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  < 1 2 3 4 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Fri, 20 Jul 2018 - 14:53
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 00:07
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (southpaw82 @ Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 15:34) *
Liability is an issue of negligence so whether the give way presumption lasts across the whole junction or not is of marginal importance. The police driver was engaging in a risky manoeuvre and as such needed to exercise a great deal of caution. If he did not then arguably he was negligent. Similarly, not seeing a police car lit up like a Christmas tree could also be considered negligent.

+1, this sums it up pretty well. Looking at it another way, if the officer had been taking his blue light test, would he have carried out the manoeuvre differently? I suspect the answer may be yes.

Absent any video footage, we're not going to be able to give any meaningful opinion as to how liability should be split.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 00:43
Post #22


Member


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



I would say that we do not have nearly enough information to establish liability other than it is very likely split.

However, again on a weirdly similar theme it is impossible to travel through any junction, whether on blue lights or on a green light, and being certain that you will not have a collision without getting to the ridiculous stage of driving at 3mph whenever there is any potential for conflict.

The issue will be whether the police had, for whatever reason, a reasonable expectation the OP would stop. The OP hs already said they did not see the police car which, bearing in mind the junction and the 40mph speed limit I think weakens their hand. But, seeing as we only have 5% of the information, it is difficult to be definitive.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 15:26
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sun, 22 Jul 2018 - 01:43) *
The issue will be whether the police had, for whatever reason, a reasonable expectation the OP would stop. The OP hs already said they did not see the police car which, bearing in mind the junction and the 40mph speed limit I think weakens their hand. But, seeing as we only have 5% of the information, it is difficult to be definitive.

As I understand it police officers are taught that they should never assume the civvy driver is going to stop until they either stop or at least acknowledge the presence of the response vehicle, whether by eye contract or a hand gesture or whatever. So it would appear the police driver was not driving fully in accordance with police training and policy. I agree the liability is likely split and we can't really say how it is split as we don't have enough information.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 07:31
Post #24


Member


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



QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Sat, 21 Jul 2018 - 16:17) *
Ridiculous. Obviously there the obligation to give way to oncoming traffic at the give way line. It is at that point you have to check you can pass through before any oncoming traffic that is visible, or that you should be in a position to see, reaches the chicane.

You can't possibly be expected to give way if a parked car sets off or someone turns out of a driveway once you have passed the give way line.

It is much clearer on single track bridges where one side has priority. You need to make sure there is no oncoming traffic when you pass the give way line, but you do not need to reverse if an oncoming vehicle comes into view as you as passing over the bridge.

With my accident I was "oncoming traffic" at the point the driver passed the give way line.

This isn’t complicated. Obviously the decision must be made at the give way line, but that decision must cover the entirety of your manoeuvre. The fact that the police car hit the OP shows they didn’t give way. There is no other conclusion. They may feel they have a legitimate excuse for not giving way, but they definitely didn’t give way.

As for your ridiculous ‘what ifs’, if a parked car sets off, or someone pulls out of a drive, they clearly don’t have priority over vehicles that have already started a manoeuvre, or are already travelling along the road they’re pulling on to. In other words, they’re an irrelevance in this discussion.

As for the accident in question, I’m uncomfortable with the idea that blame should be apportioned based on some abstract and subjective idea of ‘common sense’ - the law should ultimately determine these things - but in the OPs case I just can’t see how a competent and careful driver could think it was acceptable to proceed through a junction at speed with a blue light approaching (regardless of who has priority), and I can’t understand how that blue light could have been missed at night with a relatively open junction like that.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:45
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:31) *
I’m uncomfortable with the idea that blame should be apportioned based on some abstract and subjective idea of ‘common sense’

However uncomfortable it makes you, that is a large part of how it is decided, where there is a split in liability then if it gets to court the judge will look at the two failings and decide on their contribution using pretty much nothing but common sense, there is no magic formula.

In my case the judge deemed I was 10% at fault for a collision, I had to send insurers a copy of the judgement as they wouldn't believe a Judge would ever come to a 90:10 split, one even said that 75:25 was the 'most they could split it'. Fortunately common sense prevailed and most insurers used that low liability to deem it non-fault.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:18
Post #26


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:45) *
QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:31) *
I’m uncomfortable with the idea that blame should be apportioned based on some abstract and subjective idea of ‘common sense’

However uncomfortable it makes you, that is a large part of how it is decided, where there is a split in liability then if it gets to court the judge will look at the two failings and decide on their contribution using pretty much nothing but common sense, there is no magic formula.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. What you describe is a judge making a ruling on the degrees of fault, where both parties bear some legal liability. What I'm talking about is apportioning blame to a party that has broken no law. Judges don't do this (I would hope), but people on internet forums do seem partial to it.

In the case of the OP, I would say that there is evidence of careless driving, given that he proceeded through a junction at speed where he must have been aware of an approaching emergency vehicle on blue lights (I say 'must have', because the car behind has made a statement that he saw the lights clearly, which suggests they weren't obscured by the road layout or surrounding buildings). From the police cars side, they also clearly did not give way - hence me thinking the blame is split between the two drivers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:28
Post #27


Member


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



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:18) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:45) *
QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:31) *
I’m uncomfortable with the idea that blame should be apportioned based on some abstract and subjective idea of ‘common sense’

However uncomfortable it makes you, that is a large part of how it is decided, where there is a split in liability then if it gets to court the judge will look at the two failings and decide on their contribution using pretty much nothing but common sense, there is no magic formula.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. What you describe is a judge making a ruling on the degrees of fault, where both parties bear some legal liability. What I'm talking about is apportioning blame to a party that has broken no law. Judges don't do this (I would hope), but people on internet forums do seem partial to it.

In the case of the OP, I would say that there is evidence of careless driving, given that he proceeded through a junction at speed where he must have been aware of an approaching emergency vehicle on blue lights (I say 'must have', because the car behind has made a statement that he saw the lights clearly, which suggests they weren't obscured by the road layout or surrounding buildings). From the police cars side, they also clearly did not give way - hence me thinking the blame is split between the two drivers.



I don't know why Rookie ended up with a Judge but if I was in an accident which I was convinced was not my fault and the other side was playing silly wotsits, a civil claim is one option.
In that respect, easy to see why a judge could be involved where neither party had broken a law.
Normal situation is parties claim from their insurance, both claim they were 100% blameless.
Then the insurance companies have to reach a decision on what did happen and apportion any split.
That apportioning can be challenged via complaints and ombudsman.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 09:56
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:28) *
I don't know why Rookie ended up with a Judge

My car was a cheapy at the time and TPFT, the other parties insurer took me to court, that insurer agreed to accept the judgement as dealing with a counterclaim without the additional costs of making a formal counter claim which I'd decided wasn't worth the financial risk.

So they took me to court so they could pay 90% of the value they attributed to my car (which was about 100% more than the value I would have attributed to it) less the scrap value (which, erm I'd sold the remains for 8x more than that) - I did better out of getting the car hit and written off than selling it (or part exing it which is what I'd planned to do and was about to enter the traders yard when I got hit!).

QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:18) *
Perhaps you misunderstood me. What you describe is a judge making a ruling on the degrees of fault, where both parties bear some legal liability. What I'm talking about is apportioning blame to a party that has broken no law.

So driving negligently isn't breaking the law? It's 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' common sense approach that decides what is or is not negligent, how else would you decide it?

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:00


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:18
Post #29


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:56) *
So driving negligently isn't breaking the law? It's 'the man on the Clapham omnibus' common sense approach that decides what is or is not negligent, how else would you decide it?

Errm... You quoted me, but then replied to something I didn't say. Was this meant for someone else (someone who said that driving negligently isn't breaking the law, perhaps)?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:33
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



Try reading it again.....I was replying to the bit I quoted.


--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 10:58
Post #31


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:33) *
Try reading it again.....I was replying to the bit I quoted.

It doesn't matter how many times I read it. You replied to something I didn't say. I didn't say 'driving negligently isn't breaking the law'. You assumed that's what I meant, then decided to 'educate' me on why I was wrong. Let's be clear though - In my post that you quoted, I said I was talking about apportioning blame to PEOPLE WHO HAVE BROKEN NO LAW. If someone has acted negligently and because of this, broken the law, then how on earth can they be in the group of 'people who haven't broken the law' I mention above?? I can draw a venn diagram if that would help you?

But whatever.. Not by accident, I said at the start that what makes me feel uncomfortable is the application of an abstract and subjective idea of common sense. The 'man on the Clapham omnibus' is not supposed to be abstract or subjective. In fact, quite the opposite, it is a tool employed to avoid subjectivity where the law hinges on what a 'reasonable' person would do. So, at the risk of repeating myself, what I have a problem with is people on forums thinking that the notion of 'common sense', 'reasonableness' or 'the man on the Clapham omibus' is just shorthand for an arbitrary decision - one that is probably based on what they'd like to imagine they'd do in that situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
notmeatloaf
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:00
Post #32


Member


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



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:31) *
This isn’t complicated. Obviously the decision must be made at the give way line, but that decision must cover the entirety of your manoeuvre.

You are saying the same thing: the give way occurs at the give way line, to any oncoming traffic you will conflict with. You don't have any further obligation to give way once you have passed the give way line unless you have misjudged oncoming traffic you could/should have seen at the give way line.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
The Rookie
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:10
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 56,200
Joined: 9 Sep 2003
From: Warwickshire
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:58) *
QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:33) *
Try reading it again.....I was replying to the bit I quoted.

It doesn't matter how many times I read it. You replied to something I didn't say. I didn't say 'driving negligently isn't breaking the law'. You assumed that's what I meant, then decided to 'educate' me on why I was wrong. Let's be clear though - In my post that you quoted, I said I was talking about apportioning blame to PEOPLE WHO HAVE BROKEN NO LAW. If someone has acted negligently and because of this, broken the law, then how on earth can they be in the group of 'people who haven't broken the law' I mention above?? I can draw a venn diagram if that would help you?


Well we were discussing the collision that occurred here, why then raise your being uncomfortable with the apportioning of blame, you put the blame wholly on the Police, not appearing to accept that there are indications the Op was negligent to some extent, that negligence would be established largely on the common sense you don't want to use even if it amounted to a criminal offence. I see no other reading of that paragraph.

QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:31) *
As for the accident in question, I’m uncomfortable with the idea that blame should be apportioned based on some abstract and subjective idea of ‘common sense’ - the law should ultimately determine these things - but in the OPs case I just can’t see how a competent and careful driver could think it was acceptable to proceed through a junction at speed with a blue light approaching (regardless of who has priority), and I can’t understand how that blue light could have been missed at night with a relatively open junction like that.



--------------------
There is no such thing as a law abiding motorist, just those who have been scammed and those yet to be scammed!

S172's
Rookies 1-0 Kent

Council PCN's
Rookies 1-0 Warwick
Rookies 1-0 Birmingham

PPC PCN's
Rookies 10-0 PPC's
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:45
Post #34


Member


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



QUOTE (The Rookie @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 12:10) *
Well we were discussing the collision that occurred here, why then raise your being uncomfortable with the apportioning of blame, you put the blame wholly on the Police, not appearing to accept that there are indications the Op was negligent to some extent, that negligence would be established largely on the common sense you don't want to use even if it amounted to a criminal offence. I see no other reading of that paragraph.

I do wonder if you actually read any of my posts properly. It feels like you get to a bit you take issue with, then skip the rest in your haste to tell me I'm wrong. The paragraph you quoted at the bottom of your last post explains exactly how I believe the OP could be apportioned some blame. This isn't based on my idea of common sense, it was just a suggestion that there was evidence of careless driving, given that a driver behind the OP saw something clearly that the OP failed to spot.

So, in summary, at no point have I put the blame wholly on the police - This is in your imagination. At no point have I suggested any apportioning of blame based purely on 'common sense' - there is evidence of a lack of observation by the OP and there is evidence that the police ignored a give way.

In essence I said "while I disagree with people doing X, in this instance I think you don't need to do X in order to find the OP partially responsible" and for some reason you were so keen to argue about X that you forgot to read what I said about this actual collision.

QUOTE (notmeatloaf @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 12:00) *
QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 08:31) *
This isn’t complicated. Obviously the decision must be made at the give way line, but that decision must cover the entirety of your manoeuvre.

You are saying the same thing.

Perfect!

This post has been edited by Spandex: Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 11:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
TheDisapprovingB...
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 13:49
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 311
Joined: 16 Jul 2015
Member No.: 78,371



Looking at the junction and the photo, I'd apportion considerably more, if not all, blame to the police than OP. I agree with other posters that both vehicles would have had a clear view of each other leading up to the collision, but OP has no reason to look for cross traffic. They're on a traffic light controlled junction with a green light - it's perfectly reasonable to focus on the road ahead in that scenario. I certainly wouldn't say it's negligent not to check that there's no cross traffic coming. It's a wide, clear road with nothing of note for blue lights to bounce off, so if the junction is reasonably well lit there's nothing for OP to see.

If anybody should be expecting cross traffic in that situation, it's the professional driver proceeding at speed through a red light without sirens. It's not a residential area so there's no reason not to use sirens there.

The driver behind saw the police, but without knowing the following distance or the police car's speed, it doesn't necessarily follow that OP must also have seen them. At 40mph they'd be covering around 60 feet per second, but they were on a shout so could well have been speeding too.

If this were any other vehicle being involved in a collision after jumping a red light, an argument of "I was flashing my lights so they should have seen me" wouldn't carry much weight - I see no reason why the colour of the lights should make all that much difference.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 14:01
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Not my job to apportion blame, I see a lack of care and a pic of a car that hit something head on at what must have been quite a speed, let the accident investigators work out the details then the insurers will have their say


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 14:42
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 14:49) *
Looking at the junction and the photo, I'd apportion considerably more, if not all, blame to the police than OP. I agree with other posters that both vehicles would have had a clear view of each other leading up to the collision, but OP has no reason to look for cross traffic. They're on a traffic light controlled junction with a green light - it's perfectly reasonable to focus on the road ahead in that scenario. I certainly wouldn't say it's negligent not to check that there's no cross traffic coming. It's a wide, clear road with nothing of note for blue lights to bounce off, so if the junction is reasonably well lit there's nothing for OP to see.

If anybody should be expecting cross traffic in that situation, it's the professional driver proceeding at speed through a red light without sirens. It's not a residential area so there's no reason not to use sirens there.

The driver behind saw the police, but without knowing the following distance or the police car's speed, it doesn't necessarily follow that OP must also have seen them. At 40mph they'd be covering around 60 feet per second, but they were on a shout so could well have been speeding too.

If this were any other vehicle being involved in a collision after jumping a red light, an argument of "I was flashing my lights so they should have seen me" wouldn't carry much weight - I see no reason why the colour of the lights should make all that much difference.

+1

Would people be so keen to apportion blame to the OP if the police car had run into the OP's car instead of the other way round? It's only a matter of timing.


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Spandex
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 16:36
Post #38


Member


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



QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 14:49) *
If this were any other vehicle being involved in a collision after jumping a red light, an argument of "I was flashing my lights so they should have seen me" wouldn't carry much weight - I see no reason why the colour of the lights should make all that much difference.

There are a few technical reasons why it makes a difference. They're flashing in all directions, which means they light up the surrounding buildings and scenery, which also makes them more noticeable. Also, blue lights are less common on the roads at night which makes them stand out against other common light sources. There are also some factors to do with the human eye and blue light, particularly at night, but I think the first two reasons are more than enough.

And that takes us to your first point about whether it's negligent not to 'check for cross traffic'. Given the very high visibility of emergency vehicle blue lights, I don't think there should be any need to 'check for it' - it will be blatantly obvious. What I suspect happened is that the OP saw the blue lights in much the same way the following car did, but for whatever reason didn't really register it as a potential hazard until it was too late to do anything about it.

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 15:42) *
Would people be so keen to apportion blame to the OP if the police car had run into the OP's car instead of the other way round? It's only a matter of timing.

We're not adjudicating on a race. I don't think it matters much who got there first.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Foxy01
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 17:17
Post #39


Member
Group Icon

Group: Life Member
Posts: 247
Joined: 4 Mar 2016
Member No.: 82,764



Major junction, right outside a well signposted hospital. So potential for ambulances on blue light calls, should a careful motorist miss all this and a police car on blues.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nigelbb
post Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 17:58
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,768
Joined: 17 Mar 2013
Member No.: 60,602



QUOTE (Spandex @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 17:36) *
QUOTE (TheDisapprovingBrit @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 14:49) *
If this were any other vehicle being involved in a collision after jumping a red light, an argument of "I was flashing my lights so they should have seen me" wouldn't carry much weight - I see no reason why the colour of the lights should make all that much difference.

There are a few technical reasons why it makes a difference. They're flashing in all directions, which means they light up the surrounding buildings and scenery, which also makes them more noticeable. Also, blue lights are less common on the roads at night which makes them stand out against other common light sources. There are also some factors to do with the human eye and blue light, particularly at night, but I think the first two reasons are more than enough.

And that takes us to your first point about whether it's negligent not to 'check for cross traffic'. Given the very high visibility of emergency vehicle blue lights, I don't think there should be any need to 'check for it' - it will be blatantly obvious. What I suspect happened is that the OP saw the blue lights in much the same way the following car did, but for whatever reason didn't really register it as a potential hazard until it was too late to do anything about it.

QUOTE (nigelbb @ Mon, 23 Jul 2018 - 15:42) *
Would people be so keen to apportion blame to the OP if the police car had run into the OP's car instead of the other way round? It's only a matter of timing.

We're not adjudicating on a race. I don't think it matters much who got there first.

If the OP had been travelling just a little faster & been struck amidships by the police car we would be looking at an innocent party crossing the junction on green being rammed by a speeding police car going through a red light


--------------------
British Parking Association Ltd Code of Practice(Appendix C contains Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 ) & can be found here http://www.britishparking.co.uk/Code-of-Pr...ance-monitoring
DfT Guidance on Section 56 and Schedule 4 of POFA 2012 https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/syste...ing-charges.pdf
Damning OFT advice on levels of parking charges that was ignored by the BPA Ltd Reference Request Number: IAT/FOIA/135010 – 12 October 2012
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

5 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 > » 
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 13:03
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