Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
TooMany2cvs - I have a few questions that I hope you don't mind answering.
Given the evidence from the black box, the road and weather conditions, the positioning of the police vehicle approaching the junction, and the fact that the ARV driver was travelling at 20% over the posted limit without any warning lights or sirens, do you accept that the driving of the ARV driver fell below the standards you would expect of a police response driver?
Given what the OP was told by the attending traffic officer, that the ARV driver claimed he was travelling at no more than 30mph through the junction, and this was shown to be untrue from the data recorder, do you believe the ARV driver was being wilfully dishonest? If not, what would be your theory?
Finally, if you had found yourself in the OP's position after being involved in that incident, would you have been happy to accept 100% liability as the OP was being asked to do?
Given the evidence from the black box, the road and weather conditions, the positioning of the police vehicle approaching the junction, and the fact that the ARV driver was travelling at 20% over the posted limit without any warning lights or sirens, do you accept that the driving of the ARV driver fell below the standards you would expect of a police response driver?
Given what the OP was told by the attending traffic officer, that the ARV driver claimed he was travelling at no more than 30mph through the junction, and this was shown to be untrue from the data recorder, do you believe the ARV driver was being wilfully dishonest? If not, what would be your theory?
Finally, if you had found yourself in the OP's position after being involved in that incident, would you have been happy to accept 100% liability as the OP was being asked to do?
jith said:
This is a great result OP. This kind of experience can teach you a lot about life and should make you stronger if you handle it well, as indeed you did.
Sadly, my personal experience tells me that standards in the police are seriously degraded when it comes to driving. More officers than ever before are driving police vehicles and are not properly trained or experienced enough to do so at high speed or in pursuit situations, yet an exemption exists in law that permits them to exceed speed limits by virtue of the uniform they wear, not their ability. This is desperately wrong and, in light of this very incident, is clearly dangerous.
The real fix here would be to go back to the "good old days" when emergency drivers were seriously well trained and also displayed a mentality that involved pride in their driving and the care of, and interest in, the vehicles they drove. We all know of course, this is not going to happen unless there is a revolution in this country. There is no doubt that the police, in harmony with many other public services, are seriously underfunded: all the more reason that the resources they have are utilised to the best advantage.
As I said before, it should be mandatory for all emergency vehicles involved in either a shout or a high speed pursuit to use blues and twos; and this is particularly applicable to unmarked vehicles, as the average driver is unaware that the vehicle is a police vehicle and is making seriously good progress.
It doesn't take a lot if imagination to conclude that the outcome of the collision for the OP could have been much, much worse. Being T boned is the most dangerous accident as the driver's door area offers the least protection in the vehicle in an impact.
Lastly, I joined this site many years ago with the intention of doing just what I did on this post. I have watched certain posters on this particular forum degenerate into a disgraceful collection of insulting and ignorant individuals who seem to delight in the humiliation of others, rather than helping with their own knowledge and experience.
I withdrew after a personal attack on myself involving at least 2 of the posters on this thread that terminated in me, for the first time, reporting the incident to the mods. This was because the language used had actually reached the point of being personally defamatory and the mods wisely deleted the whole post.
It is a sad day when people behave like this and it serves no useful purpose other than to ruin what can otherwise be a really productive and helpful forum. I don't come on here for a laugh as there are some aspects of life that are simply not funny and have to be taken very seriously. For me injustice is top of the list, I don't care how apparently insignificant it seems and I will help anyone to fight this if I have the ability to do so.
So please show a bit of respect for others and try and help rather than insult. As my old dad used to say, "There's no substitute for experience!" So when those who have that experience impart it to others, you should listen, not insult.
J
Well said!Sadly, my personal experience tells me that standards in the police are seriously degraded when it comes to driving. More officers than ever before are driving police vehicles and are not properly trained or experienced enough to do so at high speed or in pursuit situations, yet an exemption exists in law that permits them to exceed speed limits by virtue of the uniform they wear, not their ability. This is desperately wrong and, in light of this very incident, is clearly dangerous.
The real fix here would be to go back to the "good old days" when emergency drivers were seriously well trained and also displayed a mentality that involved pride in their driving and the care of, and interest in, the vehicles they drove. We all know of course, this is not going to happen unless there is a revolution in this country. There is no doubt that the police, in harmony with many other public services, are seriously underfunded: all the more reason that the resources they have are utilised to the best advantage.
As I said before, it should be mandatory for all emergency vehicles involved in either a shout or a high speed pursuit to use blues and twos; and this is particularly applicable to unmarked vehicles, as the average driver is unaware that the vehicle is a police vehicle and is making seriously good progress.
It doesn't take a lot if imagination to conclude that the outcome of the collision for the OP could have been much, much worse. Being T boned is the most dangerous accident as the driver's door area offers the least protection in the vehicle in an impact.
Lastly, I joined this site many years ago with the intention of doing just what I did on this post. I have watched certain posters on this particular forum degenerate into a disgraceful collection of insulting and ignorant individuals who seem to delight in the humiliation of others, rather than helping with their own knowledge and experience.
I withdrew after a personal attack on myself involving at least 2 of the posters on this thread that terminated in me, for the first time, reporting the incident to the mods. This was because the language used had actually reached the point of being personally defamatory and the mods wisely deleted the whole post.
It is a sad day when people behave like this and it serves no useful purpose other than to ruin what can otherwise be a really productive and helpful forum. I don't come on here for a laugh as there are some aspects of life that are simply not funny and have to be taken very seriously. For me injustice is top of the list, I don't care how apparently insignificant it seems and I will help anyone to fight this if I have the ability to do so.
So please show a bit of respect for others and try and help rather than insult. As my old dad used to say, "There's no substitute for experience!" So when those who have that experience impart it to others, you should listen, not insult.
J
OP, well done!
don4l said:
jith said:
This is a great result OP. This kind of experience can teach you a lot about life and should make you stronger if you handle it well, as indeed you did.
Sadly, my personal experience tells me that standards in the police are seriously degraded when it comes to driving. More officers than ever before are driving police vehicles and are not properly trained or experienced enough to do so at high speed or in pursuit situations, yet an exemption exists in law that permits them to exceed speed limits by virtue of the uniform they wear, not their ability. This is desperately wrong and, in light of this very incident, is clearly dangerous.
The real fix here would be to go back to the "good old days" when emergency drivers were seriously well trained and also displayed a mentality that involved pride in their driving and the care of, and interest in, the vehicles they drove. We all know of course, this is not going to happen unless there is a revolution in this country. There is no doubt that the police, in harmony with many other public services, are seriously underfunded: all the more reason that the resources they have are utilised to the best advantage.
As I said before, it should be mandatory for all emergency vehicles involved in either a shout or a high speed pursuit to use blues and twos; and this is particularly applicable to unmarked vehicles, as the average driver is unaware that the vehicle is a police vehicle and is making seriously good progress.
It doesn't take a lot if imagination to conclude that the outcome of the collision for the OP could have been much, much worse. Being T boned is the most dangerous accident as the driver's door area offers the least protection in the vehicle in an impact.
Lastly, I joined this site many years ago with the intention of doing just what I did on this post. I have watched certain posters on this particular forum degenerate into a disgraceful collection of insulting and ignorant individuals who seem to delight in the humiliation of others, rather than helping with their own knowledge and experience.
I withdrew after a personal attack on myself involving at least 2 of the posters on this thread that terminated in me, for the first time, reporting the incident to the mods. This was because the language used had actually reached the point of being personally defamatory and the mods wisely deleted the whole post.
It is a sad day when people behave like this and it serves no useful purpose other than to ruin what can otherwise be a really productive and helpful forum. I don't come on here for a laugh as there are some aspects of life that are simply not funny and have to be taken very seriously. For me injustice is top of the list, I don't care how apparently insignificant it seems and I will help anyone to fight this if I have the ability to do so.
So please show a bit of respect for others and try and help rather than insult. As my old dad used to say, "There's no substitute for experience!" So when those who have that experience impart it to others, you should listen, not insult.
J
Well said!Sadly, my personal experience tells me that standards in the police are seriously degraded when it comes to driving. More officers than ever before are driving police vehicles and are not properly trained or experienced enough to do so at high speed or in pursuit situations, yet an exemption exists in law that permits them to exceed speed limits by virtue of the uniform they wear, not their ability. This is desperately wrong and, in light of this very incident, is clearly dangerous.
The real fix here would be to go back to the "good old days" when emergency drivers were seriously well trained and also displayed a mentality that involved pride in their driving and the care of, and interest in, the vehicles they drove. We all know of course, this is not going to happen unless there is a revolution in this country. There is no doubt that the police, in harmony with many other public services, are seriously underfunded: all the more reason that the resources they have are utilised to the best advantage.
As I said before, it should be mandatory for all emergency vehicles involved in either a shout or a high speed pursuit to use blues and twos; and this is particularly applicable to unmarked vehicles, as the average driver is unaware that the vehicle is a police vehicle and is making seriously good progress.
It doesn't take a lot if imagination to conclude that the outcome of the collision for the OP could have been much, much worse. Being T boned is the most dangerous accident as the driver's door area offers the least protection in the vehicle in an impact.
Lastly, I joined this site many years ago with the intention of doing just what I did on this post. I have watched certain posters on this particular forum degenerate into a disgraceful collection of insulting and ignorant individuals who seem to delight in the humiliation of others, rather than helping with their own knowledge and experience.
I withdrew after a personal attack on myself involving at least 2 of the posters on this thread that terminated in me, for the first time, reporting the incident to the mods. This was because the language used had actually reached the point of being personally defamatory and the mods wisely deleted the whole post.
It is a sad day when people behave like this and it serves no useful purpose other than to ruin what can otherwise be a really productive and helpful forum. I don't come on here for a laugh as there are some aspects of life that are simply not funny and have to be taken very seriously. For me injustice is top of the list, I don't care how apparently insignificant it seems and I will help anyone to fight this if I have the ability to do so.
So please show a bit of respect for others and try and help rather than insult. As my old dad used to say, "There's no substitute for experience!" So when those who have that experience impart it to others, you should listen, not insult.
J
OP, well done!
While I'm on the subject of useful contributions, there are unfortunately very many on PH who delight in being as unhelpful as possible as often as possible. I'm not naive enough to think that any forum can be entirely free of trolling, but it's amazing just how many supposed adults use the anonymity provided by their screen names to behave like children.
KungFooPanda2 said:
all they look at is minimising costs no matter what the truth is.
What a staggeringly sad statement 
Puts us all on our guard in any similar situation I'm sure. Congratulations on your tenacity and sticking to doing what was fair and right though. Wish everyone had such integrity.
Missed this the first time round.
All I can say is that this mirrors my experience when I got clobbered on a push bike by an inattentive Panda car driver - no emergency involved, he just decided to do a U turn across my path. I was riding a bike that probably cost more than his car, and spent many hours in St Thomas' afterwards. Police were excellent on the day, but quite frankly shifty and evasive when it came to paying for the bike.
After about 2 months of being yanked around by them, I lawyered up and went in to claim everything. My initial view was just to get the bike replaced, but stuff it, by this stage I wanted blood. Got a very good settlement, which they could have had got away with less than 1/3 of if they had just behaved properly from the outset. Somehow I expected better when dealing with them!
All I can say is that this mirrors my experience when I got clobbered on a push bike by an inattentive Panda car driver - no emergency involved, he just decided to do a U turn across my path. I was riding a bike that probably cost more than his car, and spent many hours in St Thomas' afterwards. Police were excellent on the day, but quite frankly shifty and evasive when it came to paying for the bike.
After about 2 months of being yanked around by them, I lawyered up and went in to claim everything. My initial view was just to get the bike replaced, but stuff it, by this stage I wanted blood. Got a very good settlement, which they could have had got away with less than 1/3 of if they had just behaved properly from the outset. Somehow I expected better when dealing with them!
Good result OP.
I was hit by a police car back in 2011 and very lucky to walk away from it. Police dog handler was driving the car which hit me and despite it being very clear cut who was at fault (the police), I had to fight for nine months to get them to admit liability. Police driver got sent on a driver improvement course before being allowed to drive a police vehicle again.
What riled me was that in the interim, whilst the insurers wrangled to prove who was at fault, the police decided to put the wind up me by keeping my car in a locked compound and stating it was awaiting a VOSA inspection due to 'suspected mechanical failure' having caused the accident. Precisely what mechanical failure had supposedly befallen my car, which would have caused the police car to attempt a u-turn on a dual carraigeway and drive into the side of me, they failed to elaborate on. The car had been MOT'd and serviced a week prior and was absolutely spot on - they were just looking for any get out they could. All the while my P&J was written off, and I faced losing my no claims etc until it was all sorted out. Very stressful experience but worth standing your ground if you are in the right.
I was hit by a police car back in 2011 and very lucky to walk away from it. Police dog handler was driving the car which hit me and despite it being very clear cut who was at fault (the police), I had to fight for nine months to get them to admit liability. Police driver got sent on a driver improvement course before being allowed to drive a police vehicle again.
What riled me was that in the interim, whilst the insurers wrangled to prove who was at fault, the police decided to put the wind up me by keeping my car in a locked compound and stating it was awaiting a VOSA inspection due to 'suspected mechanical failure' having caused the accident. Precisely what mechanical failure had supposedly befallen my car, which would have caused the police car to attempt a u-turn on a dual carraigeway and drive into the side of me, they failed to elaborate on. The car had been MOT'd and serviced a week prior and was absolutely spot on - they were just looking for any get out they could. All the while my P&J was written off, and I faced losing my no claims etc until it was all sorted out. Very stressful experience but worth standing your ground if you are in the right.
rxe said:
After about 2 months of being yanked around by them, I lawyered up and went in to claim everything. My initial view was just to get the bike replaced, but stuff it, by this stage I wanted blood. Got a very good settlement, which they could have had got away with less than 1/3 of if they had just behaved properly from the outset. Somehow I expected better when dealing with them!
Vroom101 said:
TooMany2cvs - I have a few questions that I hope you don't mind answering.
Given the evidence from the black box, the road and weather conditions, the positioning of the police vehicle approaching the junction, and the fact that the ARV driver was travelling at 20% over the posted limit without any warning lights or sirens, do you accept that the driving of the ARV driver fell below the standards you would expect of a police response driver?
Given what the OP was told by the attending traffic officer, that the ARV driver claimed he was travelling at no more than 30mph through the junction, and this was shown to be untrue from the data recorder, do you believe the ARV driver was being wilfully dishonest? If not, what would be your theory?
Finally, if you had found yourself in the OP's position after being involved in that incident, would you have been happy to accept 100% liability as the OP was being asked to do?
Some very good questions there.Given the evidence from the black box, the road and weather conditions, the positioning of the police vehicle approaching the junction, and the fact that the ARV driver was travelling at 20% over the posted limit without any warning lights or sirens, do you accept that the driving of the ARV driver fell below the standards you would expect of a police response driver?
Given what the OP was told by the attending traffic officer, that the ARV driver claimed he was travelling at no more than 30mph through the junction, and this was shown to be untrue from the data recorder, do you believe the ARV driver was being wilfully dishonest? If not, what would be your theory?
Finally, if you had found yourself in the OP's position after being involved in that incident, would you have been happy to accept 100% liability as the OP was being asked to do?
I too would be interested in the answers from TooMany2cv's.
As a layperson, I would say that from the information provided I would conclude that in my opinion, the driving standards of the officer were well below what I would expect, and it would appear that he was dishonest following the accident. Lastly, no, there is no way I would accept liability of any kind provided the accident was as the OP described.
Out here in the real world, almost every single person on the road, myself included, takes a green light to mean it is safe to proceed without being smashed into by another vehicle. No one would be expecting it.
Sadly there seems to be a repetitious pattern:
"The IPCC’s investigation had determined that Pc Dougal was on Denton Road in Newcastle-upon-Tyne when his automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR) was activated in relation to a Renault Megane.
Pc Dougal decided to investigate the ANPR activation, but it transpired subsequently that the ANPR had activated in relation to out of date information and no offences had been committed by the owner of the car.
Pc Dougal accelerated and reached a speed of 94mph on Denton Road. The speed limit on the road is 30mph. At no point did Pc Dougal activate his emergency warning equipment.
Approximately 50m south of the Dorset Road junction Pc Dougal’s vehicle collided with Hayley Adamson as she crossed the road. Hayley died as a result of her injuries.
It is apparent also that Pc Dougal attempted to avoid the collision by braking and trying to take evasive action. However the police car collided with Hayley at a speed of approximately 74mph."
"The IPCC’s investigation had determined that Pc Dougal was on Denton Road in Newcastle-upon-Tyne when his automatic number plate recognition system (ANPR) was activated in relation to a Renault Megane.
Pc Dougal decided to investigate the ANPR activation, but it transpired subsequently that the ANPR had activated in relation to out of date information and no offences had been committed by the owner of the car.
Pc Dougal accelerated and reached a speed of 94mph on Denton Road. The speed limit on the road is 30mph. At no point did Pc Dougal activate his emergency warning equipment.
Approximately 50m south of the Dorset Road junction Pc Dougal’s vehicle collided with Hayley Adamson as she crossed the road. Hayley died as a result of her injuries.
It is apparent also that Pc Dougal attempted to avoid the collision by braking and trying to take evasive action. However the police car collided with Hayley at a speed of approximately 74mph."
Vroom101 said:
TooMany2cvs - I have a few questions that I hope you don't mind answering.
Given the evidence from the black box, the road and weather conditions, the positioning of the police vehicle approaching the junction, and the fact that the ARV driver was travelling at 20% over the posted limit without any warning lights or sirens, do you accept that the driving of the ARV driver fell below the standards you would expect of a police response driver?
I haven't seen the evidence from the black box.Given the evidence from the black box, the road and weather conditions, the positioning of the police vehicle approaching the junction, and the fact that the ARV driver was travelling at 20% over the posted limit without any warning lights or sirens, do you accept that the driving of the ARV driver fell below the standards you would expect of a police response driver?
[quote]Given what the OP was told by the attending traffic officer, that the ARV driver claimed he was travelling at no more than 30mph through the junction, and this was shown to be untrue from the data recorder, do you believe the ARV driver was being wilfully dishonest? If not, what would be your theory?
[quote]Finally, if you had found yourself in the OP's position after being involved in that incident, would you have been happy to accept 100% liability as the OP was being asked to do?
If I was in a collision that I believed I was entirely blameless for - no, I wouldn't be happy. Or with the split liability that was offered.
TooMany2cvs - So do you think the OP is being dishonest?
Do you think he is lying about the information held on the data recorder, and do you think he is also lying when he was talking about the attending traffic officer and what he said to the OP regarding the ARV driver's statement?
Do you think he is lying about the information held on the data recorder, and do you think he is also lying when he was talking about the attending traffic officer and what he said to the OP regarding the ARV driver's statement?
TooMany2cvs said:
Vroom101 said:
TooMany2cvs - So do you think the OP is being dishonest?
Can you do us all a favour, and actually read what I wrote before replying to it? Thanks.TooMany2cvs said:
All I know is what the OP told us about those - and I already commented on that, way back several pages, including that I don't doubt that what he told us is his accurate recollection and interpretation of it.
I get the bit about the accurate recollection and interpretation. Different people remember the same event differently. And sometimes what they remember is not the same as what actually happened. I understand that. However my questions were about things the OP was told after the event, by the police investigating the incident. So you either have to believe what the OP said regarding the information on the data recorder, and what he was told by the traffic officer, or you think he is being dishonest. So my question still stands. Do you think the OP is lying?
Vroom101 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Vroom101 said:
TooMany2cvs - So do you think the OP is being dishonest?
Can you do us all a favour, and actually read what I wrote before replying to it? Thanks.TooMany2cvs said:
All I know is what the OP told us about those - and I already commented on that, way back several pages, including that I don't doubt that what he told us is his accurate recollection and interpretation of it.
I get the bit about the accurate recollection and interpretation. Different people remember the same event differently. And sometimes what they remember is not the same as what actually happened. I understand that. Vroom101 said:
However my questions were about things the OP was told after the event, by the police investigating the incident. So you either have to believe what the OP said regarding the information on the data recorder, and what he was told by the traffic officer, or you think he is being dishonest. So my question still stands. Do you think the OP is lying?
And my answer still stands.By the way, there is a third option, and it's far and away the most likely.
TooMany2cvs said:
Or the police's insurer have decided it's cheaper to settle than fight. We will never know.
Nicely done - so you claim you might be right even when all of the evidence is that you're totally wrong?And despite quoting yourself, you still haven't apologised to the OP. Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
Escapegoat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Or the police's insurer have decided it's cheaper to settle than fight. We will never know.
Nicely done - so you claim you might be right even when all of the evidence is that you're totally wrong?And despite quoting yourself, you still haven't apologised to the OP. Sorry seems to be the hardest word.
My guess on the reason they settled is that the impact on the force involved would have been embarrassing. Four police officers written statements proved 'conveniently untruthful' by black box data. I think that's called 'discreditable conduct' within the force
as it's a breach of the honesty and integrity code with which they are supposed to abide.
I'm satisfied with the outcome.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff