cyclist hit by police car

[Disgruntled Goat]

Not wanting to be pedantic, but both links there are of police officers being prosecuted.

Sorry to be pedantic, but both links are of officers being aquitted.

If I drove at 156mph they would have hung me up by my bollocks.

 

[wafflycat]

On the plus side, at least this one is no longer a serving officer. Mind you, he's still not in prison despite being in court on a previous occasion for attacking his ex, and this time for being three times over the drink-drive limit...

 

[Cubist]

There is a balance to be struck between arriving at the scene of an incident promptly (hence blue lights and sirens), and not causing road accidents in the process of getting there.

Unless the incident is a massacre or a major bomb threat or something similar, driving safely should surely take precedence over speed?

Judging from the stats, and the absence of major incidents in West Yorkshire, it seems like the balance has got skewed there.

Uncle Phil

How do you define a major incident? Not Trolling, just curious.

You are quite right. Driving carefully does take precedence over speed. Officers being trained to respond are told time and time again that they do not have priority over other traffic. The lights and sirens are if you like a request for other road users to allow them passage. Red traffic lights are to be treated as give way, ie make sure everyone has stopped and is letting you through.

I do however have a question which I hope shows that until we have the details, we may be guilty of jumping to conclusions, and engaging in the sport of "bobby bashing". There's a thread on the forum about a woman cycling without lights where she was nearly knocked off by a forum member. The general consensus was that she was wholly wrong, and only had herself to blame. I am very sorry that the cyclist on this thread has been so dreadfully injured. Were he to be one of mine I would want to make absolutely certain that no stone was left unturned to seek the truth as to how he came by those injuries. So far in this thread the majority of censure is against the police. Would it be different were we to discover he was one of the much demonised MTB riders dressed all in black on the commuting threads, that he was riding without lights, that his blood alcohol level was high, that he was listening to his ipod and was unlikely to have heard the sirens? My point of course is that we don't have all the facts.
The matter is being investigated. That the IPCC have handed the investigation back to Roads Policing Officers is a tell-tale for some. Personally, if the officers were found to be in the wrong, I sincerely expect them to face justice.

I also sincerely hope the guy recovers, and that his family find solace.

 

[Amanda P]

How do you define a major incident? Not Trolling, just curious.

I have learnt a few things, and been given some new perspectives on this as the thread has gone on. Vikeonabike's contributions particularly useful.

Your point about our ignorance of the facts, and the degree of blame that might or might not be attributable to either party, is entirely correct. But it's human nature to speculate, and that's what we've all been doing.

Anyway, what I was getting at was that, as has been pointed out, many call outs and blue light runs may be to attend what turn out to be relatively trivial incidents. We'd all probably agree that if someone is involved in an accident like the one reported as a result of such a run, and the attending driver knows it's a trivial incident, that's unacceptable. What began as an attempt by the police to catch a petty criminal ends up with an innocent* person being horribly injured. (I'm not saying this was a call-out to a trivial incident - we don't have the facts - it might or might not have been).

(*Even if the cyclist was a "ninja", he didn't deserve this punishment).

If, however, the policeman driving to an incident knows that, if he arrives promptly, he may be preventing something like a major terrorist plot, which will result in the deaths of scores or hundreds of people, then he may take greater risks, and we would probably support that. I suspect the likes of the RAF bomb squad and Special Branch have to do this more often than we ever hear about.

My point was that, to our knowledge, there have been no such incidents in West Yorkshire, thwarted in the nick of time by police drivers, and therefore the injuries to the young man could not be justified. (But the nature of anti-terrorist operations is such that we could very well not know about such plots being thwarted, and the police officer in this case might, for all we know, have been on his way to just such a thing).

Vike points out, though, that it's not always that straightforward. He pulled someone out of a burning car which seconds later, exploded. Had he not made a succesful (and, I presume, accident-free) blue light run to do so, she would not now be alive. If he lived through that again, knowing what he knows now, he would be balancing the certain death of a young woman in a burning car, against the risk of an accident occurring on the way there. In other words, if he drives slowly and safely, someone will definitely die. If he drives quickly, someone might die or be injured in an accident partly of his making.

But of course, he can manage the risk of the road accident occurring by driving with all his skill and concentration. He cannot manage the risk of the burning car exploding, nor, before he arrives, can he know all of the circumstances of the incident he is driving to: his control room's info may be incomplete or wrong: it could be a whole bus that's burning. Or it could be an empty car. (Or it could be a hoax).

The more you think about this, and the more perspective you get from the police side of it, the more respect you have for those who do this sort of driving and have to make these judgements. And the more sympathy for those involved when it all goes wrong.

 

[philr]

wow some passionate thoughts from all angles so far.

lets all remember we have one account so far, i am not forgetting someone has suffered terrible injuries, but like some of the other response drivers on this thread i must say when switching on the blues and two's a lot of road users do some terrifying things in front of you.

i have seen good observation skills from drivers in front spotting me approaching from a long way back and reacting well, only to find an idiot behind that car has no idea i am approaching and frog leaps the car pulling over right into my path causing me to activate abs. sometimes i get to an incident exhausted from concentration.

and like already said, yes some jobs we attend are a load of crap.

however the comments like ban blues etc.

just ask the persons who are having there head stoved in, weather they would like us to slow down and stop at red lights. yes we do every now and then respond to a real incident where time makes the difference of life or death.

besides there are so many unanswered questions relating to the original topic.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Sorry to be pedantic, but both links are of officers being aquitted.

If I drove at 156mph they would have hung me up by my bollocks.

Excuse me, but do you know what a prosecution is?

I believe (still) your beef should lay with the COURTS that aquitted them, not the POLICE that sent them to court in the first place.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Uncle Phil

How do you define a major incident? Not Trolling, just curious.

You are quite right. Driving carefully does take precedence over speed. Officers being trained to respond are told time and time again that they do not have priority over other traffic. The lights and sirens are if you like a request for other road users to allow them passage. Red traffic lights are to be treated as give way, ie make sure everyone has stopped and is letting you through.

I do however have a question which I hope shows that until we have the details, we may be guilty of jumping to conclusions, and engaging in the sport of "bobby bashing". There's a thread on the forum about a woman cycling without lights where she was nearly knocked off by a forum member. The general consensus was that she was wholly wrong, and only had herself to blame. I am very sorry that the cyclist on this thread has been so dreadfully injured. Were he to be one of mine I would want to make absolutely certain that no stone was left unturned to seek the truth as to how he came by those injuries. So far in this thread the majority of censure is against the police. Would it be different were we to discover he was one of the much demonised MTB riders dressed all in black on the commuting threads, that he was riding without lights, that his blood alcohol level was high, that he was listening to his ipod and was unlikely to have heard the sirens? My point of course is that we don't have all the facts.
The matter is being investigated. That the IPCC have handed the investigation back to Roads Policing Officers is a tell-tale for some. Personally, if the officers were found to be in the wrong, I sincerely expect them to face justice.

I also sincerely hope the guy recovers, and that his family find solace.

At last, someone that can see beyond the crap in newspapers.

 

[ComedyPilot]

If I drove at 156mph they would have hung me up by my bollocks.

You pay your money, you take your chance. That is a matter for a court.

I know a 100% watertight way of not getting done for driving at 156mph.

Don't do it.

Same as speeding in general. People pontificate and bitch about speeding fines, saying they are a stealth tax.

Bollix.

Don't speed, no risk of fine.

Speed, then be grown up enough to accept responsibility. Although that is sadly lacking in this country.

 

[Tynan]

I'm studying law at the mo

it's very very clear that the courts will almost never convict police if they're doing their job anything like properly, quite from the police's reputation for closing ranks if not outright lying when investigated

 

[philr]

I'm studying law at the mo

it's very very clear that the courts will almost never convict police if they're doing their job anything like properly, quite from the police's reputation for closing ranks if not outright lying when investigated

oh dear, not training to be a CPS prosecutor i take it.

because when plod make a mistake, is one of the only times the CPS have the balls to make a charging decision etc etc.....

i.e. usually the decision to charge summons etc, is always taken, the rest is of course up to the courts, which is out of everyones hands.

this is usually because an officer should, know better, be more responsible, act in a more professional manner, be accountable

the list goes on and on and on and on .........

my god i have gone and taken the bait, i knew it when i joined, no one likes the police, if a court decides to go not guilty, its the police fault.

if i give out a speeding ticket, ie 50 mph in a 30 zone, why am i not catching rapists and drug dealers, why am i not catching burglars when people leave back doors unlocked etc.. why am i getting involved in this......

despite all the remarks i love my job,

 

[Vikeonabike]

I'm studying law at the mo

it's very very clear that the courts will almost never convict police if they're doing their job anything like properly, quite from the police's reputation for closing ranks if not outright lying when investigated

Sorry Tynan.
That sentence makes no sense, can you explain that again!

 

[Cubist]

Sorry Tynan.
That sentence makes no sense, can you explain that again!

Vike

I think Tynan is trying to say that the police are not immune from looking after each other (the "closing ranks" bit) and that they will even take the option of coming up with a defence in order to try and avoid being brought to book. If that defence includes not being truthful, then this is described as "lying" when they are being investigated.

I know a number of defence lawyers who make a living out of ensuring their clients are given every opportunity to be found not guilty. This has, on occasions involved being glaringly untruthful, lying in interviews, under caution and under oath, concocting alibis, asking their friends to attend court and lie on their behalf, in order to avoid a guilty verdict.

This leads then to a question of ethics. Can a defence lawyer sleep at night knowing or suspecting that his or her client is guilty, and yet still offer a defence on that client's instructions which is far from the truth? Everyone accepts this as part of the great British Justice system.


Here now is a rhetorical question: We should hope of course that a police officer would be honest and show complete integrity when offering evidence in court, particularly when a person's liberty is at stake. Is it however fair to expect a constable not to take an opportunity to get off the hook when their livelihood, liberty and reputation is at stake?

 

[merlinmagic]

Been catching up on this thread and its very interesting. I have complete respect for the police and any of the other emergency services. Having volunteered for the fire service when I lived in the US, I have been a passenger on board a Christmas tree on wheels a number of times.

The difficulty is the human element. Every now and again someone will get it wrong. A cyclist might not move out of the way when an emergency services driver is anticipating that he will. An emergency services driver might have a lapse of concentration and fail to spot a cyclist who is on a junction and therefore can't get out the way.

Accidents will always happen. That's why they are called accidents, otherwise they would be called "On purposes".

I really feel for the guy and wish him a speedy recovery but considering banning blues and twos seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater to me.

As an aside for the boys and girls in the jam sandwiches - keep up the good work - I have nothing but respect for you chaps and chappesses and the problems you face taking care of the community at large.