Lucky to be alive.
Discussion
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, spinning my car through 90o and my car came to rest at the roadside. Both police vehicles had there blue lights on but no sirens. My side airbags had gone off and the front of my vehicle from the drivers door pillar to the front bumper was severely damaged. The front drivers wheel had also collapsed.
About 10 minutes later a traffic officer arrived he breathalysed me and took a statement. 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. He was also breathalysed and gave a statement. Another traffic officer then arrived and explained to me that the normal outcome is one of joint liability. I asked the traffic officer if the armed response units carried cameras in the vehicles as I deemed his speed and that of the other police vehicle was not appropriate for the conditions, whether on a call or not.
There was also a witness who was coming up behind me who thought I was dead when the police car hit, such was the impact. Indeed so did I. He also gave his name and address to the police.
Today I rang my car insurance to see how my claim was doing and I was told that my car is a total loss and that the other party is claiming for a hire car on my insurance. I explained that the car that hit me was a Police armed response vehicle and that they’d be pushed to get one from Avis. He couldn’t understand why the police would request a hire car in the circumstances.
On the evening of the accident I thought the actions of the police where very professional with regards to the way they dealt with the aftermath but I’m afraid I find myself feeling let down and taken advantage of since I have been in contact with my insurance company.
If anyone has any experience of such things or can give me any advice then I would be grateful. I have a meeting with my legal team on Thursday to discuss the matter.
I fail to understand how someone can almost kill someone and it be joint liability given the speed and conditions involved.
About 10 minutes later a traffic officer arrived he breathalysed me and took a statement. 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. He was also breathalysed and gave a statement. Another traffic officer then arrived and explained to me that the normal outcome is one of joint liability. I asked the traffic officer if the armed response units carried cameras in the vehicles as I deemed his speed and that of the other police vehicle was not appropriate for the conditions, whether on a call or not.
There was also a witness who was coming up behind me who thought I was dead when the police car hit, such was the impact. Indeed so did I. He also gave his name and address to the police.
Today I rang my car insurance to see how my claim was doing and I was told that my car is a total loss and that the other party is claiming for a hire car on my insurance. I explained that the car that hit me was a Police armed response vehicle and that they’d be pushed to get one from Avis. He couldn’t understand why the police would request a hire car in the circumstances.
On the evening of the accident I thought the actions of the police where very professional with regards to the way they dealt with the aftermath but I’m afraid I find myself feeling let down and taken advantage of since I have been in contact with my insurance company.
If anyone has any experience of such things or can give me any advice then I would be grateful. I have a meeting with my legal team on Thursday to discuss the matter.
I fail to understand how someone can almost kill someone and it be joint liability given the speed and conditions involved.
BlimeyCharlie said:
750turbo said:
numtumfutunch said:
9mm said:
Link to the press reporting of this please or it didn't happen.
+11 post
Does not reply...
Not being a smart ar*e but you've kind of contradicted yourself. Accidents happen I know and the 'other' party will argue that they were following procedure and you failed to spot them and emerged from junction, assuming we take your version at face value.
Might be polite to reply to the responses you've had on here too.
dudleybloke said:
Don't these police vehicles have cameras fitted these days?
When the two traffic police arrived I did ask about this and I was told not all police cars do but traffic officers cars do. Im calling the local police station tomorrow to enquire about evidence they have. I’ll also ask about the data recorders that someone mentioned.ikarl said:
On Monday a Fire Engine on a call with blues/sirens going passed me on the left on a roundabout. Our light was red and he literally passed through the red light at 10-15mph.
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.
I commented to the wife that the driver of the fire engine must've been expecting it. Had the police officer done the same, the accident may have been much less likely to happen.
OP - Can you link the streetview from Google Maps so we can see the junction in question please?
I don’t want to post photos of the junction as yet as it’s an ongoing investigation. 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! A car travelling at 100mph can cover 100m in just over 2.2 secs so to say I should have seen them is not true. I have exited that junction for the last 14 years and you could say I have a routine. Its served me well until that night. The police officer is also the one with the advanced driving qualifications so I would have expected a different approach on his behalf.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.
I commented to the wife that the driver of the fire engine must've been expecting it. Had the police officer done the same, the accident may have been much less likely to happen.
OP - Can you link the streetview from Google Maps so we can see the junction in question please?
ferrariF50lover said:
I've never been in this situation from your side, but I've done similar from the policeman's.
Do you mind awfully if I ask why you stopped? If your scenario is as it seems by your description, you were in the path of an oncoming car and your reaction was to stop dead, ensuring that you remained in its path, rather than accelerating out of the way (or at least attempting to).
Was it a conscious decision, or did you just hit the brake by default?
I'm not taking the piss, you did what you did and that's an end to it, I'm trying to understand why those couple of odd people who have done to me similar in the past have done so. I can't ask them, so I'm asking you.
Simon.
Simon, there where two police cars. One in the outside lane and just behind looked like a BMW estate and the nearside one the BMW X5. If I didn’t brake I think I would be dead.Do you mind awfully if I ask why you stopped? If your scenario is as it seems by your description, you were in the path of an oncoming car and your reaction was to stop dead, ensuring that you remained in its path, rather than accelerating out of the way (or at least attempting to).
Was it a conscious decision, or did you just hit the brake by default?
I'm not taking the piss, you did what you did and that's an end to it, I'm trying to understand why those couple of odd people who have done to me similar in the past have done so. I can't ask them, so I'm asking you.
Simon.
burwoodman said:
KungFuPanda said:
burwoodman said:
Terzo123 said:
Rovinghawk said:
If you definitely went through a green & he definitely went through a red then it's 100% his fault. It's his job to avoid you, not vice versa.
This is not correct.OP, I think you will have to take a split liability decision if you take the case further.
To spin a car 90 degrees would take serious impact and speed. i would be fighting any blame levelled at me.
Edited by burwoodman on Wednesday 1st October 12:02
scubadude said:
A few years ago I was rammed while stationary waiting to join a roundabout, the insurers decided it was 50:50 because I didn't have my foot on the brake!!!
Anyway, when the dust had settled the knob who hit me sued separately for the other 50% and to my shock my insurers just paid him (to save the hassle)
Luckily since then I've not had to but since all accidents seem to be 50:50 so insurers make more money make sure you sue for the rest.
To the OP, from your description BiB don't have a leg to stand on- I'd have demanded his suspension from the senior officer on the spot- passing through a solid Red at speed is against their driving standards and he should be facing serious internal investigation at the minimum.
Get lawyered up and push for everything you can- in my experience if you don't puch you often end up loosing out.
I have a meeting with legal tomorrow so will update tomorrow nightAnyway, when the dust had settled the knob who hit me sued separately for the other 50% and to my shock my insurers just paid him (to save the hassle)
Luckily since then I've not had to but since all accidents seem to be 50:50 so insurers make more money make sure you sue for the rest.
To the OP, from your description BiB don't have a leg to stand on- I'd have demanded his suspension from the senior officer on the spot- passing through a solid Red at speed is against their driving standards and he should be facing serious internal investigation at the minimum.
Get lawyered up and push for everything you can- in my experience if you don't puch you often end up loosing out.
numtumfutunch said:
9mm said:
Link to the press reporting of this please or it didn't happen.
+1Inkyfingers said:
No mention of this online or on twitter.
I also looked at the Twitter, Facebook , website of the force involved and there is no mention. There is also no mention of the other two accidents the force has had with the public last week on facebook/twitter but there was a mention in the local rag..Edited by KungFooPanda on Thursday 2nd October 00:18
jjones said:
when i got stopped by an armed response car about 2 years ago it had no camera (extremely fortunately for me). (unmarked r32)
When I went to pick up my belongings from my car the guy at the compound told me that ARVs don't have cameras in case they capture someone being shot!BlimeyCharlie said:
I think from my recent experiences of insurance companies (or in fact anything slightly 'legal') they would rather go 50/50 unless there is absolute proof of someone being proved to be in the wrong.
It is easier for them, they don't have to do 'extra' work but we think they are working for us. They are not. Once you've paid the premium you might as well represent yourself.
You are just a name on a folder, on a pile of similar folders that someone has to deal with each and every day.
To you, it is a big deal and traumatic (quite rightly) but to the insurance company you are one of many with a similar problem.
My advice to you is look into your legal position yourself, even if you have 'legal representation' on your policy, and establish in black and white your options.
Make sure you email rather than phone people, or if you've phoned already then follow it up in writing. Ask for everything to be emailed to you and keep a record of who you spoke to and when etc.
There are various forums to establish your position, here being a good place to ask, but don't think 'your' people are helping you, because they probably won't.
Don't trust anyone human! We are flawed to make life easy for ourselves first and foremost, and if we may look like paying for our actions when in the wrong then we'll lie.
Hope you move forward but it sounds to me that without proof you are struggling to advance on 50/50.
I think you've knocked the nail on the head. After only a week I can see that the insurance train seem to be doing its own thing and those involved just sit back and watch while they minimise the cost outcome which I think is a good thing because its a stressful time for both parties.The only thing that is annoying me is this joint liability. So because I am off work I have rang the police and asked them for all the photo/video evidence of the scene and the incident data recorder data from the police car that hit me. Im also reporting it to the IPCC as I think there is a culture of reckless driving with the force involved as three collisions with the public in four days is extreme.It is easier for them, they don't have to do 'extra' work but we think they are working for us. They are not. Once you've paid the premium you might as well represent yourself.
You are just a name on a folder, on a pile of similar folders that someone has to deal with each and every day.
To you, it is a big deal and traumatic (quite rightly) but to the insurance company you are one of many with a similar problem.
My advice to you is look into your legal position yourself, even if you have 'legal representation' on your policy, and establish in black and white your options.
Make sure you email rather than phone people, or if you've phoned already then follow it up in writing. Ask for everything to be emailed to you and keep a record of who you spoke to and when etc.
There are various forums to establish your position, here being a good place to ask, but don't think 'your' people are helping you, because they probably won't.
Don't trust anyone human! We are flawed to make life easy for ourselves first and foremost, and if we may look like paying for our actions when in the wrong then we'll lie.
Hope you move forward but it sounds to me that without proof you are struggling to advance on 50/50.
Elroy Blue said:
Really? How many thousands of miles in extreme condition's have they driven in that period? The IPCC will refer it back to the investigating Force, because despite what certain usual suspects on this thread will tell you, it will be investigated properly. It will then go to the head of department and from there it will then go to an independent decision maker who will review the recommendations. Why don't you actually let the investigating officer do their job. I'd also check your insurance company is giving you correct info about the hire car. Sounds bizarre to me.
With regards to my incident, the fact that he has driven thousands of miles on calls and is an advanced driver I would of thought he would have approached the red lights at a much lower speed in the rain.I think that if I'd rang and gave the details of the accident and they had instantly brought it up on the system then I would have been happy. The fact that she couldn't find it to begin with was a tad surprising. I have just received an answer phone message and the sergeant involved is calling me tomorrow so I'll see what he has to say.
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.
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.
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.
sherbertdip said:
WinstonWolf said:
pinchmeimdreamin said:
Eclassy said:
OP
Dont fall for the trick to identify the junction in question or give any more details than you are prepared to. If anyone doesnt believe what you have written, then thats their problem. I have also experienced it on here where it is claimed that you are lying/not providing the full story when it doesnt paint the police in good light.
I believe these boards are monitored by the powers that be so do not provide any information that may be detrimental to your case.
How is saying where it happened in any way detrimental to the OP's case ?????Dont fall for the trick to identify the junction in question or give any more details than you are prepared to. If anyone doesnt believe what you have written, then thats their problem. I have also experienced it on here where it is claimed that you are lying/not providing the full story when it doesnt paint the police in good light.
I believe these boards are monitored by the powers that be so do not provide any information that may be detrimental to your case.
Not aimed at anyone in particular, but there's some knob jockeys on here who wouldn't believe they had a nose on their face unless you could provide a web based link to it...
Why this didn’t show up in the news I have no idea. There were another two BiB/public collisions within 4 days and both of them did hit the local rag. Maybe this is a question I can ask the Inspector when we meet.
Based on the evidence I’ve gathered and the witness report, I believe when this goes to court, and I will ensure that it does if needed, that the BiB that caused this accident will go down the same route as the ambulance driver mentioned earlier. It’s a route I don’t want to take but if forced I will and I will go to the media. Being a police officer doesn’t mean you can defy the laws of physics, it will still take the BiB the same distance to stop as it would a civilian, whether he has blue lights or not. I find it disgraceful that this can happen, all involved get a slap on the wrist and then its handed over to their insurance/ legal team who then carry out a damage control exercise to ensure the police lose as little face as possible, regardless of the facts.
I also received a phone call earlier from a friend, who has a police officer friend who is apparently on here and has been reading this. He has suggested that I no longer carry on with this thread but give an update when it’s done. I’ve decided to take his advice and for those that are genuinely interested in the outcome I will update when the verdict is out.
Again, thanks for some great advice, some of it from police officers.
Just thought Id give an update as to how this is progressing...
Initially the police lawyers went for 100% liability. It is now down to 60/40, still in their favour.
They are quoting case law - Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance in which the ambulance had sirens on and Griffin failed to give way.
They are also quoting the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 with regards to how emergency vehicles should approach a red light.
Im a bit miffed to say the least as neither side seems to be taking into consideration any of the data recorder information that is sitting in the police station. The traffic officer attending has explained to me that the police car was doing 83mph on the approach, he braked to 56mph 5 seconds before the accident, 3 seconds before the accident he put his blue lights on. By this time I had already pulled away and was looking left as I crossed the junction.
The data above shows that the case law and regulations are not relevant in my opinion but the legal teams dont seem to be bothered and are more concerned about minimising loses. Ive explained that Im not happy and want it taking further and was then told 'well I can take it to the boss but he'll probably pull funding!'
I cant believe how corrupt and unfair the whole system is but Im not one for letting things go so will be seeking further advice.
Initially the police lawyers went for 100% liability. It is now down to 60/40, still in their favour.
They are quoting case law - Griffin vs Merseyside Ambulance in which the ambulance had sirens on and Griffin failed to give way.
They are also quoting the The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 with regards to how emergency vehicles should approach a red light.
Im a bit miffed to say the least as neither side seems to be taking into consideration any of the data recorder information that is sitting in the police station. The traffic officer attending has explained to me that the police car was doing 83mph on the approach, he braked to 56mph 5 seconds before the accident, 3 seconds before the accident he put his blue lights on. By this time I had already pulled away and was looking left as I crossed the junction.
The data above shows that the case law and regulations are not relevant in my opinion but the legal teams dont seem to be bothered and are more concerned about minimising loses. Ive explained that Im not happy and want it taking further and was then told 'well I can take it to the boss but he'll probably pull funding!'
I cant believe how corrupt and unfair the whole system is but Im not one for letting things go so will be seeking further advice.
Mk3Spitfire said:
Surely, if your own legal team are concerned with minimising losses on your part, there is more to it than your belief that the police are totally at fault?
No...I think I have a really lazy legal team. They are sending me the case file so I can read it. Im also visiting the police station next week to get copies of the evidence held there. I'll then be sitting with an independent. To go through options. Approaching red lights at 56mph, at night in the rain with no blue lights on? Normal police procedure? If so Im surprised they havent killed anyone yet.Mk3Spitfire said:
I can't/wont speak for the police because it wasn't me, and I wasn't there.
What I was getting at, was that a professional legal team, having dealt, I imagine with hundreds of accidents are under the impression that damage limitation is the way forward. That to me suggests they feel there is more to it...otherwise they'd pursue it and argue the case more.
If they are that lazy...can you change them? Or employ your own if these are via your insurance?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, by the way.
Thats why Im seeking independent advice next week.What I was getting at, was that a professional legal team, having dealt, I imagine with hundreds of accidents are under the impression that damage limitation is the way forward. That to me suggests they feel there is more to it...otherwise they'd pursue it and argue the case more.
If they are that lazy...can you change them? Or employ your own if these are via your insurance?
I'm not trying to be obtuse, by the way.
Edited by Mk3Spitfire on Friday 20th March 21:27
TooMany2cvs said:
kazste said:
So what if you see the lights of a car coming up to a junction, remembering its dark and you probably dont know its a police car most would assume this car to stop for the red light.
If you can't tell the difference between the lights of a car doing 50+mph and not slowing, and one that's pulling up to lights - even in the two seconds before it turns all Xmas Tree...kazste said:
Three seconds just isnt long enough for some to react
<blink>Then those people should put their licences in an envelope, addressed to SA99 1TU, together with a covering letter stating that a comatose sloth would put their reactions to shame.
Ive been told to make a complaint to the Inspector of the Humberside Police and the IPCC. If any of you can advise Id be greatful.
TooMany2cvs said:
KungFooPanda said:
The traffic officer attending has explained to me that the police car was doing 83mph on the approach
Irrelevant.KungFooPanda said:
he braked to 56mph 5 seconds before the accident
125 metres away. Yet you didn't see him in that time.KungFooPanda said:
3 seconds before the accident he put his blue lights on.
75 metres away. Yet you didn't see him in that time.KungFooPanda said:
By this time I had already pulled away and was looking left as I crossed the junction.
At night, and you didn't notice approaching headlamps in five seconds and 125 metres, and you didn't notice blue strobe lights being added to them in three seconds and 75 metres?hondansx said:
TooMany2cvs said:
kazste said:
So what if you see the lights of a car coming up to a junction, remembering its dark and you probably dont know its a police car most would assume this car to stop for the red light.
If you can't tell the difference between the lights of a car doing 50+mph and not slowing, and one that's pulling up to lights - even in the two seconds before it turns all Xmas Tree...kazste said:
Three seconds just isnt long enough for some to react
<blink>Then those people should put their licences in an envelope, addressed to SA99 1TU, together with a covering letter stating that a comatose sloth would put their reactions to shame.
Being right doesn't make it right; that's what i've learnt during my experience of (completely unrelated ) litigation and legal matters at work. If you really have the time and money to pursue this, then fair play. If you don't, then be mindful that you could just be at the first step of a very, very long and frustrating road. Consider the impact on your life (and the lives of others around you) of having this on your mind day after day.
From experience, life is short and you should spend as much of it as you can doing positive things.
TooMany2cvs said:
KungFooPanda said:
TooMany2cvs said:
kazste said:
Three seconds just isnt long enough for some to react
<blink>Then those people should put their licences in an envelope, addressed to SA99 1TU, together with a covering letter stating that a comatose sloth would put their reactions to shame.
The thinking distance in the highway code is based on 0.7 seconds. Less than a quarter of the time you say that you cannot possibly be expected to react in - and you were in a junction, where you should be MORE alert, not less. Traffic lights are amber for less than three seconds. Do you find them impossibly fast to respond to, too?
KungFooPanda said:
Is it normal police practice to approach traffiTc lights at that speed, in the rain, in the dark without blue lights flashing?
You said that the blue lights lights WERE flashing from three seconds, 75 metres away.Edited by TooMany2cvs on Saturday 21st March 13:33
TooMany2cvs said:
kazste said:
I stated that three seconds to react may not be long enough for some and depending on the reaction, you were talking about thinking time now. Please decide which time you would like to discuss!
They're the same thing.The thinking time in the HC stopping distances IS the time in which the driver is expected to process the hazard and react.
If it really takes the OP three seconds to notice the light has changed to green, and pull ten foot into the junction...
Ken Figenus said:
Bigends said:
If the Police car had slowed and crept through the lights - as theyre trained too - at a reasonable speed then this probably wouldnt have happened.
Lurking but have to say that this is my experience of how things work from my personal observations too. Blues and twos are not a licence to slam through junctions with impunity, and I have never ever seen them used that way either. Professionals that we depend upon then live to drive another day and make it to the call. Do you have any idea of the age/experience of the officer that slammed into you - unlikely to have red mist if time served I guess, as these guys really are some of the best drivers in the world. Given what they do daily such incidents like this are rare.
Good luck and take it all they way if you are right; hate people who dont take it like a man as we all screw up now and again. Its a human feature!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff