Hit by an unmarked police car

[anonymous-user]

Bigends said:

Shes entitled to the drivers details. Have Police confirmed whether or not the car was on a job at the time?

Given the overall scenario described, I wonder if they weren't actual police but another Home Office department

[Roo]

Crossflow Kid said:

Given the overall scenario described, I wonder if they weren't actual police but another Home Office department

Had wondered.

[Mr2Mike]

Sheepshanks said:

lbc said:

Braking and waiting for faster traffic to pass them would be preferred option.

Yes, but...how does that square with:

lbc said:

The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.

You're sounding like one of those "BMW lane" drivers who arrogantly thinks that nothing should detract from their progress. Why shouldn't you slow down sometimes?

You sounds like someone who's ego gets damaged because someone would dare to drive faster than you. If you wish to change lanes but traffic is passing or approaching in the next lane then, as per the highway code, you should be letting it pass before indicating and pulling out.

Sheepshanks said:

The OP is talking about a dual carriageway. He doesn't state the speed limit, but even if it's 70, it's likely a lot of traffic would be doing around 50MPH, so the speed differential is 60-70MPH

It's also extremely likely that a lot of the traffic will be doing 80-85mph unless the road was heavily congested. You are only a loser with your arguments I'm afraid, the onus is on the person making the manoeuvre to ensure it's safe to do so.

[Cat]

Sheepshanks said:

The OP is talking about a dual carriageway. He doesn't state the speed limit, but even if it's 70, it's likely a lot of traffic would be doing around 50MPH, so the speed differential is 60-70MPH.

And it's a different thing (although no less excusable) to come upon things by chance, than to knowingly drive past other traffic with such a substantial speed differential, especially while not under the bells.

We have no idea of the speed differential involved in this case - it could have been 20 mph, it could have been 70mph. To make the blanket statement that you are "flying" and "on things in an instant" when travelling at 120mph is nothing more than hyperbole to try and support your claim.

We don't know nearly enough facts to be able to comment one way or the other about who was to blame, if the speeds involved were appropriate, if the lack of lights/sirens was appropriate etc.

To say that driving at 110mph is absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic when you have no knowledge of what that traffic was/how much of it was about makes no sense.

Cat

[Martin4x4]

I'm inclined to agree your friend was not paying proper attention, police car or not.

However the subsequent behaviour of Police is highly suspicious and raises questions of impropriety in my mind.

This is what the IPCC is for, to independently investigate incidents involving the Police.

https://www.ipcc.gov.uk

Edited by Martin4x4 on Thursday 14th May 19:57

[jpringle819]

lbc said:

jpringle819 said:

It is surprisingly easy to get caught out by a fast moving car.

No it isn't if you check your mirrors properly.

I notice regularly on motorways, that drivers pull out of lane 2 as soon as a lorry indicates to use that lane,
regardless of what speed the traffic in lane 3 is doing, and causing everyone to use brakes.

The Highway Code says you should not cause other drivers to change speed or direction.

I would question how many people check their mirrors when faced with a stationary car in their lane on a single carriage way 30mph road with nothing coming towards them

[Bigends]

PoleDriver said:

Bigends said:

PoleDriver said:

Sheepshanks said:

What would happen if you were driving at between 110 and 120MPH?


I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.

Only if you have slow reactions! At 110 things do happen quicker, it's not till you start getting above 150 or 160 that things start to get hairy!

Even in heavy traffic? Really?

110, with a trained police driver should not be hairy IF the traffic is moving at normal motorway speeds. From the OP's statement the traffic could not have been heavy or the unmarked car would not have been able to travel at that speed!
Looks like a straightforward case of lack of observation and concentration and possibly failure to signal by the person pulling out!

I was a trained advanced driver - area car - not traffic - some dual carriageway - mainly single carriageway work - 90 on some roads was plenty hairy enough. Motorways would have been a doddle

[TooMany2cvs]

Sheepshanks said:

What would happen if you were driving at between 110 and 120MPH?

I'd be exceeding the speed limit, and liable to prosecution, since I have no exemption.

A police driver may very well do - even without lights & siren.

Sheepshanks said:

I think many of the comments here are out of order. At 110 you're absolutely flying compared to the rest of the traffic - you're upon things in an instant.

We know he was doing 110-120.
Let's assume she was doing 70.

That's a closing speed of 40-50mph.
At a 40mph closing speed, the gap would be being reduced by 18m every second. That's less than the distance you must be able to read a number plate at.
At a 50mph closing speed, the gap would be being reduced by 22m every second. That's just over that number plate reading distance.

Yet the police car hit her SO hard that she suffered facial injuries from the steering wheel...?

[Greendubber]

PoleDriver said:

110, with a trained police driver should not be hairy IF the traffic is moving at normal motorway speeds. From the OP's statement the traffic could not have been heavy or the unmarked car would not have been able to travel at that speed!
Looks like a straightforward case of lack of observation and concentration and possibly failure to signal by the person pulling out!

110 on a motorway or DC certainly isn't hairy, not even close.

[hman]

If she was hit square on in then then she would be established in the lane - so would have completed the lane change fully.

No investigation after an RTA which has caused injury is not the normal modus operandi thats for sure.

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.

[PoleDriver]

Do we actually have proof of the speed that the 'unmarked police car' was travelling at or just hearsay?

[lbc]

hman said:

its not normal to expect a car to be closing on you with a 50mph difference (doing 120MPH) on a british motorway.

It's all the more reason to check your mirrors, and then check again before making a lane change.

[Sheepshanks]

TooMany2cvs said:

We know he was doing 110-120.
Let's assume she was doing 70.

That's a closing speed of 40-50mph.

She's a child-minder who had 4 kids in the car.

So let's assume she was doing 50MPH.

That's a closing speed of 60-70MPH.

[Roo]

A rear impact, on a moving vehicle, that caused facial injuries must have had quite a big speed differential.

[Sheepshanks]

Cat said:

We don't know nearly enough facts to be able to comment one way or the other about who was to blame, if the speeds involved were appropriate, if the lack of lights/sirens was appropriate etc.

Of course we know enough - an unmarked police car was being driven at very high speed and smashed into the back of another vehicle. Hmmm...wonder whose fault that's going to go down as?

[Elroy Blue]

Sheepshanks said:

Of course we know enough - an unmarked police car was being driven at very high speed and smashed into the back of another vehicle. Hmmm...wonder whose fault that's going to go down as?

Well, perhaps it's being investigated like every other POLAC.

(Or we can leave it to the instant PH jury to apportion blame)

[Sheepshanks]

Mr2Mike said:

If you wish to change lanes but traffic is passing or approaching in the next lane then, as per the highway code, you should be letting it pass before indicating and pulling out.

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.

[hman]

lbc said:

hman said:

its not normal to expect a car to be closing on you with a 50mph difference (doing 120MPH) on a british motorway.

It's all the more reason to check your mirrors, and then check again before making a lane change.

no,

its all the more reason not to be doing 120mph on a road where the maximum speed is 70mph

and its all the more reason that the onus is on the police driver to drive in a manner which is safe.

The fact they crashed whilst travelling at 120mph, into the rear of a vehicle means that they were not driving in a safe manner as they could not stop in time.

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.

[tony wright]

F

PoleDriver said:

Do we actually have proof of the speed that the 'unmarked police car' was travelling at or just hearsay?

Exactly. Who's to say they were doing that speed other than another policeman. Speculating on closing speeds is irrelevant as they may of been doing 150/160mph for all we know. The police could tell you for sure if they had investigated the accident, Oh! Wait a minute...

[Nickyboy]

Am i the only one who thinks the Police would not be admitting what speed they were doing especially saying they were doing 120mph, the Paramedics wouldn't need to know and if they were told they certainly wouldn't go telling the other party