Solicitor v Insurance in police car collision - advice pls!

[turbohobbit]

Hi guys,

Firstly apologies for the radio silence. I've been a bit detained with a broken leg. Basically, on 18th June I was riding to work minding my own business when I was in a head-on collision with an unmarked police car on a shout (he was displaying a light on the sun-visor, that's all as far as I can recall). Long story short, I was turning on to Embankment from Albert Bridge when down the road I saw the unmarked car heading towards me on my side of the road in an effort to avoid the stopped traffic on his side. I pulled over to the left and braked hard to let him past (and avoid hitting the car in front of me). It was drizzling hard and the road was greasy. The next thing I know, the back end was washing out, then the bike was flicking about, then I'm going forward, then I see sky, then I see tarmac. Essentially, I entered the same space as the car was heading for and arrived in his grill. I shoot up and land on his wing then the deck, the bike shoots back into my side of the road. Upshot: A broken femur and 8 nights in St Mary's in Paddington.

10 weeks on, the bike is still residing at Rosso Corse (hi Pompone) and on Saturday I received a letter from the Met advising that "after careful consideration of the evidence, it has been decided that no further action will be taken in respect of [this] matter." I'm back at work, albeit on shortened hours, and should make something like 95%-100% recovery over the next 8-12 months. Soon after the incident I spoke to White Dalton who said that, on the evidence I have submitted, they are happy to represent me in a claim, but I wanted to wait and see what the Met said first. Well, now I know.

I'm confused and befuddled.

I am currently in two minds regarding whether or not to pursue the Met in a civil case, or to claim off my insurance (I have already made them aware of the incident as I have to, but have not claimed yet). The Met claim may take years and IF I WIN the payout will be about 3-4 times my insurance payout for my bike. If I just claim off my insurance the payout will be less, but it will be over much more quickly and I can get on with life - and it's not like I've lost my job, not been paid while I was off, or am permanently crippled. Quite a few folks I speak to are taking the "yeah, fight the police!" line, but none of them are experts and I suspect a certain amount is driven by the modern zeitgeist of "where there's blame there's a claim".

I was wondering if any of you folks had had any experience in this area and / or could offer your thoughts. I really am unsure of what to do.

Cheers
Hobbit

[Akita Boy]

Check your inbox..... PM sent

[Wildfire]

Personally I'd follow White Dalton's advice. They were great at helping a friend who was knocked off by a taxi driver who turned right into the bike (yes, into the bike, not across) where his insurance wanted to settle, White Dalton advised to push for 100%. Which he got.

[Funkatronic]

speak to these people

rider support services (http://www.ridersupport.co.uk)

[S4R Dude]

I suspect that careful consideration means that they find no fault with your actions in this matter.....I suspect that they are at fault though from what you say. If that is the case, get some-one to review it in detail, then you should proceed against them.
If you would find the whole thing a stress with it in the back of your mind then drop it and live happy.
Me, I'd get the advice and go for it if it appears they were in the wrong.

[turbohobbit]

Check your inbox..... PM sent

Replied, thanks mate ;-)

[Dirty]

I believe if they are on blues you are fairly certain of winning.

Whether it's morally 'right' to do so is up to you.

[chris.p]

Having been on a er hum speed awareness course the other month, I quote the words of the instructors, " you do not have to give an emergency vehicle on blues and two's the right of way, it is the responsibility of the emergency vehicle to move safely around you, even if you are sat at a red light, you do not move, if you do, you can be prosecuted for going through a red light" , the law is exact.

[Mr Gazza]

It's a really tricky one.
The emergency services have an essential and dangerous job to do, the bar is very high.
When they get it wrong. that's an epic fail. They don't get to the shout and someone else is hurt.

I've had near head on's with all the services except the Coast Guard. All of which would have been a lot different in the wet.!

I met a Police car overtaking on a bend in the A47 one time. As he hit one of those fenland undulations, I could see clear daylight under all his wheels..!! He landed a bit on the skewiff but regained control in time to hurtle past me, with inches to spare, after I had braked as much as possible on the R80RT and headed for the verge. If it was wet or if I was in a car we would have hit and damn right I would have done him..It was reckless.

Much the same scenario with an Ambulance, except not airbourne this time and I went wheels a smoking into the hedge in my Skoda Romeo.

The Fire engine beggars belief...I entered a dual carriageway to find the road behind me blocked, so I had a clear carraigeway all to myself. Unsupisingly there was a Fire engine heading fast to the blockage (obviously an accident) in the opposite direction, as it got closer round the bend I saw that it was on my carriageway....No problem, plenty of room for both of us, and I got well over. But he decided to aim for me and drive me hard into the rain run off area...WTF!....Wife and two daughters in the car aswell. What was he thinking??

Sometimes they go too far. Blues and Twos don't take into account the fully licensed profoundly deaf, nor the half witted or learner.
They know the stakes and the risks. They have had more instruction than we have had driving, as I said the bar is high and there is no room for mistakes...They should pay when they make one.

That's not to say I don't have the utmost respect for the lot of them..I certainly do.

[bazread]

I would proceed with the case if only to teach the officer driving that he or she is not above the law and should have been drving with more due care and attention even if they are on a "shout" - and two of my best friends are coppers.

[Dirty]

" you do not have to give an emergency vehicle on blues and two's the right of way, it is the responsibility of the emergency vehicle to move safely around you, even if you are sat at a red light, you do not move, if you do, you can be prosecuted for going through a red light" , the law is exact.

Technically they are not allowed through red lights either, nor any other law of the road, speeding etc etc. Which is why they are pretty much automatically at fault when the shìt hits the fan.

I will always move out of the way for emergency services, inc but not limited to going through red lights and central reservations. I'll be careful and aware. Highly unlikely to the point of ridiculousness that you would be prosecuted for it. Don't listen to the idiots who run SACs, even they know they talk shìt (tried to tell us that staying in a lower gear for the same speed would not burn more fuel!) What is more likely is that someone's life is hanging in the balance and those few seconds can be the difference!

[Akita Boy]

Technically they are not allowed through red lights either, nor any other law of the road, speeding etc etc. Which is why they are pretty much automatically at fault when the shìt hits the fan.



Sorry dude, but Blue light services have a legal exemption in the road traffic act for Traffic Lights, Speed limits and keep left bollards........ However there is no exception for dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention.

So yeah, you're right that if a Emergancy vehicle causes an accident by its presence on the road while on blues and twos the chances are it will be using its
exemptions. But by causing a crash will have been guilty of dangerous/careless driving and therefore be at fault.

[Akita Boy]

I would proceed with the case if only to teach the officer driving that he or she is not above the law and should have been drving with more due care and attention even if they are on a "shout" - and two of my best friends are coppers.

If I was Turbohobbit I'd look to try to get some compensation for my injuries and out of pocket expenses caused by an accident which (certainly appears to be) not his fault.

All the best Turbohobbit, here's hoping you make a full recovery, and take whatever course of action you think is best once you've taken expert legal advice, though there's not too many downsides to a No Win, No Fee offer from White Dalton.

[Dirty]

Sorry dude, but Blue light services have a legal exemption in the road traffic act for Traffic Lights, Speed limits and keep left bollards........ However there is no exception for dangerous driving or driving without due care and attention.

So yeah, you're right that if a Emergency vehicle causes an accident by its presence on the road while on blues and twos the chances are it will be using its
exemptions. But by causing a crash will have been guilty of dangerous/careless driving and therefore be at fault.


Sorry dude but that's just legal manoeuvring. It was quicker to say it my way rather than explain that 'they are allowed through red lights except that they are technically committing the crime of careless driving but won't be prosecuted for it unless they cause an accident' because that is all the exemption is, a very clumsy law that is in effect pointless. Plus of course you have to have taken the proper course to use the exemption and then you may only use that exemption in certain circumstances. It exempts someone from a traffic ticket only. As no one was going around handing out speeding tickets to ambulances it does beg the question, why bother!

[Akita Boy]

Sorry dude but that's just legal manoeuvring

Isn't everything?? Show me a poor Queens Council and I'll show you my leprechauns crock of gold from the end of Finians Rainbow

The point that I was trying to make, was although the car that hit Turbohobbit was on the wrong side of the road and (potentially?) speeding. These facts are not, in themselves damning as the driver will be full covered legally providing he was 'using the vehicle for police purposes' (which is a whole different can of worms) BUT by being reckless (careless driving) or actually placing other road users in danger (dangerous driving) he'll have committed one of those offences. Which is why they very rarely contest cases where someone on blues and twos have, or cause, a collision.

So I'm arguing and agreeing with you at the same time..........!

Gotta love the British legal system, we should go back to Trial by Fire and dunking witches. No grey areas are possible there!

[Mr Gazza]

Yep but whatever the law says, we are all on the side of the emergency services...Yes?
I mean there could be a stricken UKMOC member in the Ambulance having a heart attack..:biggrin:
I am sure we all do our utmost to get the f##k out of thier way whatever it takes. However what I expect is that thier driving and roadcraft is the best that can be achieved.
You should only be able to drive Blues and Twos if you are the very best and expect to take it on the chin if it goes wrong..I think they know that when they go in, and know that if they have a prang it's game over.

Driving with Blues and Twos is a very serious business.

[Dirty]

Isn't everything?? Show me a poor Queens Council and I'll show you my leprechauns crock of gold from the end of Finians Rainbow

The point that I was trying to make, was although the car that hit Turbohobbit was on the wrong side of the road and (potentially?) speeding. These facts are not, in themselves damning as the driver will be full covered legally providing he was 'using the vehicle for police purposes' (which is a whole different can of worms) BUT by being reckless (careless driving) or actually placing other road users in danger (dangerous driving) he'll have committed one of those offences. Which is why they very rarely contest cases where someone on blues and twos have, or cause, a collision.

So I'm arguing and agreeing with you at the same time..........!

Gotta love the British legal system, we should go back to Trial by Fire and dunking witches. No grey areas are possible there!

Nothing worse than an arguing agreer! :) In essence the exemptions only work if they don't have an accident.

It's a bit like the discussion on whether you can drive in hatched areas from the other day. 'If it is safe to do so' meaning you can legally use them all day long as long as you don't have an accident. As soon as you do you weren't supposed to be in them.

[Dirty]

Yep but whatever the law says, we are all on the side of the emergency services...Yes?
I mean there could be a stricken UKMOC member in the Ambulance having a heart attack..:biggrin:
I am sure we all do our utmost to get the f##k out of thier way whatever it takes.

I've always done my best to get out of their way but yes, recent events do focus the mind a bit. I had to be taken to a hosp with a specialist cardiac unit which wasn't close. Erith to Camberwell at rush hour.

[nambduke]

Wow sorry to hear about your accident!

I would say.....You have a case against them.

On a shout in and around road users (inc pedestrians) police are now supposed to use blues and twos. Checked with my brother - bobby - and he says unmarked car might not have any twos fitted - sounds like it if visor blue light used. There have been 2 many accidents when only blues shown. My brother did ask where there are any CCTV evidence - loads in London. Get your solicitor to find out. Police have a duty of care not to have an accident even if on a call. They must drive within the law and if there is an accident, they could be liable.

Keep your pecker up and good luck on your recovery

Best regards
Mark

[turbohobbit]

Hi guys,

Firstly thanks for all the advice and all the well-wishes. It's all really appreciated!

Ok. So I spoke to WD today and they are taking my case on a conditional fee (aka no win - no fee) basis. I have been advised that it's going to be a slow process, but c'est la vie. At the same time - and on the advice of WD - I have also kicked my insurance company into action in order to handle the claim specifically with regards my bike. The logic here being: it frees up some cash a bit more quickly and takes one element out of the equation. Basis success, that element is removed from my claim against the Met and I don't have an "at fault" accident against my name. If my case against the Met fails for whatever reason, I'd still have to claim on my insurance and would have an "at fault" accident against my name regardless. so it's six and two threes and I ended up going for both options!

I'll let you know how it all pans out.

Thanks again!
Hobbit