Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
It is very true that a lot of calls require a "silent approach". That said, it is down to the individual driver to chose to follow this. Ultimately, it is all well and good for someone in Ops room to ask for a silent approach, but it is the driver of the car involved who has to justify his actions if he chose not to use the blues and twos, and was involved in a collision.
Mk3Spitfire said:
It is very true that a lot of calls require a "silent approach". That said, it is down to the individual driver to chose to follow this. Ultimately, it is all well and good for someone in Ops room to ask for a silent approach, but it is the driver of the car involved who has to justify his actions if he chose not to use the blues and twos, and was involved in a collision.
also silent approach doesn;t necessarily mean no blues ... on a quiet night you can hear sirens from hundreds of metres and 'real' two tones even further away where the blues are far less visible in town 
mph1977 said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
It is very true that a lot of calls require a "silent approach". That said, it is down to the individual driver to chose to follow this. Ultimately, it is all well and good for someone in Ops room to ask for a silent approach, but it is the driver of the car involved who has to justify his actions if he chose not to use the blues and twos, and was involved in a collision.
also silent approach doesn;t necessarily mean no blues ... on a quiet night you can hear sirens from hundreds of metres and 'real' two tones even further away where the blues are far less visible in town BTW....Popped into the police station the other day to get a complaint form for IPCC. He asked why I wanted it. Told him I had been hit by an Armed Response Vehicle...that would be a Tactical Response Unit. Well lock me up!!!!!!
Martin4x4 said:
70 MPH straight into Traffic lights without a reduced limit?
Think we need google maps link
Not sure why you're sceptical of this... I'm aware of a few round near me... E.g.Think we need google maps link
A6120, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS17
http://goo.gl/maps/jSniQ
All the best OP, sounds like a hideous situation and a bit of a wake up call on how careful we all need to be.
Mk3Spitfire said:
It is very true that a lot of calls require a "silent approach". That said, it is down to the individual driver to chose to follow this. Ultimately, it is all well and good for someone in Ops room to ask for a silent approach, but it is the driver of the car involved who has to justify his actions if he chose not to use the blues and twos, and was involved in a collision.
I used to turn everything off and just drive at the normal limit when someone said 'silent approach'Far too risky and as the driver I'd be the one in court explaining why I wasn't using my sirens if it went tits up.
sm1tty said:
Martin4x4 said:
70 MPH straight into Traffic lights without a reduced limit?
Think we need google maps link
Not sure why you're sceptical of this... I'm aware of a few round near me... E.g.Think we need google maps link
A6120, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS17
http://goo.gl/maps/jSniQ
All the best OP, sounds like a hideous situation and a bit of a wake up call on how careful we all need to be.
P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 31st March 07:16
Vipers said:
I am confused, on approach from Blackmoore Road to the Ring Rd, you have lights, OK, but no where does the NSL sign appear or any other speed limit as you turn onto the ring road, do you have to GUESS the limit', certainly where I live all junctions onto the dual carriageway have the NSL displayed. Just a question, obviously you live there I don't, are you sure it's 70 and not 40, just asking. Some sections here are 40, some NSL ie 70 and one bit is 50.
P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
I had to have a bit of a hunt - it's on the right hand side of the road, attached to the lamp post as you come down Black Moor Road approaching the traffic lights to the ring road... not at all obvious, as you say.P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 31st March 07:16
sm1tty said:
Vipers said:
I am confused, on approach from Blackmoore Road to the Ring Rd, you have lights, OK, but no where does the NSL sign appear or any other speed limit as you turn onto the ring road, do you have to GUESS the limit', certainly where I live all junctions onto the dual carriageway have the NSL displayed. Just a question, obviously you live there I don't, are you sure it's 70 and not 40, just asking. Some sections here are 40, some NSL ie 70 and one bit is 50.
P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
Most odd, looked at some other roads joining the ring road, and again the NSL is on the right of the road, not the left. Oh well.P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 31st March 07:16
I had to have a bit of a hunt - it's on the right hand side of the road, attached to the lamp post as you come down Black Moor Road approaching the traffic lights to the ring road... not at all obvious, as you say.
Vipers said:
sm1tty said:
Vipers said:
I am confused, on approach from Blackmoore Road to the Ring Rd, you have lights, OK, but no where does the NSL sign appear or any other speed limit as you turn onto the ring road, do you have to GUESS the limit', certainly where I live all junctions onto the dual carriageway have the NSL displayed. Just a question, obviously you live there I don't, are you sure it's 70 and not 40, just asking. Some sections here are 40, some NSL ie 70 and one bit is 50.
P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
Most odd, looked at some other roads joining the ring road, and again the NSL is on the right of the road, not the left. Oh well.P.S. rather than delete in case someone has read this, I looked back to where King Lane joins the ring road via a roundabout, it does show NSL right enough, but there isn't one joining from Blackmore Road, tut tut tut local,council.
Edited by Vipers on Tuesday 31st March 07:16
I had to have a bit of a hunt - it's on the right hand side of the road, attached to the lamp post as you come down Black Moor Road approaching the traffic lights to the ring road... not at all obvious, as you say.
mrtwisty 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
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.
After the my solicitor had sent me the Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance case law, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and an offer of 60/40 in favour of the police I saw my arse big time. Spurred on by some of your comments, especially Jiths, I decided I would fight it all the way.
I read the case law and decided it had no bearing on my case whatsoever. I read more case law and came across ‘Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Services 2002’. I replied to my solicitor explaining that this was her job not mine and I was not happy with her performance and unless she pulled her finger out I would report her to the ombudsman! I asked her to reply to the Police Solicitor with the Purdue v Devon case law, data from the recorder of the ARV, overviews from google (which had stopping distances overlaid on it) and photos of the junction in the rain that I had took.
To cut a long story short about a month after that they accepted full liability. A court day was scheduled for June 2016 but they have just sent a Part36 offer and settled out of court.
It was a long haul but worth it. I was paid damages, costs and my no claims is intact (which is all I really wanted). If you believe you are in the right, fight your corner and remember that all they look at is minimising costs no matter what the truth is. I hope it doesn’t have any impact on the police officers career as he probably is a good officer but on this occasion he made an error. Maybe next time he can just put up his hand. We are only human.
For those who supported me thank you.
KungFooPanda2 said:
Final Update – apologies for the name change to KungFooPanda2 but PH has blocked my KungFooPanda logon
After the my solicitor had sent me the Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance case law, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and an offer of 60/40 in favour of the police I saw my arse big time. Spurred on by some of your comments, especially Jiths, I decided I would fight it all the way.
I read the case law and decided it had no bearing on my case whatsoever. I read more case law and came across ‘Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Services 2002’. I replied to my solicitor explaining that this was her job not mine and I was not happy with her performance and unless she pulled her finger out I would report her to the ombudsman! I asked her to reply to the Police Solicitor with the Purdue v Devon case law, data from the recorder of the ARV, overviews from google (which had stopping distances overlaid on it) and photos of the junction in the rain that I had took.
To cut a long story short about a month after that they accepted full liability. A court day was scheduled for June 2016 but they have just sent a Part36 offer and settled out of court.
It was a long haul but worth it. I was paid damages, costs and my no claims is intact (which is all I really wanted). If you believe you are in the right, fight your corner and remember that all they look at is minimising costs no matter what the truth is. I hope it doesn’t have any impact on the police officers career as he probably is a good officer but on this occasion he made an error. Maybe next time he can just put up his hand. We are only human.
For those who supported me thank you.
Fantastic result, well done. It's a shame you had to do the legwork though. I've experienced a few solicitors like that lately, it's frustrating at best.After the my solicitor had sent me the Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance case law, the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and an offer of 60/40 in favour of the police I saw my arse big time. Spurred on by some of your comments, especially Jiths, I decided I would fight it all the way.
I read the case law and decided it had no bearing on my case whatsoever. I read more case law and came across ‘Purdue v Devon Fire and Rescue Services 2002’. I replied to my solicitor explaining that this was her job not mine and I was not happy with her performance and unless she pulled her finger out I would report her to the ombudsman! I asked her to reply to the Police Solicitor with the Purdue v Devon case law, data from the recorder of the ARV, overviews from google (which had stopping distances overlaid on it) and photos of the junction in the rain that I had took.
To cut a long story short about a month after that they accepted full liability. A court day was scheduled for June 2016 but they have just sent a Part36 offer and settled out of court.
It was a long haul but worth it. I was paid damages, costs and my no claims is intact (which is all I really wanted). If you believe you are in the right, fight your corner and remember that all they look at is minimising costs no matter what the truth is. I hope it doesn’t have any impact on the police officers career as he probably is a good officer but on this occasion he made an error. Maybe next time he can just put up his hand. We are only human.
For those who supported me thank you.
Well done OP - as I said earlier in the thread I had an issue with being accused of failing to stop at a red light - something that I knew I wasn't guilty of doing and it went thro magistrates to crown before I proved my case. If you believe you are right then I see nothing wrong with fighting for it.
Regarding the name change - was your original username banned as a result of this thread?
Regarding the name change - was your original username banned as a result of this thread?
KungFooPanda2 said:
I hope it doesn’t have any impact on the police officers career as he probably is a good officer but on this occasion he made an error. Maybe next time he can just put up his hand. We are only human.
For those who supported me thank you.
I applaude your generosity, but really would of left this part out. Not sure how the "being a good officer" and "blatantly liying" whilst making statements of fact go hand in hand... Police officers are supposed to be beyond reproach, and lead by example. Hopefully it did effect his career and he has learnt a valuable lesson.For those who supported me thank you.
B'stard Child said:
Well done OP - as I said earlier in the thread I had an issue with being accused of failing to stop at a red light - something that I knew I wasn't guilty of doing and it went thro magistrates to crown before I proved my case. If you believe you are right then I see nothing wrong with fighting for it.
Regarding the name change - was your original username banned as a result of this thread?
Just lack of use I think.Regarding the name change - was your original username banned as a result of this thread?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff