Given the recent threads on driving standards I have been following the recent case of the PC who mowed down an innocent pedestrian who ended up in a coma for two months!

The incident occured in London last year when two policemen in a van were responding (so they say) to an emergency call. Finding the traffic backed up they drove the wrong way down the wrong side of the street.

At this point Sheena McDonald (C4 Newsreader - now-ex) stepped out looking the other and was run over.

The police's own forensic traffic team said that the driving was dangerous and inappropriate - but the defence was STUNNING.

The defendent said that in his defence

a) Ms McDonald had consumed two glasses of wine during the evening (it was now midnight)

b) Ms McDonald was looking directly at the policecar when he ploughed into her (he then had to reverse to get her body out from under the car)

He was acquitted of dangerous driving

So, drivers, remember - when you want to run someone over

a) make sure that they have been drinking, it obviously doesn't matter how much, and

b) make as much noise as possible and flash your lights to make sure that the pedestrian is looking straight at you when you hit them.

 

Yes, and then they said the van had dodgy tyres and brakes, the expert witness (the passenger in the police van) then said that Ms Mcdonald was drunk as she was staggering between cars in his very high opinion of himself, a quick glance in the dark while caning a police van the wrong way up a road, like to know how they come to that conclusion when they obviosuly never saw her until it was too late to do anythjing about it

Not very impressed.

 

On a slightly more judicious note (for Ms McDonald) the fact that they belong to the dodgy handshake club will not stop the Met's insurance company paying out big time over this claim. You do not have to be convicted of an offence (although it helps) to be at fault. It will just help one bad driving/blind copper to keep his job & pension though...

Not impressed either

 

Interesting point JamesH, I've always thought the courts/dicsiplinary boards etc. are too soft on the police as if they they lose their job they lose their pension. I for one would never work for the Police as you face the risk at say 55 of losing your pension when for 30 years you have done a good job. I believe that a lot more coppers would lose their jobs if they got to keep their pension when convicted of an offence.
When there is so much at stake I think the temtation is too great to look after your own.

 

Ian,

you are correct - the passenger said that as a policeman he was expertly qualified to tell if someone was drunk just by looking at them (as you say from speeding van in the dark!). This is despite colleagues and friends of Ms McDonald who saw her have two glasses of wine all evening.

But it's not really a valid excuse is it!

It is a shameful disgrace - Ms McDonald is now pursuing this in the civil courts regarding compensation, which luckily in this case, is not dependent on a criminal prosecution.

Good Luck to her.

David

 

I was driving along on my motorbike with my brother on the back. Headlight on, two big chaps, bright red motorbike early afternoon.
I approached a junction, joining the road I was on, coming out of a housing estate. The lady driving the red Fiesta gave way at the lines, stopped, then looked directly at me before she drove out right in front of me. Luckily I managed to miss her, but it taught me a lesson about eye contact.
If your not looking for it you wont see it! Clearly she was looking for cars and not motorbikes.
The police should know this, as after all, as they keep on telling us, they are highly trained individuals.
Be safe out there
Greg

[This message has been edited by Greg115 (edited 18-01-2000).]

 

Either you don't see it, or you make a dreadful judgement about the oncoming vehicle and pull out anyway, as happened to my mate who lost his life when a post van stopped at a junction, saw him (doing 30 on a bike) and assumed he could pull out quickly enough anyway.

 

The question of the pedestrian's state of intoxication is entirely irrelevent.

The police officer was going to fast _for the conditions_ as he couldn't stop in the distance he could see to be safe. This is compounded by the fact that he was on the wrong side of the road, so he should have been ABSOLUTELY sure of his hazard anticipation and observation.

I really wonder if this incident would have come to light if the victim had not been a celebrity. Judging by the success of the defence (suprise suprise), I am at least pleased that the police didn't decide to sue the victim for damage to their (roadworthy?) vehicle.

I am not anti-police in general, it's the general air of unaccountability and injustice that seems to fester around this type of case that really annoys me.

Moray

 

Seconded - I did not originally post this as being anti-police...

...but a question of priorities and accountability does raise some big questions from time to time

 

Are you guys for real?!!

I cannot imagine ever being knocked down by a police van with lights and siren, even if being driven on the pavement. Just how could you not avoid the thing?

I first read Sheila's report and sided with her. Now, I have read several more reports and statements from those involved. I really cannot understand how it happned, but do not blame the police driver.

Sorry, but I DO want the police to respond quickly to callouts, safely though.

Nic

 

I think Nic has a point here - as does everyone else.

In the long run - whether its right or wrong - if you walk out in front of anything at all, you're the one who ends up dead - not the vehicle. Im sure its nice to feel morally and legally in the right, but broken bones take longer to repair than dents in vans.....

 

As does the fool who steps out into the road without checking both ways - something about the Green Cross Code Springs to mind here.

 

There is another moral to this story, though, and that applies whether on a car, bike, on foot, whatever.

Always look both ways.

Scott.

 

How many people have had one of those moments when your mind seems to go into slow motion because you cannot register something as it is so out of context that your mind does not respond as you might expect?

Therefore the one in context - ie the driver bears the responsibility if he is driving on the wrong side of the road/pavement/through your garden/in your swimming pool/across the park/etc!

 

Robbie, Nik et al,

Hi guys!

Who is going to foot the bill for the enormous education program required to teach everything and anything that can move to follow the green-cross code? Somehow, I don't think cat's and dogs and cows and sheep and small children (whose irresponsible parents let them) playing beside the street and larger children, who should know better, are all that interested in the stop-look-listen thing!

At the end of the day, you are the one responsible for driving your vehicle and safely negotiating all these hazards and more. It's all about observation, anticipation and appropriate speeds for the circumstances.

If you hit and killed a pedestrian who "just ran out in front of you" and "shouldn't have been there", and should have "seen/heard me coming", would you be able to justify it to yourself, let alone their family? I wouldn't want to find out, just because it was "their fault".

How about the unfortunate souls with stripy white walking sticks, what about them, eh?!

You anticipate and react to cars pulling out in front of you, the same applies for all hazards you meet on the road. If you are travelling in a built up area, London for example, you have to anticipate pedestrians appearing from behind anything that could
conceal a pedestrian.

Sorry, but this is just another case of inappropriate speed for the conditions. Everyone makes mistakes, but when they are made in these circumstances they should not scapegoat the victim for those mistakes.

Did anything ever come of the unroadworthy vehicle alegations? I wonder if they were followed through by the book. Imagine the case of Joe Public who drove an unroadworthy vehicle at inappropriate speed on the wrong side of the road into a pedestrian. His defence case hinges on the fact that the pedestrian should have seen/heard him coming and should not have been in the road anyway! I suspect Joe would do time.

Moray

 

I seem to remember it was the government who used to put out public safety films about such things. What ever the state of the police vehicle I do find it hard to fathom why an an alledged sober as much as she was alledged to be drunk person, can step out into the path of a vehicle that has lights and siren going even if it is on the wrong side of the road.

 

There have been numerous arguments about sirens because they are not directional enough, and it is hard sometimes to judge which direction the noise is coming from, one of the reasons they have been trialling white noise as part of a siren.

I dont remember all the details of the case, but did they have the siren on, what were the road conditions, ie was it a 2 lane road, or a 2/4 lane road with islands in the middle, there was obviously a lot of traffic on the other lane(s) as they used the wrong side of the road, but they claim she was weaving in and out of traffic? if they could see she was weaving in and out of traffic, was not looking their way, and assumed she was drunk, why didnt they adapt the way they were driving to allow for this? If i remember correctly our laws give pedestrians the right of way on the roads, no matter how ridiculous that is, its the way it is.

A quick point i am not anti-police either, but this sort of thing does make me wonder?

 

Moray,

I will always do my best to take account of conditions and drive appropriately, but if someone literally did just "jump out in front of me" and I was unable to stop, I would have no problem in justifying the end result to myself or anyone else for that matter. Adults are supposed to be intelligent and rational. Taking it to extremes, the only safe speed is having a bloke out in front with a red flag.

I know nothing other than what I've read about Sheena M's incident, but If I was run over by police van with lights and sirens blazing I would blame no one but myself, unless I was handicapped in such a manner as to be unable to identify such a hazard (in which case it is arguable that I should not be in the position unsupervised anyway.)

Had she been hit crossing at a pedestrian crossing, or with traffic lights at red to traffic, then I would see the point.

Far too often we (as in the human race) need to blame someone else for our failings and cannot or will not accept responsibility for our actions.

As far as children go, it costs nothing to teach your kids to look both ways and exercise care in the big bad world and if the're not old enough to realise that, then their parents shouldn't let them out unsupervised.

Dogs, cats and other animals, however, are another matter. I doubt all but the most intelligent of cats and dogs realise that they shouldn't walk out in front of a car.

Sorry, and this may cause some consternation here, but in the case of an unavoidable (or as close as you can get without not getting in the car at all) collision, I would have a bigger personal issue in the event that I hit a defenceless animal, than a person who ought to have known better.

Roads are dangerous places period.

I agree that the Courts often favour the police and others, but its a difficult call.

If you and your family had been involved in a serious RTA and were waiting on immediate medical help, how would you feel if you had to wait (with the likely consequences) because the emergency services were stuck in a traffic jam?

D.

(In serious mode for a change)

 

as I said in my ealier post... the points you're all making are right - but is that really the issue? Yes, in the grand scheme of things it is, and yes the police are responsible for knocking her down. No, in the short term 'shes in a coma'and they arent....

I agree with the points you're making Moray, but 'being right' isnt as important as not being dead..... If they hadnt had the blues and twos on then they would have been done for breaking the law (hopefully) as the police are no more allowed to flout traffic laws than the rest of us unless they inform everyone they're doing it..

I wanna blue flashing light!

 

Just a quick revisit to my original point - perhaps inferred rather than explicit - Moray got it...

...if that was me, or any of you in the dock, we would be doing time.

Simple hypochrisy - that's all

Good debate tho'!

 

Ranoch,

you have lost me. Are you complaining that the police have special powers in law, or what?

Nic

 

Nightmare et al,

It seems some of you are arguing that it's basically the fault of the pedestrian who hasn't jumped/run/leapt out of the way of a screaming police car, whichever direction it approaches from.

Suppose someone with a pram, or a wheelchair was crossing the road at the time? The road was clear as far as they can see in the direction traffic comes from. They start crossing (not necessarily at a pedestrian crossing), then the police car appears at high speed from the wrong direction. They couldn't move out of the way fast enough, in fact I can imagine many would freeze in such a situation, not knowing what to do. Would you leg it and watch your charge be mown down? Would you deperately try and push them out of harms way? Would you just get mown down?

As someone else pointed out, pedestrians ultimately have right of way. How many of you give way to pedestrians at junctions and roundabouts? The highway code says we should, but many drivers forget, so common driving practice in the UK seems to ignore this right of way.

From what I recall, blue lights do not give police right of way over other road users, even pedestrians. Of course, if you deliberatly obstruct a police vehicle with it's blues on, they may well choose to prosecute you for obstructing police business.

Simply put, the police were breaking traffic law (speed? lane!), they made a mistake and, as a result, a pedestrian was severely injured. Justice, in this case, does not seem to have been served, IMHO.

Moray

 

Moray,

No one wants to see people hurt, but equally, we do not want to stop the police and emergency services moving quickly to locations where they can do some good.

the poor condition of the vehicle was said not to have contributed to the accident. Who really knows exactly how it happened? No video footage available.

On a lighter note, as a result of poring through the Road Code (for another contraversial thread) I see that traffic is NOT required to stop at a Zebra crossing until a person is actually ON it. The Code recomends placing one foot on the crossing, then waiting to ensure all traffic comes to a halt.

Nic

 

Half way along a long straight, they were the middle vehicle of 3 and suddenly decided it was time to go for it. I am more careful when it is the first opportunity to overtake as you never know who wants to go, but this one took me by surprise.

I think I was overtaking properly - I was on the outside, indicator on and I even used my headlights just to be even more visible !

As has already been said - it's not much of a consolation being in the right if your dead !

 

Moray,

I'm arguing that we should ALL be prepared to accept responsibility for our actions, pedestrians included.

It just annoys me how some people cannot accept that they may be partly to blame for any incident. All this talk of a civil action against the police driver concerned is pathetic. She made the call to step onto the road without paying proper attention.


D

(AFAIK, only pedestrians actually on the road itself have right of way, but I'm happy to be proved wrong)

 

Sounds a bit like the incident I nearly had (again) yesterday. Middle of the day, good weather, overtaking a line of traffic, right indicator on and headlights on and some **** still just indicates right and pulls straight out nearly hitting me.

OK no siren or flashing lights, but I should have been pretty obvious. Who would be at fault ? Probably both of us !

 

Hang on guys they are police men!

 

Don - then I guess we should take their average ability into account and lower our expectations