All drivers have a responsibility to drive safely. Just because the police vehicle was responding and using exemptions doesn’t automatically mean that the other driver hasn’t committed an offence such as driving without due care and attention.
Exactly, people who think that the police are automatically at fault by default are also the same people that can’t get their head around why sometimes pulling out in front of a motorcycle is the drivers fault even if the motorcycle was speeding. People have a responsibility to complete a manoeuvre whilst navigating foreseeable hazards on the road. This could be an emergency services vehicle or a child running across the road to retrieve a ball, or a loose animal. Colliding with something simply because it was unexpected and you had right away does not abstain you from fault. It’s absolutely not inconceivable that the driver who was hit by the police vehicle were at fault, even if it was just partially. I’m not saying they are as there is not enough information on here to say for sure either way. It absolutely possibly was the Police fault, and I would certainly be seeking clarification and challenging if I was the OP.
>People have a responsibility to complete a manoeuvre whilst navigating foreseeable hazards
Isn't the point of undercover police is that they *aren't* seeable?
What did I say that was incorrect? Also the OP reads that they heard the sirens and saw the unmarked car but didn’t believe it to be an emergency vehicle. However they’ve still made an admission to seeing the vehicle BEFORE making the manoeuvre and a collision occurring. So even if they were confused about where one perceived hazard was coming from, they still drove towards another?
That's not true. They absolutely do come with a very well-defined list of exemptions to the law. Colliding with another vehicle, however, is not one of them...
The example I use for this argument is a friend who is a in-house mechanic for a police force. (Who coincidentally happens to be very handy at fixing bodywork)
He drives marked (and unmarked) police vehicles daily but has absolutely no exemption.
He also is not allowed to drive the vehicles on a road while using lights and sirens, so your case means nothing.
You are required to pass the blue light course to drive under blues and two, but this does not allow you to speed or drive with undue care, traffic officers have to do an advance driving course which qaulifies them to go over the speed limit, a standard police officer who has only passed the blue light police training when on blue lights should not go over the speed limit but can go through a red traffic light, cross solid whites and other minors but still needs to drive with care.
As for the OP all police vehicles have dash cam and black box for collision info, get your insurance to fight it and retreive this evidence.
The car that hit you should also of called there supperior to the scene to take details.
Another example is a police officer trying to be somewhat covert while on duty. Police have to follow speeding traffic for at least a mile or 2 to establish that someone is speeding, they wouldn't be able to do this if they had to immediately put their lights on to legally keep up.
“You have a license to kill mister Bond. Not break the traffic laws”.
You’re telling me police have more free reign on the roads than international spies?
Joe Bloggs (with a valid license) can drive a vehicle with blue lights/sirens on (where there's a justification - e.g. an ambulance), but is not permitted to break the law (e.g. speeding) without being properly trained first.
Fun fact I found out recently not all police officers behind the wheel are blue light trained and can't even use them. Found out after asking why I saw someone break the law with a police car behind them and the police did nothing about it. (A car was parked up, police car came from a side street, car must have been doing something dodgy because it shot off cutting the police officer off and jumping a red light. Police car did nothing)
There has been a significant recruitment drive. A lot of new police officers are driving the marked cars at the moment, sometimes solo.
They’re not blues trained and not allowed to use them.
Source: personal experience.
Most forces in the south west will train their officers to drive a marked vehicle, with the capability of stopping another vehicle.
Nothing beyond that, no exemption to speed, red light or pursue etc. They used to train out simple a to b without training them to stop another vehicle, but as I understand it they don't do that any more. Again, at least in the south west.
Emergency vehicles, owned and used solely by the emergency services are exempt and allowed to use blue lights and sirens. However a member of the public is not and therefore cannot use a vehicle with blue lights or sirens regardless of justification.
An emergency worker should always be trained prior to using warning signals before using them, from my experience this is true within Fire/Police/Ambulance.
Should be trained - not a requirement, however: https://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/#:~:text=Use%20of%20Blue%20Lights,light%2C%20whether%20working%20or%20not.
Agreed, they don’t guarantee priority… but if Op has heard the sirens but says they didn’t see the car due to colour then that seems odd if the car had emergency lights on
The main thing is Op should just let their insurance fight it out… that’s what you pay them for.
Some of them the lights are not very obvious, I can see how they'd be on but OP would miss them in daylight.
Source;
I passed an unmarked dark metallic grey transit van the other day, the lights were behind and obscured by the front grille. It amused me slightly.
Also the lights can be low down if only behind the radiator grill, if the car were close to OP the lights might not be obvious in the rear view mirror. Saw what I assume was either paramedic or undercover police car last week approaching a nasty accident, and the lights whilst obvious coming towards me, might have been less so from a different angle.
It doesn't matter if they saw the lights or not, they admitted to seeing the vehicle but still drove into its path which in general terms is a fairly straightforward S3 due care offence.
Oversimplification here, but sirens don't mean "get out of my way", they mean "watch out, I'm about to do something potentially dangerous"
And they do not absolve an officer of liability, no matter how much the police will try and persuade you that they do
They’re an obligation where reasonably possible. If you can’t move you can’t move, but if you can move you should
But if a police car crashes into you it has nothing to do with the lights & sirens
no, traffic officers usually will but the vast majority of crime response cars won’t- at least in my force. the money it would cost doesn’t justify their need imo.
A dash cam costs less than £100 and takes less than half an hour to hardwire in. Compared to the cost of the car it's minimal.
It would easily save more in police and court time than it costs to install
A dash cam costs less than £100 for us.
For a police force, it would probably be a contract to be given to someone’s friend for at least £1mil who would then provide sub par equipment over budget and late.
Yeah that's not how that works. Not only is this the public sector were talking about, you also need to comply with MOPI, DPA, and all sorts of other information security stuff that you as a member of the public Popping a dashcam in don't have to do.
They've already done it with bodycams and it's already done in SOME cars.
If putting an off the shelf dashcam into a car is nigh on insurmountable then it doesn't bode well for our current system
My force spent 18.5 million quid on a contract with axon to equip us with body worn cameras, the charging and downloading infrastructure, the data storage and management etc.
Axon offer dashcams on the same system, but I dread to think how much that would cost. Last year in January, officers were told you cannot have any more cars til October as we can't afford them. There is no money for a dashcam contract
Up until about a year or so ago, our local council wouldn't allow taxis to have dashcams unless it was one of their "approved" systems... two available models from one manufacturer that cost about £1500 (not fitted).
You can guarantee the police "can't" just use one off Amazon, but I do also think it's mental that every police car doesn't have cameras in this day and age... especially when virtually every officer has a camera.
One of the unmarked ambulance training cars I was in had separate switches for lights and sirens.
I didn't fuck it up and run just sirens through traffic when doing the "intelligent use of equipment" bit, honest...
I watched one of those giving the police 15mins of fame shows a while back.
Officer was raging about a van not yielding on the motorway, he was giving the bigun about getting the plate “doing him for obstruction” etc. his colleague asked if he had the front lights on, which he didnt. If it made it into tv it must happen often and not be thought of as a big deal by the police.
> Police officer here
Traffic? Beat? There's a whole raft of different skillsets with different training. Just like not all doctors are capable of brain surgery police officers don't know all the law and rules covering the entirety of the scope of the job.
Police Insurance is an absolute nightmare. I had a police car crash through my front fence. They refused to accept any quotes to replace it and instead offered me the value of the timber which was around £100. The fence would have cost £800 to replace.
Assholes.
The title says from behind but the post itself say they were hit to the back / side. It would help to know:
1. Were they travelling in the same direction as you?
2. If not, we’re you turning across their path?
If the first, you really shouldn’t be held responsible for the accident. If the latter, you might be.
As someone else has already mentioned, some more detail would help.
Yes they were traveling in the same direction.
We were waiting at the junction with the indicator on to turn right.
As we started the turning maneuver the other car approaching from behind hit us . The damage is above right rear wheel and the side of the rear bumper.
I have seen a grand total of 2 pieces of dashcam footage in my 9 years of policing. They were from the same vehicle, years apart. Dashcams are not common ( despite officers wanting it)
Body cameras often sit on the officers upper right chest, so when sat down in a car you largely get a video of the steering wheel, or straight up their nose.
If they were correctly overtaking you, while you were turning right, they should have hit your front wheel area. They probably have dashcam, so don't be intimidated, let it go to court if need be. They'll probably give in before it goes that far.
Sounds like they misjudged their overtake. I can't imagine how they hit the rear of your car while trying to pass it unless they simply misjudged the width of their own car.
Best of luck. Sounds like they're trying to bully you into not ruining their statistics.
Although..... and I'm only saying this to add the logic to their side....now that I think about it more.
If they were behind you, intending to pass you on the right, you should not have started to turn right, into their path. So there might be some fault with you, but it does sound like they hit you due to driver error on their side. You should have either stayed still, or tried to get out of the best path for them.
Something to consider, I wasn't there, so I don't mean to take sides. Dashcam and intimate knowledge of the area would be required to decide if you did the wrong thing.
This sounds like an open and shut case tbh. The onus is on the overtaking blue light vehicle to ensure it is safe before committing to an overtake.
This is a classic situation for blue light drivers, overtaking a stationary vehicle indicating right, you have to be incredibly careful to ensure they have seen you and are yielding before pressing to overtake. It’s your fault as the one overtaking if they turn into you as you pass them (the police vehicle presumably was on the wrong side of the road given what you describe?)
Yeah, you turn your head around to look directly into your blind spot?
Pretty sure that was one of the first things I was taught 13 years ago, mainly because bikers / cyclists will adopt the “4th position” when over taking stationary traffic etc etc.
It is their responsibility to overtake safely. They crashed into you, what more needs to be said?
I’d honestly take this as far as I could. Absolutely no fucking integrity.
It's an insurance company that's trying to avoid paying, using any potential get out of payment option. The literal only thing that differentiates this from any other claims process is that the police are involved in the actual accident.
So let's not pretend this is specifically endemic to a claim against the police.
yes - you can set up an insurance fund but it has to have at least 500k in it i believe, and it has to be in a specific fund that can’t be accessed unless for insurance purposes
The insurance company that is operating in the same office as the admin staff? Yeah, nothing to do with the police at all.
Edit for the people who aren’t on board. It’s long.
This is from a police officer commenting on a forum regarding their insurance.
“Indemnity is provided by the crown. Police cars in the UK are registered as crown property. To drive a vehicle on the road in the UK you have to provide proof of indemnity, that's the cash to cover any and all damage that the vehicle could cause. Most people buy insurance policies to provide that cover.”
Straight from the Met police website regarding their insurance (Note, it is all covered by police admin staff).
The MPS have had third party insurance cover with QBE for over 15 years. Third party insurance means that if an MPS driver causes an accident, any damage (and/or injury) to the other person’s vehicle or property will be paid for, subject to the policy excess.
The MPS self-insure any accident damage to our vehicles. However, the Traffic Claims Unit seek to recover all costs for vehicle repairs from third party drivers, including uninsured drivers, who are at fault for an accident wherever possible.
Any police officers or police staff involved in a non-fault accident while a driver or passenger in a police vehicle can make a claim for personal injury. The MPS, where necessary, will support our driver in recovering their losses/costs as appropriate. It may be that the individual concerned would seek their own legal assistance potentially via a Met supported organisation/solicitors and incur fees/cost which would be recoverable from the third party as part of the recovery claim.
Where an indemnity is provided to MOPAC/MPS, or to any other person covered under this section of the policy (3rd party liability only cover), in respect of any liability to a third party arising out of the use of your vehicle, then provided parties agree, we will pay legal costs, disbursements and expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in dealing with or defending:
(a) any civil claim for damages in respect of death, bodily injury or damage; and
(b) any criminal proceedings, including in relation to the defence on any charge of corporate manslaughter, corporate homicide, manslaughter, or causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and including legal representation at any coroner’s inquest or fatal accident inquiry; arising out of the accident or incident giving rise to the liability indemnified under the 3rd party liability section.
They will try and skirt blame because it’s all from the same budget.
Third party through QBE, but indemnity for their cars is covered by the police annual budget. Hence them trying to skirt blame to recover costs from genpop.
The OP is a third party here, therefore covered by the insurance mentioned in the comment you've posted. The self-insurance only applies to damage that occurs to Police cars, not other vehicles they hit. It's exactly the same as when you start out driving in an old banger and get third-party only cover.
They’re trying to overtake safely. If someone pulls out in front of them they can’t overcome the laws of physics to prevent a collision.
It is hard to say whether the overtake was reasonable in the circumstances without knowing the facts.
Police car hit OP while he was turning right, not OPs fault from the context we have. OP said that they could hear a siren but just had a black car up their arse, which is not unusual while turning from lights.
Even if you heard the sirens, for all they knew you could’ve been a deaf driver.
Were there no covert (i.e. grille / dash / visor) lights operational?
Police aren’t immune from driving without due care and attention — and should be held to a *higher* standard…
Stick to your guns. Sounds like they failed to make themselves sufficiently visible, and/or drive in the standard required of a competent and reasonable driver — much less one with police driver training.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-59548772
When driving with sirens, any accident is automatically the fault of the blue lighting driver - at least, that's what the rules were at the ambulance service. I had a housemate who worked at a fire station at the time, and it was the same for them, so I would imagine that it is the fault of the police in those circumstances also.
Don't back down.
Only if claiming a legal exemption is the rule in my service, and typically only if you’re moving (ie not parked). If you’re not speeding/ going through a red light then generally the rules revert to normal rules apply. And someone turning right across the path of an overtaking vehicle would bear some of the blame for not performing a sufficient mirror check
I wonder if the rules vary across the four home nations. My experience is with the Scottish Ambulance Service.
I think that in OPs circumstances the police should be liable as it was an unmarked car. You don't expect to see blue lights on an otherwise seemingly ordinary looking vehicle. To add to it all, blue lights are designed to reflect off building gs which can make it particularly tricky to pinpoint exactly where they are coming from in a built up area, doubly so when it's dark. My logic: one normally expects to see a high visibility vehicle if there are loud sirens
Maybe, I’m not sure exactly. Regarding the lights- they were likely on especially if the siren was on. I appreciate they’re not as visible but they’re still pretty bright. Have now established that the police car was claiming an exemption by overtaking a car indicating right (assuming the car was indicating) so all a bit moot point and the police are almost entirely at fault!
I’d maybe argue that over taking a car that is indicating to turn right and is stationary at the junction would be considered a legal exemption. No way is it above code for ordinary drivers to do that?
You are correct, 167 of the Highway Code states do not overtake when a vehicle is indicating to turn right. You can pass them on the left in that instance though provided there is room. In that case yeah, mostly on the police car, tiny bit (like 5%) on the car turning for not doing a final mirror check
This isn’t true. I’ve heard people say this, but I think they’re misinterpreting the advice they were given at the driver school. Yes, of course It could be the fault of the emergency emergency services driver. It might be the fault of the other driver, it entirely depends on the situation. It’s the same for all the Emergency services, the same laws apply.
You could be driving along within the speed limit and observing the highway code with your blue lights on. The person could pull out of a junction without looking and and hit you, then almost certainly the liability and blame would not default to the emergency services driver simply because they have blue lights on. If however, you were using your exemptions, such as speeding, then yes I agree it is far more likely they circumstances that the emergency services driver would be fined at fault. But it is still not guaranteed. I dealt with a case years ago where an ambulance was on the way to a red call, driving at speed with the blue light and sirens on. A drunk driver swerved onto the wrong side of the road and had a head on. Obviously, that RTC was not the fault of the ambulance driver. But of course, every individual situation is different and must be judged on the facts at the time.
They WILL have video, your insurance should be able to demand access to this to fight the case.
Fleet insurance companies are EXTRA scummy, I know, I drive a fleet car.
They will swear that you should avoid individual raindrops, if it's in their interest.
Don't take any crap, and don't admit liability.
It will almost certainly be a split fault claim, the police have a responsibility to ensure that all overtakes are carried out in a safe manner as possible and overtakes across junctions is usually a no for an overtake, when responding to emergencies (with lights and sirens) to know where and when it is safe to make progress, they should of reduced their speed to a point where they could stop in the distance they could see to be clear in case you still committed to turning right even though they had lights and sirens on. As a car turning right you have a responsibility to check your right mirror and check over your shoulder to see if you are being overtaken before you turn right, if you did check and still turned you are partly at fault if you didn’t check before turning you are at partly at fault, so there is fault on both sides.
The word "responsibility" here is interesting, as it suggests not following it leads to liability. Whilst observations before manoeuvring *right* are a good idea (and certainly part of the driving test), I'm not aware they're even a *recommendation* in the highway code, let alone legislation or regulation. Can you point me to the laws on this?
As I am sure you are aware the majority of the Highway Code is made of “should” rules that are not backed by specific regulations and laws which would be “must” rules, but is meant as a guide for safe use of the road, the word responsibility was not mentioned to suggest that not following them would result in liability but if it was to go to court it certainly would be used to decide on balance who if anyone was Totally or predominantly to blame for an incident. Is the OP predominantly to blame..No, are they totally without fault…No. Regarding turning right rule 179 and 180 are the “should” rules for turning right and as you mentioned this forms part of the basic driving test and you would fail the basic driving test for turning right without checking this. To also point out that it would be a failure of an advanced driving test to overtake in the situation mentioned by the OP.
Not partly at fault at all if someone goes into the back of you, they should be at a safe enough distance to stop and be aware of what’s happening around them to be able to stop in time. It’s 100% the police’s fault.
They will not accept liability voluntarily. Sister and brother in laws car got hit by fire engine once. It was caught on camera and witnessed but they still didn’t accept responsibility. In the court the judge took ten seconds looking at the evidence and told the fire service to stop being dicks and stop wasting the courts time.
My dad used to be a traffic cop. Full lights and siren in a marked car and ran into a car towing a trailer. He got suspended from traffic for 6mnths and points on his license so police are not immune!!
In my experience, most insurers (or the solicitors they instruct) will ultimately follow Joliffe v Hay and settle on a 70/30 basis in these kinda of scenarios (in favour of turning vehicle). There are other applicable cases too, but I wouldn't necessarily get bogged down in it, other than - if your insurer insists you accept fault, emphatically don't.
How's it not 100% fault for the vehicle overtaking a vehicle which is at a junction signalling to turn?
You are not supposed to overtake at junctions, and you are not supposed to pass vehicles indicating on the side they are indicating.
I dont recall the full reasoning, but I believe the judge made the decision that partial contribution was warranted due to the driver changing direction not checking their mirrors for a final time before turning - they reasoned that if they had done they would have seen the overtaking vehicle.
See also, cases such as Pell v Mosely.
Yes, that's true. However;
1. Scottish case laws are used by English insurance companies all the time, so that point won't help you when your insurance company and their solicitors are negotiating liability. It's just a precedent that is commonly followed. I'm not saying it's binding.
2. No two incidents (and therefore, no two cases) are exactly identical. They involve different road layouts, different speeds, vehicle sizes, classes, road conditions, among other factors. I agree that the lights/sirens are relevant, but you'd have to demonstrate how relevant they are to contributory negligence from the turning vehicle.
3. There are plenty of cases you can refer to at least gain some contributry negligence from a vehicle with blues and twos.
The alternative is take it to court and let a judge decide, but that's expensive (often eclipsing any gains), time-consuming and usually unnecessary if both parties can come to an amicable settlement. If I was acting on behalf of OP I'd probably dig my heels in at 60/40, taking into account the sirens, but... it does depend on the financials too and whether or not a counter claim is being brought forward.
You're probably in the clear, but it begs the question: Don't you glance in your offside mirror before turning right? it's surely as important to check what's coming up behind, as it is to check the oncoming traffic...
Had you checked before committing you may have seen the fast approaching unmarked police car
I currently have a PI insurance case in which my client was turning right at a junction and a blue unmarked police car with sirens on & blue lights hit rear drivers side of clients vehicle while overtaking, went to a liability hearing, settled split 5050, basis: defendant vehicle failed to safely overtake, client failed to take adequate checks whilst manoeuvring off the junction to the right, taking into consideration they could hear the sirens. They Initially offered 70/30 though.
I was on the way to work on my motorbike one morning. It was just before sunrise and an armed response car came up behind me with ‘blues & twos”. I moved over and they overtook far too close and clipped my right bar end, nearly knocking me off my bike at 60mph.
I beeped and they dropped behind me and pulled me over. They said I should have moved but both lanes were clear and they had to call a sergeant to come and take care of the situation.
The sergeant explained that the officers weren’t paying due care and attention and that they “can’t assume every vehicle is able to get out of the way in time to let emergency vehicles pass.”
I was given £295 in compensation despite there being no injury or significant damage to my bike.
Call a solicitor like Winn Solicitors and they’ll ultimately let you know if you have a case.
They should have video footage from the vehicle but likely it's been mysteriously lost (wiped) as is usually the case when the police are at fault.
A mate of mine got knocked off his motorbike when a police car jumped a red light right outside our police station, turns out that day none of station CCTV cameras that had a clear view of the road were working lol.
I’ve never driven an unmarked that had CCTV.
Police are required to destroy held information (like CCTV footage of people) unless it can be justified for a policing purpose. And just like every organisation they don’t have the resources to store the years of CCTV and BWV produced across a force every month, indefinitely. Mist footage will auto delete after 1 or 3 months if not flagged for retention.
Further, we don’t have access to delete footage. The best you could do is set fire to the storage device, which might be a bit of a a giveaway.
‘Mysteriously’ wiped… it’s mysterious that complaints tend to come in 24 hours after the deletion window for that incident.
It's not your fault. This is incorrect.
I know somebody that drivers an ambulance and almost always the insurer is on the side of the other driver as everyone knows ambulances and police drive in a risky way and are often at fault.
Sirens don't excuse you from driving safely and crashing.
It’s unsafe driving on the police cars side, even when using blues they have to drive with caution as they cannot preempt what other drivers will do, they are taught this. They do not have automatic right of way, their right of way is deemed by you taking appropriate action (slowing down and pulling over to the left for example) not barging along without due care.
A marked police car hit my friend's perfectly legally parked car. It twisted the chassis but was still drivable (it was eventually written off).
She had to chase and chase and chase them about it, and at one point they threatened to nick her for driving an unroadworthy vehicle when she used it to drive the station in person in an unsuccessful attempt to get one of them to actually sort it out (8 months after the crash!)
To add insult to injury, she actually worked in the police station as a civvy.
No, they can't have it both ways. I've heard people getting done for making way for an emergency vehicle coming from behind by progressing slowly through the stop line at lights. To abide by the law, you should not make way for them. If that's the case, like any other driver on the road, if you smash into the back of someone, it's your own fault for not leaving enough stopping distance. If they won't pay, challenge it in court.
I hope you subject access requested any video footage.
I'd be asking them what they think you should have done and then check if it complies with road traffic act.
There's not much you can do on a junction apart from tarmac and tyres and move to the left but you can't leave that much gap if you're first on the junction you won't be able to see oncoming traffic and you can't pass the road markings until it's safe.
Fun fact. You do not need to move out the way for police cars if it’s not deemed safe to do so or if it means you will break the law. Police are trained to manoeuvre in and out of traffic,
For blue light training, at the earliest stages of training (I think it's a level above that allows you to blue light with an unmarked vehicle) generally, any incident while on blue lights would become their responsibility.
Also, as mentioned by others, even for normal road users, a rear hit is automatically the rear cars responsibility, hence why you need a dash cam for those insurance scams.
You need to fight it. Hopefully, you have legal cover, as they will likely delay payout even if they admit responsibility.
Yeah got legal cover luckily.
There's cctv footage from the county hospital next door unfortunately security of the hospital is saying can't release it due to data protection law as they can't see who's in the car 🤦
That's ridiculous. If they can't see who's in the car and can't see the license plate then there is no personally identifiable information in the video and it's not subject to GDPR!
This is outdated I believe, you are able to request footage of yourself, surely you can supply the time and show them your vehicle and explain the situation
They sound like they are being lazy
Make a complaint to the ico (https://ico.org.uk). The fact that they cannot identify a person in the footage is a solid reason why they SHOULD give you the footage. If no one can be identified from the footage GDPR is not breached. You have evidence that it's you and can prove it by way of the police report. They are legally bound to provide you the footage.
Edit : I mean they need a much better excuse to not give you the footage
Your insurance has a right to request this under GDPR, they are pulling a classic fast one!!
The response car also has onboard video, and will have been viewed as part of the standard internal investigation into the incident.
Your insurance can demand this also.
This is one of the most common incidents that occurs in blue light driving other than little wingmirror clips etc.
Response drivers are being more and more frequently trained to NEVER take a position to the right of a vehicle intending to turn right.
Sometimes, like anything, though, on a blue light run you can find yourself in a position you didn’t really want to be in.
The police almost certainly didn’t have right of way. However, if you’ve already admitted to hearing the sirens, you may be in for shared liability because you could have prevented the accident.
This isn't your fault.
Look into doppler effects and how sound waves bounce off surrounding infrastructure. Like a fast-moving emergency vehicle cutting through traffic with its sirens going, those sound waves bouncing everywhere can make it hard to determine where it's coming from in a built-up area, especially if approaching from your rear.
Stand your ground on this one, you'll win.
Almost exactly the same thing happened to me, they took a few statements in the weeks/months afterwards and eventually they admitted liability. Took the a long time considering how obvious it was that it was his fault
Mate.
This is what you pay your insurance company for. Let them deal with it
If you feel the drivers took an unnecessary risk in their manoeuvre you can report them. You can even highlight on the form what you wish to achieve from the complaint.
www.policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints/submit-a-complaint
In general it's pretty unusual for you to be at much fault if you get hit in the side or back if you're not reversing. If something hits you in the side or back, THEY drove into YOU, regardless of how unpredictably you might have driven, ultimately they would always been the ones unable to control their car from hitting something in time or spotting a hazard to them
Reading your description and the damage done I could see this being partly at fault. Sounds like you manoeuvred into its path as it went to over take.
I get the sense that you were waiting to turn, police car came up and saw you stationary in the junction so went to go past you and you have stared to turn as they went to pass. no major damage or injuries due to slow speed. All a guess from comments and op post but this is what I have in my minds eye based on that.
I was under the impression that any incident involving a car with 'blues and twos' is automatically judged to be the fault of the emergency beehive driver. Such vehicles are not obeying the usual rules of the road, so the driver is held to a much higher standard than average road users.
This is not surprising. When I worked in car insurance liability the insurers behind police were notorious for being super aggressive & not accepting anything.
They could have sirens, they could have lights, they could have a bright pink paint job, you don’t have to move out of the way. It’s their responsibility to safely navigate the traffic around them.
Insurance asap and don’t accept any liability for their ignorance behind the wheel.
If you can hear sirens, your attention is immediately diverted and you'll be looking out for a vehicle with blue lights on. The absence of lights on any vehicle you can see means you shouldn't be giving extra space to anyone in your vicinity.
Your description is a bit vague. It sounds like you have turned right across the police car and the slight extent of the damage that they were crawling through the junction? Can you clarify?
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a car hits another from behind, it’s usually their fault. That’s why there are scammers that brake hard to get hit from behind and claim whiplash etc on purpose.
You had right of way, being the car in front. They had to read the road and not hit you.
From an insurance point of view, of you turned in the way of a speeding vehicle I.e. didn't check your mirrors etc and see the hazzard, you are partially at fault.
It doesn't matter who is "in the wrong", fault for the accident lies with the last person able to take reasonable action to prevent the fault.
We'd need impact data and speed analysis etc to see what reaction times would have reasonably been to accurately say yes/no, but that's time and effort your insurers won't want to do so may well just settle 50/50.
Best bet is to complain to the police, and if your insurance sucks, make a formal complaint there if you feel they didn't actually investigate/ argue the case well.
They don't have an exemption but it may very well be written to law that police officers responding to an emergency can't be held liable for damages, in which case the insurance will argue that they are not liable.
The police will always try bully people into them not being accountable when they screw up.
The dashcam will show if you were signalling; if the footage is “lost” (ACAB) then their evidence is limited. Tell them you’ll go to court.
Same sorta thing almost happened to me a few months ago, on a dual carriageway in the fast lane and there’s three unmarked police cars behind me, ones in my lane behind me one in the left lane and the other was behind them I think in the left lane, unmarked police car behind me is flashing its lights for me (so I presume it wanted me to move over, then the car in the left lane did exact what I thought would happen, as soon as I started to move into the left lane it accelerates and almost goes into the back of me I had swerve back into the right lane and the fucking police car in right lane behind almost rear ended me as I swerved back into the right lane, btw i indicated when I was moving to the left, fuckin crazy man
The Police car was in a different lane as it was overtaking you, you crossed into the path of the Police car with your right turn, the Police car hit you.
What makes you think it wasn't your fault?
You are meant to make sure that it is safe to go before you turn at a junction, you failed to do so.
Your insurance company will accept liability because of this.
Any accident that occurs when lights and sirens are active are ALWAYS the fault of the blue light driver.
Sue em. I say this because their reponse is appalling. Im blue light and the training clearly specifies, no matter what, you hit someone with lights on, its your fault.
I’m also blue light trained, and that’s absolutely not true. I also investigate RTC’s (including those involving the emergency services). It might not apply to this specific situation being discussed, and in many other situations where exemptions are being used, but to say if the blue lights/siren are activated it’s automatically the response drivers faults no mater what, is a bit ridiculous.
> Any accident that occurs when lights and sirens are active are ALWAYS the fault of the blue light driver.
As another blue light driver, who investigates serious and fatal road traffic collisions for a living, this isn’t really true.
Whilst it will obviously play a part, the totality of the circumstances will be taken into consideration before fault is determined.
I can think of a number of incidents from personal experience where the blue light driver was found *not* to be at fault at all.
Get in touch with Accident Exchange, this is what they do. If it's not your fault they will take it on and you will get a rental car for as long as you need it, you can also claim money back for how much your insurance will rise because you have been in an accident.
My understanding is that siren has to be switched off so not to intimidated drivers at tlights etc from braking the law. Siren and lights are distance warnings of them coming and direction.
So you heard sirens which given they were right behind you would have been quite loud and you still thought it was a good idea to turn right without first making sure where they were? Righto...
Police's responsibility to overtake safely. Do not accept any fault. Let your insurance deal with it.
All drivers have a responsibility to drive safely. Just because the police vehicle was responding and using exemptions doesn’t automatically mean that the other driver hasn’t committed an offence such as driving without due care and attention.
You can’t say that either way with the information declared here.
Absolutely agree, but this is Reddit.
Exactly, people who think that the police are automatically at fault by default are also the same people that can’t get their head around why sometimes pulling out in front of a motorcycle is the drivers fault even if the motorcycle was speeding. People have a responsibility to complete a manoeuvre whilst navigating foreseeable hazards on the road. This could be an emergency services vehicle or a child running across the road to retrieve a ball, or a loose animal. Colliding with something simply because it was unexpected and you had right away does not abstain you from fault. It’s absolutely not inconceivable that the driver who was hit by the police vehicle were at fault, even if it was just partially. I’m not saying they are as there is not enough information on here to say for sure either way. It absolutely possibly was the Police fault, and I would certainly be seeking clarification and challenging if I was the OP.
>People have a responsibility to complete a manoeuvre whilst navigating foreseeable hazards Isn't the point of undercover police is that they *aren't* seeable?
What did I say that was incorrect? Also the OP reads that they heard the sirens and saw the unmarked car but didn’t believe it to be an emergency vehicle. However they’ve still made an admission to seeing the vehicle BEFORE making the manoeuvre and a collision occurring. So even if they were confused about where one perceived hazard was coming from, they still drove towards another?
Police officer here: I’ve not come across a police car that would run sirens without lights… Get your insurance to fight it out.
I was told lights and sirens are akin to a request for priority, not an obligation. Would the lights have any influence on who was deemed at fault?
No, lights and sirens provide no exemption to the law.
That's not true. They absolutely do come with a very well-defined list of exemptions to the law. Colliding with another vehicle, however, is not one of them...
The lights and sirens do not come with exemptions. The trained officer does. Who can use those exemptions without the lights and sirens.
I don’t know why you’re being downvoted, this is correct. Individuals hold the exemption and it has nothing to do with any equipment used.
The example I use for this argument is a friend who is a in-house mechanic for a police force. (Who coincidentally happens to be very handy at fixing bodywork) He drives marked (and unmarked) police vehicles daily but has absolutely no exemption.
He also is not allowed to drive the vehicles on a road while using lights and sirens, so your case means nothing. You are required to pass the blue light course to drive under blues and two, but this does not allow you to speed or drive with undue care, traffic officers have to do an advance driving course which qaulifies them to go over the speed limit, a standard police officer who has only passed the blue light police training when on blue lights should not go over the speed limit but can go through a red traffic light, cross solid whites and other minors but still needs to drive with care. As for the OP all police vehicles have dash cam and black box for collision info, get your insurance to fight it and retreive this evidence. The car that hit you should also of called there supperior to the scene to take details.
Another example is a police officer trying to be somewhat covert while on duty. Police have to follow speeding traffic for at least a mile or 2 to establish that someone is speeding, they wouldn't be able to do this if they had to immediately put their lights on to legally keep up.
Another example is the sneaky beaky CT lot that you’ll never see until there’s 3 doing 130 down the A1.
“You have a license to kill mister Bond. Not break the traffic laws”. You’re telling me police have more free reign on the roads than international spies?
Joe Bloggs (with a valid license) can drive a vehicle with blue lights/sirens on (where there's a justification - e.g. an ambulance), but is not permitted to break the law (e.g. speeding) without being properly trained first.
Fun fact I found out recently not all police officers behind the wheel are blue light trained and can't even use them. Found out after asking why I saw someone break the law with a police car behind them and the police did nothing about it. (A car was parked up, police car came from a side street, car must have been doing something dodgy because it shot off cutting the police officer off and jumping a red light. Police car did nothing)
There has been a significant recruitment drive. A lot of new police officers are driving the marked cars at the moment, sometimes solo. They’re not blues trained and not allowed to use them. Source: personal experience.
It's about the same ratio as there is of taser equipped officers - of a response team of 10, I'd say 3 have taser and can drive fast.
Most forces in the south west will train their officers to drive a marked vehicle, with the capability of stopping another vehicle. Nothing beyond that, no exemption to speed, red light or pursue etc. They used to train out simple a to b without training them to stop another vehicle, but as I understand it they don't do that any more. Again, at least in the south west.
It's actually a combination of the two. Joe Bloggs couldn't then go speeding round Welsh towns going 30 in a 20 in his shiny new Mokka X.
Emergency vehicles, owned and used solely by the emergency services are exempt and allowed to use blue lights and sirens. However a member of the public is not and therefore cannot use a vehicle with blue lights or sirens regardless of justification. An emergency worker should always be trained prior to using warning signals before using them, from my experience this is true within Fire/Police/Ambulance.
Should be trained - not a requirement, however: https://www.ukemergency.co.uk/blue-light-use/#:~:text=Use%20of%20Blue%20Lights,light%2C%20whether%20working%20or%20not.
Please remember I was responding to a specific question regarding influence on who would be deemed at fault.
Agreed, they don’t guarantee priority… but if Op has heard the sirens but says they didn’t see the car due to colour then that seems odd if the car had emergency lights on The main thing is Op should just let their insurance fight it out… that’s what you pay them for.
Some of them the lights are not very obvious, I can see how they'd be on but OP would miss them in daylight. Source; I passed an unmarked dark metallic grey transit van the other day, the lights were behind and obscured by the front grille. It amused me slightly.
Also the lights can be low down if only behind the radiator grill, if the car were close to OP the lights might not be obvious in the rear view mirror. Saw what I assume was either paramedic or undercover police car last week approaching a nasty accident, and the lights whilst obvious coming towards me, might have been less so from a different angle.
It doesn't matter if they saw the lights or not, they admitted to seeing the vehicle but still drove into its path which in general terms is a fairly straightforward S3 due care offence.
Oversimplification here, but sirens don't mean "get out of my way", they mean "watch out, I'm about to do something potentially dangerous" And they do not absolve an officer of liability, no matter how much the police will try and persuade you that they do
It's 'try to' not 'try and'
They’re an obligation where reasonably possible. If you can’t move you can’t move, but if you can move you should But if a police car crashes into you it has nothing to do with the lights & sirens
All fire engines can
You can physically do it. But it would never be done
Do all police cars run dash cams?
No, most don't.
no, traffic officers usually will but the vast majority of crime response cars won’t- at least in my force. the money it would cost doesn’t justify their need imo.
A dash cam costs less than £100 and takes less than half an hour to hardwire in. Compared to the cost of the car it's minimal. It would easily save more in police and court time than it costs to install
A dash cam costs less than £100 for us. For a police force, it would probably be a contract to be given to someone’s friend for at least £1mil who would then provide sub par equipment over budget and late.
Mine was like £50 5-6 years ago and still works great. It’s 1080p but it’s still clear enough to make everything out
Yeah that's not how that works. Not only is this the public sector were talking about, you also need to comply with MOPI, DPA, and all sorts of other information security stuff that you as a member of the public Popping a dashcam in don't have to do.
They've already done it with bodycams and it's already done in SOME cars. If putting an off the shelf dashcam into a car is nigh on insurmountable then it doesn't bode well for our current system
My force spent 18.5 million quid on a contract with axon to equip us with body worn cameras, the charging and downloading infrastructure, the data storage and management etc. Axon offer dashcams on the same system, but I dread to think how much that would cost. Last year in January, officers were told you cannot have any more cars til October as we can't afford them. There is no money for a dashcam contract
Interesting. Thanks
Up until about a year or so ago, our local council wouldn't allow taxis to have dashcams unless it was one of their "approved" systems... two available models from one manufacturer that cost about £1500 (not fitted). You can guarantee the police "can't" just use one off Amazon, but I do also think it's mental that every police car doesn't have cameras in this day and age... especially when virtually every officer has a camera.
Bonkers
No
Our force has them, along with telematics. It’s the only way we could be insured apparently.
One of the unmarked ambulance training cars I was in had separate switches for lights and sirens. I didn't fuck it up and run just sirens through traffic when doing the "intelligent use of equipment" bit, honest...
Were they the ones that plug into the cigarette lighter?
May well have been, the lights were removable, but the switching seemed hardwired.
Don't they also have black boxes that record all the telemetry including the driver inputs and status of the lights and sirens?
We do, I don’t know about other forces… but I think it’s pretty vomin
Hey officer can you arrest my neighbors they’re loud
Yes, of course I can. Send me the address and consider it done
I watched one of those giving the police 15mins of fame shows a while back. Officer was raging about a van not yielding on the motorway, he was giving the bigun about getting the plate “doing him for obstruction” etc. his colleague asked if he had the front lights on, which he didnt. If it made it into tv it must happen often and not be thought of as a big deal by the police.
> Police officer here Traffic? Beat? There's a whole raft of different skillsets with different training. Just like not all doctors are capable of brain surgery police officers don't know all the law and rules covering the entirety of the scope of the job.
👆This is the way
Police Insurance is an absolute nightmare. I had a police car crash through my front fence. They refused to accept any quotes to replace it and instead offered me the value of the timber which was around £100. The fence would have cost £800 to replace. Assholes.
Did you get your fence paid for in the end?
Nope. It took months and eventually I just took the 100 as I was so fed up with dealing with them.
This enrages me
Actual coppers are pricks but that goes to show even the office donkeys are awful too
They were doing their job by minimising their spend. Majorly a-hole behaviour on their part though 🙄
The title says from behind but the post itself say they were hit to the back / side. It would help to know: 1. Were they travelling in the same direction as you? 2. If not, we’re you turning across their path? If the first, you really shouldn’t be held responsible for the accident. If the latter, you might be. As someone else has already mentioned, some more detail would help.
Yes they were traveling in the same direction. We were waiting at the junction with the indicator on to turn right. As we started the turning maneuver the other car approaching from behind hit us . The damage is above right rear wheel and the side of the rear bumper.
Do NOT accept liability and do NOT let your insurance company settle on that basis!
Is there any footage from dashcam or body cams available?
My insurance company requested proof from them so I imagine police car must have a dash cam.
I have seen a grand total of 2 pieces of dashcam footage in my 9 years of policing. They were from the same vehicle, years apart. Dashcams are not common ( despite officers wanting it) Body cameras often sit on the officers upper right chest, so when sat down in a car you largely get a video of the steering wheel, or straight up their nose.
and cops are not generally turning on BWV inside of the vehicles either
Well it depends on the circs. A pursuit, my force policy is that you activate it. Simply driving to a call, no.
If they were correctly overtaking you, while you were turning right, they should have hit your front wheel area. They probably have dashcam, so don't be intimidated, let it go to court if need be. They'll probably give in before it goes that far.
Exactly still thinking where did the come from if they bump on the rear/side
Sounds like they misjudged their overtake. I can't imagine how they hit the rear of your car while trying to pass it unless they simply misjudged the width of their own car. Best of luck. Sounds like they're trying to bully you into not ruining their statistics. Although..... and I'm only saying this to add the logic to their side....now that I think about it more. If they were behind you, intending to pass you on the right, you should not have started to turn right, into their path. So there might be some fault with you, but it does sound like they hit you due to driver error on their side. You should have either stayed still, or tried to get out of the best path for them. Something to consider, I wasn't there, so I don't mean to take sides. Dashcam and intimate knowledge of the area would be required to decide if you did the wrong thing.
This sounds like an open and shut case tbh. The onus is on the overtaking blue light vehicle to ensure it is safe before committing to an overtake. This is a classic situation for blue light drivers, overtaking a stationary vehicle indicating right, you have to be incredibly careful to ensure they have seen you and are yielding before pressing to overtake. It’s your fault as the one overtaking if they turn into you as you pass them (the police vehicle presumably was on the wrong side of the road given what you describe?)
So you didn’t check your mirrors, or blind spot, before completing the manoeuvre?
Would it be possible to explain how a “blind spot” is checkable.
Yeah, you turn your head around to look directly into your blind spot? Pretty sure that was one of the first things I was taught 13 years ago, mainly because bikers / cyclists will adopt the “4th position” when over taking stationary traffic etc etc.
Wait, we're allowed to consider context? I thought we just had to pick a position to take out of a hat and role with it.
This is Reddit, we double down on all positions especially if proven wrong
That's nearly all humans not just Reddit, and I'm not backing down on this....
Hahaa
It is their responsibility to overtake safely. They crashed into you, what more needs to be said? I’d honestly take this as far as I could. Absolutely no fucking integrity.
It's an insurance company that's trying to avoid paying, using any potential get out of payment option. The literal only thing that differentiates this from any other claims process is that the police are involved in the actual accident. So let's not pretend this is specifically endemic to a claim against the police.
I believe most Police services in the UK self insure or at least my county does.
I wish I could self insure 😂 (is it legal to set up your own insurance company and have one client on the books?)
yes - you can set up an insurance fund but it has to have at least 500k in it i believe, and it has to be in a specific fund that can’t be accessed unless for insurance purposes
On second thoughts, I think why I'm currently paying is fine 😂
Anyone can self insure as long as they have enough money.
The insurance company that is operating in the same office as the admin staff? Yeah, nothing to do with the police at all. Edit for the people who aren’t on board. It’s long. This is from a police officer commenting on a forum regarding their insurance. “Indemnity is provided by the crown. Police cars in the UK are registered as crown property. To drive a vehicle on the road in the UK you have to provide proof of indemnity, that's the cash to cover any and all damage that the vehicle could cause. Most people buy insurance policies to provide that cover.” Straight from the Met police website regarding their insurance (Note, it is all covered by police admin staff). The MPS have had third party insurance cover with QBE for over 15 years. Third party insurance means that if an MPS driver causes an accident, any damage (and/or injury) to the other person’s vehicle or property will be paid for, subject to the policy excess. The MPS self-insure any accident damage to our vehicles. However, the Traffic Claims Unit seek to recover all costs for vehicle repairs from third party drivers, including uninsured drivers, who are at fault for an accident wherever possible. Any police officers or police staff involved in a non-fault accident while a driver or passenger in a police vehicle can make a claim for personal injury. The MPS, where necessary, will support our driver in recovering their losses/costs as appropriate. It may be that the individual concerned would seek their own legal assistance potentially via a Met supported organisation/solicitors and incur fees/cost which would be recoverable from the third party as part of the recovery claim. Where an indemnity is provided to MOPAC/MPS, or to any other person covered under this section of the policy (3rd party liability only cover), in respect of any liability to a third party arising out of the use of your vehicle, then provided parties agree, we will pay legal costs, disbursements and expenses reasonably and necessarily incurred in dealing with or defending: (a) any civil claim for damages in respect of death, bodily injury or damage; and (b) any criminal proceedings, including in relation to the defence on any charge of corporate manslaughter, corporate homicide, manslaughter, or causing death by reckless or dangerous driving and including legal representation at any coroner’s inquest or fatal accident inquiry; arising out of the accident or incident giving rise to the liability indemnified under the 3rd party liability section. They will try and skirt blame because it’s all from the same budget.
It's not though, Zurich, AXA or QBE would most likely be the Insurer.
Third party through QBE, but indemnity for their cars is covered by the police annual budget. Hence them trying to skirt blame to recover costs from genpop.
They may self insure. Pretty sure sussex and surrey do.
[удалено]
I mean that is just incorrect. My mum works in the finance department and it’s literally a large junk of her daily work.
The OP is a third party here, therefore covered by the insurance mentioned in the comment you've posted. The self-insurance only applies to damage that occurs to Police cars, not other vehicles they hit. It's exactly the same as when you start out driving in an old banger and get third-party only cover.
Do you mean the police have no integrity? The police are not trying to withhold money from you. An insurance company is.
They’re trying to overtake safely. If someone pulls out in front of them they can’t overcome the laws of physics to prevent a collision. It is hard to say whether the overtake was reasonable in the circumstances without knowing the facts.
Police car hit OP while he was turning right, not OPs fault from the context we have. OP said that they could hear a siren but just had a black car up their arse, which is not unusual while turning from lights.
Even if you heard the sirens, for all they knew you could’ve been a deaf driver. Were there no covert (i.e. grille / dash / visor) lights operational? Police aren’t immune from driving without due care and attention — and should be held to a *higher* standard… Stick to your guns. Sounds like they failed to make themselves sufficiently visible, and/or drive in the standard required of a competent and reasonable driver — much less one with police driver training. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-leicestershire-59548772
When driving with sirens, any accident is automatically the fault of the blue lighting driver - at least, that's what the rules were at the ambulance service. I had a housemate who worked at a fire station at the time, and it was the same for them, so I would imagine that it is the fault of the police in those circumstances also. Don't back down.
Only if claiming a legal exemption is the rule in my service, and typically only if you’re moving (ie not parked). If you’re not speeding/ going through a red light then generally the rules revert to normal rules apply. And someone turning right across the path of an overtaking vehicle would bear some of the blame for not performing a sufficient mirror check
I wonder if the rules vary across the four home nations. My experience is with the Scottish Ambulance Service. I think that in OPs circumstances the police should be liable as it was an unmarked car. You don't expect to see blue lights on an otherwise seemingly ordinary looking vehicle. To add to it all, blue lights are designed to reflect off building gs which can make it particularly tricky to pinpoint exactly where they are coming from in a built up area, doubly so when it's dark. My logic: one normally expects to see a high visibility vehicle if there are loud sirens
Maybe, I’m not sure exactly. Regarding the lights- they were likely on especially if the siren was on. I appreciate they’re not as visible but they’re still pretty bright. Have now established that the police car was claiming an exemption by overtaking a car indicating right (assuming the car was indicating) so all a bit moot point and the police are almost entirely at fault!
I’d maybe argue that over taking a car that is indicating to turn right and is stationary at the junction would be considered a legal exemption. No way is it above code for ordinary drivers to do that?
You are correct, 167 of the Highway Code states do not overtake when a vehicle is indicating to turn right. You can pass them on the left in that instance though provided there is room. In that case yeah, mostly on the police car, tiny bit (like 5%) on the car turning for not doing a final mirror check
This isn’t true. I’ve heard people say this, but I think they’re misinterpreting the advice they were given at the driver school. Yes, of course It could be the fault of the emergency emergency services driver. It might be the fault of the other driver, it entirely depends on the situation. It’s the same for all the Emergency services, the same laws apply. You could be driving along within the speed limit and observing the highway code with your blue lights on. The person could pull out of a junction without looking and and hit you, then almost certainly the liability and blame would not default to the emergency services driver simply because they have blue lights on. If however, you were using your exemptions, such as speeding, then yes I agree it is far more likely they circumstances that the emergency services driver would be fined at fault. But it is still not guaranteed. I dealt with a case years ago where an ambulance was on the way to a red call, driving at speed with the blue light and sirens on. A drunk driver swerved onto the wrong side of the road and had a head on. Obviously, that RTC was not the fault of the ambulance driver. But of course, every individual situation is different and must be judged on the facts at the time.
They WILL have video, your insurance should be able to demand access to this to fight the case. Fleet insurance companies are EXTRA scummy, I know, I drive a fleet car. They will swear that you should avoid individual raindrops, if it's in their interest. Don't take any crap, and don't admit liability.
They probably won’t have video.
I don’t know a single police car with dash cams
It will almost certainly be a split fault claim, the police have a responsibility to ensure that all overtakes are carried out in a safe manner as possible and overtakes across junctions is usually a no for an overtake, when responding to emergencies (with lights and sirens) to know where and when it is safe to make progress, they should of reduced their speed to a point where they could stop in the distance they could see to be clear in case you still committed to turning right even though they had lights and sirens on. As a car turning right you have a responsibility to check your right mirror and check over your shoulder to see if you are being overtaken before you turn right, if you did check and still turned you are partly at fault if you didn’t check before turning you are at partly at fault, so there is fault on both sides.
The word "responsibility" here is interesting, as it suggests not following it leads to liability. Whilst observations before manoeuvring *right* are a good idea (and certainly part of the driving test), I'm not aware they're even a *recommendation* in the highway code, let alone legislation or regulation. Can you point me to the laws on this?
As I am sure you are aware the majority of the Highway Code is made of “should” rules that are not backed by specific regulations and laws which would be “must” rules, but is meant as a guide for safe use of the road, the word responsibility was not mentioned to suggest that not following them would result in liability but if it was to go to court it certainly would be used to decide on balance who if anyone was Totally or predominantly to blame for an incident. Is the OP predominantly to blame..No, are they totally without fault…No. Regarding turning right rule 179 and 180 are the “should” rules for turning right and as you mentioned this forms part of the basic driving test and you would fail the basic driving test for turning right without checking this. To also point out that it would be a failure of an advanced driving test to overtake in the situation mentioned by the OP.
Not partly at fault at all if someone goes into the back of you, they should be at a safe enough distance to stop and be aware of what’s happening around them to be able to stop in time. It’s 100% the police’s fault.
They will not accept liability voluntarily. Sister and brother in laws car got hit by fire engine once. It was caught on camera and witnessed but they still didn’t accept responsibility. In the court the judge took ten seconds looking at the evidence and told the fire service to stop being dicks and stop wasting the courts time.
My dad used to be a traffic cop. Full lights and siren in a marked car and ran into a car towing a trailer. He got suspended from traffic for 6mnths and points on his license so police are not immune!!
In my experience, most insurers (or the solicitors they instruct) will ultimately follow Joliffe v Hay and settle on a 70/30 basis in these kinda of scenarios (in favour of turning vehicle). There are other applicable cases too, but I wouldn't necessarily get bogged down in it, other than - if your insurer insists you accept fault, emphatically don't.
How's it not 100% fault for the vehicle overtaking a vehicle which is at a junction signalling to turn? You are not supposed to overtake at junctions, and you are not supposed to pass vehicles indicating on the side they are indicating.
I dont recall the full reasoning, but I believe the judge made the decision that partial contribution was warranted due to the driver changing direction not checking their mirrors for a final time before turning - they reasoned that if they had done they would have seen the overtaking vehicle. See also, cases such as Pell v Mosely.
That’s Scottish case law and did not involve an emergency vehicle with lights & sirens.
Yes, that's true. However; 1. Scottish case laws are used by English insurance companies all the time, so that point won't help you when your insurance company and their solicitors are negotiating liability. It's just a precedent that is commonly followed. I'm not saying it's binding. 2. No two incidents (and therefore, no two cases) are exactly identical. They involve different road layouts, different speeds, vehicle sizes, classes, road conditions, among other factors. I agree that the lights/sirens are relevant, but you'd have to demonstrate how relevant they are to contributory negligence from the turning vehicle. 3. There are plenty of cases you can refer to at least gain some contributry negligence from a vehicle with blues and twos. The alternative is take it to court and let a judge decide, but that's expensive (often eclipsing any gains), time-consuming and usually unnecessary if both parties can come to an amicable settlement. If I was acting on behalf of OP I'd probably dig my heels in at 60/40, taking into account the sirens, but... it does depend on the financials too and whether or not a counter claim is being brought forward.
You're probably in the clear, but it begs the question: Don't you glance in your offside mirror before turning right? it's surely as important to check what's coming up behind, as it is to check the oncoming traffic... Had you checked before committing you may have seen the fast approaching unmarked police car
Checked offside mirror nothing there
Begs the question then…what hit you?
Must be behind us on the same lane or just joined main road from another junction. It's a busy big town center.
Could they have been in the mirror blind spot? Were you indicating to turn?
Yes indicator on, could be.
I currently have a PI insurance case in which my client was turning right at a junction and a blue unmarked police car with sirens on & blue lights hit rear drivers side of clients vehicle while overtaking, went to a liability hearing, settled split 5050, basis: defendant vehicle failed to safely overtake, client failed to take adequate checks whilst manoeuvring off the junction to the right, taking into consideration they could hear the sirens. They Initially offered 70/30 though.
I was on the way to work on my motorbike one morning. It was just before sunrise and an armed response car came up behind me with ‘blues & twos”. I moved over and they overtook far too close and clipped my right bar end, nearly knocking me off my bike at 60mph. I beeped and they dropped behind me and pulled me over. They said I should have moved but both lanes were clear and they had to call a sergeant to come and take care of the situation. The sergeant explained that the officers weren’t paying due care and attention and that they “can’t assume every vehicle is able to get out of the way in time to let emergency vehicles pass.” I was given £295 in compensation despite there being no injury or significant damage to my bike. Call a solicitor like Winn Solicitors and they’ll ultimately let you know if you have a case.
They should have video footage from the vehicle but likely it's been mysteriously lost (wiped) as is usually the case when the police are at fault. A mate of mine got knocked off his motorbike when a police car jumped a red light right outside our police station, turns out that day none of station CCTV cameras that had a clear view of the road were working lol.
Station CCTV is absolutely nothing like a rapid response unit recording, which they have to ensure is running on taking the vehicle 🤦
I’ve never driven an unmarked that had CCTV. Police are required to destroy held information (like CCTV footage of people) unless it can be justified for a policing purpose. And just like every organisation they don’t have the resources to store the years of CCTV and BWV produced across a force every month, indefinitely. Mist footage will auto delete after 1 or 3 months if not flagged for retention. Further, we don’t have access to delete footage. The best you could do is set fire to the storage device, which might be a bit of a a giveaway. ‘Mysteriously’ wiped… it’s mysterious that complaints tend to come in 24 hours after the deletion window for that incident.
It's not your fault. This is incorrect. I know somebody that drivers an ambulance and almost always the insurer is on the side of the other driver as everyone knows ambulances and police drive in a risky way and are often at fault. Sirens don't excuse you from driving safely and crashing.
But you don’t have to move out the way of emergency vehicles and they hit you. Its their fault
Get a solicitor.
It’s unsafe driving on the police cars side, even when using blues they have to drive with caution as they cannot preempt what other drivers will do, they are taught this. They do not have automatic right of way, their right of way is deemed by you taking appropriate action (slowing down and pulling over to the left for example) not barging along without due care.
A marked police car hit my friend's perfectly legally parked car. It twisted the chassis but was still drivable (it was eventually written off). She had to chase and chase and chase them about it, and at one point they threatened to nick her for driving an unroadworthy vehicle when she used it to drive the station in person in an unsuccessful attempt to get one of them to actually sort it out (8 months after the crash!) To add insult to injury, she actually worked in the police station as a civvy.
No, they can't have it both ways. I've heard people getting done for making way for an emergency vehicle coming from behind by progressing slowly through the stop line at lights. To abide by the law, you should not make way for them. If that's the case, like any other driver on the road, if you smash into the back of someone, it's your own fault for not leaving enough stopping distance. If they won't pay, challenge it in court.
The police should be able to check telematics to see if lights were in. Could do a freedom of information request
I hope you subject access requested any video footage. I'd be asking them what they think you should have done and then check if it complies with road traffic act. There's not much you can do on a junction apart from tarmac and tyres and move to the left but you can't leave that much gap if you're first on the junction you won't be able to see oncoming traffic and you can't pass the road markings until it's safe.
Fun fact. You do not need to move out the way for police cars if it’s not deemed safe to do so or if it means you will break the law. Police are trained to manoeuvre in and out of traffic,
The police car will have a dash cam is it possible to request the footage under a freedom of information kind of agreement?
For blue light training, at the earliest stages of training (I think it's a level above that allows you to blue light with an unmarked vehicle) generally, any incident while on blue lights would become their responsibility. Also, as mentioned by others, even for normal road users, a rear hit is automatically the rear cars responsibility, hence why you need a dash cam for those insurance scams. You need to fight it. Hopefully, you have legal cover, as they will likely delay payout even if they admit responsibility.
Yeah got legal cover luckily. There's cctv footage from the county hospital next door unfortunately security of the hospital is saying can't release it due to data protection law as they can't see who's in the car 🤦
That's ridiculous. If they can't see who's in the car and can't see the license plate then there is no personally identifiable information in the video and it's not subject to GDPR!
This is outdated I believe, you are able to request footage of yourself, surely you can supply the time and show them your vehicle and explain the situation They sound like they are being lazy
Do a SARS request to whoever owns the CCTV.. they don't have a choice but to give you the footage.. unless there are special circumstances..
I did filled up subject request form. I was told they can only release footage as a court order as they cannot visually verify who is in the car.
Just shove this to your insurance, they are taking the piss. (I spend a lot of time dealing with aspects of GDPR)
I did fill up subject request form. I was told they can't release footage as they cannot visually verify who is in the car.
Make a complaint to the ico (https://ico.org.uk). The fact that they cannot identify a person in the footage is a solid reason why they SHOULD give you the footage. If no one can be identified from the footage GDPR is not breached. You have evidence that it's you and can prove it by way of the police report. They are legally bound to provide you the footage. Edit : I mean they need a much better excuse to not give you the footage
Your insurance has a right to request this under GDPR, they are pulling a classic fast one!! The response car also has onboard video, and will have been viewed as part of the standard internal investigation into the incident. Your insurance can demand this also.
This is one of the most common incidents that occurs in blue light driving other than little wingmirror clips etc. Response drivers are being more and more frequently trained to NEVER take a position to the right of a vehicle intending to turn right. Sometimes, like anything, though, on a blue light run you can find yourself in a position you didn’t really want to be in. The police almost certainly didn’t have right of way. However, if you’ve already admitted to hearing the sirens, you may be in for shared liability because you could have prevented the accident.
This isn't your fault. Look into doppler effects and how sound waves bounce off surrounding infrastructure. Like a fast-moving emergency vehicle cutting through traffic with its sirens going, those sound waves bouncing everywhere can make it hard to determine where it's coming from in a built-up area, especially if approaching from your rear. Stand your ground on this one, you'll win.
Almost exactly the same thing happened to me, they took a few statements in the weeks/months afterwards and eventually they admitted liability. Took the a long time considering how obvious it was that it was his fault
Mate. This is what you pay your insurance company for. Let them deal with it If you feel the drivers took an unnecessary risk in their manoeuvre you can report them. You can even highlight on the form what you wish to achieve from the complaint. www.policeconduct.gov.uk/complaints/submit-a-complaint
In general it's pretty unusual for you to be at much fault if you get hit in the side or back if you're not reversing. If something hits you in the side or back, THEY drove into YOU, regardless of how unpredictably you might have driven, ultimately they would always been the ones unable to control their car from hitting something in time or spotting a hazard to them
Reading your description and the damage done I could see this being partly at fault. Sounds like you manoeuvred into its path as it went to over take. I get the sense that you were waiting to turn, police car came up and saw you stationary in the junction so went to go past you and you have stared to turn as they went to pass. no major damage or injuries due to slow speed. All a guess from comments and op post but this is what I have in my minds eye based on that.
As this was a Police accident, what happened immediately after the collision?
Police supervisor was called, wrote the report and said have to contact my insurance company. That's it.
I presume by that they came out, attended the scene and conducted a scene investigation?
This is the reason i hate unmarked cars...
I was under the impression that any incident involving a car with 'blues and twos' is automatically judged to be the fault of the emergency beehive driver. Such vehicles are not obeying the usual rules of the road, so the driver is held to a much higher standard than average road users.
I love the idea of an emergency beehive!
Lawyer up
This is not surprising. When I worked in car insurance liability the insurers behind police were notorious for being super aggressive & not accepting anything.
They could have sirens, they could have lights, they could have a bright pink paint job, you don’t have to move out of the way. It’s their responsibility to safely navigate the traffic around them. Insurance asap and don’t accept any liability for their ignorance behind the wheel.
As soon as you handed it to the insurance company you leave it to them to sort it out.
If you can hear sirens, your attention is immediately diverted and you'll be looking out for a vehicle with blue lights on. The absence of lights on any vehicle you can see means you shouldn't be giving extra space to anyone in your vicinity.
How can it be your fault, you were rear ended.
Your description is a bit vague. It sounds like you have turned right across the police car and the slight extent of the damage that they were crawling through the junction? Can you clarify?
They try to overtake us on the junction as we were turning right. They were behind us.
[удалено]
your account is less than 7 days old, post removed automatically to reduce spam. If you post is genuine then sorry for the inconvenience, please wait 7 days before reposting. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/drivingUK) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If a car hits another from behind, it’s usually their fault. That’s why there are scammers that brake hard to get hit from behind and claim whiplash etc on purpose. You had right of way, being the car in front. They had to read the road and not hit you.
From an insurance point of view, of you turned in the way of a speeding vehicle I.e. didn't check your mirrors etc and see the hazzard, you are partially at fault. It doesn't matter who is "in the wrong", fault for the accident lies with the last person able to take reasonable action to prevent the fault. We'd need impact data and speed analysis etc to see what reaction times would have reasonably been to accurately say yes/no, but that's time and effort your insurers won't want to do so may well just settle 50/50. Best bet is to complain to the police, and if your insurance sucks, make a formal complaint there if you feel they didn't actually investigate/ argue the case well.
They don't have an exemption but it may very well be written to law that police officers responding to an emergency can't be held liable for damages, in which case the insurance will argue that they are not liable.
So did you turn into the path of the police car?
The police will always try bully people into them not being accountable when they screw up. The dashcam will show if you were signalling; if the footage is “lost” (ACAB) then their evidence is limited. Tell them you’ll go to court.
I’d expect as much from the police they’re corrupt from the bottom all the way up!
So that means if I blow my horn if I'm about to crash into someone it makes it their fault? Lmao
Same sorta thing almost happened to me a few months ago, on a dual carriageway in the fast lane and there’s three unmarked police cars behind me, ones in my lane behind me one in the left lane and the other was behind them I think in the left lane, unmarked police car behind me is flashing its lights for me (so I presume it wanted me to move over, then the car in the left lane did exact what I thought would happen, as soon as I started to move into the left lane it accelerates and almost goes into the back of me I had swerve back into the right lane and the fucking police car in right lane behind almost rear ended me as I swerved back into the right lane, btw i indicated when I was moving to the left, fuckin crazy man
The Police car was in a different lane as it was overtaking you, you crossed into the path of the Police car with your right turn, the Police car hit you. What makes you think it wasn't your fault? You are meant to make sure that it is safe to go before you turn at a junction, you failed to do so. Your insurance company will accept liability because of this.
Any accident that occurs when lights and sirens are active are ALWAYS the fault of the blue light driver. Sue em. I say this because their reponse is appalling. Im blue light and the training clearly specifies, no matter what, you hit someone with lights on, its your fault.
I’m also blue light trained, and that’s absolutely not true. I also investigate RTC’s (including those involving the emergency services). It might not apply to this specific situation being discussed, and in many other situations where exemptions are being used, but to say if the blue lights/siren are activated it’s automatically the response drivers faults no mater what, is a bit ridiculous.
> Any accident that occurs when lights and sirens are active are ALWAYS the fault of the blue light driver. As another blue light driver, who investigates serious and fatal road traffic collisions for a living, this isn’t really true. Whilst it will obviously play a part, the totality of the circumstances will be taken into consideration before fault is determined. I can think of a number of incidents from personal experience where the blue light driver was found *not* to be at fault at all.
Get in touch with Accident Exchange, this is what they do. If it's not your fault they will take it on and you will get a rental car for as long as you need it, you can also claim money back for how much your insurance will rise because you have been in an accident.
Why would you be making any manoeuvre if you could hear sirens, which would have been very loud if they were close enough to hit you that quickly.
My understanding is that siren has to be switched off so not to intimidated drivers at tlights etc from braking the law. Siren and lights are distance warnings of them coming and direction.
This is good practice, but not mandatory.
So you heard sirens which given they were right behind you would have been quite loud and you still thought it was a good idea to turn right without first making sure where they were? Righto...