Boro

iTrader: (1)

I dont agree that the charge should be of careless driving because something happens to come loose from your vehicle.

But, i think many police officers would charge someone with "something" for having loose bits coming off their vehicle.

As for the lights not making a difference, lets face it, they wouldnt have done any harm would they? And i may be wrong but i would expect it to be "policy" to have at least lights on(headlights/blues) travelling at that sort of speed regardless of what they were responding to.

steve_nairn_sti

Boro,

Never said the charge should be careless driving.

medders

Surprisingly enough, flashing lights and sirens often have the exact opposite effect to the one being described. They make an awful lot of people panic and do completely mad manouvers.

If the traffic was fairly non existant as described (on a dual carriageway) I dont see any reason why flashing lights would be neccessary. All it would do is put the wind up people being approached. Obviously they would be used in situations where neccessary, but for one car in the nearside lane I wouldn't.

Paul

steve_nairn_sti

What, the police were travelling well in excess of 100mph and you don't think they should have let other road users konw?

medders

One car on a dual carriageway. No. Why would you ?

If there are no other vehicles why would he need to use lane 2 ?

Like I said why put the wind up someone if theres no need ?

Puff saw him coming as he was being observant and looking in his mirrors.

steve_nairn_sti

As mentioned earlier medders, it's not just cars that use the roads. What if a pedestrian was trying to cross? What if PTMW was going to be turning right? What if PTMW had to swerve unexpectedly to avoid an obstruction?

Expect the unexpected.

I was in the fire brigade for three and a half years and I attended MANY emergency calls. Even in the dead of night, Blues AT LEAST should be used to alert anyone around.

You would be surprised how many people cannot see a big red fire engine behind them!

steve_nairn_sti

Not all drivers would be as observant.

medders

Mate your adding obstacles that haven't been mentioned. I'm commenting merely on the situation as described.

Like I said, when the need arises, they get used. If your an advanced driver - you know that.

You'd also know it lights and sirens make people react in very different ways.

steve_nairn_sti

Fully agree with you there medders.

We once pulled up behind a woman at a junction with blues and twos going and she panicked, then proceeded to get out of the car!! We just drove round and away but it just goes to show the reactions you could get!

(Not advanced driver myself but had a keen interest in the rules of the road for emergencies.)

ianmiller999

For christ sake, what are you people talking about. I got the impression that the thread was started kinda taking the pi££ out of the police, for them being pulled over. And now you people are getting in to a petty arguement.

scoobydevil1

ooo puff poor you first you get it up the *** from a german trucker and now the fuzz have ago at ya, did he show you his truncheon?


just a word of warning you could be opening a can of worms if you ask for the damage to be repaired.
if the office concerned gets his legs smacked or his fast toy taken off him you could find your car and all green scooby wagons "marked cars" in the area you were driving .


i know it is wrong for this to be the case (maybe) but if you had the power to get back at someone who had got you a bolloking would'nt you ?
most of my family are coppers so i know it happens.

if the damage is only slight i would talk to the office direct , he could be greatful for you keepin him out of the $hit.

favours from a copper puff whatever next

just my 2p worth.

[Edited by scoobydevil1 - 7/29/2003 12:15:46 PM]

BuRR

I say claim for damages caused.

mail me off board if u like ptmw

RayC

But speed kills - period - why do you think we have speed cameras on safe roads?? surely if he was driving that fast, no matter how well trained his air would have run out or something!

Can't have two rules, bits came off his car which was in an unroadworthy condition,and it is the drivers responsibility to check, and he was exceeding the speed limit.

Nail them all

anyone else seen the proposed additional £35 on speeding tickits? £95 notes for minor offence, bearing in mind speed cameras took £120 million last year, stings a bit.

ianmiller999

No wonder Government and Police have no support and the whole country is going to the dogs

talizman

iTrader: (1)

First, apologies to Mungo for the delay in my reply, as I had to go and get someone to read all the previous posts to me.

As Mungo said
Plonker.



steve_nairn_sti...

You said
You have to appreciate that bits could fly off your car at any time, whether you are travelling at 30mph or 130mph....it doesn't make it careless. $hit happens, thats why we have insurance. You can't blame the driver just because a bit of plastic gives up the ghost! Jeez!
Next you'll be suggesting that a driver who suffers a blow out on the m/way should be charged too! Some things are outwith your control as you well know.

And with all due respect, I don't believe for one minute that you carry out a full inspection of your car before every journey.
Plus, the inference that you made was, that careless driving would be the charge.... What charge did you mean if not this one???



Medders, you are spot on about the mixed reactions you get from drivers with blues and twos up their ar$e, some just don't know what to do.

Puff looked in his mirror, saw the car coming and watched it pass him. Blues and twos would not have made the circumstances pan out any differently.

As I said before, threads like this simply give people the chance to have a go at the police probably due to isolated personal experiences, coupled with the fact that the police can speed and usually not get done. Bad case of sour grapes!!

steve_nairn_sti

The driver was careless, period. I did not suggest at any point that the officer be charged with careless driving, however it was a careless act. I am no saint but being that the police get scrutinised in everything that they do, they should check their vehicle thoroughly at the start of each shift.

I would like to add that I have no vendetta against the police and in fact I have many friends in the local force (Well, a few anyway )

Spoon

Talizman say's You can't keep using that one!!

There are people on here without a vendetta but just as "we" normal drivers have to abide by the laws the police have to be seen practicing what they preach.

Yes things can come off at any time but you tell that to the police if it was the other way around, i'm sure you'd still be booked.

If no blue's and two's were used then I think headlights would have been at least courteous towards other road users.

Maybe now with the back and front damaged on the wagon you can get a full respray in a decent colour?

scoobynutta555

Its not one rule for police and other rules for somebody else. I would like to drive over the speed limit 'legally' on motorways too, i have to make do with doing it illegally And i expect if something flew off of my car and dented a coppers bonnet they would go to town on me , esp if it was way over the limit.

talizman

iTrader: (1)

steve_nairn_sti,

you said

I am curious as to what you think the person should be charged with as your comment would certainly suggest "Careless driving"??

I am certainly not accusing anyone of having a vendetta against the police either. Far from it. Its just that everyone moans about what they (the police) get away with, most people don't realise that the police don't get away with as much as people assume.

If you care to ask any police officer you will see find that most force's policy is to charge their officers (with careless or dangerous driving) if they are at fault in an accident whether anyone is injured or not. Joe Public is not charged yet the Cop is. Is this right?
Most of you will probably say "yes" and mutter some rubbish about being "highly trained" and "example setters". Police drivers are not highly trained, they are simply taught to have a better awareness and anticipation on the road, no more, no less.

Police forces openly discriminate against their own staff by charging them after minor bumps even when no one is injured, even when it is not the interests of justice to do so, yet it happens, every day. (from experience)

Spoon,

I don't really want to get into this, but...

Utter tripe!

Unless you are driving an un-roadworthy banger with bits hanging off it everywhere, then you won't be "booked".

If you are unlucky enough to have an apparently secure part of your otherwise 'roadworthy' car, come loose on the road, and it hits another car, its called a "Road Accident" and your insurance is liable for damage to others. No charges!! Jeez. You can't be charged for being unlucky!!

Obviously the argument over whether the guy should have had blues and/or twos on is a personal opinion and there is no definitive answer. I'm quite sure the guy felt justified not having them on, and he could also justify it if challenged.

All of a sudden everyone is banding the term "vendetta" about....where did this come from???? Not me....

And PTMW....

Maybe now with the front and back of the wagon damaged you could do the right thing......

Get a saloon!!!

(only kidding before I start a Saloon Vs Wagon riot!!!)

PTMS..... thats got a better ring to it hasn't it?

steve_nairn_sti

Pish.

My parents were both coppers, father was one of the more advanced in the country regarding driver training in high speed pursuit etc.
(At that time)

I am no expert on what to have the driver charged for. Maybe you could tell me since you are so proficient in the matter??

talizman

iTrader: (1)

steve,

I was asking you what he should be charged with, don't you know???...

You suggested that the driving was careless and the driver should be charged... then you say that you made no mention of careless driving
I am curious as to what they should be charged with, thats all. How can you suggest someone should be charged if you can't even quote an offence. CHarged with what? Breach of the Peace? lol

and as for the "pish" comment.....

I re-iterate... Police drivers are not highly trained, why don't you ask your father what a General Police Driving course consists of....

It is simply increasing awareness and anticipation and is all contained in a book called "Roadcraft" which anyone can get access to. There is no high speed stuff, no pursuit training, in fact the course is taught in unmarked cars.

Certain traffic officers are taught to a higher level, including pursuits etc, but they by no means make up the majority of police drivers. They are far outnumbered by GP Drivers. The same GP drivers who are charged when they have a slight bump etc.

I accept that there are a few Police Officers who have done every driving course under the sun, and to their credit, they are $hit hot! but I repeat, 95% of Police Drivers are not "highly" trained....

[Edited by talizman - 7/29/2003 5:46:24 PM]

Scratch

iTrader: (1)

Looks like PTMW's reasonable request for advice has turned into a "lets bash the police session".

Have people lost sight of the question here which was for advice, not opinions............ ?

Was tempted to add my bit but will refrain (which make a change )

ianmiller999

Maybe he didn't mean charged as in by court but maybe disciplined or whatever you want to call it by the police for not carrying out his vehicle inspections correctly if at all, prior to starting his shift.

JRW

I don't know if PTMW got my response on page 1, but just to reassure him that he is entitled to have the repairs paid for as it was as the result of a Proximity POLACC. The police driver if he is honest will have to make out a report re the damage caused to the police vehicle and PTMW's car. He won't get in the sh..t as quoted. POlice vehicles are regularly serviced but by no means in that good a condition bodywork wise due to being on the road the better part of 24hrs a day and a fair bit of thrashing and abuse when going off road in pursuits. Just to confirm as well the majority of police drivers are either basic non response or response, trained a to a level where they should be looking further ahead of the road, correct positions for bends in the right gear and speed and correct positioning for views before overtaking. Advanced drivers push this further and apart from building up the speed progressively are just smoother, looking about half a mile ahead and hopefully very safe (defensive driving). I can say some coppers do take the p..s, and are double standard the majority however do not.Don't loose out on your insurance by not claiming against the police, if the copper didn't make a report he is dishonest and committing police misconduct offences which more than likely would end up in him getting a boloaking.

Spoon

Talizman say's But you did

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

Had cr@p access today

I've a friend who is a career police officer, traffic cop & now an advanced police driving instructor. Her (yes! a female ) take on it was that I should claim on the police insurance and notify the local station anyway, just in case there was a defect to be found within those lights. She said that "she" would have had lights on, would've recommended it in this instance, but that it was not obligatory. Duty of care of the officer to ensure that he is not a hazard to other road users.

I'd personally have to express surprise at this, but it is part possibly due to the fact my wife is a PI solicitor and her view is ultra-safe, minimise hazards at all times etc.

The damage to the front is quite light, but there are a couple of dents, some scratches in the paintwork, some deeper scratches in the plastic bumper in 2 or 3 locations & a cracked lens cover. Lens cover & dents aside, its 6 of one & 1/2 dozen of the other that the whole bumper/bonnet would've had to be sprayed 'cos of existing stonechips

mart360

Hi puff,,,

wow how to open a can of worms!!!!

just skimmed throught the posts,,, it amazing how chinese whispers start,,,

as rightly pointed out, you posted a simple what if/ what do i do thread, and despite both yourself and i clearly stating its not a moral righteous meeting the comments are allready flying...

for what its worth !!if people would read the posts correctly

half the answers given were totally off thread... i mentioned area cars observing the speed limits and got a response about panda cars..

quick tip...

area cars are for traffic and high speed persuit and response driven by class 1 drivers...

panda cars for general police dutys... driven by all

yes i agree puff that prehaps the officer in question should have made his presence known,

but and this is the big one, he saw you and overtook you,

if he had not seen you he would have made his presence known,

as repeatedly pointed out by both the police and IAW and ROSPA

flashing of headlights is not an indication to other road users that they have right of way or can carry on with a maneuver they have started.

the flashing of headlights is to warn other road users of your presence...

anyway hope you get the damage fixed

mart

Spoon

Mart's winning this week's most condescending post award so far.

Come on, it's still only Tuesday.

Remember the prize of a dozen eggs to suck.

BuRR

Jesus Christ... does it really matter?

Puff... take the advice of your mate... its sound IMHO.

Let's get on with everyone dissecting the next thread out of all proportion.

.../flame jacket on

Puff The Magic Wagon!

iTrader: (2)

isawhatever



I'll read that again when I'm sober I think