Police Death Crash an Accident - near Camera Site

[Chrisgr31]

An accident involving a Kent police car and a fiesta in which the driver of the Fiesta was killed has been found to be an accident by the inquest.

The news report can be found at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/7196289.st...

I have no particular issue with this accident although I know the road, and guess that will the reported speed of the police car the Fiesta driver wouldn't have had a chance to see him coming. In my view if we want the emergency services to get to incidents as fast as possible we also have to accept that they are human and will foul up on occasions.

However this accident spot is near where a mobile camera van hides, and I would hope that the death in this accident is not one of the statistics used to justify the camera site.

[John57]

Chrisgr31 said:

I would hope that the death in this accident is not one of the statistics used to justify the camera site.

As if they would do that

[Chrisgr31]

John57 said:

Chrisgr31 said:

I would hope that the death in this accident is not one of the statistics used to justify the camera site.

As if they would do that

I know, perish the thought!

[deeps]

Chrisgr31 said:

and guess that will the reported speed of the police car the Fiesta driver wouldn't have had a chance to see him coming

How come she wouldn't have seen him? Was the police car doing nearly a ton around a blind bend with a junction along it?

[SLCZ3]

The policeman appears to have been speeding in an area where it was not suitable, or the victim did not see the vehicle approaching, there are not enough details in the report to draw any more conclusions.
There is an obligation on all drivers, to drive according to the conditions/situation, even emergency response services, at all times.
In this case there was no accident, it was the direct result of one or both of the parties not exercising sufficient observation???

[streaky]

Let me restate that:

SLCZ3 said:

The policeman appears to have been speeding in an area where it was not suitabletravelling at excessive speed for the conditions, or the victim did not see the vehicle approaching, there are not enough details in the report to draw any more conclusions.

SLCZ3 said:

There is an obligation on all drivers, to drive according to the conditions/situation, even emergency response services, at all times.

In this case there was no accident, it was the direct result of one or both of the parties not exercising sufficient observation???

Didn't a UK government body report last year attribute a majority of accidents to that cause? [Search can't find related threads.]

Streaky

[FishFace]

It was no accident. Unless you take the verdict into consideration

What is the sped limit out of interest?

[Hedders]

I was talking to a family member (traf pol) recently who told me there is no such thing as an motoring accident in law these days.

Apparently the police can still have accidents, MOP's can only have collisions, is that how it works now?

Which means that the police are accident prone!

Edited by Hedders on Saturday 19th January 08:18

[FishFace]

They don't use the term 'accident' in the context of a traffic 'accident' as it implies that it's no one's fault. 'Collision' is a more neutral term and preferable.

That doesn't mean an 'accident' doesn't exist, and an accidental death is obviously open for a Coroner to record.

[mko9]

None of the articles seems to indicate whether the cops were using their lights and sirens at the time. Anyone know?

[Jasandjules]

Chrisgr31 said:

An accident involving a Kent police car and a fiesta in which the driver of the Fiesta was killed has been found to be an accident by the inquest.

Surely it was an accident as long as neither driver deliberately drove into the other one?

[Yung Man]

Just remember when we get to the end of the year and someone brings up the subject of how many people are killed in collisions involving police vehicles, some one will no doubt say "Yes there were 51* people killed in collisions involving police vehicles and yes it is up by 5.5%,* but the "majority" were deemed to be not the fault of the police.
This will be one of them.




* Approximate figures only.

Edited by Yung Man on Saturday 19th January 14:27

[Mojocvh]

"For the IPCC to delegate the investigation of a Kent Police driver's actions to Kent Police themselves immediately after the accident, is and remains, totally unacceptable to the family, and should be of concern to us all,"

Hmmmmm, is this what should happen in these investigations?

[Medic-one]

article said:

The inquest heard Pc Purse, with another police officer as a passenger, was travelling along the A28 towards Bethersden in response to a 999 call when the crash happened.

Pc Purse admitted reaching speeds of up to 100mph (160km/h) a few seconds before the crash, but said he had slowed down as he approached the junction.

100 mph is really to fast approaching any junction, you'll never be able to stop in time, as this tragic incident proved.

I feel really sorry for the 10 year old who now has to grow up without a mam

Hedders said:

I was talking to a family member (traf pol) recently who told me there is no such thing as an motoring accident in law these days.

Apparently the police can still have accidents, MOP's can only have collisions, is that how it works now?

We (police, ambulance, fire) always used to call them RTA (Road Traffic Accidents) but for quiet a while now this "there is no such thing as an motoring accident" has been in place, so an RTA is now called an RTC (Road Traffic Collision) but uptill now a lot of us still use the word/abbreviation RTA because we are so used to it.

In the last couple days i've been to several incidents, and i think only once our dispatcher actually used the word RTC, the other times we were still stand to an RTA, and a lot of police still refer to them as RTA's so i guess it just got mixed up in this article, but as noone can now be involved in an RTA neither can this policecar, the article just used the word RTA instead of RTC.

[BOF]

"In the last couple days i've been to several incidents"

Medic,

I always use your word 'incidents'...instead of 'accidents'.

I also get a bit pissed off at many of the posters on this, and other websites, who knock the Police for not being 'perfect'...and make several spelling errors in their comments.

These posters are NOT driving cars at sometimes high speeds in response to 'incidents'...just driving keyboards with their arses on chairs...and make mistakes....

Funny old world really?

BOF.

[Chrisgr31]

deeps said:

Chrisgr31 said:

and guess that will the reported speed of the police car the Fiesta driver wouldn't have had a chance to see him coming

How come she wouldn't have seen him? Was the police car doing nearly a ton around a blind bend with a junction along it?

Yes effectively!

I am not sure what the limit on the road is, it's either 40mph or 50mph but you can see the site on google earth at Lat 51° 7'20.35"N Long 0°46'29.19"E. My understanding is the police car was on the main road going east to west whilst she was pulling out of the side road. From Google earth it isn't much of a bend but you can't see round it, even though you can drive quickly around it.

I don't particularly blame the Police driver, with the benefit of hindsight he may have been driving too fast, but thats the advantage of hindsight. I don't believe he had the siren on, and had he had it on who knows if it would have made a difference.

My point is there is a mobile camera site less than half a mile to the west and if this accident is used to support the need of it I wouldn;t be impressed!

[Deva Link]

Chrisgr31 said:

My point is there is a mobile camera site less than half a mile to the west and if this accident is used to support the need of it I wouldn;t be impressed!

That there was a camera there should surely have alerted the Officer that he was in an accident blackspot?

[Bing o]

BOF said:

"In the last couple days i've been to several incidents"

Medic,

I always use your word 'incidents'...instead of 'accidents'.

I also get a bit pissed off at many of the posters on this, and other websites, who knock the Police for not being 'perfect'...and make several spelling errors in their comments.

These posters are NOT driving cars at sometimes high speeds in response to 'incidents'...just driving keyboards with their arses on chairs...and make mistakes....

Funny old world really?

BOF.

Not really - no-one dies over a spelling mistake.

If you can't see the difference then you aren't trying hard enough...

[Derek Smith]

FishFace said:

They don't use the term 'accident' in the context of a traffic 'accident' as it implies that it's no one's fault. 'Collision' is a more neutral term and preferable.

That doesn't mean an 'accident' doesn't exist, and an accidental death is obviously open for a Coroner to record.

Accident in law means an untoward occurrence having an adverse physical effect. My dictionary says it is an unforseen course of events. Neither definition mentions lack of blame.

The name change is one of those classic police moves where it appears something has been done whereas everything is the same. Although, of course, it all costs money. Software modifications are expensive and the result? Well, let's face it, there was a sudden and dramatic drop in the number of recorded RTAs although there was, unfortunately, a surprising incease in RTCs.

Changing what it is called alters nothing. Calling someone suffering from dwarfism a little person does not make them taller.

I'm surprised a team from an outside force wasn't used to investigate the accident. The only time I've know that to happen is when it is unequivocal that the deceased, or seiously injured in the case I'm thinking of, was completing some an illegal and dangerous manoeuver.

[Mad Moggie2]

Derek Smith said:

FishFace said:

They don't use the term 'accident' in the context of a traffic 'accident' as it implies that it's no one's fault. 'Collision' is a more neutral term and preferable.

That doesn't mean an 'accident' doesn't exist, and an accidental death is obviously open for a Coroner to record.

Accident in law means an untoward occurrence having an adverse physical effect. My dictionary says it is an unforseen course of events. Neither definition mentions lack of blame.

The name change is one of those classic police moves where it appears something has been done whereas everything is the same. Although, of course, it all costs money. Software modifications are expensive and the result? Well, let's face it, there was a sudden and dramatic drop in the number of recorded RTAs although there was, unfortunately, a surprising incease in RTCs.

Changing what it is called alters nothing. Calling someone suffering from dwarfism a little person does not make them taller.

I'm surprised a team from an outside force wasn't used to investigate the accident. The only time I've know that to happen is when it is unequivocal that the deceased, or seiously injured in the case I'm thinking of, was completing some an illegal and dangerous manoeuver.

The "collision"... "incident" - usually still occurs because the parties involved happened by chance to be in the wrong place and set of co-incidental circumstance all the same. Changing a name does not imply "blame". Heck we get the cyclists complaining that "X died when his bike coillided with the car" - as their warped minds interpret this as

Nasty press blaming cyclist and not the person in the car


Heck they even scream the same way if the journalist writes up as

"a collision occurrred between a bicycle and a motor vehicle/pedestrian"

or

"a car driver and a bicycle collided"

However they collided - one or both parties fell victim to whatever road condition at the time and perhaps both parties each made an error.