to brake as not having not assessed what my move was going to be, I find my self hemmed in the first lane still and need to brake to match the lorry's speed and not drive up the back of him.
The car and bike stories are comparable. While all vehicles in both stories played their part in each incident, both collisions were the result of a person not assessing the other vehicles approaching speed.
Like Poledriver said in an earlier post, it's pretty much a daily occurrence to have a vehicle pull in front of me due to them not taking my approaching speed in to account. I can be doing 70, a car wants to overtake another vehicle, they see me approaching and make a judgement in that split second of how far away I am...looks far away enough, so off they go. They don't think about the fact they are travelling at walking speed and I'm now hard on the brakes due to their lack of awareness
TooMany2cvs said:
Black_S3 said:
I think there's a bit of a difference between 120mph forward view and 60mph rear view...
There is if you base the "rear view" on a quick glance in a mirror, and assume that - just because it's <over there> right now, it's going to stay <over there>.Cat said:
Equally just because you drive at 120mph it doesn't mean you are automatically at fault if something goes wrong as some here are suggesting.
Cat
In the real world... If it's proven that you were doing 120 at the time of an accident it will at best be put down as a contributing factor, more likely it will be put down as the cause. Cat
Wow, lots of speculation and rubbish on the thread since I last visited.
The few sensible people who've pointed out we don't know anywhere near enough to make accurate judgement have at least appeared a few times, unfortunately to be drowned out by those who don't realise the limitations of the infomation.
Why will it? You don't know enough to judge that.
Even if she was spoken to at the roadside it would still have been under caution so it's hardly a cheek.
She clearly went to hospital with 4 kids so easier to do it once that is out of the way. Unless of course you would prefer people not to be caution and any evidence gained by way of questioning being inadmissible?
Following correct process does not make them a 'law onto themselves'.... People's lack of knowledge make silly people write stupid statements like that.He fell into that one 
People don't even realise the limitations of being able to make conclusions with the data presented in this thread. Exactly the same over-confidence and lack of realising limitations we see in all aspects of human judgement and reasoning.
The few sensible people who've pointed out we don't know anywhere near enough to make accurate judgement have at least appeared a few times, unfortunately to be drowned out by those who don't realise the limitations of the infomation.
Martin4x4 said:
I'm inclined to agree your friend was not paying proper attention, police car or not.
However the subsequent behaviour of Police is highly suspicious and raises questions of impropriety in my mind.
A sergeant attended the scene to do the collision booklet. Sounds pretty standard to me. However the subsequent behaviour of Police is highly suspicious and raises questions of impropriety in my mind.
Martin4x4 said:
This is what the IPCC is for, to independently investigate incidents involving the Police.
https://www.ipcc.gov.uk
It's not what they are for at all. Where have you got that from? Why would this go anywhere near the IPCC? How many IPCC staff do you think there are? https://www.ipcc.gov.uk
Sheepshanks said:
Cat said:
If you're implying that because they're police officers they won't be deemed responsible then you are talking nonsense.
I'm saying it will go down as their fault.Hooli said:
You can improve them. You prosecute poor driving as poor driving & stop the lies about speed being the cause of accidents. Given time those who still have their licence will make an effort to keep it by actually paying attention to their driving.
Yes, you can improve the skill of driving. You cannot remove human error and our natural flaws and misjudgments that are aggravated by greater physical extremes. Greendubber said:
velocefica said:
They had the cheek to invite her to an interview under caution.
The police are a law onto themselves they really are.
Seriously??!The police are a law onto themselves they really are.
Even if she was spoken to at the roadside it would still have been under caution so it's hardly a cheek.
She clearly went to hospital with 4 kids so easier to do it once that is out of the way. Unless of course you would prefer people not to be caution and any evidence gained by way of questioning being inadmissible?
Following correct process does not make them a 'law onto themselves'.... People's lack of knowledge make silly people write stupid statements like that.
Eclassy said:
cked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
Did it not? How do you know (you don't)? Eclassy said:
If I am driving at 70mph in lane 1 of motorway and a large truck joins lane 1 at 35mph, who will take the blame if I ran into thw back of the truck?
It depends on the circumstances. Pete317 said:
You drive according to conditions - and that includes your own limitations.
People tend to slow down a tad when, for example, they're tired or if there's a bunch of screaming kids in the car.
Yes, but the point is humans misjudge the conditions and their limitations. For example, it's proven we can greatly misjudge risk when tired, but not realise this is the case because of the tiredness. People tend to slow down a tad when, for example, they're tired or if there's a bunch of screaming kids in the car.
People don't even realise the limitations of being able to make conclusions with the data presented in this thread. Exactly the same over-confidence and lack of realising limitations we see in all aspects of human judgement and reasoning.
Black_S3 said:
In the real world... If it's proven that you were doing 120 at the time of an accident it will at best be put down as a contributing factor, more likely it will be put down as the cause.
Not necessarily if it was an emergency service vehicle making legitimate use of an exemption at the time. Cat
Cat said:
Not necessarily if it was an emergency service vehicle making legitimate use of an exemption at the time.
Cat
That would have no relation to the cause of the accident in the case of an unmarked car without blues on.Cat
Strangely what you are now trying to suggest is that just because a speed is legal it can no longer be a factor in an accident?
Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 15th May 15:18
Black_S3 said:
That would have no relation to the cause of the accident in the case of an unmarked car without blues on.
Strangely what you are now trying to suggest is that just because a speed is legal it can no longer be a factor in an accident?
Not at all, what I'm saying is the fact that a vehicle is travelling at 120mph may or may not be relevant. In this case the is insufficient information to say one way or the other. Strangely what you are now trying to suggest is that just because a speed is legal it can no longer be a factor in an accident?
Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 15th May 15:18
Cat
La Liga said:
Wow, lots of speculation and rubbish on the thread since I last visited.
The few sensible people who've pointed out we don't know anywhere near enough to make accurate judgement have at least appeared a few times, unfortunately to be drowned out by those who don't realise the limitations of the infomation.
I think there is enough information, but a lot of views insisting speed will never be the cause of an accident.The few sensible people who've pointed out we don't know anywhere near enough to make accurate judgement have at least appeared a few times, unfortunately to be drowned out by those who don't realise the limitations of the infomation.
The OPs friend and children walked away with minor/no injuries. This alone says the amount of time the police car had to react and scrub off speed was a decent amount of time. ie OPs friend did not pull out with the police car 5 meters behind her, the police should have anticipated the possibility of OPs friend pulling out and should have been traveling at a speed they could stop.
Black_S3 said:
Agree with you, I don't see how it is reasonable for anyone to be held responsible for misjudging such an excessive and unexpected speed differential. No competent driver would rely on the observational skills of others to avoid an accident, which brings me on to thinking about the definition of dangerous driving....
It was hardly excessive and unexpected unless you have literally no driving experience. Have you never seen a vehicle, police or civilian that has been travelling well beyond the speed limit? I see them fairly regularly. If your level of competence is so low that you can't reliably judge speeds or distances, then realistically you shouldn't be driving, and especially not with children.
Sheepshanks said:
Irrelevant again.
Considering you didn't even realise that cars passing to the right on a multi-lane road have priority (and pretty basic and fundamental rule in the UK), and I have to question the validity of any of your statements. Believing it's fine to pull out whenever you want is just incredible. Black_S3 said:
I think there is enough information, but a lot of views insisting speed will never be the cause of an accident.
What was the speed the police vehicle was doing? What road did it occur on? What was the speed limit of the road? What speed was the lady doing? All absent fundamentals without listing many more.
Black_S3 said:
The OPs friend and children walked away with minor/no injuries. This alone says the amount of time the police car had to react and scrub off speed was a decent amount of time.
Or it suggests the 120 MPH is inaccurate. You can interpret ambiguous information however you want to. Black_S3 said:
ie OPs friend did not pull out with the police car 5 meters behind her, the police should have anticipated the possibility of OPs friend pulling out and should have been traveling at a speed they could stop.
Perhaps they were travelling at the speed they could stop at until someone dramatically reduced the stopping distance. If I'm in lane three of the motorway doing 70 MPH, and someone's in lane two doing 55 MPH, do I slow down to 55 MPH because as I get within two car lengths they could pullout and cause a collision? No, of course not. Stopping distance encompasses what we can reasonably expect other drivers to do. Putting aside stopping distances, you should always have an 'escape route' in case another driver does something unexpected, even if that would mean taking to the central reservation or hard shoulder. It's fundamental advanced driving stuff.
The default reaction is to panic and stamp on the brake pedal, but there are other ways of avoiding collisions or at least minimising the damage.
The default reaction is to panic and stamp on the brake pedal, but there are other ways of avoiding collisions or at least minimising the damage.
Mr2Mike said:
Black_S3 said:
Agree with you, I don't see how it is reasonable for anyone to be held responsible for misjudging such an excessive and unexpected speed differential. No competent driver would rely on the observational skills of others to avoid an accident, which brings me on to thinking about the definition of dangerous driving....
It was hardly excessive and unexpected unless you have literally no driving experience. Have you never seen a vehicle, police or civilian that has been travelling well beyond the speed limit? I see them fairly regularly. If your level of competence is so low that you can't reliably judge speeds or distances, then realistically you shouldn't be driving, and especially not with children.
Sheepshanks said:
Irrelevant again.
Considering you didn't even realise that cars passing to the right on a multi-lane road have priority (and pretty basic and fundamental rule in the UK), and I have to question the validity of any of your statements. Believing it's fine to pull out whenever you want is just incredible. La Liga said:
Black_S3 said:
I think there is enough information, but a lot of views insisting speed will never be the cause of an accident.
What was the speed the police vehicle was doing? What road did it occur on? What was the speed limit of the road? What speed was the lady doing? All absent fundamentals without listing many more.
Black_S3 said:
The OPs friend and children walked away with minor/no injuries. This alone says the amount of time the police car had to react and scrub off speed was a decent amount of time.
Or it suggests the 120 MPH is inaccurate. You can interpret ambiguous information however you want to. Black_S3 said:
ie OPs friend did not pull out with the police car 5 meters behind her, the police should have anticipated the possibility of OPs friend pulling out and should have been traveling at a speed they could stop.
Perhaps they were travelling at the speed they could stop at until someone dramatically reduced the stopping distance. If I'm in lane three of the motorway doing 70 MPH, and someone's in lane two doing 55 MPH, do I slow down to 55 MPH because as I get within two car lengths they could pullout and cause a collision? No, of course not. Stopping distance encompasses what we can reasonably expect other drivers to do. ETA: The comment about ''what we can reasonably expect other drivers to do''. Is it reasonable for the average driver to expect someone doing 110+? Or reasonable for an advanced driver to expect an average driver to change lanes on them without realising exactly how fast they were going?
Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 15th May 17:03
Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 15th May 17:07
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff