Hit by an unmarked police car
Discussion
Eclassy said:
What ever happened to observation that so many on this thread like to quote in other accident/driving related threads?
A car turning across a road and a biker crashing into them is completely different from 2 cars travelling in the same direction and one hitting the other bang on in the rear.
When the police travel at such speeds, I thought their training kicked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
And what about the observation and signalling you are supposed to make before performing a manoeuvre? Are drivers somehow exempt from this if a police car is exceeding the speed limit?A car turning across a road and a biker crashing into them is completely different from 2 cars travelling in the same direction and one hitting the other bang on in the rear.
When the police travel at such speeds, I thought their training kicked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
Eclassy said:
If I am driving at 70mph in lane 1 of motorway and a large truck joins lane 1 at 35mph, who will take the blame if I ran into thw back of the truck?
The traffic on the major road has right of way, it's the truck drivers responsibility to join the road safely, so if he pulls out in front of a car and causes an accident it would be primarily the truck drivers fault. However, all drivers have a responsibility to avoid an accident if possible.Sheepshanks said:
I did a 400 mile round trip today - if I'd driven like that about the only bit of road I'd have been able to change lanes on was the M6 Toll.
So you simply pull out into the path of passing traffic, causing them to brake or slow down, and you believe that is justifiable? Perhaps you'd feel more at home on mumsnet where most of the members are completely oblivious about the traffic sharing the roads with them.hman said:
But , if you want proof, I suggest you crash into the back of someone at 120mph and see whose fault the police deem it to be.
Here's a clue, it wont be the person you crash into the back of.
Wrong. If the person pulls out into your path without looking they will take at least some of the responsibility.Here's a clue, it wont be the person you crash into the back of.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 15th May 08:25
1. Looking at a side mirror, just the once, before moving lanes is nowhere near common sense.
As part of the driving test, people are taught to glance in their mirrors every few seconds/when its safe to do so. This is to enable them to know their own changing position in relation to other traffic at all time. Its not rocket science and I know it works 100% every time as I (still) do it.
2. Eclassy, does not like the police very much.
As part of the driving test, people are taught to glance in their mirrors every few seconds/when its safe to do so. This is to enable them to know their own changing position in relation to other traffic at all time. Its not rocket science and I know it works 100% every time as I (still) do it.
2. Eclassy, does not like the police very much.
Mr2Mike said:
Sheepshanks said:
I did a 400 mile round trip today - if I'd driven like that about the only bit of road I'd have been able to change lanes on was the M6 Toll.
So you simply pull out into the path of passing traffic, causing them to brake or slow down, and you believe that is justifiable? Perhaps you'd feel more at home on mumsnet where most of the members are completely oblivious about the traffic sharing the roads with them.hman said:
But , if you want proof, I suggest you crash into the back of someone at 120mph and see whose fault the police deem it to be.
Here's a clue, it wont be the person you crash into the back of.
Wrong. If the person pulls out into your path without looking they will take at least some of the responsibility.Here's a clue, it wont be the person you crash into the back of.
Edited by Mr2Mike on Friday 15th May 08:25
The speed differential is to high to apportion any blame to the driver of the car that got rear ended - if you were doing 10 MPH different to the car you hit then maybe..but this is 50MPH.
The speed alone should be considered dangerous as its the major factor in this accident.
This is part of the reason emergency services vehicles are in hi vis colours and have very loud sirens plus very bright blue and white lights.
Except this was an unmarked car without lights and sirens on, doing 120mph in a 70MPH limit and being unable to anticipate the road conditions and other drivers behaviour and then injuring someone when the collided with the car.
Anyway as normal the difference of opinions on here is what keeps this place alive , albeit in a strange nonsensical way sometimes.
Eclassy said:
What ever happened to observation that so many on this thread like to quote in other accident/driving related threads?
A car turning across a road and a biker crashing into them is completely different from 2 cars travelling in the same direction and one hitting the other bang on in the rear.
When the police travel at such speeds, I thought their training kicked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
If I am driving at 70mph in lane 1 of motorway and a large truck joins lane 1 at 35mph, who will take the blame if I ran into thw back of the truck?
This - a 1000 times this.A car turning across a road and a biker crashing into them is completely different from 2 cars travelling in the same direction and one hitting the other bang on in the rear.
When the police travel at such speeds, I thought their training kicked in and they observed and drove defensively. That obviously didnt happen in this case.
If I am driving at 70mph in lane 1 of motorway and a large truck joins lane 1 at 35mph, who will take the blame if I ran into thw back of the truck?
Edited by Eclassy on Friday 15th May 07:32
hman said:
The speed differential is to high to apportion any blame to the driver of the car that got rear ended - if you were doing 10 MPH different to the car you hit then maybe..but this is 50MPH.
How the bloody hell do people manage to pull out of side junctions onto - or across - 70mph roads?How far away can you see an oncoming car? 150m? That's FIVE SECONDS at 70mph. Even at a 120mph speed differential, it's three seconds.
hman_edited_by_blearyeyedboy said:
Except an unverified second hand story says this was an unmarked car without lights and sirens on, doing an unrecorded speed that might be higher or lower than we think in a 70MPH limit and a collision occurred where we only have one version of events, and even that's a second hand story, so we're not in a position to say who's responsible.
EFA. Not trying to be deliberately contrary but let's not jump on the other party too quickly when the facts aren't at our disposal.hman said:
Anyway as normal the difference of opinions on here is what keeps this place alive , albeit in a strange nonsensical way sometimes.
Amen to that. 
TooMany2cvs said:
hman said:
The speed differential is to high to apportion any blame to the driver of the car that got rear ended - if you were doing 10 MPH different to the car you hit then maybe..but this is 50MPH.
How the bloody hell do people manage to pull out of side junctions onto - or across - 70mph roads?How far away can you see an oncoming car? 150m? That's FIVE SECONDS at 70mph. Even at a 120mph speed differential, it's three seconds.
Driving across 70MPH roads is a very hazardous thing to do - the A11 has a few of these junctions and there are accidents a plenty there - and I'll bet my arse if someone pulls across one of those and theres a crash that the oncoming driver doing 120MPH will be held to blame.
Its unbelievable to think that you would drive along at 120mph thinking that if someone changes lanes in front of you - whilst you are doing 50MPH in excess of the speedlimit - that the driver ahead is going to be held responsible in any way for the crash.
Get real, wake up.
Mr2Mike said:
So you simply pull out into the path of passing traffic, causing them to brake or slow down, and you believe that is justifiable?
Yes. The alternative is that I'd have to slow down. Genuine question: One of us is going to have to slow down - why should it be me?
Mr2Mike said:
Perhaps you'd feel more at home on mumsnet where most of the members are completely oblivious about the traffic sharing the roads with them.
If I was bombing down lane 3 then I'd anticipate that a vehicle in lane 2 approaching a slower vehicle may pull out, so I'd back off anyway - I wouldn't just plough on regardless. Although many people do, and they'd probably seek to blame the driver in front if they smashed into the back of them.hman said:
Pulling onto a 70mph road there is normally an "on" lane that you build up speed with - this increases your visibility to others to allow them time to adjust their speed or course if necessary, and the on lane gives you time to accelerate and thus minimise the speed differential prior to joining the lane.
Driving across 70MPH roads is a very hazardous thing to do - the A11 has a few of these junctions and there are accidents a plenty there - and I'll bet my arse if someone pulls across one of those and theres a crash that the oncoming driver doing 120MPH will be held to blame.
Its unbelievable to think that you would drive along at 120mph thinking that if someone changes lanes in front of you - whilst you are doing 50MPH in excess of the speedlimit - that the driver ahead is going to be held responsible in any way for the crash.
Bloody iPads, didn't edit right, but my view is below just to clear it up!Driving across 70MPH roads is a very hazardous thing to do - the A11 has a few of these junctions and there are accidents a plenty there - and I'll bet my arse if someone pulls across one of those and theres a crash that the oncoming driver doing 120MPH will be held to blame.
Its unbelievable to think that you would drive along at 120mph thinking that if someone changes lanes in front of you - whilst you are doing 50MPH in excess of the speedlimit - that the driver ahead is going to be held responsible in any way for the crash.
So just to clarify your view, are you saying that if a car joining or crossing a dual carriageway from a side road pulled straight out in front of a vehicle happily travelling along at 70mph on the dual carriageway without looking or without looking for long enough causing a crash, it would be the the driver on the dual carriageways fault?
It's exactly the same situation just from a differant angle is it not?
Even if we lower the speed slightly, the national speed limit is 60 mph, there are 100,000s of junctions onto national roads where a car approaching you could be doing 60 or above, it's why you are taught to constantly check your surroundings either by mirrors, or over the shoulder checks or whatever.
If you pull straight out in front of someone without looking you have to apportion some of the blame surely.
By the way I'm not saying the police driving was great, and equally a portion of blame would lay with them, but to say that it's always the other drivers fault is just silly.
Edited by Vxrconvert on Friday 15th May 10:36
Sheepshanks said:
Yes. The alternative is that I'd have to slow down.
Genuine question: One of us is going to have to slow down - why should it be me?
Because you are the person undertaking the lane change maneuver?Genuine question: One of us is going to have to slow down - why should it be me?
Why do you seem to be finding this so difficult?
Yes, in theory the truck pulling out on you and forcing you to change speed/lane is in the wrong, but why compound it by doing exactly the same as they did?
hman said:
TooMany2cvs said:
hman said:
The speed differential is to high to apportion any blame to the driver of the car that got rear ended - if you were doing 10 MPH different to the car you hit then maybe..but this is 50MPH.
How the bloody hell do people manage to pull out of side junctions onto - or across - 70mph roads?How far away can you see an oncoming car? 150m? That's FIVE SECONDS at 70mph. Even at a 120mph speed differential, it's three seconds.
Driving across 70MPH roads is a very hazardous thing to do - the A11 has a few of these junctions and there are accidents a plenty there
I'm talking about all those stretches of NSL d/c everywhere around the country.
But if you want to consider a 60mph closing speed - 28 metres per second, just under 4 seconds to close 100m - then how about any of umpty-ump bits of NSL... with less room to move over and avoid an emerging vehicle, and the potential for 120mph closing speed between oncoming vehicles. Strange how people seem to cope with 120mph closing speeds there, isn't it?
hman said:
and I'll bet my arse if someone pulls across one of those and theres a crash that the oncoming driver doing 120MPH will be held to blame.
You're thinking about a closing speed of 120mph. I'm talking about a closing speed of 70mph.mattmurdock said:
Yes, in theory the truck pulling out on you and forcing you to change speed/lane is in the wrong, but why compound it by doing exactly the same as they did?
Because in typical daily motorway conditions, you'd rarely be able to get out of the lane you were in.It's not a problem if everyone drove at similar speeds, within a reasonable range. That's the point of this thread - it goes wrong when people are doing vastly different speeds.
Personally, I have absolutely no problem with people doing whatever speed they like on the motorway, but they can't expect not to get baulked from time to time.
Sheepshanks said:
Mr2Mike said:
So you simply pull out into the path of passing traffic, causing them to brake or slow down, and you believe that is justifiable?
Yes. The alternative is that I'd have to slow down. Genuine question: One of us is going to have to slow down - why should it be me?
Your question is a somewhat surprising one. The concept of a priority rule to as a solution to a situation where two road users want the same piece of space is a fundamental and commonly encountered part of driving. For example, when you approach a give way line at the end of a side road and you want to emerge onto the main road but there is somebody coming along the main road, do you have any difficulty with the question of which of you waits for the other and why?
Is it the whole concept of a priority rule that you don't get, or is it simply that you didn't know about the particular priority rule that applies to changing lanes?
Either way, don't despair the next time you are on your 400 mile trip and there's no opportunity to change lanes. If you want to change lanes and you can't see a gap coming along any time soon, there's nothing wrong with putting a signal on to ask for some help from the drivers with priority. You might find one or two continue past you but invariably someone will choose to slow down and let you out. You must just remember that it is their priority to give, not yours to take.
hman said:
I had a driver swap lanes from slip road to lane 3 in front of me whilst I was doing 155 MPH in lane 3 on the autobahn to cologne. They were doing about 60mph and I totally cooked my brakes scrubbing the speed off, it was a fag paper thickness between the two cars colliding or not.
Had I been doing 70mph then it would have been a total non-event.
So heres the rub, I could stop in time from a much higher speed - just - but only because they swapped 3 lanes instead of 1 giving me more reaction and action time.
I dare say that the police car is at fault here - after all its not normal to expect a car to be closing on you with a 50mph difference (doing 120MPH) on a british motorway. If the police are going to drive at this speed then they must take this into account and drive according to traffic conditions.
Unlit, no sirens, on a public highway at 50mph over the speedlimit is ridiculous, to cause an injury via a collision is unacceptable.
If we did it then we could be looking at a dangerous driving charge.
Agree with you, I don't see how it is reasonable for anyone to be held responsible for misjudging such an excessive and unexpected speed differential. No competent driver would rely on the observational skills of others to avoid an accident, which brings me on to thinking about the definition of dangerous driving.... Had I been doing 70mph then it would have been a total non-event.
So heres the rub, I could stop in time from a much higher speed - just - but only because they swapped 3 lanes instead of 1 giving me more reaction and action time.
I dare say that the police car is at fault here - after all its not normal to expect a car to be closing on you with a 50mph difference (doing 120MPH) on a british motorway. If the police are going to drive at this speed then they must take this into account and drive according to traffic conditions.
Unlit, no sirens, on a public highway at 50mph over the speedlimit is ridiculous, to cause an injury via a collision is unacceptable.
If we did it then we could be looking at a dangerous driving charge.
On a side note, what were you doing at 150 passing a slip road on the autobahn? Restricted? no?
TooMany2cvs said:
But if you want to consider a 60mph closing speed - 28 metres per second, just under 4 seconds to close 100m - then how about any of umpty-ump bits of NSL... with less room to move over and avoid an emerging vehicle, and the potential for 120mph closing speed between oncoming vehicles. Strange how people seem to cope with 120mph closing speeds there, isn't it?
I think there's a bit of a difference between 120mph forward view and 60mph rear view...
t female drivers, hunched over the wheel like a hamster with a digestive.Black_S3 said:
TooMany2cvs said:
But if you want to consider a 60mph closing speed - 28 metres per second, just under 4 seconds to close 100m - then how about any of umpty-ump bits of NSL... with less room to move over and avoid an emerging vehicle, and the potential for 120mph closing speed between oncoming vehicles. Strange how people seem to cope with 120mph closing speeds there, isn't it?
I think there's a bit of a difference between 120mph forward view and 60mph rear view...Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff