Red faces in police crash

[rewc]

This is the headline from last nights local paper. It goes on to say "A crumpled Police patrol car has to be towed away after was involved in a collision."
Dorset police issued a statement "due to the low sun, and its reflection on a wet road, a Dutch lady braked suddenly, and unnecessarily, at trafic lights. A following Police car then collided with the rear of this car".

The paper then quotes Rule 105 of the Highway code which says "drivers should always drive at a speed that will allow you to stop qwell within the distance you can see to be clear. You should leave enough spavce between you and the vehicle in front so that you can pull up safely if it suddenly slows or stops".

I can't help feeling that Dorset police are trying to wriggle out of this by claiming the "sudden and unnecessary braking". Still nice to know we are all human even Police patrol car drivers.

[jasandjules]

Hmm, the officer was clearly speeding.....He crashed, so the facts speak for themselves.

And, as mentioned, quite honestly "unneccessary braking" can be caused by say a cat running out into the road. The car following should be aware enough, especially a "highly trained" police officer.

[streaky]

There can be an onus upon the leading driver to show that they braked for good reason (otherwise they may be potentially negligent) - Streaky

[Flat in Fifth]

Dutch lady driver said:

The shun wash really low in my eyesh, and beshidesh which my shpliff wash in danger of going out

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 22 October 11:44

[Hollywood Wheels]

FiF!

We know nothing more about this crash at present. Was the Police car even on a call? What standard of driver was behind the wheel, could have been a Basic? What hours had the Police driver been working? These are all things which will have affected the case.....

[rewc]

streaky said:

There can be an onus upon the leading driver to show that they braked for good reason (otherwise they may be potentially negligent) - Streaky

Could a reasonable reason be "the sun was in my eyes having been reflected of the wet road and I was unable to be sure that the lights were green"?

[streaky]

Hollywood Wheels said:

FiF!

We know nothing more about this crash at present. Was the Police car even on a call? What standard of driver was behind the wheel, could have been a Basic? What hours had the Police driver been working? These are all things which will have affected the case.....

Fell asleep at the wheel, eh? Good job it wasn't a train the officer hit then! - Streaky

[rewc]

Hollywood Wheels said:

FiF!

We know nothing more about this crash at present. Was the Police car even on a call? What standard of driver was behind the wheel, could have been a Basic? What hours had the Police driver been working? These are all things which will have affected the case.....

HW, I'm not trying to score points against BIB. Accidents happen and in my, but propably not Von's world, it was one of those things and could happen to even the most careful driver. What I find interesting is the statement from the Police re "sudden and unnecessary braking" and the paper themselves quoting Rule 105.

The paper were at one time, and up to a point still are, mouthpieces of the Police and camera partnership propoganda. I have noticed that this is now changing slowly and they do not now accept the propoganda unquestionably.

The paper also reports that it was a Ford Fiesta and that its occupants were two Police Officers. They do not mention it was on an Emergency call so I would guess not. Thankfully there were no injuries to any party

[roadbandit]

What the betting, they dont get done for due care and attention.

[gonzomo]

Flat in Fifth said:

Dutch lady driver said:

The shun wash really low in my eyesh, and beshidesh which my shpliff wash in danger of going out

Edited by Flat in Fifth on Sunday 22 October 11:44

Made my Sunday, now giggling like a fool. Thanks.

[deva link]

rewc said:

streaky said:

There can be an onus upon the leading driver to show that they braked for good reason (otherwise they may be potentially negligent) - Streaky

Could a reasonable reason be "the sun was in my eyes having been reflected of the wet road and I was unable to be sure that the lights were green"?

That seems entirely reasonable. My journey home involves a road heading due east that rises gently, and at certain times of the year it can be a total nightmare - you really are driving straight into the sun. I always have shades in the car and they have to be worn, but anybody caught without them would be in real trouble. If the roads wet, then they must be driving blind.

One thing the article doesn't mention is if she was driving a foreign registered car - if so, I'm always extra cautious as they often don't know where they're going, or they do unexpected things (like stopping un-neccesarily at traffic lights).

[gently bentley]

Bearing in mind media services depts of forces employ non police personel who put out the "A police spokesperson said" line It could be the case that this person has tried to put forward a typical management response and made a right mess of it.

Why even bother to mention it was a Dutch women, why bother to explain at all. A bib would say. We can confirm a collision occurred and a police vehicle was involved. The circumstances are being investigated/reported.

Funny how people automatically think all quotes the police make come from the police.

Had the bib involved been asked he would be prevented by his force from answering. There are raesons for this.

also so many quotes are put out that police bosses do not have time to read them all. Hence the reason some silly quotes like this go out.

You usually find the force sort the matter out asap. The officer will be dealt with by complaints unit as well as courts. A bib found not guilty in a court can still be found guilty by the complaints dept. Funny nobody jumps up and down about that. The onus of proof is less as well.

Just a thought.

[jasandjules]

streaky said:

There can be an onus upon the leading driver to show that they braked for good reason (otherwise they may be potentially negligent) - Streaky

Contrary to the highway code and insurance pay outs? Amd driving with undue care and attention?

Negligent on what basis? They owe a duty of care to other road users who may not be paying enough attention to the vehicle in front and thus can only execute emergency stops when they have sent written notice to the police officer behind?

Let's see what Archbold has to say shall we.. At 32-52 (without due care and attention)

If he was not exercising the degree of care and attention that a reasonable, competent and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances, he should be convicted. An Error of Judgment is NOT considered (Simpson v Peat)

Sooo, let me see.. Does everyone else on the road ram up the butt of the car in front? No, I don't think so.. Pretty much rules out the competent and prudent driver then does it not.....

As for being tired, well, sorry, last time I checked people went to jail for causing accidents when exhausted.....

[deva link]

The search isn't working for me, but I've definitely seen on here that "sudden and unnecessary braking" was accepted as a valid defence in a case that set a precedent some years ago.

[7db]

jasandjules said:

Let's see what Archbold has to say shall we.. At 32-52 (without due care and attention)

If he was not exercising the degree of care and attention that a reasonable, competent and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances, he should be convicted. An Error of Judgment is NOT considered (Simpson v Peat)

Notice that the CPS goes on to say:-

CPSChargingStandard said:

Examples of conduct appropriate for a charge of driving without reasonable consideration are:
...
* unnecessarily slow driving or braking without good cause;
...

Charge them both, let the courts decide whether either or both deserves a S3 conviction.

[Hollywood Wheels]

roadbandit said:

What the betting, they dont get done for due care and attention.

Why on earth should they be? I've been to hundreds of accidents and plenty of rear-end shunts. I've 'done' very few for any offence at all.

I love the way that certain people on here consistently post about Police being better than cameras etc, yet when a Police car is involved in some sort of incident the driver should automatically be 'done' for something "because if it was me I would have been done..." NO YOU WOULDN'T!!!!! I can't quote any figures, but I should imagine that the proportion of people 'done' for anything at the scene of accidents is very low indeed. If there is blatant fault then it should be dealt with appropriately.

[Dwight VanDriver]

To all you young BiB I am amazed.

Hasn't Serge told you about:

Scott v Warren [1957]

Rear end shunting isn't automatically a Section 3. Wrote a few off in my time on the strength of that one....

dvd

[jasandjules]

I would have thought that braking due to being unable to see as a result of the sun shining on the road would be quite a good idea meself.

As for berating plod on this one, personally I only take the anti-police view on this one due to their (as seems to be more often the case, I guess we can blame Nu Laba and the blame everyone but us system) deciding the officer was ok for not paying attention and not being able to stop in time, but the driver of the car in front for braking. I suspect that is also why the article in the paper went to the extent of citing the Highway Code Rule 105.

[TripleS]

Sadly there was a police driver fatality on the A77 in Ayrshire on Friday (I think) where a police car travelling at high speed collided with an oncoming vehicle that turned right across its path. This is a road where a substantial SPECS system is in place and I got the impression that somebody was suggesting this may have played a part in this tragedy. Sorry, I'm being a bit vague.

Maybe this is being discussed elsewhere.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[turbobloke]

7db said:

Charge them both, let the courts decide whether either or both deserves a S3 conviction.

I can see why this is being suggested but somehow this has a bad feel to it. I'll work out why shortly.