Police killer drivers - they're still mowing down people
Turk182
and kill people, the BBC and TV generally, are very careful to restrict
the reporting of police killer drivers to mainly local coverage.
In 2000 there was a belated investigation into police accidents after a
huge increase in deaths. Still the slaughter goes on. Don't be fooled
by the police and the media into thinking this is just about pursuit -
it's certainly not.
All this is stark contrast to you and I getting fined for travelling at
35 in a 30mph limit in a car we are familiar with. Unlike the
policeman who recently drove at 160 mph in an unmarked car because he
was NOT familiar with the vehicle. I believe he was praised by the
judge.
Some admit they have never even read Roadcraft - The Police Driving
Handbook. I've trained up to Class 1 (ROSPA Gold, and I did an extended
training programme thanks to Kent police. I can tell you ..... many
police don't feel inhibited by safety or the law. Brace yourself for
the next death - next time it could be your gran.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4899790.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/aberdeen.cfm?id=385662006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4108088.stm
Todays:
A police officer found guilty of careless driving after speeding
through a red light in a patrol car and killing a driver has been fined
£2,000.
Pc Nicholas Andrews-Faulkner, 44, was given nine points on his licence,
banned for four years, told to pay £1,000 costs and retake his test.
But the Sussex officer from Hassocks was cleared at Winchester Crown
Court of causing death by dangerous driving.
Karen Stagg, 47, was killed and her son injured when the 4x4 hit her
vehicle.
The court had been told the 44-year-old officer went through a red
light at a junction, with the siren and blue lights switched on in his
Mitsubishi Shogun.
Turk182
SecretSquiddle
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144788170.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4899790.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/aberdeen.cfm?id=385662006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4108088.stm
Todays:
Turk182
Give every Citizen of the UK their own personal stingers. That would even
things up a bit.
**SS**
mrcheerful .
"Turk182" <digital...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1144788170.1...@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/southern_counties/4899790.stm
http://news.scotsman.com/aberdeen.cfm?id=385662006
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/suffolk/4108088.stm
Todays:
Turk182
but she (dead woman) quite clearly had not checked that the way ahead was
clear, had she? the same as the police driver. and she probably was not
sounding her horn or flashing lights, so maybe the police man was not that
dangerous after all?
mrcheerful
Richard Miller
<SecretS...@remove.googlemail.com> writes
>A police officer found guilty of careless driving after speeding
>through a red light in a patrol car and killing a driver has been fined
>£2,000. Pc Nicholas Andrews-Faulkner, 44, was given nine points on his
>licence, banned for four years, told to pay £1,000 costs and retake his
>test. But the Sussex officer from Hassocks was cleared at Winchester
>Crown Court of causing death by dangerous driving. Karen Stagg, 47, was
>killed and her son injured when the 4x4 hit her vehicle. The court had
>been told the 44-year-old officer went through a red light at a
>junction, with the siren and blue lights switched on in his Mitsubishi Shogun.
<Peter McLelland>
Well, he deliberately chose to speed, that is almost equivalent to
putting a gun to her head and shooting her, he should have been jailed
for a long time.
</Peter McLelland>
--
Richard Miller
Mr X
<ric...@seasalter0.demon.co.uk> writes
As I have illustrated previously that particular poster suffers from a
bad case of "selective blindness" in regards to police criticism.
--
Mr X
Turk182
></Peter McLelland>
>As I have illustrated previously that particular poster suffers from a
>bad case of "selective blindness" in regards to police criticism.
--
>Mr X
Oh thanks ...... I'll call up Kent Police and tell them to lift there
ban on police pursuits and I'll pretend that there isn't a review
currently underway in to police accidents due to the huge increase. I
appreciate that I was being very selective in telling the truth.
Turk182
Peter McLelland
"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:FBqt1GAQ...@privacy.net...
> >
> ></Peter McLelland>
>
> As I have illustrated previously that particular poster suffers from a
> bad case of "selective blindness" in regards to police criticism.
Of course on the otherhand Mr X has perfect vision and is completely
impartial.
Peter
Harry the Horse
news:5eV_f.51783$wl.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>
> but she (dead woman) quite clearly had not checked that the way ahead was
> clear, had she?
But the usual 'blame the victim' tactic of the apologist for police
criminality is noted.
> the same as the police driver. and she probably was not sounding her horn
> or flashing lights, so maybe the police man was not that dangerous after
> all?
>
Your logic is not our earth logic.
mrcheerful .
"Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:114484646...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
Accidents do happen, merely due to vehicles or people moving.
A green traffic light is not an order to go ahead regardless of other
vehicles that might be crossing your path.
The police driver was probably using lights and horns, the car driver was
not. Both were at fault to some degree.
mrcheerful
Dave Baker
Without knowing what if anything the woman driver could have seen or heard
of the police car before she started crossing the junction there's
absolutely no way anyone can say if she was at fault to any degree. Ever
since witnessing a accident when a stolen car T boned another at a junction
and killed all 5 occupants I'm very cautious about crossing any junction but
if a car comes out of nowhere from the side when you're half way across
there's not a damn thing you can do about it.
IMO the police driver was the one breaking the rules of the road and the
entire liability rests on him. I can't believe how a trained professional
driver committing a deliberate driving act (crossing a junction against the
lights) can get a fine and a driving ban when the woman in Oxford committing
an accidental act (losing control of the car) gets 4 years in jail. I think
the police driver's act was far worse than hers and he should have been
jailed accordingly. Once again though the rules applied to police don't seem
to the same the rest of us have to bear.
--
Dave Baker
www.pumaracing.co.uk
Cynic
." <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Accidents do happen, merely due to vehicles or people moving.
>
>A green traffic light is not an order to go ahead regardless of other
>vehicles that might be crossing your path.
>
>The police driver was probably using lights and horns, the car driver was
>not. Both were at fault to some degree.
Bollocks. Flashing lights and siren do *not* grant the right to go
through a red traffic light without ensuring that it is safe to do so.
The onus is on the policeman to give way to traffic proceeding across
the junction with the green light - a red light is to be treated as a
give way sign.
An average traffic junction does not allow a driver to see traffic
approaching from the cross direction until close to the junction - and
it is not expected that you should approach a light controlled
junction at a slow enough speed to be able to stop at that point when
the light is in your favour. Yes, the driver would have heard the
siren. But the nature of sound is such that it can appear to be
coming from a totally different direction to where it really is.
--
Cynic
mrcheerful .
"Dave Baker" <Dave...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:e1j45q$vgf$1...@news.datemas.de...
Reading the report the police car was not travelling very fast, so would
have probably been apparent to an alert driver.
But as you say without witnessing it yourself it is impossible to really
judge, it may be that the woman ran into the police car deliberately, or any
possible combination of things. We don't know, and that was my original
point, there are so many possibilities that make it impossible to be
judgemental remotely.
mrcheerful
Turk182
>entire liability rests on him. I can't believe how a trained professional
>driver committing a deliberate driving act (crossing a junction against the
>lights) can get a fine and a driving ban when the woman in Oxford committing
>an accidental act (losing control of the car) gets 4 years in jail. I think
>the police driver's act was far worse than hers and he should have been
>jailed accordingly. Once again though the rules applied to police don't seem
>to the same the rest of us have to bear.
The relatives of the dead woman would have been better off having had
their loved one killed by a stolen car. The punishment would then have
been more appropriate. The fact is that the policeman who was driving
that car knew that there was nobody policing him, and that if he were
in an accident and be found responsible for a death, he would get away
with a slap wrist and a fine. He knew all that when he crossed the
lights. However a member of the public in doing the same dangerous act
but accidentally, may go to prison.
The police yet again, have their right to endanger the public upheld in
law - the public have no say in this ........ they are simply cannon
fodder to a badly trained, under-policed police force.
Society is constantly told that the death toll is worth it in the
battle against crime. Bull S++T.
Turk182
Cynic
." <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Reading the report the police car was not travelling very fast, so would
>have probably been apparent to an alert driver.
>
>But as you say without witnessing it yourself it is impossible to really
>judge, it may be that the woman ran into the police car deliberately, or any
>possible combination of things. We don't know, and that was my original
>point, there are so many possibilities that make it impossible to be
>judgemental remotely.
Sure. The suicidal woman was out driving in search of a method to top
herself, when she fortuitously happened across a police car cautiously
approaching a road junction at a snail's pace. Hiding out of sight,
she callously waited until the hapless constable was half-way across
the junction, and then revving furiously, she dropped the clutch and
rammed into its side before the helpless police driver was able to get
out of the way of the deranged maniac.
Yes, you're right. That *must* have been how it happened. Thanks for
again pointing out the error of our ways - how ever could we have
doubted the perfection of our boys in blue?
--
Cynic
mrcheerful .
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:vg7q3255ddg8ft470...@4ax.com...
Anything is possible, you may be right.
I know of at least one person that would deliberately put himself in danger
in order to get a 'claim' against someone else.
The judge had the most facts available and made his decision, accept it and
move on.
mrcheerful
Alex Heney
wrote:
Why don't you try *reading* what people are writing, instead of
slamming them for something they most certainly did NOT write or
imply.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Shin: A device for finding furniture in the dark.
To reply by email, my address is alexATheneyDOTplusDOTcom
Turk182
>through a red traffic light without ensuring that it is safe to do so.
>Cynic
You tell 'em Cyn
Turk182
Harry the Horse
news:j19q32hqqscv63epc...@4ax.com...
hairbrained theory.
Cynic
wrote:
>Why don't you try *reading* what people are writing, instead of
>slamming them for something they most certainly did NOT write or
>imply.
LOL! You are surely not *really* such a humourless ould git?
--
Cynic
chippy
> > Bollocks. Flashing lights and siren do not grant the right to go
> > through a red traffic light without ensuring that it is safe to do
> > so.
>
> > Cynic
>
> You tell 'em Cyn
Unfortunately, he is wrong, the police do have the right to break any
law with impunity, from housebreaking to murder.
--
wigwambam
Mike
>
> Unfortunately, he is wrong, the police do have the right to break any
> law with impunity, from housebreaking to murder.
>
No, they do not have the *right* to do so, merely the ability.
--
Mike
chippy
> chippy wrote:
> >
> > Unfortunately, he is wrong, the police do have the right to break
> > any law with impunity, from housebreaking to murder.
> >
>
> No, they do not have the right to do so, merely the ability.
Heh, how long before they make it obligatory.
--
wigwambam
Martin Milan
No they were not. I think you'll find that the red light legally became
a Give Way sign for the officer - and he failed to give way.
Martin.
Martin Milan
> it may be that the woman ran into the police car deliberately,
What would cause you to leap to that conclusion?
chippy
An ability to think the police can do no wrong?
--
wigwambam
Alex Heney
wrote:
Your post was extremely sarcastic, NOT humorous.
And was clearly intended to pour scorn on what he had said - except
that he hadn't.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Why did Kamakazie pilots wear helmets???
Alex Heney
Actually, there would have been a large number of appropriate
responses.
Cynic's wasn't one of them.
It wasn't a "hare-brained theory" - it was posted as a *possibility*,
as one of many things that *could* have happened, and which we have no
way of determining between.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I am free of all prejudice. I hate everyone equally.
Alex Heney
Why might you think anyone had done so?
Alex Heney
>"mrcheerful
> ." <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:%i8%f.52082$wl....@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
>
>>
>> "Harry the Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:114484646...@lotis.uk.clara.net...
>>> "mrcheerful ." <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:5eV_f.51783$wl.5...@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> but she (dead woman) quite clearly had not checked that the way
>>>> ahead was clear, had she?
>>> It is not at all 'clear' that the victim had any blame for this
>>> collision. But the usual 'blame the victim' tactic of the apologist
>>> for police criminality is noted.
>>>
>>>> the same as the police driver. and she probably was not sounding
>>>> her horn or flashing lights, so maybe the police man was not that
>>>> dangerous after all?
>>>>
>>> Your logic is not our earth logic.
>>>
>>
>> Accidents do happen, merely due to vehicles or people moving.
>>
>> A green traffic light is not an order to go ahead regardless of other
>> vehicles that might be crossing your path.
>>
>> The police driver was probably using lights and horns, the car driver
>> was not. Both were at fault to some degree.
>>
>>
>
>No they were not.
Of course they (almost certainly) were.
>I think you'll find that the red light legally became
>a Give Way sign for the officer - and he failed to give way.
>
Which means he was at fault.
It does NOPT mean that the woman was not also at fault.
I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she* failed
to give way.
So both at fault - excepting circumstances we don't know about which
may have exculpated either or both of them.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
... It's tourist season in Florida, bag limit two.
Harry The Horse
>
> It wasn't a "hare-brained theory" - it was posted as a *possibility*,
> as one of many things that *could* have happened, and which we have no
> way of determining between.
>
dazzled the policeman and caused the accident. His was a hairbrained theory
and we've had quite enough of those in the last few months in the service of
excusing inexcusable behaviour from policemen.
Harry The Horse
>
> Which means he was at fault.
>
> It does NOPT mean that the woman was not also at fault.
>
that she was at fault.
> I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
> way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she* failed
> to give way.
>
How do you know that she failed to give way? She may have already been half
way through her manoeuvre and unable to abort it.
> So both at fault - excepting circumstances we don't know about which
> may have exculpated either or both of them.
>
This is pure speculation. There is no evidence that any fault belonged to
her. And if there had been any evidence that such fault existsed, do you
not think that the defendant's lawyer might have made some use of it?
mrcheerful .
"Harry The Horse" <HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:11448809...@damia.uk.clara.net...
Perhaps the def. lawyer did make use of it, and perhaps that is why the
sentence seems so lenient?
mrcheerful
Alex Heney
<HarryAtT...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>> Which means he was at fault.
>>
>> It does NOPT mean that the woman was not also at fault.
>>
>True, it does not mean that. However you have absolutely no way of knowing
>that she was at fault.
>
>> I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>> way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she* failed
>> to give way.
>>
>How do you know that she failed to give way?
The crash happened. Therefore neither of them gave way.That is
absolute, indisputable fact.
Whether it was *possible* for her to give way, we cannot be sure
(hence the possible exculpatory factors).
>She may have already been half
>way through her manoeuvre and unable to abort it.
>
Like I said below "excepting circumstances we don't know about which
may have exculpated either or both of them".
What you say is certainly possible, but not particularly likely, IMO.
It would require that the police car was traveling very fast, *and*
that visibility/audibility at the junction were very poor.
Otherwise, one would expect that she would have heard, and probably
seen the siren and flashing lights, before entering the junction.
>> So both at fault - excepting circumstances we don't know about which
>> may have exculpated either or both of them.
>>
>This is pure speculation.
You can read then.
> There is no evidence that any fault belonged to
>her.
There is equally no evidence that any fault belonged to him.
> And if there had been any evidence that such fault existsed, do you
>not think that the defendant's lawyer might have made some use of it?
>
How do you know the defendant's lawyer didn't?
Maybe he would have received a larger sentence otherwise.
the point is that we don't *know* what happened.
But it is by far the most likely that both were at fault.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
You can't have everything...where would you put it?
Mike
>
> I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
> way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she* failed
> to give way.
>
there is no obligation to accede to that request.
> So both at fault - excepting circumstances we don't know about which
> may have exculpated either or both of them.
Was there a counterclaim against her?
--
Mike
Cynic
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 18:12:22 +0100, Cynic <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 17:01:42 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>Why don't you try *reading* what people are writing, instead of
>>>slamming them for something they most certainly did NOT write or
>>>imply.
>>
>>LOL! You are surely not *really* such a humourless ould git?
>
>Your post was extremely sarcastic, NOT humorous.
It was a parody. And I think you relly are!
--
Cynic
Mr X
<peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:FBqt1GAQ...@privacy.net...
>> >
>> ></Peter McLelland>
>>
>> As I have illustrated previously that particular poster suffers from a
>> bad case of "selective blindness" in regards to police criticism.
>
>Of course on the otherhand Mr X has perfect vision and is completely
>impartial.
I don't suffer from "selective blindness" like you do. Hypocrite!
Like your mate Alex Heney, you are only too happy to highlight what you
perceive as *my* faults and deficiencies but remain remarkably silent
when your mates like Kev display the same or worse behaviour. That makes
you a hypocrite of the worst kind.
I'm being rather charitable when I characterise your behaviour as being
"selective blindness"
--
Mr X
Mr X
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
That is an inevitable consequence of having a hairsplitting, pedantic
personality.
--
Mr X
Mr X
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on
No it fucking is not you ignoramous
You are making it up as you go along.
> - and *she* failed
>to give way.
Wrong.
>
>So both at fault - excepting circumstances we don't know about which
>may have exculpated either or both of them.
Wrong.
Pull your head out of your arse for once.
You would be singing a totally different song if it was your wife or
daughter killed in such a needless way.
--
Mr X
Peter McLelland
Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?
Peter
Cynic
wrote:
>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she* failed
>to give way.
It is also the responsibility of all drivers to avoid a collision
regardless of their right of way or the antics of the other driver.
Which does not mean that a driver who fails to do so is necessarily
*culpable* in any way (unless they deliberately failed to avoid the
accident or were particularly careless in not doing so).
By your logic, the oncoming car's driver and the motorcyclist killed
when the nurse in another thread lost control and swerved across the
central reservation were partially to blame for their deaths because
they failed to avoid a collision.
At a traffic light, the vehicle with the green light in its favour has
right of way over traffic that is facing a red light. *Regardless* of
whether that other traffic is an emergency vehicle. Sure, the driver
has a duty to avoid impeding the progress of the emergency vehicle,
which may involve giving up the right of way, but that does not mean
that the right of way does not exist.
Just because a person *could* have avoided an accident by behaving
differently or being extraordinarily vigilant does not mean that they
attract any blame for failing to behave in the best possible manner.
And I suggest that many people approach a green light at 30MPH or so,
and that is not an unreasonable thing to do. At such a speed it would
not be possible at the average junction to see a vehicle that jumps
the red light in time to stop.
--
Cynic
Mike
>
> And I suggest that many people approach a green light at 30MPH or so,
> and that is not an unreasonable thing to do. At such a speed it would
> not be possible at the average junction to see a vehicle that jumps
> the red light in time to stop.
>
and check that other drivers are giving way before proceeding. Police
drivers, OTOH, seem to just "barge through" believing that, as traffic
law doesn't apply to them, the laws of physics don't either.
--
Mike
Peter McLelland
"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:443e1de6$0$1176$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
drivers do indeed use caution at junctions even with lights and sirens on.
Peter
Mr X
<peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>
>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>news:PVEvQZAo...@privacy.net...
>> In article <443cf76b$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Peter McLelland
>> <peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>>
>> >"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>> >news:FBqt1GAQ...@privacy.net...
>> >> >
>> >> ></Peter McLelland>
>> >>
>> >> As I have illustrated previously that particular poster suffers from a
>> >> bad case of "selective blindness" in regards to police criticism.
>> >
>> >Of course on the otherhand Mr X has perfect vision and is completely
>> >impartial.
>>
>> I don't suffer from "selective blindness" like you do. Hypocrite!
>>
>> Like your mate Alex Heney, you are only too happy to highlight what you
>> perceive as *my* faults and deficiencies but remain remarkably silent
>> when your mates like Kev display the same or worse behaviour. That makes
>> you a hypocrite of the worst kind.
>>
>> I'm being rather charitable when I characterise your behaviour as being
>> "selective blindness"
>
>Get out of the wrong side of bed this morning?
Typical. Why not try to address the issues, rather than create a
smokescreen/diversion?
--
Mr X
Mike
> "Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
> news:443e1de6$0$1176$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>
>>and check that other drivers are giving way before proceeding. Police
>>drivers, OTOH, seem to just "barge through" believing that, as traffic
>>law doesn't apply to them, the laws of physics don't either.
>
> Whilst one cannot question your experience, my experience is that police
> drivers do indeed use caution at junctions even with lights and sirens on.
>
I'm in East Anglia, I believe you're in Scotland, perhaps Scots Police
have more respect/sense than ours do.
The police officer this thread is about obviously didn't exercise
sufficient caution.
--
Mike
Peter McLelland
OK then, the issue is that as far as the police or any one else for that
matter is concerned I do not make the bold assumption that because one is
wrong all are wrong. In reality I am quite prepared to criticise those who
make mistakes or break the law.
Like any one else you of course are fully entitled to your opinion.
Have a nice day
Peter
Peter McLelland
"Mike" <spam...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
Peter
AlanG
That should be 'some' police drivers. I live just off a main A road
with a police station, hospital and fire service on it. All their
drivers (IME) slow down at junction traffic lights when the lights are
on red. They don't for pedestrian crossings though. Presumably because
pedestrians will bounce off the police car instead of crushing the
driver.
Doesn't mean the police have learned a lesson though. We still have
the police with a bad habit of coming up behind other drivers and
flashing their headlights while driving about a foot from the other
driver. Happened to me recently on a narrow bridge over the main east
coast rail line. Next time it happens I'm going to brake.
Cynic
>Doesn't mean the police have learned a lesson though. We still have
>the police with a bad habit of coming up behind other drivers and
>flashing their headlights while driving about a foot from the other
>driver. Happened to me recently on a narrow bridge over the main east
>coast rail line. Next time it happens I'm going to brake.
I raised a similar query a while back on this group when I had a
police car following me (though not too close in that case), but there
was nowhere I could pull over to allow it to pass. It was a narrow
road with a ditch close to the soft verge and a continuous stream of
traffic from the opposite direction.
A police driver in the group advised at the time that the correct
thing to do is to stop as far off the road as possible even if the
emergency vehicle is forced to stop behind you. Stopping is your
duty, getting past is the emergency drivers' problem.
--
Cynic
mrcheerful .
"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:luls325335gd5qjgj...@4ax.com...
How on earth will that help the situation? I often accelerate to move onto
a place where I can safely let the emergency vehicle through. Panic braking
at the first sign of a blue light or siren is likely to lead to delay or
accident. Stopping is NOT your duty, not impeding their progress should be
a priority, with safety your duty.
mrcheerful
mrcheerful
Cynic
." <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> A police driver in the group advised at the time that the correct
>> thing to do is to stop as far off the road as possible even if the
>> emergency vehicle is forced to stop behind you. Stopping is your
>> duty, getting past is the emergency drivers' problem.
>How on earth will that help the situation? I often accelerate to move onto
>a place where I can safely let the emergency vehicle through.
I have no idea why it would help. I had in fact driven at the fastest
speed I considered safe (which was a little below the speed limit on
that narrow road) until I reached the place where the road widened, at
which place I pulled over & let the vehicle passed.
I am just repeating the advice given by a traffic policeman on this
group at the time. Presumably you should do whatever the police would
like you to do, regardless as to whether it makes sense.
--
Cynic
Alex Heney
>In article <443cf76b$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net>, Peter McLelland
><peter.m...@selexnospam-sas.com> writes
>
>>"Mr X" <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote in message
>>news:FBqt1GAQ...@privacy.net...
>>> >
>>> ></Peter McLelland>
>>>
>>> As I have illustrated previously that particular poster suffers from a
>>> bad case of "selective blindness" in regards to police criticism.
>>
>>Of course on the otherhand Mr X has perfect vision and is completely
>>impartial.
>
>I don't suffer from "selective blindness" like you do. Hypocrite!
>
No, you suffer from it to a much worse extent than he does.
>Like your mate Alex Heney, you are only too happy to highlight what you
>perceive as *my* faults and deficiencies but remain remarkably silent
>when your mates like Kev display the same or worse behaviour. That makes
>you a hypocrite of the worst kind.
>
Rubbish.
To both parts of that.
Certainly I do not remain silent when people like Kev display the same
characteristics.
And if I did, it still would not make me particularly hypocritical,
unless I was specifically claiming to *always* pick up on these
things, or was specifically sating that only you were guilty of them.
>I'm being rather charitable when I characterise your behaviour as being
>"selective blindness"
For a ridiculously unusually value of "charitable", perhaps.
Oh BTW, it is my experience that when people start accusing others of
hypocrisy, they are usually much worse hypocrites than those they
accuse.
I haven't seen any exception to that here.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
To get the point, rub a porcupine backwards.
Alex Heney
>In article <k5vq32dkre8ie1q99...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on
>
>No it fucking is not you ignoramous
>
YES IT IS.
<http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
----------------------------------------------------
194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
---------------------------------------------------
>You are making it up as you go along.
>
>> - and *she* failed
>>to give way.
>
>Wrong.
>
You mean absolutely correct.
If either of them had given way, the crash would not have happened.
>>
>>So both at fault - excepting circumstances we don't know about which
>>may have exculpated either or both of them.
>
>Wrong.
>
Once again, you mean absolutely correct.
>Pull your head out of your arse for once.
>
Why are you such an unpleasant cunt?
>You would be singing a totally different song if it was your wife or
>daughter killed in such a needless way.
No I wouldn't.
I would be extremely upset, and undoubtedly angry with the policeman
concerned.
But I most certainly would not just assume my wife or daughter was
blameless.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
What has four legs and an arm? A happy pitbull.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Wed, 12 Apr 2006 23:20:51 +0100, Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net>
>wrote:
>
>
>>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she* failed
>>to give way.
>
>It is also the responsibility of all drivers to avoid a collision
>regardless of their right of way or the antics of the other driver.
Agreed.
>Which does not mean that a driver who fails to do so is necessarily
>*culpable* in any way (unless they deliberately failed to avoid the
>accident or were particularly careless in not doing so).
>
Agreed again.
>By your logic, the oncoming car's driver and the motorcyclist killed
>when the nurse in another thread lost control and swerved across the
>central reservation were partially to blame for their deaths because
>they failed to avoid a collision.
>
Not at all.
I have said that there may be factors we don't know about that excuse
her from fault.
If she could not reasonably have been aware of the emergency vehicle
approaching, that would be such a factor.
But I would submit that unless here is something particularly odd
about the junction, most reasonably alert drivers would have been
aware of the siren.
Incidentally, I am not in any way trying to excuse the police driver.
There is no doubt at all that he was at fault (unless she was belting
through the junction *well* over the speed limit or something similar,
but that seems extremely unlikely).
And he was rightly found guilty by the court.
All I am saying is that she was probably not blameless either.
>At a traffic light, the vehicle with the green light in its favour has
>right of way over traffic that is facing a red light. *Regardless* of
>whether that other traffic is an emergency vehicle. Sure, the driver
>has a duty to avoid impeding the progress of the emergency vehicle,
>which may involve giving up the right of way, but that does not mean
>that the right of way does not exist.
>
>Just because a person *could* have avoided an accident by behaving
>differently or being extraordinarily vigilant does not mean that they
>attract any blame for failing to behave in the best possible manner.
>
>And I suggest that many people approach a green light at 30MPH or so,
>and that is not an unreasonable thing to do. At such a speed it would
>not be possible at the average junction to see a vehicle that jumps
>the red light in time to stop.
You would normally expect to hear the sirens. And while you often
cannot tell which direction the sound is coming from, you *don't*
approach a junction at such a speed you cannot easily stop, if you can
hear sirens.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It's easier to obtain forgiveness than permission.
Mike
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 09:46:13 +0000, Mike
> <spam...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>IME, other emergency vehicle drivers approach red lights with caution
>>and check that other drivers are giving way before proceeding. Police
>>drivers, OTOH, seem to just "barge through" believing that, as traffic
>>law doesn't apply to them, the laws of physics don't either.
>
>
> That should be 'some' police drivers.
Accepted. It probably varies across the country. Where I am, most,
but not all, seem to think they have immunity from all laws - both
man-made and natural.
> I live just off a main A road
> with a police station, hospital and fire service on it. All their
> drivers (IME) slow down at junction traffic lights when the lights are
> on red. They don't for pedestrian crossings though. Presumably because
> pedestrians will bounce off the police car instead of crushing the
> driver.
>
Police stations tend to have several police vehicles moving in the
vicinity. They do try, not always successfully, to avoid banging in
to each other.
> Doesn't mean the police have learned a lesson though. We still have
> the police with a bad habit of coming up behind other drivers and
> flashing their headlights while driving about a foot from the other
> driver. Happened to me recently on a narrow bridge over the main east
> coast rail line. Next time it happens I'm going to brake.
You might need to execute an emergency stop to avoid colliding with
some animal, which suddenly runs into the road. If the police driver
didn't see it, s/he couldn't have being making proper observation. ;-)
--
Mike
PeteM
>
><http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>----------------------------------------------------
>194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>---------------------------------------------------
That doesn't mean drivers have a legal responsibility to do so. The Code
is stating the law only when it tells people what they MUST or must not
do.
--
PeteM
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
Alex Heney
Agreed.
But in other cases, any divergence from what the highway code says
will be taken into account in any proceedings take (including the
decision to proceed at all).
Which means that while it is not an absolute "you MUST do", it is
something you are expected to do, and have a responsibility to do.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm not dead. I'm electroencephelographically challenged.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>
>"Cynic" <cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:luls325335gd5qjgj...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 13:34:08 GMT, AlanG <inv...@invalid.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Doesn't mean the police have learned a lesson though. We still have
>>>the police with a bad habit of coming up behind other drivers and
>>>flashing their headlights while driving about a foot from the other
>>>driver. Happened to me recently on a narrow bridge over the main east
>>>coast rail line. Next time it happens I'm going to brake.
>>
>> I raised a similar query a while back on this group when I had a
>> police car following me (though not too close in that case), but there
>> was nowhere I could pull over to allow it to pass. It was a narrow
>> road with a ditch close to the soft verge and a continuous stream of
>> traffic from the opposite direction.
>>
>> A police driver in the group advised at the time that the correct
>> thing to do is to stop as far off the road as possible even if the
>> emergency vehicle is forced to stop behind you. Stopping is your
>> duty, getting past is the emergency drivers' problem.
>>
>
>How on earth will that help the situation?
That will help the situation because traffic coming the other way
should then stop short of where you have stopped, to allow the
emergency vehicle past.
> I often accelerate to move onto
>a place where I can safely let the emergency vehicle through. Panic braking
>at the first sign of a blue light or siren is likely to lead to delay or
>accident.
Nobody has suggested "panic" braking.
> Stopping is NOT your duty, not impeding their progress should be
>a priority, with safety your duty.
>
Yes.
And most often, where there are streams of traffic, that will mean
stopping. But obviously, only when you can do so safely.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Barium: what you do with dead chemists.
Alex Heney
wrote:
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 14:29:40 GMT, "mrcheerful
>." <nbk...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> A police driver in the group advised at the time that the correct
>>> thing to do is to stop as far off the road as possible even if the
>>> emergency vehicle is forced to stop behind you. Stopping is your
>>> duty, getting past is the emergency drivers' problem.
>
>>How on earth will that help the situation? I often accelerate to move onto
>>a place where I can safely let the emergency vehicle through.
>
>I have no idea why it would help.
Are you serious?
See my reply to mrcheerful.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Useless Invention: Caffeine-free Diet Coke.
PeteM
>On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:12:01 +0100, PeteM <Ot...@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>
>>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>>>
>>><http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>>>fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>>>red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>>>panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>>>appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>>>the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>
>>That doesn't mean drivers have a legal responsibility to do so. The Code
>>is stating the law only when it tells people what they MUST or must not
>>do.
>
>Agreed.
>
>But in other cases, any divergence from what the highway code says
>will be taken into account in any proceedings take (including the
>decision to proceed at all).
>
>Which means that while it is not an absolute "you MUST do", it is
>something you are expected to do, and have a responsibility to do.
"Should" does not mean "expected to" or "have a responsibility to". It
is not entirely clear what it *does* mean.
On the other hand the provisions of the Highway code relating to traffic
lights (151-152 in my ageing edition) are unambiguous. "You MUST stop
behind the white stop line ... unless the light is green. You MUST NOT
move forward over the white line when the red light is showing."
Alex Heney
>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>>On Thu, 13 Apr 2006 16:12:01 +0100, PeteM <Ot...@callnetuk.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> posted
>>>>
>>>><http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>>>>----------------------------------------------------
>>>>194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>>>>fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>>>>red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>>>>panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>>>>appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>>>>the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>>>>---------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>That doesn't mean drivers have a legal responsibility to do so. The Code
>>>is stating the law only when it tells people what they MUST or must not
>>>do.
>>
>>Agreed.
>>
>>But in other cases, any divergence from what the highway code says
>>will be taken into account in any proceedings take (including the
>>decision to proceed at all).
>>
>>Which means that while it is not an absolute "you MUST do", it is
>>something you are expected to do, and have a responsibility to do.
>
>"Should" does not mean "expected to" or "have a responsibility to". It
>is not entirely clear what it *does* mean.
>
To me, it does mean that you have a responsibility to do it.
And that you would therefore be expected to do it.
But that expectation should not be absolute. It isn't something you
could be prosecuted for directly, but could be grounds for a careless
driving or similar prosecution.
>On the other hand the provisions of the Highway code relating to traffic
>lights (151-152 in my ageing edition) are unambiguous. "You MUST stop
>behind the white stop line ... unless the light is green. You MUST NOT
>move forward over the white line when the red light is showing."
Yes.
But those do not apply to emergency vehicles when on an emergency
call. They must then treat it as a give way.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Self-made man: A horrible example of unskilled labor.
Cynic
wrote:
>>> A police driver in the group advised at the time that the correct
>>> thing to do is to stop as far off the road as possible even if the
>>> emergency vehicle is forced to stop behind you. Stopping is your
>>> duty, getting past is the emergency drivers' problem.
>>How on earth will that help the situation?
>That will help the situation because traffic coming the other way
>should then stop short of where you have stopped, to allow the
>emergency vehicle past.
Though that would often entail a delay that is greater than following
behind a vehicle that is making good progress at a speed of maybe
15MPH slower that the emergency vehicle would average if unimpeded.
At the *very* best case I would estimate that it would have taken 10
seconds for me to stop safely and the oncoming drivers to realise the
situation and stop to allow the emergency vehicle to get past me. And
then the whole process repeated as the emergency vehicle comes up to
the next car in front of me - and the next. It is a narrow road with
many sharp blind corners. The fastest average speed that *I* am
comfortable with on that road (which has a 60MPH limit) is about
50MPH. For normal relaxed driving I usually average about 35MPH along
it. I realise that the police driver is trained in high speed
techniques, but I doubt that he would have pushed it much above 65MPH
average and remained within his skill envelope. There was about half
a mile before the road widened and I could allow the police car by
without causing it to stop first.
Do the arithmetic.
--
Cynic
AlanG
wrote:
I should emphasise the bimbo in the plodmobile was not using a blue
light or siren. She was tailgating me with heads on full beam. When I
eased into the side of the road *after I got over the bridge* she shot
past. It was only then I could see the police sign on the car. She had
been driving so close all I could see was her lights. I passed her
parked in a filling station about a minute later. She was chatting to
another plod.
AlanG
wrote:
>But those do not apply to emergency vehicles when on an emergency
>call. They must then treat it as a give way.
Something this police officer obviously failed to do else there would
have been no crash.
Martin Milan
news:443d8549$0$1170$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk:
> Alex Heney wrote:
>>
>> I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>> way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she*
>> failed to give way.
And I think you'll find that *you* are wrong...
Legally, the light becomes a give way sign for the emergency vehicle. I
bet if you look into what he was actually convicted of, it would be
failing to give way, and not running a red light.
Most people give way to emergency vehicles, as is of course only proper,
but the responsibility for ensuring the junction is safe would rest with
the emergency vehicle, and not the other motorist...
Martin.
Mr X
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>On 13 Apr 2006 01:53:05 -0500, Mr X <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>In article <k5vq32dkre8ie1q99...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>
>>>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on
>>
>>No it fucking is not you ignoramous
>>
>
>YES IT IS.
>
><http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>----------------------------------------------------
>194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>---------------------------------------------------
Sigh. This is advisory. As others have already pointed out, there is no
legal requirement unlike the emergency vehicle who is obliged BY LAW to
drive with care and to "give way".
>If either of them had given way, the crash would not have happened.
She wasn't obliged by law to give way -- he was and didn't, so he is
clearly in the wrong -- except in HeneyWorld(tm) of course, where
different rules apply.
>Why are you such an unpleasant cunt?
Get over it.
>>You would be singing a totally different song if it was your wife or
>>daughter killed in such a needless way.
>
>No I wouldn't.
>
>I would be extremely upset, and undoubtedly angry with the policeman
>concerned.
>
>But I most certainly would not just assume my wife or daughter was
>blameless.
Yeah, right. Weird place HeneyWorld(tm). I'm glad I don't live there.
--
Mr X
Martin Milan
news:pk8s32pe80k6a92am...@4ax.com:
>>>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on
>>
>>No it fucking is not you ignoramous
>>
>
> YES IT IS.
>
> <http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
> fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
> red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
> panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
> appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
> the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
> ---------------------------------------------------
First of all, there is a big difference in SHOULD and MUST - and in the
case of the Highway Code - a legal one too!
Secondly, rule 194 only describes the rule on the open road. Now, I have
worked under blues and twos myself, and I assure you Alex that with the
Blues and Twos running that red light legally became a give way sign.
Mr X
<cyni...@yahoo.co.uk> writes
That's nothing -- in Dorset on the A35 approaching Dorchester where the
road is narrow and one lane each way, I witnessed two police cars on
blues and twos driving at very high speed on the wrong side of the road
effectively overtaking a very long line of traffic, and forcing all
oncoming cars off of the road.
If I had been driving an appropriate vehicle (such as a van or a lorry)
I would have head-on'ed the stupid cunt to teach him a lesson.
Dangerous driving doesn't cease being dangerous driving or dangerous
because its a police officer doing the dangerous driving.
--
Mr X
Mr X
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>I have said that there may be factors we don't know about that excuse
>her from fault.
There always is in HeneyWorld(tm) where there is always an excuse and an
apology for any police wrongdoing/bad behaviour/misconduct.
>All I am saying is that she was probably not blameless either.
FFS! Try to bend over backwards and contort yourself to invent and make
up excuses to excuse the inexcusable.
>You would normally expect to hear the sirens.
Not always -- so no, not normally.
> And while you often
>cannot tell which direction the sound is coming from, you *don't*
>approach a junction at such a speed you cannot easily stop, if you can
>hear sirens.
You can't always hear anything nor can you even see blue lights when you
approach traffic lights. I know that from experience. 30 years+ of
accident-free driving experience at quite high speeds. Something you
can't claim. LOL!
Please try to exist in the real world if you can. I know it's hard for
you, but like I said before, help is available if you ask.
--
Mr X
Graham Murray
> <http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
> ----------------------------------------------------
> 194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
> fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
> red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
> panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
> appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
> the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
> ---------------------------------------------------
It does not help that the sirens used by the emergency vehicles are
extremely poor in that when you hear one, it is *very* hard to judge
in which direction the vehicle is travelling or even which road it is
on. Recently, I was a passenger in a car waiting in the queue to turn
right at (red) traffic lights and heard a siren. It was not until the
police car was very close behind and passed and turned left (with a
green filter arrow) at the lights that I could even tell which road it
was on. The old bells, as the fire engines used to have, were much
better as you could almost pinpoint the vehicle's position and whether
it was travelling towards or away from you just by hearing the
bell.
chippy
> > There is no evidence that any fault belonged to
> > her.
>
> There is equally no evidence that any fault belonged to him.
Yes there is, he did not give way at a red light, therefore it is his
fault.
The womans level of fault is unknown to us, but she does not "have" to
give way, if she was in a movement she could not stop, or even if she
was deaf, she may have a resonsibility to give way to an emergency
vehicle but it is not a legal obligation.
> But it is by far the most likely that both were at fault.
I think it is more likely it was his fault only, but opinions don't
count for much when all the facts are not known.
--
wigwambam
chippy
>
> You would normally expect to hear the sirens. And while you often
> cannot tell which direction the sound is coming from, you don't
> approach a junction at such a speed you cannot easily stop, if you can
> hear sirens.
So the boy racers in their boom-boom mobiles, and the deaf or hard of
hearing, who get into a crash with plod, are always in the fault.
--
wigwambam
chippy
> > How on earth will that help the situation? I often accelerate to
> > move onto a place where I can safely let the emergency vehicle
> > through.
>
> I have no idea why it would help. I had in fact driven at the fastest
> speed I considered safe (which was a little below the speed limit on
> that narrow road) until I reached the place where the road widened, at
> which place I pulled over & let the vehicle passed.
>
> I am just repeating the advice given by a traffic policeman on this
> group at the time. Presumably you should do whatever the police would
> like you to do, regardless as to whether it makes sense.
I accelerated to 140 mph on the local dual carrageway just to get a gap
to pull in to let plod past, never got a pull or a finger wag.
--
wigwambam
Alex Heney
>Alex Heney wrote:
>
>> > There is no evidence that any fault belonged to
>> > her.
>>
>> There is equally no evidence that any fault belonged to him.
>
>Yes there is, he did not give way at a red light, therefore it is his
>fault.
Yes, I was going rather OTT there./
Although technically, we don't actually know he didn't give way. It is
*possible*, but extremely unlikely that she was traveling at a stupid
speed, such that he would not have seen her in time.
As I say, this is *extremely* unlikely, particularly since the court
found him guilty.
>The womans level of fault is unknown to us, but she does not "have" to
>give way, if she was in a movement she could not stop, or even if she
>was deaf, she may have a resonsibility to give way to an emergency
>vehicle but it is not a legal obligation.
>
>
>> But it is by far the most likely that both were at fault.
>
>I think it is more likely it was his fault only, but opinions don't
>count for much when all the facts are not known.
True.
We have different opinions as to the likelihood of her being partly to
blame, but as you say, there is virtually no chance we will ever know
which of us is right.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
It is fatal to live too long.
Alex Heney
>Mike <spam...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
>news:443d8549$0$1170$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk:
>
>> Alex Heney wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>> way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on - and *she*
>>> failed to give way.
>
>And I think you'll find that *you* are wrong...
>
No I won't.
See the passage from the highway code I quoted from before.
>Legally, the light becomes a give way sign for the emergency vehicle. I
>bet if you look into what he was actually convicted of, it would be
>failing to give way, and not running a red light.
>
I expect so.
>Most people give way to emergency vehicles, as is of course only proper,
>but the responsibility for ensuring the junction is safe would rest with
>the emergency vehicle, and not the other motorist...
>
Right, and wrong.
You are correct to say the responsibility lies with the driver of the
emergency vehicle.
You are wrong to say it doesn't rest with the driver of the other
vehicle.
The responsibility to take action to avoid an accident rests with
*every* driver.
Why is it that most people in this thread seem to think that if one
person is at fault, then the other can't be?
A large proportion of accidents involving more than one vehicle occur
because both drivers made mistakes (or several drivers if more than
two vehicles involved).
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
B.Gates : quality software :: R.McDonald : gourmet cuisine
Alex Heney
Alex Heney
>In article <pk8s32pe80k6a92am...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>>On 13 Apr 2006 01:53:05 -0500, Mr X <Mr...@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <k5vq32dkre8ie1q99...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
>>><m...@privacy.net> writes
>>>
>>>>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>>>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on
>>>
>>>No it fucking is not you ignoramous
>>>
>>
>>YES IT IS.
>>
>><http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>>----------------------------------------------------
>>194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>>fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>>red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>>panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>>appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>>the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>>---------------------------------------------------
>
>Sigh. This is advisory.
I KNOW that.
As I have already said, and as I have pointed out myself on several
previous occasions.
>As others have already pointed out, there is no
>legal requirement unlike the emergency vehicle who is obliged BY LAW to
>drive with care and to "give way".
>
Wrong.
There is a legal requirement on EVERY driver to drive with care, and
to avoid an accident wherever possible.
>>If either of them had given way, the crash would not have happened.
>
>She wasn't obliged by law to give way -- he was and didn't, so he is
>clearly in the wrong -- except in HeneyWorld(tm) of course, where
>different rules apply.
>
And just what different "rules" do you think those are then?
Apart from one ill-judged remark, please find ANYWHERE I have
suggested that he was not at fault.
Of course he was at fault. There is no question about that.
The question is whether she was *also* at fault.
And unless she was unable to hear the siren or see the lights in time
to stop, I would argue she was also at fault.
But that does not in any way excuse the police driver.
>>Why are you such an unpleasant cunt?
>
>Get over it.
>
>>>You would be singing a totally different song if it was your wife or
>>>daughter killed in such a needless way.
>>
>>No I wouldn't.
>>
>>I would be extremely upset, and undoubtedly angry with the policeman
>>concerned.
>>
>>But I most certainly would not just assume my wife or daughter was
>>blameless.
>
>Yeah, right. Weird place HeneyWorld(tm). I'm glad I don't live there.
You should learn to live in the real world one day, before your
ridiculous unfounded assumptions get you in trouble.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
I'm a nobody, nobody is perfect, therefore I'm perfect.
Alex Heney
>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> wrote in
>news:pk8s32pe80k6a92am...@4ax.com:
>
>>>>I think you will find it is the responsibility of all drivers to give
>>>>way to emergency vehicles with sirens and lights on
>>>
>>>No it fucking is not you ignoramous
>>>
>>
>> YES IT IS.
>>
>> <http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> 194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>> fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>> red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>> panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>> appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>> the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>First of all, there is a big difference in SHOULD and MUST - and in the
>case of the Highway Code - a legal one too!
>
I know that.
But you have a LEGAL responsibility to drive with due care - and
generally that means you are expected to drive within the guidelines
laid down by the highway code.
If you are involved in an accident where you were not following the
highway code (and the police become aware of this), you are quite
likely to be prosecuted for careless driving or worse.
>Secondly, rule 194 only describes the rule on the open road. Now, I have
>worked under blues and twos myself, and I assure you Alex that with the
>Blues and Twos running that red light legally became a give way sign.
I KNOW THAT.
That fact has NO relevance to whether *she* was at fault.
That tells us that the police driver was at fault. But there is no
dispute about that.
The police driver being at fault and the woman being at fault are NOT
mutually exclusive conditions.
It is certainly possible, and IMO it is LIKELY that both drivers were
at fault.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Macho does not prove Mucho.
Mr X
<m...@privacy.net> writes
snip pile of self-deluding crap.
A classic Alex Heney post.
I must frame it (in tinfoil) and hang it in my bog.
--
Mr X
Alex Heney
<news...@gmurray.org.uk> wrote:
>Alex Heney <m...@privacy.net> writes:
>
>> <http://www.highwaycode.gov.uk/20.htm#194>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>> 194: Emergency vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances,
>> fire engines, police or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue,
>> red or green lights, headlights or sirens. When one approaches do not
>> panic. Consider the route of the emergency vehicle and take
>> appropriate action to let it pass. If necessary, pull to the side of
>> the road and stop, but do not endanger other road users.
>> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>It does not help that the sirens used by the emergency vehicles are
>extremely poor in that when you hear one, it is *very* hard to judge
>in which direction the vehicle is travelling or even which road it is
>on.
Agreed.
But that just means that when you hear them, you approach *any*
junction with caution. Or at least, that is what *I* do.
Others on here seem to think they should just carry on and drive
straight through if they have a green light.
They may have right of way, but that won't help them if they are dead.
> Recently, I was a passenger in a car waiting in the queue to turn
>right at (red) traffic lights and heard a siren. It was not until the
>police car was very close behind and passed and turned left (with a
>green filter arrow) at the lights that I could even tell which road it
>was on. The old bells, as the fire engines used to have, were much
>better as you could almost pinpoint the vehicle's position and whether
>it was travelling towards or away from you just by hearing the
>bell.
But you couldn't hear them from far enough away with modern roads, and
modern speeds.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Lead me not into temptation, I can find it myself.
Alex Heney
>In article <059s3254ft82s5pl7...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>>I have said that there may be factors we don't know about that excuse
>>her from fault.
>
>There always is in HeneyWorld(tm) where there is always an excuse and an
>apology for any police wrongdoing/bad behaviour/misconduct.
>
LIAR.
If that were the case, you would expect to see that excuse or apology
in this thread, no?
Apart from one wrong post, made in the heat of the moment, I have said
NOTHING in this thread to indicate that there is ANY lack of fault on
the part of the police driver.
>>All I am saying is that she was probably not blameless either.
>
>FFS! Try to bend over backwards and contort yourself to invent and make
>up excuses to excuse the inexcusable.
>
NO.
Why the hell should I try to excuse the inexcusable?
And particularly why should I bend over backwards to do so?
>>You would normally expect to hear the sirens.
>
>Not always -- so no, not normally.
>
Yes, normally.
I agree that not always. That is why it is "normally" rather than
"always".
>> And while you often
>>cannot tell which direction the sound is coming from, you *don't*
>>approach a junction at such a speed you cannot easily stop, if you can
>>hear sirens.
>
>You can't always hear anything nor can you even see blue lights when you
>approach traffic lights. I know that from experience. 30 years+ of
>accident-free driving experience at quite high speeds. Something you
>can't claim. LOL!
>
>Please try to exist in the real world if you can. I know it's hard for
>you, but like I said before, help is available if you ask.
Unlike you, I do exist in the real world.
Where most things are not as black and white as they are in your
world.
Where, for instance, the fact that the police driver was at fault does
NOT automatically absolve everybody else form blame.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Beware of Geeks bearing gifs.
Alex Heney
Of course not.
Try reading my posts.
First, I have said all along that there may be circumstances we don't
know about that would absolve her from blame - one of those
circumstances would be her being hard of haring, or otherwise unable
to hear the sirens.
Secondly, I say "normally" above. Not "always". There is a reason I
used the word normally rather than always, and that is that you will
not *always* hear them.
Actually, I *would* say the boy racers with their boom-boom sound
systems *are* at fault if they get in a crash due to not hearing
anything outside. Those things should be illegal in a moving car.
But that is another point entirely.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Sarcasm: barbed ire.
Mr X
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>Although technically, we don't actually know he didn't give way.
What? What planet do you exist on? You are talking complete and utter
crap.
Try to comprehend this:
"The court heard that Andrews-Faulkner was driving at 48mph in a 40mph
zone when the fatal crash happened in Gatwick Road"
The law required him to give way. He didn't. An innocent woman was
killed as a result of his failure.
I suppose in HeneyWorld(tm) he might have been driving at 80mph and
slowed down to 48mph to give way but the stupid woman was in his way and
a collision was inevitable. So it must have been her fault. Yes, that
makes perfect sense.
> It is
>*possible*, but extremely unlikely that she was traveling at a stupid
>speed, such that he would not have seen her in time.
Stop talking utter crap. You are deluding yourself.
Listen to yourself, man! Try to get a grip on reality.
As usual you are making it up as you go along.
>As I say, this is *extremely* unlikely, particularly since the court
>found him guilty.
Oh, a short, lucid moment...
>We have different opinions as to the likelihood of her being partly to
>blame,
Complete and utter bullshit. There is no question of any blame on her
part whatsoever as he was required to give way BY LAW and failed to do
so resulting in the innocent woman's death. He was 100% to blame.
And not only that he was *speeding* through RED traffic lights.
"The court heard that Andrews-Faulkner was driving at 48mph in a 40mph
zone when the fatal crash happened in Gatwick Road"
Still maintain she was to blame?
And why was the moron speeding?
"the officer said he had been concentrating on driving despite the
distraction of trying to get a drunken prisoner to Crawley police
station"
FFS! Not even a life or death situation.
Contradition Alert: If "he had been concentrating on driving" why did he
fail to see the woman?
Looks to me like gratuitous use of blues and twos by an arrogant police
officer.
"Andrews-Faulkner said he made the decision to put on his blue lights
and sirens to get to the station faster"
Pathetic. This is stuff you'd expect to hear from a five-year-old
"During the trial, he said he could not remember the crash"
How convenient.
> but as you say, there is virtually no chance we will ever know
>which of us is right.
Yes, there is. Only you delude yourself otherwise. What complete and
utter crap you spout.
The court were told all the facts and this is the decision they reached:
"Passing sentence, the Recorder of Winchester, Judge Michael Brodrick,
said: "It seems to me to be more than a momentary lapse of
concentration"
"I take this to be one of the worst cases of careless driving that is
likely to come before the courts"
"The worrying feature to me of this case is that you are unable to
explain the final events leading to this tragic accident and the loss of
Mrs Stagg's life."
Yes, the police officer suffered a strange case of "temporary amnesia".
How convenient for him, but it didn't fool the court.
"A police officer found guilty of careless driving after speeding
through a red light in a patrol car and killing a driver has been fined
£2,000. Pc Nicholas Andrews-Faulkner, 44, was given nine points on his
licence, banned for four years, told to pay £1,000 costs and retake his
test"
All sounds pretty clear cut to me. The man was clearly to blame for what
happened and that is what the court thought as well.
--
Mr X
mrcheerful .
"Alex Heney" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:tbht325ei6e9vcel5...@4ax.com...
Unfortunately most of the posters will not hear any argument that
contradicts their own views.
mrcheerful
Mr X
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>But that just means that when you hear them, you approach *any*
>junction with caution. Or at least, that is what *I* do.
Don't be such a sanctimonious hypocrite
Pity you didn't drive with caution recently when you were speeding
through the road works not paying any attention to the road in front of
you because you were watching what was going on across on the opposite
carriageway.
Cue numerous excuses and justifications from HeneyWorld(tm)
--
Mr X
chippy
> First, I have said all along that there may be circumstances we don't
> know about that would absolve her from blame - one of those
> circumstances would be her being hard of haring, or otherwise unable
> to hear the sirens.
>
> Secondly, I say "normally" above. Not "always". There is a reason I
> used the word normally rather than always, and that is that you will
> not always hear them.
>
>
>
>
> Actually, I would say the boy racers with their boom-boom sound
> systems are at fault if they get in a crash due to not hearing
> anything outside. Those things should be illegal in a moving car.
>
> But that is another point entirely.
Are you saying deaf people should not drive?
--
wigwambam
Alex Heney
>In article <b7gt32p1il986hr1d...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>>Although technically, we don't actually know he didn't give way.
>
>What? What planet do you exist on? You are talking complete and utter
>crap.
>
>Try to comprehend this:
>"The court heard that Andrews-Faulkner was driving at 48mph in a 40mph
>zone when the fatal crash happened in Gatwick Road"
>
I know this.
>The law required him to give way. He didn't. An innocent woman was
>killed as a result of his failure.
>
Apart from one word, all almost certainly absolutely correct.
And that word may also be correct, but we don't know that. (The word
being innocent, in case you can't work it out).
>I suppose in HeneyWorld(tm) he might have been driving at 80mph and
>slowed down to 48mph to give way
That is a possibility. But extremely unlikely.
>but the stupid woman was in his way and
>a collision was inevitable. So it must have been her fault. Yes, that
>makes perfect sense.
>
No it fucking doesn't you stupid ignorant twat.
Are you EVER planning on learning to read?
I stated quite clearly that I thought this was extremely unlikely.
>> It is
>>*possible*, but extremely unlikely that she was traveling at a stupid
>>speed, such that he would not have seen her in time.
>
>Stop talking utter crap. You are deluding yourself.
>
Oh, you don't think it was extremely unlikely then?
What a twat.
Or are you saying it was totally impossible?
Which would be just as stupid.
>Listen to yourself, man! Try to get a grip on reality.
>
>As usual you are making it up as you go along.
>
>>As I say, this is *extremely* unlikely, particularly since the court
>>found him guilty.
>
>Oh, a short, lucid moment...
>
>>We have different opinions as to the likelihood of her being partly to
>>blame,
>
>Complete and utter bullshit. There is no question of any blame on her
>part whatsoever as he was required to give way BY LAW and failed to do
>so resulting in the innocent woman's death. He was 100% to blame.
>
If you honestly believe that, then you are an idiot.
Try to live in the real world for once, where things come in shades,
rather than absolute black and white.
>And not only that he was *speeding* through RED traffic lights.
>
>"The court heard that Andrews-Faulkner was driving at 48mph in a 40mph
>zone when the fatal crash happened in Gatwick Road"
>
>Still maintain she was to blame?
I have never maintained she *was* to blame.
I have always said she may well have been at fault.
>
>And why was the moron speeding?
>
For the reasons you give below.
>"the officer said he had been concentrating on driving despite the
>distraction of trying to get a drunken prisoner to Crawley police
>station"
>
>FFS! Not even a life or death situation.
>
Agreed.
>Contradition Alert: If "he had been concentrating on driving" why did he
>fail to see the woman?
>
Because he wasn't concentrating well enough.
>Looks to me like gratuitous use of blues and twos by an arrogant police
>officer.
>
No doubt about that, IMO.
>"Andrews-Faulkner said he made the decision to put on his blue lights
>and sirens to get to the station faster"
>
>Pathetic. This is stuff you'd expect to hear from a five-year-old
>
>"During the trial, he said he could not remember the crash"
>
>How convenient.
>
>> but as you say, there is virtually no chance we will ever know
>>which of us is right.
>
>Yes, there is. Only you delude yourself otherwise. What complete and
>utter crap you spout.
>
Not at all.
Only you live in a world where if one person is to blame, then they
MUST be the only person at fault.
There is no question at all that the police driver was at fault. He
was correctly prosecuted and found guilty.
Whether the sentence was too lenient is debatable. I think it probably
was.
But none of that means that the woman was automatically blameless,
except in a pure black and white world.
>The court were told all the facts and this is the decision they reached:
>
>"Passing sentence, the Recorder of Winchester, Judge Michael Brodrick,
>said: "It seems to me to be more than a momentary lapse of
>concentration"
>
>"I take this to be one of the worst cases of careless driving that is
>likely to come before the courts"
>
>"The worrying feature to me of this case is that you are unable to
>explain the final events leading to this tragic accident and the loss of
>Mrs Stagg's life."
>
>Yes, the police officer suffered a strange case of "temporary amnesia".
>How convenient for him, but it didn't fool the court.
>
>"A police officer found guilty of careless driving after speeding
>through a red light in a patrol car and killing a driver has been fined
>£2,000. Pc Nicholas Andrews-Faulkner, 44, was given nine points on his
>licence, banned for four years, told to pay £1,000 costs and retake his
>test"
>
>All sounds pretty clear cut to me. The man was clearly to blame for what
>happened and that is what the court thought as well.
And I have never said anything else, except in that one post, made in
the heat of the moment without thinking, where I said wrongly that
there was no evidence he was at fault.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the court decision was correct. And
I have never said anything to suggest otherwise.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you don't care where you are, then you ain't lost.
chippy
> Right, and wrong.
>
> You are correct to say the responsibility lies with the driver of the
> emergency vehicle.
>
> You are wrong to say it doesn't rest with the driver of the other
> vehicle.
>
> The responsibility to take action to avoid an accident rests with
> *every* driver.
>
> Why is it that most people in this thread seem to think that if one
> person is at fault, then the other can't be?
>
> A large proportion of accidents involving more than one vehicle occur
> because both drivers made mistakes (or several drivers if more than
> two vehicles involved).
An analogy (cos I know you like them) would be to say, a police car
causes an accident, then a few cars pile into the back of the stricken
car, and the blame for the accident is the plod, the fault of the next
collisions lie with the drivers who are driving too close.
--
wigwambam
Mike
No. If a boy (or girl) racer were to jump red lights at high speed
and slam into a police car, the police driver would, at least
partially, be at fault.
--
Mike
mrcheerful .
"chippy" <chi...@wood.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4a836mF...@individual.net...
that is my opinion at any rate, a major defect like serious eye impairment
or deafness should preclude driving as a right. my sister was/still is
seriously injured by a woman who had faulty eyesight (which had been
declared) and my sister was driving a bright red bus in daylight !!
chippy
No, because the red light is only a give way to emergency vehicles, not
racers.
TBH if a person jumped a red light and hit another vehicle, then the
court *would* deem the jumper as at fault, despite the other drive
being a geriatric drunken blind moron.
--
wigwambam
Alex Heney
No, that is not analogous, because that is two separate (but linked)
incidents.
A much closer analogy would be where one driver is belting along, far
too fast for the conditions, and another pulls out in front of them
(due to not realising how fast the other was approaching) and gets
hit.
Both are clearly at fault, even though there was only one incident.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Don't mess with Murphy.
chippy
> On 13 Apr 2006 22:58:46 GMT, "chippy" <chi...@wood.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Alex Heney wrote:
> >
> >> Right, and wrong.
> >>
> >> You are correct to say the responsibility lies with the driver of
> the >> emergency vehicle.
> >>
> >> You are wrong to say it doesn't rest with the driver of the other
> >> vehicle.
> >>
> >> The responsibility to take action to avoid an accident rests with
> >> every driver.
> >>
> >> Why is it that most people in this thread seem to think that if one
> >> person is at fault, then the other can't be?
> >>
> >> A large proportion of accidents involving more than one vehicle
> occur >> because both drivers made mistakes (or several drivers if
> more than >> two vehicles involved).
> >
> > An analogy (cos I know you like them) would be to say, a police car
> > causes an accident, then a few cars pile into the back of the
> > stricken car, and the blame for the accident is the plod, the fault
> > of the next collisions lie with the drivers who are driving too
> > close.
>
> No, that is not analogous, because that is two separate (but linked)
> incidents.
>
> A much closer analogy would be where one driver is belting along, far
> too fast for the conditions, and another pulls out in front of them
> (due to not realising how fast the other was approaching) and gets
> hit.
>
> Both are clearly at fault, even though there was only one incident.
So the answer to whether any blame is ascribed to her, is whether she
was speeding, in normal driving, IMO she was not to blame at all.
--
wigwambam
Alex Heney
>In article <tbht325ei6e9vcel5...@4ax.com>, Alex Heney
><m...@privacy.net> writes
>
>>But that just means that when you hear them, you approach *any*
>>junction with caution. Or at least, that is what *I* do.
>
>Don't be such a sanctimonious hypocrite
>
I'm not.
I have never claimed to be a perfect driver.
I have made mistakes when driving (as have almost all drivers), and
have got away with most of them (again, as have most drivers).
I regularly break the speed limit, and I have been known to do things
not recommended by the highway code on occasion.
But I always accept that if I am doing so, and am involved in a crash
as a result, it will be my fault, even if it is also somebody else's
fault.
And even given all the above, that is how *I* react to hearing sirens
when driving.
>Pity you didn't drive with caution recently when you were speeding
>through the road works not paying any attention to the road in front of
>you because you were watching what was going on across on the opposite
>carriageway.
>
What the fuck makes you think that may have occurred?
It didn't.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
"Is" is the verb for when you don't want a verb.
Alex Heney
No, of course I am not.
I am saying that nobody should *choose* to drown out any sounds they
*could* hear while driving.
Apart from anything else, deaf people will be well aware of the fact
they need to make more use of their other senses than others do.
People who just have very loud music on will rarely have that same
awareness.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
The most expensive component is the one that breaks.
Alex Heney
*Might* be at least partially at fault.
But not likely, since there would have been no sirens to warn them.
But yes, they would be partly to blame if they should have seen the
boy racer in time to be able to do something about it.
I have never said the woman *was* at fault.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
FIGHT BACK! Fill out your tax forms with Roman numerals.
Mike
> Mike wrote:
>>
>>No. If a boy (or girl) racer were to jump red lights at high speed
>>and slam into a police car, the police driver would, at least
>>partially, be at fault.
>
> No, because the red light is only a give way to emergency vehicles, not
> racers.
So the "racer" would be breaking the law - just like the police
officer who fails to give way. In both cases there is a driver
breaking the law colliding with another vehicle.
> TBH if a person jumped a red light and hit another vehicle, then the
> court *would* deem the jumper as at fault, despite the other drive
> being a geriatric drunken blind moron.
>
I agree but, it seems, some posters don't.
--
Mike
Alex Heney
No it isn't.
First, this was an *analogy*, not the *same* thing at all.
Second, it was the police driver who was speeding, and jumping the red
light.
The answer as to whether she was at fault lies in whether she was
aware of the approach of the police car,and could have stopped, but
continued anyway.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity.
Alex Heney
wrote:
And my nephew was killed by a driver who had cataracts in both eyes,
and was driving in the dark.
It seems obvious to me that anybody with a serious vision impairment
should not be driving. It is less obvious with a serious hearing
impairment, as *most* of the time, hearing is not all that important.
But there *are* still situations where it could be dangerous.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
My other computer is an abacus.
Alex Heney
<spam...@fensoft.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>chippy wrote:
>> Mike wrote:
>>>
>>>No. If a boy (or girl) racer were to jump red lights at high speed
>>>and slam into a police car, the police driver would, at least
>>>partially, be at fault.
>>
>> No, because the red light is only a give way to emergency vehicles, not
>> racers.
>
>So the "racer" would be breaking the law - just like the police
>officer who fails to give way. In both cases there is a driver
>breaking the law colliding with another vehicle.
No, not "just like".
In one case there is an absolute obligation to STOP. In the other
there is an obligation to make sure their path is clear, and should
stay that way as they cross the junction.
Somewhat similar, but not "just like" at all.
>
>> TBH if a person jumped a red light and hit another vehicle, then the
>> court *would* deem the jumper as at fault, despite the other drive
>> being a geriatric drunken blind moron.
>>
>I agree but, it seems, some posters don't.
I haven't seen anybody who would seem unlikely to agree.
I don't think anybody has suggested that the police driver was not at
fault.
And in the above scenario, while the court would undoubtedly consider
the red-light jumper to be at fault, it is *possible* the other driver
could also be considered at fault, depending on circumstances.
Unlikely, in the above scenario, where there would be no warning of
the approaching law-breaker. Rather more likely in the scenario where
the law-breaker had sirens and flashing lights going.
--
Alex Heney, Global Villager
If you can't debug it, deplug it.
Cynic
wrote:
>The answer as to whether she was at fault lies in whether she was
>aware of the approach of the police car,and could have stopped, but
>continued anyway.
It is highly unlikely that she would have deliberately had an
avoidable collision. I think therefore it is safe to say that she did
not know in time that there was a police car about to cross the
junction.
The question is rather whether she *should have* been aware of the
presence of the police car.
--
Cynic