Oh dear police car drove into us last night.

[mark69sheer]

Night out with friends. about 11.30
Unbeknown to us followed by an undercover black vectra.
Who like an idiot drove up the arse of the ML500 merc we were in as reversed into a parking space , drove right into its blindspot. Put its blues and twos on about one second before the inevitable contact...what were they thinking?
Two cops in T shirts got out and breathalysed our designated driver (negative) before their sergeant turns up and admits they drove like pratts.

So my personal experience of police and police driving slips another notch down the peg....

[deeps]

From that drawing, looks like you pulled across the road, stopped briefly on the yellows and reversed back into that parking bay? Plod wants a word so pulls in quick behind you and the rest is history.

I can't think of any blind spot there for you though? You were probably glued to the offside door mirror to reverse tight to the kerb and didn't check the rear view? Then crunch. Easy mistake but not the unmarked cars fault IMO, sorry.

[markmullen]

deeps said:

I can't think of any blind spot there for you though? You were probably glued to the offside door mirror to reverse tight to the kerb and didn't check the rear view? Then crunch. Easy mistake but not the unmarked cars fault IMO, sorry.

Don't forget than an ML500 is likely to have autodipping door mirrors and a autodimming rearview mirror so the door mirrors will be pointing at the floor and the rearview will be very dark with the lights behind.

Just a thought.

[Parrot of Doom]

How can you hit a car thats in your blind spot? Its impossible unless you're not paying attention.

[deevlash]

I ended up almost having a head on with a cop car the other week, I went under a bridge thats one lane wide and the road turs sharply either end so you cant see either side. Cop car decided his blues and twos allowed him to run the red light on his side and ended up almost ttting into me! He had to revers all the way back too. A lot of the police do seem to drive like muppets at times and in your case it seems like they did something rather stupid again. Are they paying for the damage to your car?

[streaky]

mark69sheer said:

An alternative description of the accident would be that you were proceeding 'North' (as the diagram is oriented) with the Vectra behind you and unseen by you. You passed a vacant parking spot and stopped on your side of the road. You then reversed across the road into the end parking space, still without noticing the Vectra behind you. The Vectra driver indicated his presence when your reversing lights came on. Regardless, you continued your manoeuver, forcing him to take avoiding action. He swerved to the other side of the road, but you continued to reverse and collided with him.

So, would it not be fair to rephrase your description of the accident as follows: "Like an idiot I reversed into the front of an undercover black vectra, having failed to check that there were no obstructions in the blindspot of the ML500 merc we were in"?

You do seem prone to accidents: http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&f=23&t=452118 

Streaky

[Quinten]

Isn't reversing a special manoeuvre, which means you'd always be in the wrong?

[GreigM]

I think some of you are being too harsh on the OP - there's no way to continually monitor the entire rear of a car when sitting in a forward position and it's not unreasonable to check there is nothing behind when starting a manoeuvre then divert attention to the kerbside mirror to avoid hitting the parked car - it sounds like in this time the police placed themselves deliberately in the way of a car performing a reverse park which is a completely stupid and unnecessarily aggressive thing to do

[Busa_Rush]

GreigM said:

I think some of you are being too harsh on the OP - there's no way to continually monitor the entire rear of a car when sitting in a forward position

Of course there is, a quick glance around as you reverse, if the driver can't manage that then he should not be driving, simple as that. No idea what the plod did but if as the op said they drive right upto his bumper as he was reversing then maybe 50:50 but the driver is always responsible for his actions. If he can't see to reverse then don't reverse.

[GKP]

Luckily though, the professional driver had a full uninterrupted view out of his windscreen....

[Heebeegeetee]

I saw something like this once. I was vacating an on-street parking space, a passing Volvo xc90 noticed i was coming out, so stopped and attempted to reverse up to take my place. Trouble was, he went back and smashed straight into a little AX behind. The Volvos bumper over-rode the Citroens, and crumpled the cars bonnet right up. The Volvo didn't have a mark.

Can you imagine if you were the driver of the AX though? You're carefully driving along a busy street, when without warning the great big numpty 4x4 in front of you stops, selects reverse and comes back and smashes straight into you.

It'd never occurred to me that the AX driver could have been at fault though.

[Derek Smith]

Quinten said:

Isn't reversing a special manoeuvre, which means you'd always be in the wrong?

Not always. It's a bit like being on the 'wrong' side on the road in a collision. It's something that has to be 'explained' away and it puts an assumption of guilt on that driver which can, given the circumstances, be removed. The question I would ask here is, 'Was the Vectra moving?' If so, then the next one is, 'Why, when there was an acknowledged blind spot, did you not take greater care when reversing?' I feel, and I believe the law does, that if the driver cannot see where he is going he should not be going anywhere. It's a bit like having your view obscured at a road junction. You can't just pull out and, if there is a collision, suggest that it was the fault of the person who parked the car there.

Of course, if the Vectra was stationary, then there would appear to be no argument. Its driver is blameless.

Reversing lights are not a signal to other road users that you are intending to reverse. They are there to illuminate the road. However, if the driver of the Vectra was aware of the reversing lights being on he should not have driven into the space behind the car. If stationary, he should have taken steps to warn the driver of the other car of his presence - horn, flashing headlights or, as in this case, putting on his blues - on the road or remove his car. He can't just sit there writing the claims form.

However, if what I understand from the above is correct, the Merc reversed into the Vectra so Quinten in correct, the Merc's in the wrong. However, in my experience there is unlikely to be any prosecution. Too much bother.

[bimsb6]

Reversing lights are not a signal to other road users that you are intending to reverse. They are there to illuminate the road.


are you sure ?

[thinfourth2]

So as i read it the stationary unmarked car drove into the reversing merc

Damn those police drivers

[7db]

mark69sheer said:

...their sergeant turns up and admits they drove like pratts.

So my personal experience of police and police driving slips another notch down the peg....

What about your view of Police Sergeants?

[Stu R]

thinfourth2 said:

So as i read it the stationary unmarked car drove into the reversing merc

Damn those police drivers

I read it as the police car behind came too close to the rear of the merc not giving him sufficient space to maneuver, whilst the merc wasn't as obervant as they could have been.

[s2art]

bimsb6 said:

Reversing lights are not a signal to other road users that you are intending to reverse. They are there to illuminate the road.


are you sure ?

Must admit, that one has me baffled too. If I saw someone with reversing lights on of course I would assume that the driver merely wanted to illuminate the road. NOT!

[LathamJohnP]

streaky said:

You then reversed across the road into the end parking space, still without noticing the Vectra behind you. The Vectra driver indicated his presence when your reversing lights came on. Regardless, you continued your manoeuver, forcing him to take avoiding action

That doesn't make sense so me. Assuming the Vectra was on the LHS of the road before the "avoiding action", he didn't need to take the "avoiding" action at all since the OP's car was reversing across the road into a space.

I assume there was no space on the LHS of the road (or this parking manouvre would have been unnecessary) so the Vectra driver should have waited until the road was clear before proceeding.

A better description would be "the Vectra misunderstood the Mercs intentions, despite their obviousness, or was hoping to scoot round the Merc before it started to move, failed and hit it".

I don't see how you can absolve the police driver based on the information posted, despite your best efforts

Anyway, according to the OP the police admitted fault, which (based on your response) isn't default behaviour.

John

[Six Fiend]

If I pulled to the off-side to park I wouldn't reasonably expect a car to follow me.

Maybe it is Police procedure to pull in behind but in this case it would have made more sense to let the vehicle sort itself out then pull up in front wouldn't it? Thus the target vehicle is blocked in.

Or am I just thinking too clearly?

[Mr2Mike]

Surely if you were reversing into that space you were parking facing the wrong direction? i.e. you should always park in the same direction as the traffic flow, not against it.