Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
KungFooPanda said:
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
So he slowed to 56, THEN braked further? To what speed?TooMany2cvs said:
KungFooPanda said:
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
So he slowed to 56, THEN braked further? To what speed?Braking for 5 seconds even in the wet could reduce the speed considerably, even lights on 3 seconds before collision would give a fair chance of him being seen, doing 80-84 mph way before the collision isn't important it's that 5 seconds slowing from 56mph before impact that is crucial.
The reported facts from the police and lack of facts from OP, have swayed me to think that maybe OP is not giving a full account of what really happened.
OP can we have a more detailed factual explanation including a view of the actual collision site?
Mr GrimNasty said:
KungFooPanda said:
Update on how things are looking....
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
It's disgraceful that they don't just put their hands up and accept blame, and given that info., charge the driver.First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
OpulentBob said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
KungFooPanda said:
Update on how things are looking....
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
It's disgraceful that they don't just put their hands up and accept blame, and given that info., charge the driver.First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
TooMany2cvs said:
KungFooPanda said:
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
So he slowed to 56, THEN braked further? To what speed?The standard "intergreen" at traffic signals is 5 seconds - that's the time from one green going off, through a 3 second amber, and the other coming on, after a 2 second red/amber. Some intergreens are longer, depending on the layout of the junction. Very few are shorter, and 4 seconds is the minimum.
If that's the case here, then a possible scenario is:
0 seconds - police driver sees signals on green, OP's signal on red
at 1 second - signals change to amber, OP's signal still on red
at 2 seconds - signals still on amber, police driver has reacted to change and started to brake (further?), OP's signal still on red
at 3 seconds - signals still on amber, police driver still braking, OP's signal still on red
at 4 seconds, signals change to red, OP's signal changes to red/amber, police driver switches on blues
at 5 seconds - signal still on red, OP's signal still on red/amber
at 6 seconds - OP's signal changes to green, police driver still approaching (maybe braking, maybe not)
at 7 seconds - OP has moved into junction (he didn't have to stop so there's little starting delay) and collision takes place.
Maybe the police driver didn't expect the signals to change (although he should have) or for somebody to emerge so quickly after they went green (although he should have). Maybe he was too busy looking for switches for the blues to be paying attention to the junction. Maybe the OP should have seen the blues, at night, while the signals were changing.
However, the exact timing of those signals might be critical to the OPs case, so a wee trip with a stopwatch might be worthwhile.
pinchmeimdreamin said:
OpulentBob said:
Mr GrimNasty said:
KungFooPanda said:
Update on how things are looking....
First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
It's disgraceful that they don't just put their hands up and accept blame, and given that info., charge the driver.First of all my insurance company said that the BiBs insurance company have gone for 100% liability against me. I’m guessing this is just routine and that this is where the fun starts.
I asked for traffic video from the attending police cars, the photos and the black box data from the ARV.
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
I’ve sent this in to the insurance firm and I am waiting to hear from them.
If anyone knows a good RTA lawyer in the Humberside area I’d be interested to hear from you.
k me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.OpulentBob said:
So Officer Dibble slows to 56mph from 84mph (a further 20% over the max speed limit anywhere in the country), in the rain, through a red light, with 3 seconds worth of sirens, and it's STILL the OP's fault? fk me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.
He Slowed to 56 then slowed again ( But OP has withheld to what speed ),k me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.I just think this whole story has a bit of a funny cowpoop smell about it.
OpulentBob said:
So Officer Dibble slows to 56mph from 84mph (a further 20% over the max speed limit anywhere in the country), in the rain, through a red light, with 3 seconds worth of sirens, and it's STILL the OP's fault? fk me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.
Of course it's a one-sided story, what makes you think it isn't?k me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.singlecoil said:
OpulentBob said:
So Officer Dibble slows to 56mph from 84mph (a further 20% over the max speed limit anywhere in the country), in the rain, through a red light, with 3 seconds worth of sirens, and it's STILL the OP's fault? fk me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.
Of course it's a one-sided story, what makes you think it isn't?k me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.tvrgit said:
The standard "intergreen" at traffic signals is 5 seconds - that's the time from one green going off, through a 3 second amber, and the other coming on, after a 2 second red/amber. Some intergreens are longer, depending on the layout of the junction. Very few are shorter, and 4 seconds is the minimum.
I can think of two junctions - both not very well sighted - where the lights in each direction are almost on amber at the same time. Green to Green is more like 2 secs.Since PH likes maps
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Aston+Church+Road...
and
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Aston+Church+Road...
OpulentBob said:
singlecoil said:
OpulentBob said:
So Officer Dibble slows to 56mph from 84mph (a further 20% over the max speed limit anywhere in the country), in the rain, through a red light, with 3 seconds worth of sirens, and it's STILL the OP's fault? fk me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.
Of course it's a one-sided story, what makes you think it isn't?k me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.pinchmeimdreamin said:
Or maybe they see it as Officer slows approaching lights, Notices OP so slows further and illuminates Lights and siren, OP totally ignores the warning and drives straight into the path of The Officer.
Risible and desperate. The lights were put on 3 seconds before impact when the approaching vehicle was approaching at high speed. No time to react whatsoever.It would be just as described in the original post. Light changes, check, move off, blue flash, bang.
Let's collate the OP's own words here...
56mph is 90kph is 25m/s - so, at a constant 56mph, he was braking before he would have been visible from the junction. The blue lights came on at 3sec - that's 75m at 56mph, so about the visible distance, if we ignore the braking from 56mph.
If we take the further braking to be to the OP's guesstimate of 45-50mph, then that's 60 - 65m of clear blue light visibility. At 10.30pm on a wet night. That junction would have been lit up like an Xmas tree.
But was the impact speed still 45mph+? The Police car was still drivable, after a front-quarter impact.
KungFooPanda said:
Last week I left work at 22:30. It was still raining and it had been for most of the day. As I approached the traffic lights near my work, I reduced speed, almost coming to a stop, as the lights where red. The lights then changed to green and I drove off, looking right and then left. When I looked right again all I could see was the lights of the police cars, the nearside one coming straight at me. I attempted to brake but due to the speed of the police car I could not manoeuvre out of the way. I stopped about 10ft into the road and the BMW X5 police car collided with the front drivers quarter of my car
KungFooPanda said:
The officer who had crashed into the side of me, who apparently was armed response, had moved his BMW X5 prior to the traffic officer taking photographs
KungFooPanda said:
Had he went through any faster he would have destroyed the Astra that came through 'his' green light at the speed limit (NSL roundabout) so was doing probably 45-50mph.
There was about 75-100m visibility looking right, there where high trees beyond that. It was clear when I looked, I then looked left as I approached the junction then right again and BAMMM!
There was about 75-100m visibility looking right, there where high trees beyond that. It was clear when I looked, I then looked left as I approached the junction then right again and BAMMM!
KungFooPanda said:
It would appear that on approach to the traffic lights he was travelling between 80-84mph (in the rain). He reduced speed to 56mph as he neared the lights, then braked 5 secs before the accident, put his blues on 3 secs before the accident.
So the police car braked to 56mph more than five seconds before the collision - in an NSL dual carriageway, so 70mph limit.56mph is 90kph is 25m/s - so, at a constant 56mph, he was braking before he would have been visible from the junction. The blue lights came on at 3sec - that's 75m at 56mph, so about the visible distance, if we ignore the braking from 56mph.
If we take the further braking to be to the OP's guesstimate of 45-50mph, then that's 60 - 65m of clear blue light visibility. At 10.30pm on a wet night. That junction would have been lit up like an Xmas tree.
But was the impact speed still 45mph+? The Police car was still drivable, after a front-quarter impact.
over_the_hill said:
I can think of two junctions - both not very well sighted - where the lights in each direction are almost on amber at the same time. Green to Green is more like 2 secs.
Bet you it's not. Minimum intergreen is 4 seconds. That's a 3 second leaving amber, and a 2 second starting red/amber, with a one second overlap permitted. The amber periods are fixed by a Parliamentary Statutory Instrument and can't be longer or shorter, and the overlap can't be more than 1 second. Usually there is no overlap (intergreen is then 5) or an all-red between the leaving amber and the red/amber (intergreen is then 6 or more seconds).If you are seeing a 2 second intergreen then report it as an urgent fault - the sign controller's interlocks are broken and it should be taken out of service until it is repaired.
JumboBeef said:
liner33 said:
Similar thing happened near me with a ambulance on a call
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2496893.stm
"Ian Fitzgerald, 29, a trainee paramedic who had only recently completed an advanced driving test, failed to slow down as he approached the light, it was alleged.
He had been taught to treat a red light as the equivalent of a "give way" sign and should have given more regard to other road users"
Convicted of careless driving and banned for 3 months
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/32295...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2496893.stm
"Ian Fitzgerald, 29, a trainee paramedic who had only recently completed an advanced driving test, failed to slow down as he approached the light, it was alleged.
He had been taught to treat a red light as the equivalent of a "give way" sign and should have given more regard to other road users"
Convicted of careless driving and banned for 3 months
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/berkshire/32295...
BBC said:
Fitzgerald, who was working for the Berkshire Ambulance Service, drove through a red light at an estimated 35mph before hitting the side of Ms Fenney's car.
As already said, you are told to treat red lights as give ways. Stop and then proceed slowly.To me, it sounds as if the Bib in question had not done this and had crossed the light at speed.....
FWIW the case I previously posted, the speed limit (Quite why that comes into it escapes me) is 40mph so the ambulance in question was not speeding , however the driver was driving carelessly
I see little difference in the OP's case if the fact as he has claimed are correct
singlecoil said:
OpulentBob said:
singlecoil said:
OpulentBob said:
So Officer Dibble slows to 56mph from 84mph (a further 20% over the max speed limit anywhere in the country), in the rain, through a red light, with 3 seconds worth of sirens, and it's STILL the OP's fault? fk me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.
Of course it's a one-sided story, what makes you think it isn't?k me. Are people expected to be superman or something? Unless this is a seriously one-sided story, then the BiB's driving leaves a lot to be desired for a traffic unit, especially as we are constantly told of their fully comprehensive training, skills, best drivers on the road, sixth sense, coppers nose etc.
Of course its one sided as I dont know what the police have said. A part fron admitting not to having his blues on on approach to the lights and all four officers saying that they werent doing anymore than 30mph. The evidence from the black box says they were doing 80-84, then 56. Now Im not against the police, they do a difficult job but on this occasion I would like a 'you know, we messed up...sorry for the inconvenience. We accept it was our fault. Heres you no claims bonus'. Personally the whole thing stinks maybe down to the way insurance works. Im a law abiding citizen whos view of the police is now being changed due to the way this incident is panning out. There was also a slip road to his right which he could have taken to avoid me, if he'd seen me, he was in the inside lane - he should have approached in the outside line. The following police car was 60-70m behind him but he managed to go across the front of me during the accident...if you dont believe my story then I cant change that. I will be meeting with the inspector this/next week to complain about the way this has been handled.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff