Hit by an unmarked police car
Discussion
tony wright said:
F
Or a panicky woman driving at 50 will think that the car travelling at 80 was going much faster!?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...Think you can say for certain that was not the case and suggesting so seems ridiculous. Why would a police Sgt mention the afore mentioned speeds to an ambulance driver who could be a future witness? He's more likely to suggest a reduced speed so it could be deemed more appropriate than declare the real speed if it was higher.
Sheepshanks said:
Of course we know enough
Really? Answer the following then -
How fast was the other car going?
How far back was the police car when the OP's friend saw them?
How far away was the police car when she changed lane?
Did she indicate?
Could the police car have avoided the collision in the time/distance available when the other car pulled out?
What other traffic was there?
Who was in the police car?
Where were they going?
Was there a reason for no lights/siren?
and so on...
Sheepshanks said:
Hmmm...wonder whose fault that's going to go down as?
If you're implying that because they're police officers they won't be deemed responsible then you are talking nonsense. Plenty of officers have been convicted of driving offences after getting it wrong. Cat
hman said:
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.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.
There was a fairly recent well publicised incident where a biker exceeding a 60mph limit doing 97mph was killed by a driver turning right across his path and the car driver was prosecuted for causing death by careless driving.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/a47_death_crash_driver...
Edited by lbc on Thursday 14th May 23:09
hman said:
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.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.
We seem to have gone some way from the OPs original enquiry with the usual PH speculation about who was to blame when nobody here has the facts other than the OP's understandably condensed version of something he has been told.
From a quick look online it seems each force has a written procedure that is meant ot be followed when there is a crash involving a police vehicle. You will be abe to search for the appropriate policy and can see if what you know is consistent with it being followed. I am under the impression that all serious accidents involving police vehicles had to be referred to the IPCC, but a quick look at one of the policies does not confirm that, so I may be wrong about that. They certainly get involved in some of them as this link shows https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-launches-witness-appeal-part-investigation-road-traffic-incident-near-lutterworth.
OP if you are still here and have not retreated in despair best advice for your friend is to lawyer up. At worst from her point of view civil liability is going to be apportioned (so if her injuries are worth 10K but her contribution to the accident is assessed at 50% she gets 5K). At worst from a criminal law POV she may have to face a careless driving charge. Furthermore if her charges were hurt she may face claims from them at any time until they are 21, as hte three year limitatio period for personal injury does not sart to run against an injured minor until they are 18.
From a quick look online it seems each force has a written procedure that is meant ot be followed when there is a crash involving a police vehicle. You will be abe to search for the appropriate policy and can see if what you know is consistent with it being followed. I am under the impression that all serious accidents involving police vehicles had to be referred to the IPCC, but a quick look at one of the policies does not confirm that, so I may be wrong about that. They certainly get involved in some of them as this link shows https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/news/ipcc-launches-witness-appeal-part-investigation-road-traffic-incident-near-lutterworth.
OP if you are still here and have not retreated in despair best advice for your friend is to lawyer up. At worst from her point of view civil liability is going to be apportioned (so if her injuries are worth 10K but her contribution to the accident is assessed at 50% she gets 5K). At worst from a criminal law POV she may have to face a careless driving charge. Furthermore if her charges were hurt she may face claims from them at any time until they are 21, as hte three year limitatio period for personal injury does not sart to run against an injured minor until they are 18.
Found the answer to the IPPC point on their website. They say:-
Road traffic incident study
Fatalities arising from road traffic incidents (RTIs) involving police vehicles make up the largest single group of deaths following police contact and are therefore a significant proportion of cases referred to the IPCC. Over recent years there has been concern over these incidents amongst the police and the general public. However, while specific cases can lead to much media attention there is very little robust evidence available to inform public debate. The IPCC felt that it was important to analyse these cases in more detail and have conducted a study to examine a range of the most serious incidents that have occurred over recent years and have sought to identify lessons for policy and practice.
Under the Police Reform Act 2002 police forces have a statutory duty to refer all incidents involving a death or serious injury to the IPCC; we therefore have a large dataset of completed investigation reports to draw on. The study aimed to establish the extent of road traffic incidents involving the police which have resulted in a fatality or serious injury; to report on the extent to which these occur in relation to police pursuits, responses to emergency calls or other police activity; to establish trend information on these incidents; and to examine the circumstances surrounding incidents leading to serious injury or death. As well as analysing the types of RTI cases referred to the IPCC, the study collated over a hundred complete investigation reports. The emerging trends and issues have been used to make recommendations for police forces and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). The report has been laid before parliament under section 11 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and can be found below:
Police Road Traffic Incidents: A Study of police-related road traffic and driving deaths and serious Injuries (pdf 1.15mb)
Since the publication of the research, the IPCC has been working closely with ACPO and road safety campaign groups to improve police pursuit policy. The ACPO guidelines have been revised and in May 2011 it was announced that they now have the force of law. Our investigations team will be taking part in awareness sessions relating to the codification of the guidelines. This will enable them to utilise the guidelines fully in investigations into police road traffic incidents. In addition, we are maintaining contact with stakeholder groups that have been involved in the process to date.
- See more at: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/road-traffic-incident...
Road traffic incident study
Fatalities arising from road traffic incidents (RTIs) involving police vehicles make up the largest single group of deaths following police contact and are therefore a significant proportion of cases referred to the IPCC. Over recent years there has been concern over these incidents amongst the police and the general public. However, while specific cases can lead to much media attention there is very little robust evidence available to inform public debate. The IPCC felt that it was important to analyse these cases in more detail and have conducted a study to examine a range of the most serious incidents that have occurred over recent years and have sought to identify lessons for policy and practice.
Under the Police Reform Act 2002 police forces have a statutory duty to refer all incidents involving a death or serious injury to the IPCC; we therefore have a large dataset of completed investigation reports to draw on. The study aimed to establish the extent of road traffic incidents involving the police which have resulted in a fatality or serious injury; to report on the extent to which these occur in relation to police pursuits, responses to emergency calls or other police activity; to establish trend information on these incidents; and to examine the circumstances surrounding incidents leading to serious injury or death. As well as analysing the types of RTI cases referred to the IPCC, the study collated over a hundred complete investigation reports. The emerging trends and issues have been used to make recommendations for police forces and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO). The report has been laid before parliament under section 11 of the Police Reform Act 2002 and can be found below:
Police Road Traffic Incidents: A Study of police-related road traffic and driving deaths and serious Injuries (pdf 1.15mb)
Since the publication of the research, the IPCC has been working closely with ACPO and road safety campaign groups to improve police pursuit policy. The ACPO guidelines have been revised and in May 2011 it was announced that they now have the force of law. Our investigations team will be taking part in awareness sessions relating to the codification of the guidelines. This will enable them to utilise the guidelines fully in investigations into police road traffic incidents. In addition, we are maintaining contact with stakeholder groups that have been involved in the process to date.
- See more at: https://www.ipcc.gov.uk/page/road-traffic-incident...
Procedure seems to have been followed, Sgt attends to take details for the PVI. Your friend may not have been spoken to at the time as she was shaken up and injured, hence the interview a few days later. When you complete an accident book, most of the drivers are interviewed under caution, it's standard procedure, however she has declined to attend, so the Sgt can't continue the investigation at this time. The black box on the car will be checked and the PVI manager will have access to everything.... however no decisions will be made until the other driver is spoken to and all evidence is reviewed.
Trust me, if the police are at fault, they'll be dealt with! I was suspended for 3 months after an allegation of bad driving
Trust me, if the police are at fault, they'll be dealt with! I was suspended for 3 months after an allegation of bad driving
La Liga said:
Hooli said:
La Liga said:
It's probably a good indirect example of why the "no speed limit" people need to think about their position a little more.
Not really as the full position is normally the limit should be removed & driving standards improved.Anyone else very disappointed with the woman's poor perception of speed. There's something about the way a motorcycle or car traveling at higher speeds move that makes it jump out at you (even at a first glance in the mirror) as a "flyer".
She wouldn't have lasted long driving on two lanes motorways in Scotland (M8 M9 M80 and M90 all spring to mind) back in the 1980s and early 90s. Stray into lane 2 without exercising proper obs and the only thing that would be uncertain was whether it would be an XR3, Golf Gti, a Manta,A Cavalier SRI or a Porsche 944 that ran into the back of you.
She wouldn't have lasted long driving on two lanes motorways in Scotland (M8 M9 M80 and M90 all spring to mind) back in the 1980s and early 90s. Stray into lane 2 without exercising proper obs and the only thing that would be uncertain was whether it would be an XR3, Golf Gti, a Manta,A Cavalier SRI or a Porsche 944 that ran into the back of you.
Edited by Tannedbaldhead on Friday 15th May 06:29
velocefica said:
They had the cheek to invite her to an interview under caution.
The police are a law onto themselves they really are.
Seriously??!The police are a law onto themselves they really are.
Even if she was spoken to at the roadside it would still have been under caution so it's hardly a cheek.
She clearly went to hospital with 4 kids so easier to do it once that is out of the way. Unless of course you would prefer people not to be caution and any evidence gained by way of questioning being inadmissible?
Following correct process does not make them a 'law onto themselves'.... People's lack of knowledge make silly people write stupid statements like that.
Edited by Greendubber on Friday 15th May 06:50
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?
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
La Liga said:
Hooli said:
La Liga said:
It's probably a good indirect example of why the "no speed limit" people need to think about their position a little more.
Not really as the full position is normally the limit should be removed & driving standards improved.People tend to slow down a tad when, for example, they're tired or if there's a bunch of screaming kids in the car.
And people are accustomed to speed differentials - they encounter 100mph+ differentials on s/c roads all the time, and quite often encounter 70mph+ differentials on the motorway, eg when someone comes to a stop.
Sheepshanks said:
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.Let's assume she was doing 70.
That's a closing speed of 40-50mph.
So let's assume she was doing 50MPH.
Sheepshanks said:
That's a closing speed of 60-70MPH.
OK, so she's on a 70mph road and pulling into L2 with minimal observation at 50mph...A closing speed of 70mph is 32m of gap closed per second. Just one and a half times the distance she has to be able to READ THE f
kING NUMBER PLATE AT.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?
Did the truck swap lanes in front of you with minimal warning and no lane to your right for you to change into?Because, if so, then - yes - it would be the truck driver's fault.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff