Lucky to be alive.

[ikarl]

Rovinghawk said:

ikarl said:

Not trying to be confrontational, just asking the question - if the road gave plenty of visibility to the drivers right, and the police driver genuinely thought that the car had seen him, would that put any of the blame onto the driver of the car?

If I were to hit you whilst going quickly through a red light, how much fault would you consider was yours?

Thanks RH.
This is really my point, if I saw the vehicle coming towards with me blue lights flashing, it is reasonable to expect them to want to continue through the roundabout regardless of the colour of the lights.

We are taught to give way to emergency vehicles with flashing lights (and/or sirens) so I would have to take some of the fault if I saw a vehicle coming, at speed with lights flashing, and proceeded to go because my light was green.

If the OP could give us the location we would be able to form a better informed opinion. I don't subscribe to the 'it must be black-and-white' notion when it comes to car accidents as they are rarely like that.

[burwoodman]

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

I love posts like this. Very helpful.

[TheRealFingers99]

To the OP. Just get yourself a lawyer.

Without legal qualifications, witness statements, location, camera footage and etc. no-one here can tell you anything more useful.

[Terzo123]

burwoodman said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

I love posts like this. Very helpful.

You're welcome. I usually don't engage with any of Rovenhawks posts, so i kept that one as short as possible. I would be waisting my time expanding the reply towards him.

[Rovinghawk]

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

Why not?

[a7x88]

I always understood that theyhad to treat a red light as a give way. I certainly wouldn't approach a give way sign without expecting to have to come to a stop, why would they think differently?

As an aside I went through a green light the other day only to have a police car come through a red towards me. His speed was appropriate enough for him to not collide with me and give me and the other traffic enough chance to move out of his way, I wouldn't expect any less - there are many reasons someone might not pick up on blue lights, as in this example my view of him was blocked by HGV's until he was throught the red light

[EskimoArapaho]

Rovinghawk said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

Why not?

Because a green light is not per se an instruction to proceed without due care. You ALWAYS bear some responsibility for going ahead on green.

This doesn't negate the awfulness of the OP's experience and position, but it's important to remember that green does not simply mean 'go'. (Come on, this is Highway Code stuff.)

[surveyor]

EskimoArapaho said:

Rovinghawk said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

Why not?

Because a green light is not per se an instruction to proceed without due care. You ALWAYS bear some responsibility for going ahead on green.

This doesn't negate the awfulness of the OP's experience and position, but it's important to remember that green does not simply mean 'go'. (Come on, this is Highway Code stuff.)

Me thinks that Police Drivers will be taught that even though drivers should look on green, not all will, and if going through Red caution should be applied. I can't imagine them being taught it's the other drivers responsibility to look for you so pile on through.

As for the hire car I would not be surprised if an enterprising hire fleet can supply police cars nationally with some marked up cars - to police forces obviously.

[burwoodman]

EskimoArapaho said:

Rovinghawk said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

Why not?

Because a green light is not per se an instruction to proceed without due care. You ALWAYS bear some responsibility for going ahead on green.

This doesn't negate the awfulness of the OP's experience and position, but it's important to remember that green does not simply mean 'go'. (Come on, this is Highway Code stuff.)

And a red light means STOP with a caveat being Police can treat as a give way. Either way, it would be most unfair if not treated as 100% police fault.

[KungFuPanda]

burwoodman said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

I love posts like this. Very helpful.

Terzo is correct. Just to expand on his point, have a look at the case of Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. Similar circumstances. Ambulance went through a traffic light junction on blues and twos colliding with civilian vehicle going through junction. Ambulance went through a red albeit at low speed and civilian driver had benefit of green light. Liability was apportioned 60/40 in favour of the ambulance driver ie civilian shouldered 60% of the blame. Judgment was that emergence drivers should treat red lights as give ways but also civilian drivers should be alive to the fact that other vehicles may be passing through junctions even when the lights are green in their favour. When I was in practice, this was generally the split in liability which we went along with but at the end of the day, all cases are decided on their own facts.

OP, I think you will have to take a split liability decision if you take the case further.

[rallycross]

KungFuPanda said:

Terzo is correct. Just to expand on his point, have a look at the case of Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. Similar circumstances. Ambulance went through a traffic light junction on blues and twos colliding with civilian vehicle going through junction. Ambulance went through a red albeit at low speed and civilian driver had benefit of green light. Liability was apportioned 60/40 in favour of the ambulance driver ie civilian shouldered 60% of the blame. Judgment was that emergence drivers should treat red lights as give ways but also civilian drivers should be alive to the fact that other vehicles may be passing through junctions even when the lights are green in their favour. When I was in practice, this was generally the split in liability which we went along with but at the end of the day, all cases are decided on their own facts.

OP, I think you will have to take a split liability decision if you take the case further.

Too many Panda's on this thread makes it somewhat confusing!

[burwoodman]

KungFuPanda said:

burwoodman said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

I love posts like this. Very helpful.

Terzo is correct. Just to expand on his point, have a look at the case of Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. Similar circumstances. Ambulance went through a traffic light junction on blues and twos colliding with civilian vehicle going through junction. Ambulance went through a red albeit at low speed and civilian driver had benefit of green light. Liability was apportioned 60/40 in favour of the ambulance driver ie civilian shouldered 60% of the blame. Judgment was that emergence drivers should treat red lights as give ways but also civilian drivers should be alive to the fact that other vehicles may be passing through junctions even when the lights are green in their favour. When I was in practice, this was generally the split in liability which we went along with but at the end of the day, all cases are decided on their own facts.

OP, I think you will have to take a split liability decision if you take the case further.

The critical point may be 'slow speed'. The OP says the Police car was driving too quickly and if he has a witness...

To spin a car 90 degrees would take serious impact and speed. i would be fighting any blame levelled at me.

Edited by burwoodman on Wednesday 1st October 12:02

[Rovinghawk]

EskimoArapaho said:

Because a green light is not per se an instruction to proceed without due care. You ALWAYS bear some responsibility for going ahead on green.

This doesn't negate the awfulness of the OP's experience and position, but it's important to remember that green does not simply mean 'go'. (Come on, this is Highway Code stuff.)

Red very clearly means stop, though. If you go through a red you are IMO responsible for the consequences of your action.

[KungFuPanda]

burwoodman said:

KungFuPanda said:

burwoodman said:

Terzo123 said:

Rovinghawk said:

If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.

This is not correct.

I love posts like this. Very helpful.

Terzo is correct. Just to expand on his point, have a look at the case of Griffin v Mersey Regional Ambulance Service. Similar circumstances. Ambulance went through a traffic light junction on blues and twos colliding with civilian vehicle going through junction. Ambulance went through a red albeit at low speed and civilian driver had benefit of green light. Liability was apportioned 60/40 in favour of the ambulance driver ie civilian shouldered 60% of the blame. Judgment was that emergence drivers should treat red lights as give ways but also civilian drivers should be alive to the fact that other vehicles may be passing through junctions even when the lights are green in their favour. When I was in practice, this was generally the split in liability which we went along with but at the end of the day, all cases are decided on their own facts.

OP, I think you will have to take a split liability decision if you take the case further.

The critical point may be 'slow speed'. The OP says the Police car was driving too quickly and if he has a witness...

To spin a car 90 degrees would take serious impact and speed. i would be fighting any blame levelled at me.

Edited by burwoodman on Wednesday 1st October 12:02

Perhaps you're right but I still can't see the OP getting liability 100% apportioned against the driver of the Police car. As I say, each case will be considered on it's facts. Perhaps if it is accepted that the driver of the Police vehicle was driving too fast without sirens, then he will shoulder more blame than the apportionment found in the Griffin case. Even so, I think the OP won't get sway scot free whether it's fair or not.

[Sump]

Police aren't supposed to blast through traffic lights. They approach with caution, make there presence known and proceed on with caution.

[Hol]

Why no siren????

Is it some form of rule they now have to follow, in case they interrupt the music coming through a pedestrians headphones.

'Id like to complain about the noisey sirens used when you attended the traffic accident behind my garden fence' etc..?

[Rovinghawk]

KungFuPanda said:

I think the OP won't get sway scot free whether it's fair or not.

Probably right, sadly.

[Blue Oval84]

Rovinghawk said:

Red very clearly means stop, though. If you go through a red you are IMO responsible for the consequences of your action.

Well, as per the precedents posted above, it appears that UK law disagrees with your opinion...

[Terzo123]

Hol said:

Why no siren????

Is it some form of rule they now have to follow, in case they interrupt the music coming through a pedestrians headphones.

'Id like to complain about the noisey sirens used when you attended the traffic accident behind my garden fence' etc..?

When ARV's respond to incidents, depending on the circumstances, it is not always prudent to attend with sirens blaring. It's the same for general response vehicles also.

[gtidriver]

About 15years ago i had a head on crash with a police car. I turned a light left curve after going through a green traffic light, the police woman was passing stationary traffic on the wrong side of the road,that where wait on a red light when we collidied. She too didn't have her siren on,just her blue lights flashing. There was no apology from her at all, she was on shout to an attempted suicide and tried to make me feel guilty as id got in her way. Her sergeant arrived and breatherlised both of us,both all clear.The sergeant took statements from both of us and we left they scene, i got a hire car a day or so later, my car was a wreck. I took photos of the scene a few days later it showed that the junction that id driven around was obscured by a large bush in the front garden of the property on the corner I would never of seen her,I handed all my paper work to the police insurance company within 3-4days, it took her over 6weeks. In the end i had to go through my own insurance company as the police insurance said i was at fault, the solicitor recommended that i settled on 60/40 blame in my favour. It left a very bitter taste after that and i was extremely pissed off that i was partly to blame. If it had been a member of the public driving down that road on the wrong side of the road they would have been prosecuted and it would have been a total non fault my end, emergency services accidents seam to go 50/50.

Good luck op, get as much evidence as you possibly can. Unfortunately all my witnesses just drove off.