Crash with blue light running police car
Discussion
carreauchompeur said:
It’s actually not in law, just procedure. Police vehicles have an exemption from red lights.
Treating a green light as a give way is a procedure? It’s not, it’s nonsense. A green light means that your road now has priority over the ones that have a red light. The police cars action no different to car pulling out of a side road and causing an accident.Yellow Lizud said:
The law of common sense, something you seem to be lacking in judging by your other posts.
You are waiting at a set of traffic lights, they turn to green but the car in front of you stalls. Do you just drive into the back of them because you have a green light?
You are driving on the major road and wish to turn right at the set of traffic lights ahead. Do you just turn right across any oncoming traffic because the lights are green?
Green means 'go if safe' although judging by the number of accidents at traffic lights I don't think many people understand this.
What an idiotic take. The driver in question did not run in to the back of a stationary car or drive in to oncoming traffic. They went through a green light when the road was clear, and then was hit by a police car going through a red light at speed.You are waiting at a set of traffic lights, they turn to green but the car in front of you stalls. Do you just drive into the back of them because you have a green light?
You are driving on the major road and wish to turn right at the set of traffic lights ahead. Do you just turn right across any oncoming traffic because the lights are green?
Green means 'go if safe' although judging by the number of accidents at traffic lights I don't think many people understand this.
Common sense would be for the police driver to not assume that they would be seen or heard when running a red light.
Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 6th November 10:13
Electro1980 said:
What an idiotic take. The driver in question did not run in to the back of a stationary car or drive in to oncoming traffic. They went through a green light when the road was clear, and then was hit by a police car going through a red light at speed.
As idiotics go, your second sentence must be up there, near the top.You should ensure the road is clear, and this means looking both, or whatever number is required, ways to ensure nothing is coming. If there is nothing coming it is very hard to collide with it.
Green does not mean proceed regardless.
Derek Smith said:
Electro1980 said:
What an idiotic take. The driver in question did not run in to the back of a stationary car or drive in to oncoming traffic. They went through a green light when the road was clear, and then was hit by a police car going through a red light at speed.
As idiotics go, your second sentence must be up there, near the top.You should ensure the road is clear, and this means looking both, or whatever number is required, ways to ensure nothing is coming. If there is nothing coming it is very hard to collide with it.
Green does not mean proceed regardless.
Would you be making the same argument if a driver pulled out of a side road without looking? I know you want to defend another police driver here, but they went through a red light. That is their fault. You admit training police drivers yourself, and passing on this kind of attitude is exactly what leads to this kind of incident.
gazza285 said:
saknog said:
Just looking at it from different angles and not apportioning any blame but did the police car have its siren on, did you wife hear a siren or not?
Should drivers proceed with caution when hearing a siren until the location of the vehicle with the siren on is identified?
I have seen many times driver’s pull out in front of emergency vehicles, even though a siren can be heard long before the vehicle has appeared
My wife did not hear the siren. Should drivers proceed with caution when hearing a siren until the location of the vehicle with the siren on is identified?
I have seen many times driver’s pull out in front of emergency vehicles, even though a siren can be heard long before the vehicle has appeared
As for the comment about not proceeding unless you can see the way is clear, there is no way to see if the way is clear from the stop line, and likewise as the police vehicle approached, they could not see traffic emerging from the side road until too late either.
The only way your wife could have had sight of the police car approaching would be to set off from the stop line and drive to the end of the road before stopping again to look round the building on her right, which would probably gave got her rear-ended.
carreauchompeur said:
It’s actually not in law, just procedure. Police vehicles have an exemption from red lights.
I bet you can't quote the actual traffic regulation in full that says that. *Just think about what you have said for a moment You are implying that a police car can go through on red and if they hit someone it is the other drivers fault
Meanwhile in the real world all emergency drivers are taught to treat red lights as a give way junction ( some services teach to treat as a stop sign)
- Doesn't exist.
Electro1980 said:
Derek Smith said:
Electro1980 said:
What an idiotic take. The driver in question did not run in to the back of a stationary car or drive in to oncoming traffic. They went through a green light when the road was clear, and then was hit by a police car going through a red light at speed.
As idiotics go, your second sentence must be up there, near the top.You should ensure the road is clear, and this means looking both, or whatever number is required, ways to ensure nothing is coming. If there is nothing coming it is very hard to collide with it.
Green does not mean proceed regardless.
Would you be making the same argument if a driver pulled out of a side road without looking? I know you want to defend another police driver here, but they went through a red light. That is their fault. You admit training police drivers yourself, and passing on this kind of attitude is exactly what leads to this kind of incident.
The police driver bears the majority of the blame, having contravened the red light and failed to anticipate another vehicle entering the junction bringing with it the chance of a conflict or in this case a collision.
HOWEVER, that does not absolve the OP's wife of any blame in this instance, yes she had the green light showing that she could proceed, however that does not preclude her being responsible for making sure it is safe to proceed.
Her level of awareness of what is happening around her isn't brilliant, and I'd pose that an emergency vehicle on blue lights is a far easier target to see entering her intended route than, say, a child running across the road and the failure to recognise what was happening around her suggests that with a little more situational awareness, she might have been able to avoid the police car passing effectively across her bows.
Again, the police driver bears the majority of the responsibility, but, no one comes out of this with a perfect driving record IMHO having investigated RTC's.
In reality, the Police will most likely accept full responsibility for the claim with the OP's wife's insurers
Drumroll said:
carreauchompeur said:
It’s actually not in law, just procedure. Police vehicles have an exemption from red lights.
I bet you can't quote the actual traffic regulation in full that says that. *Just think about what you have said for a moment You are implying that a police car can go through on red and if they hit someone it is the other drivers fault
Meanwhile in the real world all emergency drivers are taught to treat red lights as a give way junction ( some services teach to treat as a stop sign)
- Doesn't exist.
RTRA 1984 for speed limits and TSRGD 2002 for road signs ( ATS are covered by this )
Drumroll said:
Rushjob said:
Errrrr,those laws do so exist....
RTRA 1984 for speed limits and TSRGD 2002 for road signs ( ATS are covered by this )
Read all the regulations associated with the exemptions.RTRA 1984 for speed limits and TSRGD 2002 for road signs ( ATS are covered by this )
Emergency vehicles do not have "cart blanche" to ignore any regulation exemptions or not.
Emergency drivers are allowed the exemption not to abide by said sign/limit if to abide by it would frustrate the use to which the emergency vehicle is being put at the time, however, should the driver have a collision then they can still be reported and if there is a case to be answered in the opinion of the CPS then it will be judged on its merits in Court
Edited by Rushjob on Sunday 6th November 12:00
Derek Smith said:
You should ensure the road is clear, and this means looking both, or whatever number is required, ways to ensure nothing is coming. If there is nothing coming it is very hard to collide with it.
That's always the case, surely? Pootling down the road we should always be doing the above, irrespective of lights.Derek Smith said:
Green does not mean proceed regardless.
I'd be surprised if anyone's said it does.Electro1980 said:
What an idiotic take. The driver in question did not run in to the back of a stationary car or drive in to oncoming traffic. They went through a green light when the road was clear, and then was hit by a police car going through a red light at speed.
Common sense would be for the police driver to not assume that they would be seen or heard when running a red light.
Idiotic is correct to describe your own post. Quite simply put, if the road truly had been clear there would have been no collision.Common sense would be for the police driver to not assume that they would be seen or heard when running a red light.
Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 6th November 10:13
Eectro1980 said:
A green light means that your road now has priority over the ones that have a red light.
Care to provide the legislation that makes that statement?Whatever the technicalities of the law I think most people would understand it as someone going through a green light has priority over someone sitting at a red light. And that it's still necessary to look and take care, same as anywhere else on the road.
I can't prove the above though, so look forward to being called an idiot.
I can't prove the above though, so look forward to being called an idiot.
To the people on here who wrote that the Wife should have made sure it’s safe to proceed on a green…. How fast was the police car going?
When the wife was approaching the junction the police car might have been nowhere near and the junction looked to be normal, then the police car suddenly appeared out of nowhere. If the police car was doing 70 mph then it’s covering over 100 foot every second.
This probably is no excuse but realistically how many people do this? Slow down to check and treat their green traffic light similar to a give-way sign? Especially if you’re the second, third or fourth car going through the green light. I don’t know anyone who does this.
The best quote I’ve heard about blue light driving came from a Firefighter… “it’s best to arrive a minute late, than not at all”.
I remember seeing ambulances slow right down at a junction and go through their red traffic light at a walking pace then speed up once they’re past the hazard.
When the wife was approaching the junction the police car might have been nowhere near and the junction looked to be normal, then the police car suddenly appeared out of nowhere. If the police car was doing 70 mph then it’s covering over 100 foot every second.
This probably is no excuse but realistically how many people do this? Slow down to check and treat their green traffic light similar to a give-way sign? Especially if you’re the second, third or fourth car going through the green light. I don’t know anyone who does this.
The best quote I’ve heard about blue light driving came from a Firefighter… “it’s best to arrive a minute late, than not at all”.
I remember seeing ambulances slow right down at a junction and go through their red traffic light at a walking pace then speed up once they’re past the hazard.
By barrelling through the red light, the officer didnt reach the job they were attending on the hurry up, maybe putting members of the public or colleagues at risk as well as tying up Police resources dealing with their collision aa well as putting the putting the OP's wife at risk. Slow and negotiate the red light with care, get to the job a few seconds later - everybodys happy!
Edited by Bigends on Sunday 6th November 14:13
You never just steam through a junction. If you can’t see it is absolutely clear you should be coming to a virtual halt and then advancing as safe to do so, regardless of whether you have both lights and siren on. Lights only, even more caution and unmarked vehicle go even slower.
I would never have the mindset that other road users WILL give way and treat everyone as if they have NOT SEEN you until it is absolutely clear they have.
Whatever the incident, you shouldn’t put others in danger responding. Plus you are no go to anyone if you don’t actually arrive.
Those speeding through lights are probably the sort that also barge into traffic at lights and expect them to magically disappear, instead of slowly rolling in and allowing time for people to work things out.
I would never have the mindset that other road users WILL give way and treat everyone as if they have NOT SEEN you until it is absolutely clear they have.
Whatever the incident, you shouldn’t put others in danger responding. Plus you are no go to anyone if you don’t actually arrive.
Those speeding through lights are probably the sort that also barge into traffic at lights and expect them to magically disappear, instead of slowly rolling in and allowing time for people to work things out.
Yellow Lizud said:
pteron said:
Derek Smith said:
The other driver should have treated the green light as a give way sign. It does not mean proceed. Some blame lies with that driver it would appear.
What law do you base this statement on?You are waiting at a set of traffic lights, they turn to green but the car in front of you stalls. Do you just drive into the back of them because you have a green light?
You are driving on the major road and wish to turn right at the set of traffic lights ahead. Do you just turn right across any oncoming traffic because the lights are green?
Green means 'go if safe' although judging by the number of accidents at traffic lights I don't think many people understand this.
I see that rather than address the point you resort to ad hominem, good luck with that.
And then we have a straw man, did you never contribite to debates at school? When turning on green one either has a general green which tends to indicate that the oncoming traffic will also have a green therefore I must pause and see if it is clear, or a filter by which I would rightly assume I have right of way over the oncoming traffic, so yes I'd turn if I had the green.
By your reasoning, if I drove straight through a junction at which I had a green and some hyper fast car jumped the red light in the orthogonal direction and hit me I'd somehow be partially to blame because I didn't check it was clear? That is idiotic.
The police are allowed to jump red lights IF IT IS SAFE TO DO SO. The onus is on them.
Hugo Stiglitz said:
Hope everyone is OK. The officers line/perspective is effectively a blind corner/junction obscured by the Zetland pub. Why didn't they slow?
Telemetry will show alot..
Maybe they did slow.Telemetry will show alot..
Maybe the other vehicle had enough opportunity to see the pretty blue light and stop.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff