whos to blame police pursuit accident

[DBSV8]

Hope its not a repost .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4wshImVcN4&mod...

not blaming the bib in question , just do not understand the logic in this.

First: in pursuit of a silver BMW at 130 mph road clear no BMW in sight ?
why wait for the car to disapear into the distance why not keep the car in view ?

Second: Roundabout sign warning that the motorway will end. Carriageway reduces from three lanes to two lanes , HGV is indicating right to change lanes from middle to lane 3 ( 800m further up the road the carriagway reduces into two lanes ) Police car travelling at 130mph does not use blues and twos , or reduces speed

third : HGV is indicating right on the bend the police car would be in his blind spot , why not use blues in this instant.

four: How exactly was the police driver to know which direction the silver BMW driver was going to take ? out of sight and by this time at a roundabout with 3 other exits ?

The HGV should not have moved into lane 3 , However why did the police driver not take evasive action as he knew the road changed further up and did not reduce speed

interested in views

[paulsm]

Lorry shouldn't have been moving to lane 3, but copper put himself in a very dangerous situation, he could see lorry was still indicating right and was obviously in his blind spot travelling at 120+mph.

[eltax91]

Hmmm, he seems to get into a scrape or two.

Horrible speed to get a blow out too!

In terms of the HGV incident, he went to town on the driver i thought, when lane 3 was obviously ending and the roundabout was getting close. Personally i think he should have backed off sooner and read the situation. Then undertaken the truck or blues and two's should have been going to warn the HGV driver.

[tigger1]

Very odd driving from the HGV - there was no reason to move right...as lanes 2 + 3 merged. Looks like he had seen a car approaching fast, and was pulling the classic "I'm a tt of a lorry driver, thou shalt not pass" maneouvre.

Still, not sure why a highly trained driver would still choose to go for that overtake, when the lorry was indicating and looks like it may move across. Red mist / Fog of war?

[xanderjones]

Had this discussion with the old man when it was first aired. We were both in agreement that his sole objective was "Got to nab that Beemer, how dare he attempt to drive faster than me". Technically the lorry shouldn't have moved over, but a so called "highly trained" driver should be always expecting the unexpected, and considering his indicator was on, it's not really that unexpected!

[Munter]

xanderjones said:

Had this discussion with the old man when it was first aired. We were both in agreement that his sole objective was "Got to nab that Beemer, how dare he attempt to drive faster than me".

Actually I think he'd proved there that the beemer was going well over the speed limit as he didn't catch him. And it's part of his his job to pull people over doing more than 70. So from that point of view he's doing what he's there for.

However putting himself beside a truck thats still indicating was a bit silly. Yes the truck shouldn't be in lane 3, but then the truck wouldn't be expecting a car with just flashing headlights to be doing 120 from a glance in his mirror.

I'd put fault as a 50/50. They both did something dumb and came together.

The blow out is a damned good reason to check tyres before doing trackdays etc and not driving in the chevrons!

[cmsapms]

Munter said:

Actually I think he'd proved there that the beemer was going well over the speed limit as he didn't catch him. And it's part of his his job to pull people over doing more than 70. So from that point of view he's doing what he's there for.

He didn't seem to pick his own pace up until after the beemer was out of sight though. Did he want an excuse to have to drive "flat out"? The bus drivers round here do something similar, waiting at the top of the hill 'til they're a couple of minutes late, then using that as an excuse to emulate Hannu Mikkola

Munter said:

However putting himself beside a truck thats still indicating was a bit silly. Yes the truck shouldn't be in lane 3, but then the truck wouldn't be expecting a car with just flashing headlights to be doing 120 from a glance in his mirror.

I think the crucial bit was that when the trucker would have been doing his (lacklustre?) mirror check just before leaving lane 2, the police car was smack in his blind spot. He's unlikely to check again. He was also crossing the lane divider at a point where the Bib could still have slotted up the truck's nearside.

Munter said:

The blow out is a damned good reason to check tyres before doing trackdays etc and not driving in the chevrons!

I think I'd be having harsh words with the vehicle manufacturer. I had a blowout on the Belgian Motorway a couple of months back at not much less speed (ahem) than he was doing (rushing for t'ferry y'see), and the car didn't become unstable. It just pulled up nice and straight, and relatively speaking, my car was just as heavily laden as his.

My blowout:

Edited by cmsapms on Friday 10th August 15:22

[streaky]

Notice how PC Langley refers to having, "A police vehicle here, with the lights on, and you don't see me ..." when it is indeed there and with blues flashing. However, earlier he says that he only had headlights on, so it's likely that the HGV driver did not appreciate that it was a police car.

This doesn't mitigate the HGV driver's error, but it does illustrate how a situation can be misrepresented.

Streaky

[xanderjones]

Munter said:

xanderjones said:

Had this discussion with the old man when it was first aired. We were both in agreement that his sole objective was "Got to nab that Beemer, how dare he attempt to drive faster than me".

Actually I think he'd proved there that the beemer was going well over the speed limit as he didn't catch him. And it's part of his his job to pull people over doing more than 70. So from that point of view he's doing what he's there for.

Absolutely. The intention of the phrasing of my post was it was less of the actual "crime" being committed that caused his driving attitude, and more of a red mist "gotta catch him whatever the cost".

[vonhosen]

DBSV8 said:

Hope its not a repost .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4wshImVcN4&mod...

not blaming the bib in question , just do not understand the logic in this.

First: in pursuit of a silver BMW at 130 mph road clear no BMW in sight ?
why wait for the car to disapear into the distance why not keep the car in view ?

Second: Roundabout sign warning that the motorway will end. Carriageway reduces from three lanes to two lanes , HGV is indicating right to change lanes from middle to lane 3 ( 800m further up the road the carriagway reduces into two lanes ) Police car travelling at 130mph does not use blues and twos , or reduces speed

third : HGV is indicating right on the bend the police car would be in his blind spot , why not use blues in this instant.

four: How exactly was the police driver to know which direction the silver BMW driver was going to take ? out of sight and by this time at a roundabout with 3 other exits ?

The HGV should not have moved into lane 3 , However why did the police driver not take evasive action as he knew the road changed further up and did not reduce speed

interested in views

It's a repost & has been discussed here before.

Lorry driver shouldn't be in lane 3 when he was, but Police driver made serious error of judgment.
The Police officer certainly wasn't blameless, he could & should have avoided a collision. All the information he needed was there to anticipate the lorries actions & defensively avoid it.

[10 Pence Short]

It doesn't look as if he altered his speed at all even when the lorry had moved into lane 2.

[John57]

vonhosen said:

DBSV8 said:

Hope its not a repost .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4wshImVcN4&mod...

not blaming the bib in question , just do not understand the logic in this.

First: in pursuit of a silver BMW at 130 mph road clear no BMW in sight ?
why wait for the car to disapear into the distance why not keep the car in view ?

Second: Roundabout sign warning that the motorway will end. Carriageway reduces from three lanes to two lanes , HGV is indicating right to change lanes from middle to lane 3 ( 800m further up the road the carriagway reduces into two lanes ) Police car travelling at 130mph does not use blues and twos , or reduces speed

third : HGV is indicating right on the bend the police car would be in his blind spot , why not use blues in this instant.

four: How exactly was the police driver to know which direction the silver BMW driver was going to take ? out of sight and by this time at a roundabout with 3 other exits ?

The HGV should not have moved into lane 3 , However why did the police driver not take evasive action as he knew the road changed further up and did not reduce speed

interested in views

It's a repost & has been discussed here before.

Lorry driver shouldn't be in lane 3 when he was, but Police driver made serious error of judgment.
The Police officer certainly wasn't blameless, he could & should have avoided a collision. All the information he needed was there to anticipate the lorries actions & defensively avoid it.

I agree - this collision would almost certainly be held against the police driver though as stated the lorry driver isn't blameless ..... just that the police driver should have responded to the indicator and the obvious possibility that the lorry driver was not going to comply with the rules of the road.

[Yung Man]

You sometimes see on the back of large vehicles "IF YOU CANNOT SEE MY MIRRORS I CANNOT SEE YOU", the mirrors become visable to the camera at 2mins 4 seconds, 2 seconds before impact, I'm sure if he had been making noise the trucker would have heard him, maybe the policeman didn't think the alleged speeding BMW was that serious, like he said he had his flashing headlights on so he was'nt trying to sneak up on the BMW.

I don't think for one minute that he made up the story about the BMW to justify his actions but some people might.

Edited by Yung Man on Monday 13th August 18:27

[Marcellus]

Did he have is headlights on?????

Check the footage.............before collision no sign of lights on back of lorry......after bump lights reflected on rear of lorry!!

Also as he could see the movement of the Lorry was to the right, approaching a roundabout, why didn't he "Undertake" the lorry and therefore be moving to the opposite side of the carriageway?

[Yung Man]

Marcellus said:

Did he have is headlights on?????

Check the footage.............before collision no sign of lights on back of lorry......after bump lights reflected on rear of lorry!!

At 1 min 37 sec the commentator says he has headlights on but no 2's and blue's.

[John57]

Marcellus said:

Also as he could see the movement of the Lorry was to the right, approaching a roundabout, why didn't he "Undertake" the lorry and therefore be moving to the opposite side of the carriageway?

Undertake a lorry at the speed he was doing just because it starts to move to the right

.... and what if the lorry then got a glimpse of him approaching but thought - he'll never undertake, he's a police driver - and swerves back to the nearside .... resulting in one huge smash !!

[imbecile]

John57 said:

Marcellus said:

Also as he could see the movement of the Lorry was to the right, approaching a roundabout, why didn't he "Undertake" the lorry and therefore be moving to the opposite side of the carriageway?

Undertake a lorry at the speed he was doing just because it starts to move to the right

.... and what if the lorry then got a glimpse of him approaching but thought - he'll never undertake, he's a police driver - and swerves back to the nearside .... resulting in one huge smash !!

It is obvious watching the video that the lorry is going to do that. We are approaching a rounabout, remember.

And if he undertook the lorry, then he always has the hard sholder to recover to.

Then again, we all make mistakes, and it's hard to get upset about it. I'm much more upset that the BMW driver was going to get pulled in the first place.

[TripleS]

imbecile said:

John57 said:

Marcellus said:

Also as he could see the movement of the Lorry was to the right, approaching a roundabout, why didn't he "Undertake" the lorry and therefore be moving to the opposite side of the carriageway?

Undertake a lorry at the speed he was doing just because it starts to move to the right

.... and what if the lorry then got a glimpse of him approaching but thought - he'll never undertake, he's a police driver - and swerves back to the nearside .... resulting in one huge smash !!

It is obvious watching the video that the lorry is going to do that. We are approaching a rounabout, remember.

And if he undertook the lorry, then he always has the hard sholder to recover to.

Then again, we all make mistakes, and it's hard to get upset about it. I'm much more upset that the BMW driver was going to get pulled in the first place.

To my mind it never did look like a pursuit that was going to achieve anything; and I still wonder about the interview that must have taken place back in the office though.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Fort Jefferson]

I just wish I'd have been the silver BMW driver who was clever, and did out smart the copper, I would have laughed my arse off.

As far as blame was concerned, I'd say 70% copper 30% trucker.

[Marcellus]

Yung Man said:

At 1 min 37 sec the commentator says he has headlights on but no 2's and blue's.

I know the commentator said that the lights were flashing...but why can't you see them refelected on teh back of the lorry before he hit it/was hit by it but you can afterwards........