Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
KungFooPanda2 said:
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.
Well done that man! Glad it worked out for you in the end - it can't have been easy fighting it (mostly on your own by the sound of it). Just a shame you had to contend with a dishonest copper and lazy and/or incompetent solicitor!
Also, thank you Jith - as I said before, posters like you are what makes PH what it is.
KungFooPanda2 said:
---snipped---
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 sticking at it. Likewise I'm not bothered the making a mistake, that is human, we ask these officers to take a risk every time they need to do this. The best way to learn from mistakes is to face up to this. 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.
What does bother me is the attempt to shift the blame and the lies and false statement. To me that dishonest behaviour should be career ending.
BlueHave said:
Anyone that believes the police are throughly honest and not got a bad element would do well to read this thread.
Hope you got a big payout .
Not a big payout but it was never about money....although the nursing staff at the hospital immediately assume it is and triaged me with the man with a burst colostomy bag. Glad to have walked away in one piece and my no claims intact. Unlike some unfortunate folk who have had the same happen to them.Hope you got a big payout .
I have just read this thread from start to finish. Just a horrible situation to be in. Really glad to hear of the outcome, I love a good underdog story!
I must say though, some of the replies were truly disgusting. I now await the replies saying you are lying about the outcome and until it can be read on ttter/Facebook/newspapers etc.
Congrats on the right result and well done for pressing on knowing you were right.
Just out of curiosity I would love to see a pic of the damage!
I must say though, some of the replies were truly disgusting. I now await the replies saying you are lying about the outcome and until it can be read on t
tter/Facebook/newspapers etc.Congrats on the right result and well done for pressing on knowing you were right.
Just out of curiosity I would love to see a pic of the damage!
I was just talking to my old landlord about this thread and he said it made him quite emotional as one of his old biker mates was killed in a very similar situation in the early 90's.
He said that both him and his mate were returning home from work on their respective bikes and when traversing the roundabout at South Mimms, his mate was wiped out by a marked car that flew through a red light at speed. My landlord was seriously injured when he took avoiding action. By the sound of it, his mate never stood a chance.
He told me that the whole situation still haunts him today. And sadly, it left him with a very negative attitude towards the Police, as it seemed they were quite unsympathetic and effectively spun the story that had him and his mate not been 20 something lads on sports bikes, then the accident wouldn't have happened.
He said that both him and his mate were returning home from work on their respective bikes and when traversing the roundabout at South Mimms, his mate was wiped out by a marked car that flew through a red light at speed. My landlord was seriously injured when he took avoiding action. By the sound of it, his mate never stood a chance.
He told me that the whole situation still haunts him today. And sadly, it left him with a very negative attitude towards the Police, as it seemed they were quite unsympathetic and effectively spun the story that had him and his mate not been 20 something lads on sports bikes, then the accident wouldn't have happened.
Well done Panda.
I am sure you may have considered it but why not take up this case with your local MP to see what really went on?
It's completely unacceptable that you as a member of the public were forced to fight like this in a situation where things could have been easily resolved.
The police make mistakes and have accidents - that's life and part of the job they do. When it is their fault they should admit it and move on, not make someone's life a misery in hope of spreading the blame.
I am sure you may have considered it but why not take up this case with your local MP to see what really went on?
It's completely unacceptable that you as a member of the public were forced to fight like this in a situation where things could have been easily resolved.
The police make mistakes and have accidents - that's life and part of the job they do. When it is their fault they should admit it and move on, not make someone's life a misery in hope of spreading the blame.
ferrariF50lover said:
I've never been in this situation from your side, but I've done similar from the policeman's.
Do you mind awfully if I ask why you stopped? If your scenario is as it seems by your description, you were in the path of an oncoming car and your reaction was to stop dead, ensuring that you remained in its path, rather than accelerating out of the way (or at least attempting to).
Was it a conscious decision, or did you just hit the brake by default?
I'm not taking the piss, you did what you did and that's an end to it, I'm trying to understand why those couple of odd people who have done to me similar in the past have done so. I can't ask them, so I'm asking you.
Simon.
As it was the front of his car that was hit, not stopping could have been a decision which killed him (were he hit in the door instead). Do you mind awfully if I ask why you stopped? If your scenario is as it seems by your description, you were in the path of an oncoming car and your reaction was to stop dead, ensuring that you remained in its path, rather than accelerating out of the way (or at least attempting to).
Was it a conscious decision, or did you just hit the brake by default?
I'm not taking the piss, you did what you did and that's an end to it, I'm trying to understand why those couple of odd people who have done to me similar in the past have done so. I can't ask them, so I'm asking you.
Simon.
Potatoes said:
Nice one KFP/KFP2! Pretty inspirational stuff for people like me who would aesthetically accept it and move on.
Top work
I found this forum by chance when I was wondering what to do. Everything I did was driven by suggestions from people in here or an ex-police officer I know. The internet is great for researching aspects of law...its just having the time to do it and getting over the frustration that you're having to do it.Top work
KungFooPanda2 said:
Potatoes said:
Nice one KFP/KFP2! Pretty inspirational stuff for people like me who would aesthetically accept it and move on.
Top work
I found this forum by chance when I was wondering what to do. Everything I did was driven by suggestions from people in here or an ex-police officer I know. The internet is great for researching aspects of law...its just having the time to do it and getting over the frustration that you're having to do it.Top work
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff