Personal view of an officer or Police policy?
Discussion
Hi folks,
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
Tannedbaldhead said:
Hi folks,
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
Tannedbaldhead said:
a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down.
Why ever would you do that? Except "white van man"?Tannedbaldhead said:
Hi folks,
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
We had this sort of talk from people who were employed to try to bring down the accident rates and pay outs of claims. some of his views were bordering in insane to us but I guess it was designed to get a reaction, like it has with youThe other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
That sort of thinking is why we got so many claims of injuries after minor bumps. After this we fitted all vans and cars with cameras and it was funny to get calls from outraged drivers claiming all sorts and insurance companies and then see them crumble when we offered them the footage.
I would have gone after some of them for attempted fraud but the insurance company felt it not worth it. One incident was our driver at fault, cut across a bus and got hit. We got claims for 7 whiplash injuries, funny that there was just the driver and two passengers on the bus from the footage.
The other driver's rage was because he was to blame for his mother's injury and he knew it.
But blokes are always perfect drviers, so have to lash out at anyone they can.
I don't agree with the ex-plod - if you are driving sensibly and withint the speed limit it is up to you how you drive over a speed hump, according to your knowledge of your vehicle.
What-if's work both ways, and it is each driver's responsiblity to drive with due care and attention. Tail-gating a white van, or any other colour van, is asking for trouble, because you cannot see around or through them.
The other driver was driving too close to have a clear view of the road ahead. If you had had to slam on because a child ran out in front of you, he would not have seen the child and would not have been able to stop in time, just as he couldn't stop or even slow down in time for the speed hump.
But blokes are always perfect drviers, so have to lash out at anyone they can.
I don't agree with the ex-plod - if you are driving sensibly and withint the speed limit it is up to you how you drive over a speed hump, according to your knowledge of your vehicle.
What-if's work both ways, and it is each driver's responsiblity to drive with due care and attention. Tail-gating a white van, or any other colour van, is asking for trouble, because you cannot see around or through them.
The other driver was driving too close to have a clear view of the road ahead. If you had had to slam on because a child ran out in front of you, he would not have seen the child and would not have been able to stop in time, just as he couldn't stop or even slow down in time for the speed hump.
Sebring440 said:
Tannedbaldhead said:
Hi folks,
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
The other afternoon all our company vehicle drivers spent some time with a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer) to be given words of wisdom on how not to crash. This was no doubt with a view to score a lowered fleet insurance policy premium.
Part of the talk was on road rage where the advice was never to react, never to engage and never to leave your vehicle. If you ever feel threatened phone 999.
He asked if anyone in the room has ever been involved in road-rage incident. I told the room of a very odd one where I once had to drive off from a guy who was furious and frightening.
The anger was triggered after the driver followed a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down. The road-rager claimed that due to me not slowing down he didn't notice the speed bump, drove over it at the same speed and, as such, I was responsible for a neck injury his mother (front seat passenger) suffered.
The fact he was incandescent and out to kill me rather than calmly asking for my details suggested the incident was for real rather than a scam.
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
In the case of the incident I described he said that had I slowed substantially for the speed bump the mother would not have injured her neck. While the son carried the greater proportion of liability by driving too close and not paying attention I would also have been considered partially responsible. Had Police became involved I may have been prosecuted for "causing injury by careless driving".
I always considered speed bumps as there to stop drivers breaking the speed limits. What the retired officer said was most drivers and pedestrians expect speed bumps to be taken considerably slower than the speed limit even when it is 20mph.
By travelling that bit quicker than others would expect I was guilty of not showing due care and attention to other road users, was indeed partially responsible for an injury and the son was justified (to a degree) in being upset at my contribution to his mum's sore neck.
Is this retired officer right or has the forum other views?
Tannedbaldhead said:
a transit sized van I had driven over speed bump without slowing down.
Why ever would you do that? Except "white van man"?Why would you need to slow down, they are there to keep people within the speed limit & are always (IMHO) capable of being taken in a vehicle with working suspension & well secured loads without slowing down.
What a stupid reply!
Tannedbaldhead said:
a safety consultant (retired traffic police officer)
There are two types of retired copper ; - Those who leave the job behind and get on with doing other things. You'd never know they were in the Police. These are normal people.
-Those who's entire personality revolves around being a Police Officer. They want to still feel important, knowledgeable and powerful. They'll get jobs in security / training / education and will attend any event where they get to talk about Policing. Most of what they say is complete nonsense, but they have "30 years experience" so people nod along and accept it.
In short, the 'safety consultant' is a t
t.JackJarvis said:
There are two types of retired copper ;
- Those who leave the job behind and get on with doing other things. You'd never know they were in the Police. These are normal people.
-Those who's entire personality revolves around being a Police Officer. They want to still feel important, knowledgeable and powerful. They'll get jobs in security / training / education and will attend any event where they get to talk about Policing. Most of what they say is complete nonsense, but they have "30 years experience" so people nod along and accept it.
In short, the 'safety consultant' is a tt.
A few of those on PH, unfortunately. The job does attract a certain type.- Those who leave the job behind and get on with doing other things. You'd never know they were in the Police. These are normal people.
-Those who's entire personality revolves around being a Police Officer. They want to still feel important, knowledgeable and powerful. They'll get jobs in security / training / education and will attend any event where they get to talk about Policing. Most of what they say is complete nonsense, but they have "30 years experience" so people nod along and accept it.
In short, the 'safety consultant' is a t
t.Tannedbaldhead said:
What the retired officer told me left me quite surprised. He said that when investigating an accident (particularly when injury or death occurs) a police officer will consider at every stage "had each party done anything different from their actual actions would the accident have still happened and would the injuries have been so serious?" If the answer was yes then that party would be considered as being partially to blame.
Possibly he didn't express his view clearly enough and they have lost something in translation.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff