I'm inclined to agree with 'tannaton's' very reasoned analysis of this incident. I too see faults (misjudgements, if you prefer) on both sides.

The fact is that only two people know what really happened that day. Had I been behind the wheel of either vehicle involved I might have felt able to comment (whether I would wish to is another matter entirely). Otherwise, any comment that I might make would be just another subjective opinion.

On the other point regarding the Officer's 'attitude'. I would have thought that 'assertiveness' was a necessary character trait for any Police Officer. They have to deal in reality with incidents that most of us only read about in books or see on television. Add to that he had just been involved in a high speed collision and, no matter how well trained, would have been suffering from shock as a result, and it is easy to understand his behaviour after the incident.

Let's give this officer a break; after all, as has already been mentioned, this is a very old incident, and it doesn't seem fair to be raking over the coals again after all this time.

Regards, John.

Well, my opinion is the police officer drove into this accident when he didn't need to. It was arrogance and bad attitude that led to this easily avoidable clash.

I understand why you have that opinion - but would it change if he had been answering a 999 call to a burglar climbing through your window? As John.Wigley said they are trained to drive with a certain level of "assertiveness" attached to continual risk management so they can "make progress". I think he should have had lights and sirens but I'm oscillating as to whether he was the one mostly at fault.

I understand your point, but there's nothing assertive about driving into an inevitable accident. Safety first and foremost is surely what these highly trained police drivers are taught?

Obviously I'm completely disregarding the lorry driver's behaviour. But the fact of the matter is, he's manouvering into a lane (rightly or wrongly) and the police driver sees this and has the belief to continue progress alongside the lorry whilst it is continuing its manouvere. The police car ought to have stayed behind the lorry until it had completed its manoeuvre.

Anyway, I realise there's little point in continuing with this thread but I simply wanted to have my say because I'm bored!

I'd have undertaken the truck as the incident would have been a higher priority and continued on. I agree with the above. He drove straight into that accident and assumed the truck drivers get had seen him.... 50/50 accident in my eyes

He is supposed to be a highly trained traffic cop ?

His main mistake was he didn't have his blue lights and sirens on, if he did then the lorry driver would have seen and heard him and most likely no accident. At that speed it's a no brainer, even for untrained me.

He also didn't anticipate the lorry driver's actions and basically just crashed into him, so his level of anticipation leaves a lot to be desired.

This guy should not be a traffic cop and should be disciplined, as he could have caused a major accident with fatalities due to his incompetence.

Iain

That will be that then cos Iain says! Does that mean that no blame could be attached to the truck driver? I could go on but I can't really be bothered. I wonder what his Lordship said about it?

Well untrained me, saw the lorries indicator from around the bend in the road, the copper is trained, and you always expect the unexpected how he couldn't see that lorry wasn't or couldn't come into lane 3 is beside me.
I am a motorcyclist and always treat other road users as if they are out to kill you I have never had a at fault accident in 33 years of riding or driving, had quite a few hit or crash in to me though.
The policeman was a novice that day and maybe the donut shop was closing early and he lost all control and judgement, he wasn't 100% on the ball that day.

I agree.

ignore this message
 

ignore this message