Hit by an unmarked police car

[SK425]

Black_S3 said:

Ok, agree there is information missing, but assuming the speed of 110+ and lack of injuries is true IMO there is enough to paint a picture and in my eyes the picture puts the blame on the head of the so called advanced driver. Maybe that was your exact point about wild assumptions though?

That's interesting. In my eyes the picture painted puts the blame on the driver who pulled out. There were injuries - minor ones - but to her face. To have been bounced around enough for her face to have found something to hit, that suggests to me that the collision must have been hard - i.e. whatever its initial speed differential might have been, the police car still had quite a speed differential at the time of the impact. In other words, not much time to do any slowing down, meaning they were already close before she pulled out.

That's my ill-informed, wild-arsed, nowhere-near-enough-information-to-know-what-I'm-talking-about speculation anyway. If I was in possession of all the facts, who knows whether I'd reach the same conclusion.

[Black_S3]

SK425 said:

Black_S3 said:

Ok, agree there is information missing, but assuming the speed of 110+ and lack of injuries is true IMO there is enough to paint a picture and in my eyes the picture puts the blame on the head of the so called advanced driver. Maybe that was your exact point about wild assumptions though?

That's interesting. In my eyes the picture painted puts the blame on the driver who pulled out. There were injuries - minor ones - but to her face. To have been bounced around enough for her face to have found something to hit, that suggests to me that the collision must have been hard - i.e. whatever its initial speed differential might have been, the police car still had quite a speed differential at the time of the impact. In other words, not much time to do any slowing down, meaning they were already close before she pulled out.

That's my ill-informed, wild-arsed, nowhere-near-enough-information-to-know-what-I'm-talking-about speculation anyway. If I was in possession of all the facts, who knows whether I'd reach the same conclusion.

Good argument ignoring the probable result of 110+ into the back of something doing 60-70. I have assumed that those speeds are fact though. Which I may be wrong about?

[SK425]

Sheepshanks said:

Mr2Mike said:

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),

Can you point me to that rule?

Rule 133. Have you never been aware of this? I took you at face value when you said it was a genuine question, but it is a quite staggering one. I know we don't take learners on motorways but there are plenty of non-motorway multilane roads that learners can experience (dual carriageways, large intersection roundabouts, many major roads in towns, for example) and I find it difficult to imagine someone going through the whole process of learning to drive and passing their test without ever learning about how to change lanes.

People violate that rule all the time of course. It's exceedingly common to see people changing lanes in a manner that causes a driver behind to have to change course or speed. But I have always imagined that that was either because they see themselves as very very very important and they don't care about the drivers they inconvenience, or they're just oblivious to what's going on behind them. Until today it had never occurred to me that some of them might believe that they're doing nothing wrong and they're supposed to behave like that.

[Black_S3]

SK425 said:

Sheepshanks said:

Mr2Mike said:

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),

Can you point me to that rule?

Rule 133. Have you never been aware of this? I took you at face value when you said it was a genuine question, but it is a quite staggering one. I know we don't take learners on motorways but there are plenty of non-motorway multilane roads that learners can experience (dual carriageways, large intersection roundabouts, many major roads in towns, for example) and I find it difficult to imagine someone going through the whole process of learning to drive and passing their test without ever learning about how to change lanes.

People violate that rule all the time of course. It's exceedingly common to see people changing lanes in a manner that causes a driver behind to have to change course or speed. But I have always imagined that that was either because they see themselves as very very very important and they don't care about the drivers they inconvenience, or they're just oblivious to what's going on behind them. Until today it had never occurred to me that some of them might believe that they're doing nothing wrong and they're supposed to behave like that.

You seem clued up, so I'd be interested on your take of one of my posts above:

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?

[Sheepshanks]

SK425 said:

Rule 133. Have you never been aware of this?

Yes, but where does that speak about priority?

[SK425]

Sheepshanks said:

SK425 said:

Rule 133. Have you never been aware of this?

Yes, but where does that speak about priority?

Not sure what you mean. It says "...make sure you will not force another road user to change course or speed". So if there is someone there who would have to change course or speed, the rule says they get to go and you have to wait. That's what priority means.

Edited by SK425 on Friday 15th May 18:38

[SK425]

Black_S3 said:

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?

Potentially both, depending on circumstances. As I said, with the scant information we have it seems to me like the OP's friend pulled out close ahead of the police car. All of the 'limitation of human perception' stuff that can lead people to underestimate the speed of a car that is travelling unusually fast really applies more to things that are further away - the further away it is, the less distinguishable a car doing 110 is from what your brain might assume must be a car doing 70 because cars always do 70. The closer the fast car was, the less applicable the excuse of "I wasn't expecting something so fast" becomes, because the closer it is, the more obviously apparent its speed is.

[mph1977]

Sheepshanks said:

lbc said:

Braking and waiting for faster traffic to pass them would be preferred option.

Yes, but...how does that square with:

lbc said:

The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.

You're sounding like one of those "BMW lane" drivers who arrogantly thinks that nothing should detract from their progress. Why shouldn't you slow down sometimes?

i think you are trying to find an argument out of nothing there ... the principle is that when you change lanes etc you shouldn;t do so in amannaer that forcesd others to brake, have to change lanes or whatever ... it also expects you to drive to the standard of the reasonable man - so when you pull out to overtake you do so reasonably smartly ( look at the criticism levelled at LGVs for elephant racing , and agricutural impediments for allowing massive queues to build up behind them )

[Black_S3]

SK425 said:

Potentially both, depending on circumstances. As I said, with the scant information we have it seems to me like the OP's friend pulled out close ahead of the police car. All of the 'limitation of human perception' stuff that can lead people to underestimate the speed of a car that is travelling unusually fast really applies more to things that are further away - the further away it is, the less distinguishable a car doing 110 is from what your brain might assume must be a car doing 70 because cars always do 70. The closer the fast car was, the less applicable the excuse of "I wasn't expecting something so fast" becomes, because the closer it is, the more obviously apparent its speed is.

I think this is where we disagree. Regardless of the lack of information provided the onus is on/weighted towards the police driver while using their exemption. Had it been a marked car under blues my view would probably be more neutral.

Edited by Black_S3 on Friday 15th May 19:36

[Black_S3]

mph1977 said:

Sheepshanks said:

lbc said:

Braking and waiting for faster traffic to pass them would be preferred option.

Yes, but...how does that square with:

lbc said:

The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.

You're sounding like one of those "BMW lane" drivers who arrogantly thinks that nothing should detract from their progress. Why shouldn't you slow down sometimes?

i think you are trying to find an argument out of nothing there ... the principle is that when you change lanes etc you shouldn;t do so in amannaer that forcesd others to brake, have to change lanes or whatever ... it also expects you to drive to the standard of the reasonable man - so when you pull out to overtake you do so reasonably smartly ( look at the criticism levelled at LGVs for elephant racing , and agricutural impediments for allowing massive queues to build up behind them )

I think the point he's trying to make is at what distance does rule133 come into effect. My thinking is if you go by the 2 second rule of space between cars 110 is around where the average (think of your own mothers!) drivers start to get caught out - diffence being 70mph/100m = 3.2s and 110mph/100m= 2.03s....

[Sheepshanks]

Black_S3 said:

I think the point he's trying to make is at what distance does rule133 come into effect.

And that relates to speed.

It's not reasonable to assume that rule affords "priority".

If you wanted to drive at around the speed limit (I'm not being houlier than thou here, I've been done for speeding on motorways twice) on the M40 at most times of the day then it's very difficult to get into lane 3 without slowing an approaching car at some point in the manoeuvre (which could take some time if the vehicle you're passing is doing a similar speed).

Speed up a bit and you risk getting done, as I and several of my colleagues can attest.

[Pete317]

Sheepshanks said:

...it's very difficult to get into lane 3 without slowing an approaching car at some point in the manoeuvre (which could take some time if the vehicle you're passing is doing a similar speed).

Why would you want to go into lane 3 to pass a vehicle which is doing a similar speed to you?

And if you really have to then why not wait a bit until there's a suitable gap?

Or just speed up a bit?

[Sheepshanks]

Pete317 said:

Or just speed up a bit?

If I'm doing 75 why should I speed up 80ish and risk getting done?

On the M40 you WILL get done at true 79 if caught by camera, and I see them frequently.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone else is coming up lane 3 at 100 then that's OK, but they'll have to wait until I've done my bit before proceeding.

[Pete317]

Sheepshanks said:

If I'm doing 75 why should I speed up 80ish and risk getting done?

On the M40 you WILL get done at true 79 if caught by camera, and I see them frequently.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone else is coming up lane 3 at 100 then that's OK, but they'll have to wait until I've done my bit before proceeding.

So why not just sit behind until they're past?
After all, if the guy in front of you is doing a similar speed then he's not really holding you up is he?
If you were on a single-carriageway road then you would have to speed up considerably to pass the vehicle in front, or just sit behind them.
Or is it OK to sit behind them on a S/C, but not on a motorway?

[Tannedbaldhead]

Sheepshanks said:

If I'm doing 75 why should I speed up 80ish and risk getting done?

On the M40 you WILL get done at true 79 if caught by camera, and I see them frequently.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone else is coming up lane 3 at 100 then that's OK, but they'll have to wait until I've done my bit before proceeding.

Fair enough once established in lane three and overtaking the slower car you are well within your rights to hold position when someone doing a fair impression of the four horsemen of the apocalypse appears on your back bumper. That said noone is going to trot down the motorway at 75, check their mirror prior to entering lane three to overtake a vehicle doing 65, see a vehicle closing hard at 110 and think "fk him, he's speeding and I'm not slowing down" then pull into lane three forcing the speeder to stand on his nose.

Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 15th May 23:02

[Roo]

Gets more like mumsnet on here everyday.

[eldar]

So, what we have is a car changes lane and is struck from behind. 4 options.

1. Car changing lanes doesn't look adequately.
2. Car behind doesn't observe adequately.
3. Combination of 1 and 2.
4. Gravitational flux.

Without further data all else is uninformed speculation. What PH does best

[Black_S3]

eldar said:

So, what we have is a car changes lane and is struck from behind. 4 options.

1. Car changing lanes doesn't look adequately.
2. Car behind doesn't observe adequately.
3. Combination of 1 and 2.
4. Gravitational flux.

Without further data all else is uninformed speculation. What PH does best

Indeed, and that speculation has made my shift go a hell of a lot quicker

[spikeyhead]

Black_S3 said:

Indeed, and that speculation has made my shift go a hell of a lot quicker

Doesn't ex-lax do a similar job?

[SK425]

Black_S3 said:

SK425 said:

Potentially both, depending on circumstances. As I said, with the scant information we have it seems to me like the OP's friend pulled out close ahead of the police car. All of the 'limitation of human perception' stuff that can lead people to underestimate the speed of a car that is travelling unusually fast really applies more to things that are further away - the further away it is, the less distinguishable a car doing 110 is from what your brain might assume must be a car doing 70 because cars always do 70. The closer the fast car was, the less applicable the excuse of "I wasn't expecting something so fast" becomes, because the closer it is, the more obviously apparent its speed is.

I think this is where we disagree. Regardless of the lack of information provided the onus is on/weighted towards the police driver while using their exemption. Had it been a marked car under blues my view would probably be more neutral.

I wouldn't sit here and say that the police driver could be without fault. It is a rare thing to have a collision where one of the parties can genuinely say there was nothing they could reasonably have done differently to avoid it, so I would expect a proper assessment of all the facts to conclude that the police driver might have had the opportunity to do something different, and I agree police drivers when using their exemptions, particularly when unmarked, should keep in mind that they are doing something that other drivers don't see very often and probably aren't expecting. But if my assumption is correct - and to reiterate, it could be wildly inaccurate - that she changed lanes close to them and they had little time to reduce much speed and no chance to avoid the collision, then I think that would have to put most of the blame on her.

To be honest, of the few facts we do know, most are subject to perception and might not even be being reported accurately - speeds, distances, that sort of thing. The one fact that stands out as unlikely to be mis-represented, even inadvertently, in the OP's post is that she injured her face, and I'm still struggling to see, unless she wasn't wearing her seatbelt, what there is to hit your face on in this sort of collision.

Edited by SK425 on Saturday 16th May 09:48