PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Police car on blue lights running red light hit my car significant damage, Accident
Mri10
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:53
Post #1


New Member


Group: Members
Posts: 9
Joined: 2 Nov 2017
Member No.: 94,902



In May 2018 a police car attending a knife crime call collided with my little i10 in what could have easily been a fatal accident if the timing was a second different. My daughter and I suffered severe whiplash, one police occupant a broken arm. Both vehicles written off. The police car entered a complex multilane traffic conrolled junction at high speed around midnight, blue lights, no siren presumably expecting no opposing traffic, I performed an emergency stop when he was visible to me, causing me to T-bone him as he crossed my path as I proceeded with caution through the green light.
The car behind me backed up my version to a point on the green light, however he saw the blue lights , different angle, no passenger and was 'surprised' I proceeded through the green light.
My insurer liability team are quoting case law in which a 60/40 liability with me coming off with the 60% blame.
I don't know if this is in the remit of advice that can be given here, but I'm really upset by this given how close my daughter was to being killed if things were a fraction of a second different.
It's now going to the legal team who are related to my insurer. I'm told I have no say in what happens with regards decisions as they will be discussed between insurers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 97)
Advertisement
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
MFM
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 14:47
Post #81


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 547
Joined: 5 Oct 2012
Member No.: 57,550



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 12:32) *
Take an extreme example, they see the emergency vehicle coming, noting that if they both continue on course and speed they will collide, the driver then maintains their course and speed and they do collide, how can that NOT be negligent?

I trust you understand that green doesn't mean 'blaze through at the speed limit' but 'proceed with care'?


Of course in this instance it would seem that the driver had deliberately collided with the emergency vehicle. I can't think of any real life situation where this would be the case(or in the OP's case) unless they had a death wish.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 12:36) *
Every driver has a duty to take care to avoid collisions. If a competent careful driver would have avoided the collision in these circumstances then the OP would be negligent. It’s a matter of opinion as to whether the OP breached the duty of care.


The problem with that is that not all people are equally skillful drivers. One person with sharp reflexes(perhaps a racing driver) could have avoided the collision but a 60 year old lady would have no chance. You couldn't possibly compare the two, so would you call the 60 year old lady negligent?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 14:51
Post #82


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (MFM @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 15:47) *
The problem with that is that not all people are equally skillful drivers.

That is irrelevant - it is an objective test - Nettleship v Weston.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
666
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 17:05
Post #83


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,300
Joined: 17 Jun 2011
Member No.: 47,602



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 14:30) *
Otherwise I fail to see how a cop (or any other emergency driver) could be anything but negligent in crossing a junction where there would be a reasonable expectation that other traffic would be crossing with (notional) right of way.


There is no 'right of way', notional or otherwise.

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-cod...ders-103-to-158
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 18:13
Post #84


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (666 @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 18:05) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 14:30) *
Otherwise I fail to see how a cop (or any other emergency driver) could be anything but negligent in crossing a junction where there would be a reasonable expectation that other traffic would be crossing with (notional) right of way.


There is no 'right of way', notional or otherwise.

"The rules in The Highway Code do not give you the right of way in any circumstance, but they advise you when you should give way to others. Always give way if it can help to avoid an incident."

See https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-cod...ders-103-to-158


Tis why I put the word notional in.
I know there is no such animal.
But whether tis enshrined in Highway Code or not, the simple fact is that people drive across green lights as though they have right of way.
That is something that emergency drivers should be aware of and take action to ensure they do not fall foul of people's beliefs.
No different to Joe Public entering a main road from a side road.... give way line or not, only an idiot would drive out without looking.
Simply because those on the main road think they have right of way.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 20:34
Post #85


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 19:13) *
the simple fact is that people drive across green lights as though they have right of way.
That is something that emergency drivers should be aware of and take action to ensure they do not fall foul of people's beliefs.

Isn’t it also true that emergency drivers often drive through red lights and that is something you would expect a competent driver to be aware of and take action to ensure they don’t fall foul of an emergency driver that hasn’t seen them?

Or does the green light make you immune from negligence?

This post has been edited by Spandex: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 20:35
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 21:00
Post #86


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Spandex @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 21:34) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 19:13) *
the simple fact is that people drive across green lights as though they have right of way.
That is something that emergency drivers should be aware of and take action to ensure they do not fall foul of people's beliefs.

Isn’t it also true that emergency drivers often drive through red lights and that is something you would expect a competent driver to be aware of and take action to ensure they don’t fall foul of an emergency driver that hasn’t seen them?

Or does the green light make you immune from negligence?



Fair comment and accords with my view that I should be checking for any crossing traffic as I cross any junction.
Use the word should as cannot hand on heart say I do every time.
It is one of those habitual actions to scan left and right as I approach but certainly don't slow or stop to check and double check.
I would also question how many vehicles cross on green for every one that crosses on red ?


It is normal when lights are green for traffic to cross.
And abnormal for traffic to cross on red.
The onus has to be more on a driver crossing on red then one crossing on green.
A driver crossing on green has a reasonable expectation that the way is clear
A driver crossing on red has a reasonable expectation that it is not.
To me that sorta tilts the balance somewhat and alters what would be expected of a reasonably competent driver in each situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 21:19
Post #87


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,306
Joined: 4 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,659



The negligence wasn't because he was required to cede priority to an emergency vehicle.

It was because he didn't see the police car. He didn't have a good explanation as to why he didn't see the police car. The following driver said he should have seen the police car.

That mistake meant, even if the accident couldn't be avoided, then it was significantly worse.

You can crash into all manner of things even on a straight road that you should have seen and braked for. Poor observations and awareness is negligent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:10
Post #88


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:00) *
Fair comment and accords with my view that I should be checking for any crossing traffic as I cross any junction.
Use the word should as cannot hand on heart say I do every time.

I can’t honestly say I check every time I cross a junction either, even though I know I should. But this wasn’t just any other traffic. They had a blue flashing light strapped to the top of their car. That’s going to be a tricky one to explain.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:28
Post #89


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Spandex @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 23:10) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:00) *
Fair comment and accords with my view that I should be checking for any crossing traffic as I cross any junction.
Use the word should as cannot hand on heart say I do every time.

I can’t honestly say I check every time I cross a junction either, even though I know I should. But this wasn’t just any other traffic. They had a blue flashing light strapped to the top of their car. That’s going to be a tricky one to explain.


Yup
No matter how anyone looks at what is reasonable or negligent with either driver, blue flashers not being seen does leave the green driver open to question.
To me it is not cut nd dried because we don't know what the cop was doing either.
Blue lights don't give them any rights to full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes


This post has been edited by DancingDad: Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 22:31
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 09:56
Post #90


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 23:28) *
Blue lights don't give them any rights to full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes

Sure, but I can’t see how that affects the question of the OPs negligence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 10:37
Post #91


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Spandex @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 10:56) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 27 Jul 2018 - 23:28) *
Blue lights don't give them any rights to full steam ahead and damn the torpedoes

Sure, but I can’t see how that affects the question of the OPs negligence.


It all inter-relates.

What the police car was doing could make the difference between negligent and didn't have a chance.
At extremes, police car stopped in the lights with blues flashing.... driver tee bones a static car... negligent (even without the blues on)
Police car enters the junction at 90 when driver already crossing, whether the driver saw the flashers or not, could they have avoided?

In this specific that the following driver seems to have seen the police car and blue lights, there is a strong suggestion that the driver on green was not paying attention, hence negligent but no one can take any one isolated bit and say that is what counts.
I am concerned that the driver didn't see blue flashes, at night, not even reflections? They are not easy to miss for a reasonably observant driver. Specsavers?


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 16:29
Post #92


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 11:37) *
Police car enters the junction at 90 when driver already crossing, whether the driver saw the flashers or not, could they have avoided?

But that’s the point. It doesn’t matter at all, because the question of the OPs negligence purely hinges on whether or not he could have done something to avoid THIS accident.

That’s why these other scenarios are irrelevant. Because they don’t help the OP explain why he didn’t slow down for a blatantly obvious potential hazard.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 17:13
Post #93


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (Spandex @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 17:29) *
........That’s why these other scenarios are irrelevant. Because they don’t help the OP explain why he didn’t slow down for a blatantly obvious potential hazard.


What do you base the blatantly obvious hazard on ?
Unless I have missed something, we only have the opening post, an idea of junction layout and comments and conjecture.

We don't know relative speeds, we don't know either OPs or cop's actions in approaching, we basically know nuffink.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 17:37
Post #94


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



Which is why I’m amazed people seem confident in coming to definitive views on the question of the OP’s negligence.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
bama
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 18:33
Post #95


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28,931
Joined: 29 Nov 2005
Member No.: 4,323



QUOTE (666 @ Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 17:48) *
QUOTE (bama @ Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 15:51) *
QUOTE (666 @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 07:53) *
QUOTE (nigelbb @ Wed, 25 Jul 2018 - 05:40) *
Even if they had seen the blue light why should they expect the police car to dangerously jump a red light? The blue light doesn’t give priority.

Highway Code, Rule 219.

"Look and listen for .... emergency vehicles. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass ..."


err, any law that says so ?

and even that part of the HC doesn't say anything about blue lights giving priority.
clue, it can't because they don't. it is up to the blue light driver to go around other traffic.


still waiting to see what case law was being used by the Bib.


You asked "... why should they expect... ?". Emergency vehicles are allowed to pass red lights, and routinely do so. The HC explains that other drivers should consider this and act accordingly.

While the HC is not in itself law, ignoring it suggests careeless driving, i.e. not that of a careful and competent driver.


err, (again) and under what circumstances is the HC usable in evidence ?

if it isn't in evidence then what it says is irrelevant and thus ignoring it 'suggests' nothing at all.




QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Thu, 26 Jul 2018 - 16:00) *
The police driver appears to have been negligent - there seems to be little dispute about that. The real question is whether the OP was negligent. A couple of points there:

1. More than one person can be negligent at any one time. Just because the police driver was negligent doesn’t mean the OP wasn’t.

2. A vehicle crossing a give way line doesn’t automatically mean that the driver of a vehicle that hits it cannot be negligent. The question would be whether a driver taking proper care would have avoided the collision.

There is no rule of law that “two wrongs make a right” i.e. that, the police driver having driven negligently, that the OP could be relieved of all responsibility if their own driving was negligent.


Agree completely. The onus is on both.(though I do hold that the blue light driver carries more of the burden)
Thats one of the reasons why I asked about what law was being trotted out by the BiB.
OP hasn'r been back on for days though.


--------------------
Which facts in any situation or problem are “essential” and what makes them “essential”? If the “essential” facts are said to depend on the principles involved, then the whole business, all too obviously, goes right around in a circle. In the light of one principle or set of principles, one bunch of facts will be the “essential” ones; in the light of another principle or set of principles, a different bunch of facts will be “essential.” In order to settle on the right facts you first have to pick your principles, although the whole point of finding the facts was to indicate which principles apply.

Note that I am not legally qualified and any and all statements made are "Reserved". Liability for application lies with the reader.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 18:50
Post #96


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (bama @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 19:33) *
err, (again) and under what circumstances is the HC usable in evidence ?

if it isn't in evidence then what it says is irrelevant and thus ignoring it 'suggests' nothing at all.

Road Traffic Act 1988, s 38(7)

QUOTE
A failure on the part of a person to observe a provision of the Highway Code shall not of itself render that person liable to criminal proceedings of any kind but any such failure may in any proceedings (whether civil or criminal, and including proceedings for an offence under the Traffic Acts, the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 or sections 18 to 23 of the Transport Act 1985) be relied upon by any party to the proceedings as tending to establish or negative any liability which is in question in those proceedings.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 07:05
Post #97


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 972
Joined: 9 Oct 2016
Member No.: 87,665



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 18:13) *
What do you base the blatantly obvious hazard on ?

I base that on the fact that the following car saw the flashing blue lights but the OP says he didn’t. He didn’t say “I saw them clearly but simply didn’t have enough time to react due to the speed we were both going”. Personally I’m not convinced that’s exactly true, but it’s what he’s relying on.

QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 18:37) *
Which is why I’m amazed people seem confident in coming to definitive views on the question of the OP’s negligence.

I don’t think I’ve said it is definitive. I’ve said it seems likely based on what we know.

That being said, this is a forum, not a court. Surely it’s ok to bat some opinions around with a bit more abandon than a judge would?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
southpaw82
post Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 11:59
Post #98


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 33,610
Joined: 2 Apr 2008
From: Not in the UK
Member No.: 18,483



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 30 Jul 2018 - 08:05) *
QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 28 Jul 2018 - 18:37) *
Which is why I’m amazed people seem confident in coming to definitive views on the question of the OP’s negligence.

I don’t think I’ve said it is definitive. I’ve said it seems likely based on what we know.


At the risk of appearing to engage in tit for tat, I’ve not said that you have.

QUOTE
That being said, this is a forum, not a court. Surely it’s ok to bat some opinions around with a bit more abandon than a judge would?

Of course you can. But don’t expect people to take it as definitive just because it’s put that way.


--------------------
Moderator

Any comments made do not constitute legal advice and should not be relied upon. No lawyer/client relationship should be assumed nor should any duty of care be owed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  « < 3 4 5
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 08:32
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here