Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
KungFooPanda said:
You are obviously in the know or have experience!
No, that was aimed at someone else repeatedly making you out to be daydreaming cr@p driver for never having seen the police car. An obvious nonsense.Did the police car have any sirens on? There is a reason these were invented as it does not rely on you being able to physically see them to know of an imminent presence!
You attitude here is a good one and I think any dishonesty on either side should be hammered down upon hard - I think this is the real issue, morals and honesty, and taking it like a man if you have f'd up.
Edited by Ken Figenus on Monday 23 March 09:25
KungFooPanda said:
This is the junction the night after the accident, same time, same weather but it was raining the night of the incident. The kerbing on the left is @75m, the point at which the ARV blue lights were turned on, the ARV was doing @56mph (83mph before that). My vehicle was sat behind the direction sign you can see at the end of the slip road waiting to turn right.
Would you say that 56mph is an appropriate speed for these conditions, this far from a red light when you are supposed to treat it as a give way?
56 Mph Braking Distance (fast reactions)
Thinking Distance: 45 ft (14 m)
Braking Distance: 314 ft (96 m)
Stopping Distance: 359 ft (109 m) - 34m past the junction?
When, if you were approaching this junction, would you say was the right time to put on your blue lights to alert traffic of your position?
Which lane and how, as an advanced driver would you approach this junction?
Edited by KungFooPanda on Monday 23 March 03:07
So their details of the event are questionable. Good luck, keep us all informed as it pans out.
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Edited by jith on Monday 23 March 12:25
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
--- good stuff snipped ---
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
What you describe is very much the attitude I would expect from professional Police drivers.--- good stuff snipped ---
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Perhaps the OP should get in you in as an independent expert to review all the evidence and advise his lawyers.
Martin4x4 said:
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
--- good stuff snipped ---
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
What you describe is very much the attitude I would expect from professional Police drivers.--- good stuff snipped ---
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Perhaps the OP should get in you in as an independent expert to review all the evidence and advise his lawyers.
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
>snip<
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Now there speaks a true professional and an upright citizen. Respect. I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
>snip<
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Ken Figenus said:
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
>snip<
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Now there speaks a true professional and an upright citizen. Respect. I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
>snip<
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
KungFooPanda said:
Obviously this is my account of the event. In the police statement (which I will be receiving next week) they were travelling 'at no more than 30mph through the junction', one statement which the data recorder proves a lie.
If this is the statement they have given to the attending officer, then any half decent brief would have a field day with them in court.I think ( based on your account, which I find to be amazingly calm and reasonable) you have been treated appallingly and genuinely wish you the best outcome.
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Thanks for this reply Jith. I was trying to judge whether the actions taken by the ARV on that evening were satisfactory given the vehicle/conditions/situation. Your reply has convinced me that they were not. As one of the posters suggested would you be willing to look through the evidence when I recieve it all? I only wish your professional opinion and will not involve you any further. Thanks again for your reply.I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Edited by jith on Monday 23 March 12:25
Not 100% but don't some home / personnel insurance policies cover you with legal expenses up to a certain amount (I have personnel liability insurance in Germany and its 10million euros cover!), if you did of course decide to go down an independent route - you would obviously need to check with them.
KungFooPanda said:
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Thanks for this reply Jith. I was trying to judge whether the actions taken by the ARV on that evening were satisfactory given the vehicle/conditions/situation. Your reply has convinced me that they were not. As one of the posters suggested would you be willing to look through the evidence when I recieve it all? I only wish your professional opinion and will not involve you any further. Thanks again for your reply.I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Edited by jith on Monday 23 March 12:25
I can look at the papers for you, but please remember I'm not a solicitor so can only pass opinion on the technical aspects of what transpired. You need to keep this out of the public domain now so drop me a line through my profile and I'll come back to you.
J
jith said:
KungFooPanda said:
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Thanks for this reply Jith. I was trying to judge whether the actions taken by the ARV on that evening were satisfactory given the vehicle/conditions/situation. Your reply has convinced me that they were not. As one of the posters suggested would you be willing to look through the evidence when I recieve it all? I only wish your professional opinion and will not involve you any further. Thanks again for your reply.I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Edited by jith on Monday 23 March 12:25
I can look at the papers for you, but please remember I'm not a solicitor so can only pass opinion on the technical aspects of what transpired. You need to keep this out of the public domain now so drop me a line through my profile and I'll come back to you.
J
jith said:
I used to be on here almost every day at one time, and I helped with court cases on numerous occasions. My last one involved a case in Cumbria and I'm afraid it was definitely my last. The prejudice in the court was absolutely appalling.
J
jith - Just wondered what you meant by "prejudice in court". Who was prejudiced about whom?J
In my limited experience the "court system" assumes you wouldn't even be in a criminal court unless you were guilty - and everyone looks on in amazement when you go "not guilty".
jith said:
Alright KFP, my take on this, because I can keep silent no longer.
I am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Posts like this are why I still come to PH. It's reassuring to know that amongst all the willy waving, loud mouthed, contrarian aI am advanced; did it in the early '70s when it really meant something, and I've added 45 years experience onto that, so I make no apologies to younger officers who have trained recently, but I'm afraid the standard is nowhere near what it used to be.
There are various issues here that need explained, but the one thing that is to me glaringly obvious and totally unacceptable, is the lack of blues and twos on pursuits or high speed emergency driving. I have been on about this for years, so once again I'll repeat, it should be utterly mandatory that sirens are blaring and lights flashing in circumstances such as this.
Not to do so endangers the safety and lives of both the officers and public. This is an absolutely classic example of why this principle should be observed and put into practice at ALL times. Had they been used on all the police vehicles in this instance, there is virtually no doubt that the OP would have both seen and heard the approaching vehicles and gone no further onto the junction. I personally would find it impossible to drive an emergency vehicle at those kinds of speeds without lights and sirens; my instincts would be screaming, switch them ON!!
This business of the police hiring anything they can get their hands on and then using these vehicles in pursuits is in itself potentially dangerous. The policy in years gone by was that the police purchased every single car they used, they were suitably and intensively modified and serviced to a very high standard, (well they were in my shop), and the same officers would drive "their" car. That meant they would get to the point where it was a classic case of man and machine in perfect harmony.
This particular vehicle is once again a classic case of the wrong car in the wrong place doing the wrong job. The BMW X5 and the Range Rover Sport have one thing in common; the wheels are too wide. In the wet they aquaplane very badly, far too much surface area and the tread lifts on top of the water instead of cutting in and gripping. That, combined with the bulk and weight of these cars dramatically increases the braking distance in the wet, far more so than on a performance saloon for example. Do you think the driver was aware of these peculiarities? I think it unlikely, because I would doubt that he has ever been trained to think about that.
The business of him being in the inside lane is completely at odds with driving at high speed in an emergency situation. You never, ever drive in the inside lane on a road like this, especially when approaching a junction: again, my instincts would have been screaming, get to the outside!! I don't know how anyone could do this.
The issue of blame is dead simple. The police or indeed any emergency driver is 100% responsible for the manner in which they control their vehicle. This is particularly relevant in a high risk location such as a controlled junction. This driver knew that vehicles would be almost certain to come through on a green light and should have been on the brakes way before the junction. It was his sole responsibility to come down to the appropriate speed to allow for a complete stop if required, and to compensate for the wet conditions. It is absolutely not the responsibility of joe public.
Those of you on here who are actually trying to infer that the OP should share responsibility for this need to seriously waken up, particularly the BiB.
The final aspect of this is, for me, the worst. This driver, who was clearly grossly incompetent, would appear to be lying his ass off and attempting to apportion blame onto the OP. This kind of copper makes me sick to my stomach. If you make a mistake for gods sake hold your hands up and admit it. If you attempt to lie your way out of trouble it will backfire with a vengeance and it could cost your career. Why do officers do things like this? I have never understood it and probably never will.
You need to fight this all the way OP and make sure you are compensated fully. The only saving grace is that it could have been a lot worse.
J
Edited by jith on Monday 23 March 12:25
holes on here (you know who you are on this thread) , there is still a kernel of decent, informed, balanced people.I really hope this works out for you KFP. If all the details of the incident are as you portray them here (why wouldn't they be? It wouldn't serve you to misrepresent anything on here), a full and impartial examination of the facts should see you right (and the officer in the X5 subject to censure). Best of luck to you.
Skipped a couple posts, so this may have been said - are you able to find out what the location the call the police where heading to was? It has been mentioned that putting the lights on is not always the desired approach, as not to give advanced warning (oh the irony) to the cause of the call, but if for example the location was a fair distance away, it might be lack of prudence from behalf of the police to have not had them on. I.e. have them switched off for the last kilometre or so etc, but otherwise proceed with lights / sirens. Hope I'm making sense..
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff