Red Light Camera Shows Van Hit Police Cruiser
- Thread starter HPD84
- Start date
Video 1: officer clearly stopped. IMO, law suit dismissed, counter sued for a frivolous suit, court/ lawyer fees, and the cost of the police car.
Video 2: good on the officer for fighting back. And I def approve of the $500k bond, too bad it couldn't be a no bond.
Video 2: good on the officer for fighting back. And I def approve of the $500k bond, too bad it couldn't be a no bond.
The officer clearly stopped, twice from what I see to avoid the first two cars. Then there was sufficient 360 coverage on the lightbar for the woman to have seen the police car in the intersection. This is an open and shut case, the woman was at fault and the video does not lie from the traffic camera. Got to wonder if they filed the suit before they knew there was video?
K9Vic said:
+1
WOW! people suing when there is video evidence that the police officer CLEARLY stopped, and she had time and yet failed to YIELD to him.
I can't believe the gull of some of you posters....
We are to respond with due regard to the public, we need to clear an intersection before traveling thru it. This officer clearly didn't do that at a red light. I think it is bad judgement on the officer's part.
We are to respond with due regard to the public, we need to clear an intersection before traveling thru it. This officer clearly didn't do that at a red light. I think it is bad judgement on the officer's part.
Well, from MY perspective, knowing the laws in the state of Maryland, the officer is at fault. When responding code 3, I do not have to stop at a red light, there is no law that says I must. However, I must operate my vehicle with due regard. I believe that the officer showed due regard prior to entering the intersection, but then continued through without ensuring that the intersection was still clear. While there is no question in my mind that the driver of the van should have seen the cop car, it is obvious that she didn't see it. When I approach an intersection, if any vehicle is capable of reaching me before I clear the intersection, I wait for them to slow down and acknowledge me before pulling in front of them. I believe it is worth taking the extra 5 seconds per intersection to increase the changes of getting their safely.
And before I get flamed.... this is based upon the training and laws in the state of Maryland, where I operate a police vehicle. I have no idea what the laws are in Florida.
The officer showed due regard when he came to a full stop at the intersection. most police officers ive seen dont, the more prefer the "punch it and pray method" but keep in mind what we cant see is what the traffic is like in the lanes where the van came from. was traffic backed up in the turn lane and so the officer couldnt see the van coming straight? did the van whip around the stopped traffic on the shoulder because he couldnt see why everyone else was stopped? was the van just going way too fast and the officer thought he could make it based on what speed the van should be going? we dont know what other factors played into the crash.
My $0.02 is this:
Did the officer show due regard before entering the intersection? YES
Did the van fail to yield to an emergecny vehicle? YES
Who is at fault? Not my call, but keep this video in mind next time your running code.
My $0.02 is this:
Did the officer show due regard before entering the intersection? YES
Did the van fail to yield to an emergecny vehicle? YES
Who is at fault? Not my call, but keep this video in mind next time your running code.
ALso giving time here is the vans speed, what is the posted speed in that area?, and how fast do you have to go to turn a car 180 degrees and shove it into the next lane and continue another 100 yards?
Countersue the lawyer for slander. He basically called the officer a liar trying to tarnish his good name and character despite the video evidence. As far as the accident goes, it's hard to tell at that angle if there was something that may have blocked her view, i.e. a vehicle stopped in the left or center lane. If there was a vehicle in that turning lane waiting to make a left turn, it probably blocked not only her view, but the officer's view as well.
Well...if you watch the video...he never came to a complete stop. Yes he slowed down, but never came to a complete stop. If I come up on a red light I come to a COMPLETE stop and make sure EVERYBODY is at a complete stop for me to continue trough. Maybe if he would have totally stopped, since it didn't seem like other cars were noticing him either, maybe he would have seen the van coming. Just my two cents.
Dan
Dan
It looks to me like he did fully stop. It may not have been for long, but it was still a stop. I don't know how Florida law reads, but in Georgia, a stop is considered a complete halt, taking into account that a vehicle may appear to be continuing forward due to momentum. We look at the tires and if they stop their movement, even for a brief period, the vehicle has legally stopped.
Don't pass on the right and if you do, make sure 100% all traffic is stopped. Van should have stopped and yielded to the cop. I would counter sue for court costs and slander.
This is exactly my response as well. CA law doesn't require us to stop before entering, but it does require us to exercise due caution. He did a good job before entering. But it all came apart at some point.mcpd2025 said:
Looked fine to me, you can still run with due regard without having to come to a full and complete stop - if every stop sign and red light required a full stop we'd never get anywhere.
Counter-suits are essentially impossible, nor does suing someone equate to slander. No government agency is going to screw around filing suit, even if they had the standing to do so, and if he was operating within the scope of his duties and within policy and procedure, the agency will make the decision and not the officer, assuming the court doesn't dismiss the case outright on some immunity issue. If the suit was in federal court there may be the ability to recover costs, but that also presumes that the other person could actually gag up the settlement.
Instead of arguing over whether he was right or wrong, which is what the civil jury will do, we should start a pool on the inevitable settlement - I'll say 5K and a release from any further claims, cause it looks like the crappy typical nuisance lawsuit, but it will still cost more than that for the agency to defend. Her lawyer will take 3 out of it, leaving her with 2.
Counter-suits are essentially impossible, nor does suing someone equate to slander. No government agency is going to screw around filing suit, even if they had the standing to do so, and if he was operating within the scope of his duties and within policy and procedure, the agency will make the decision and not the officer, assuming the court doesn't dismiss the case outright on some immunity issue. If the suit was in federal court there may be the ability to recover costs, but that also presumes that the other person could actually gag up the settlement.
Instead of arguing over whether he was right or wrong, which is what the civil jury will do, we should start a pool on the inevitable settlement - I'll say 5K and a release from any further claims, cause it looks like the crappy typical nuisance lawsuit, but it will still cost more than that for the agency to defend. Her lawyer will take 3 out of it, leaving her with 2.
Let me edit my original post about video 2. For some reason, the first time I watched it, it was an officer involved fight where the officer had facial bones broken.
OK, I was very going to reply to this topic and do a standard "Well if this happened then this and that and that." But, since I was... bored... I decided to do some research.
I watched the video a few times and I just was not comfortable with it. I didn't know enough and that bothered me. So I went to Google Maps and looked up the intersection.
This is the best I could get it through Google maps. Part of the reason why I am not going to say one way or the other on fault. Next image will be the image from what the van would have seen driving.
This next image is kinda weird. This is the only angle I was able to capture that would resemble the cops point of view.
And last, I took a photo off the video that the news put out and I believe this van was the last thing the officer saw before he decided to accelerate through the intersection.
OK, so since everyone has an opinion, this is mine and with all the things I have seen now;
The cop pulled up to the intersection and slowed at first knowing he couldn't proceed so eventually came to a stop for a VERY short period of time. I think the cop focused on the van in the last picture and once they passed decided to continue. That same van would have been blocking the other van initially from seeing the cop IMHO along with the other cars going that direction.
Who is at fault? I don't know and it isn't my choice. I don't know what the law is in Florida but all I can say is in Ohio, we have to make sure everyone see's us and we see them. I personally don't go through an intersection (now, after having my own close call) without everyone looking at me. So enjoy the research and you can do with it as you will.
I watched the video a few times and I just was not comfortable with it. I didn't know enough and that bothered me. So I went to Google Maps and looked up the intersection.
This is the best I could get it through Google maps. Part of the reason why I am not going to say one way or the other on fault. Next image will be the image from what the van would have seen driving.
This next image is kinda weird. This is the only angle I was able to capture that would resemble the cops point of view.
And last, I took a photo off the video that the news put out and I believe this van was the last thing the officer saw before he decided to accelerate through the intersection.
OK, so since everyone has an opinion, this is mine and with all the things I have seen now;
The cop pulled up to the intersection and slowed at first knowing he couldn't proceed so eventually came to a stop for a VERY short period of time. I think the cop focused on the van in the last picture and once they passed decided to continue. That same van would have been blocking the other van initially from seeing the cop IMHO along with the other cars going that direction.
Who is at fault? I don't know and it isn't my choice. I don't know what the law is in Florida but all I can say is in Ohio, we have to make sure everyone see's us and we see them. I personally don't go through an intersection (now, after having my own close call) without everyone looking at me. So enjoy the research and you can do with it as you will.
Very good research. Seems like something that would be shown at the trial.
Off topic: this is one of the reasons I like ELB so much. People don't just say something and then flame someone who doesn't '+1' them. People here either know what they are talking about or research it before making an educated guess. I hate some of the other sites where it's 'I'm right because I'm me, you're wrong because you're not'.
Off topic: this is one of the reasons I like ELB so much. People don't just say something and then flame someone who doesn't '+1' them. People here either know what they are talking about or research it before making an educated guess. I hate some of the other sites where it's 'I'm right because I'm me, you're wrong because you're not'.
My verdict: Cop not at fault. If the siren was on, then even if the van's driver couldn't see the cop she should have been able to hear him, and I don't know about you but I try to slow down when I hear a siren at an intersection and don't see an emergency vehicle, for precisely this reason.
Haven't watched video 2 yet, however, all I know is that video 1 is about "booty enhancing underwear" :lol: :lol: :lol:
Let me pose it to you this way.... When emergency equipment is activated, it allows an EV to disregard certain motoring laws, such as speed, travel lanes, turns at intersections,..... and stop sign/red lights. So, it's irrelevant whether he stopped or not. The issue, then, as already mentioned, is "due regard." IMO, he stopped/paused not once, but twice... so, I think he filled the 'due regard' aspect. He didn't blow the light at 40 mph or anything. :? :roll: The van, OTH, obviously didn't slow at all, or very little, and was likely oblivious to his presence at the intersection, like much of the motoring public. The van is at fault.
It is a mutual fault accident. The LEO is still faulted for running a red light. In Texas, an emergency vehicle can go through red lights, but must still use extreme caution, and make sure it is safe to go through. It is common training to make sure you make eye contact with each driver, or make sure each vehicle has stopped. The van driver might be charged with failure to yeild, but that can be argued. The state has to prove that the driver heard the siren, and that she saw the lights. LED in the day time can be difficult to see. Most drivers do not pay attention to intersections if they have a green or yellow light, and it is a resonable assumption that had she approached the intersection with caution (like the hand book says to do), looking at cross traffic even though they have a green light, the driver would have noticed the squad car, and been able to slow down. A strong fact, on video, for the driver of the van is that other vehicles in cross traffic, did not yeild, and might not have seen or heard the squad car.
Had it been in Dallas PD, the officer would get 3 points for a preventable accident, and likley loose driving status for a year. Simply becasue he had the red light.
Intersections are dangerous.
Had it been in Dallas PD, the officer would get 3 points for a preventable accident, and likley loose driving status for a year. Simply becasue he had the red light.
Intersections are dangerous.
He didn't run the red light.... he paused twice, then went.... again, not like he blew it at 40mph. He was at or close to the intersection for at least 6 seconds before impact according to the video. If that was 'running' a red light, then every single person that drives an EV code 3 is guilty of the same violation, as I've heard plenty of times that drivers will slow as they approach the light, but don't stop completely. There isn't a requirement that they stop completely, as the law grants them the ability to ignore certain traffic rules when responding. So, how can he be guilty of something the law tells him he can ignore, of course, when driving with 'due regard', which I believe he fulfilled?
I'll say too, that was more of a stop that a lot of people I see here that turn right at a stop sign or red light.
Shit happens, he happend not to have seen the van... maybe? But, the driver of the van needs to be aware of road hazards or other sudden events that happen, like kids running into the street. Again, the squad was at or near the intersection for at least 6 seconds, not to mention the auditory indicators possibly heards a couple seconds earlier. Not sure if this is accurate, but general reaction time of humans, as quoted by this article, is 1.5 seconds.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html
If that's the case, lady had about 4-5 seconds to do something. Judging by her speed at which she hit the car, she didn't do anything, or at least not until the last second.
I reaffirm my previous statement, van driver is at fault.
I'll say too, that was more of a stop that a lot of people I see here that turn right at a stop sign or red light.
Shit happens, he happend not to have seen the van... maybe? But, the driver of the van needs to be aware of road hazards or other sudden events that happen, like kids running into the street. Again, the squad was at or near the intersection for at least 6 seconds, not to mention the auditory indicators possibly heards a couple seconds earlier. Not sure if this is accurate, but general reaction time of humans, as quoted by this article, is 1.5 seconds.
http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html
If that's the case, lady had about 4-5 seconds to do something. Judging by her speed at which she hit the car, she didn't do anything, or at least not until the last second.
I reaffirm my previous statement, van driver is at fault.
Ryan, based upon what little I know, I agree with everything you said except the determination of fault. The officer did show due regard when approaching the intersection, the officer was stopped for a LONG tme displaying emergency equipment, the officer proceeded with caution.
What none of us know is if the van went around a stopped or slowing vehicle, or if there is any other legitimate reason why the officer could not have reasonably seen the van. Any of those reasons would relieve the officer of his obligation.
However, if the officer simply failed to see the van, or assumed that the van driver saw him, then IN MY OPINION I do not feel as though the officer met his obligation to operate the vehicle with due regard. The fact that the officer did everything else right doesn't make up for the general stupidity of the public.
What none of us know is if the van went around a stopped or slowing vehicle, or if there is any other legitimate reason why the officer could not have reasonably seen the van. Any of those reasons would relieve the officer of his obligation.
However, if the officer simply failed to see the van, or assumed that the van driver saw him, then IN MY OPINION I do not feel as though the officer met his obligation to operate the vehicle with due regard. The fact that the officer did everything else right doesn't make up for the general stupidity of the public.
Oh absolutely. There is no doubt that the lady has a large amount of blame in the wreck... but I still feel the legal liability is on the officer(technically the department) for not yielding to the the van. Its not against the law to drive with your head up your ass. If it was.... I'd write a LOT more tickets =)!
everyone makes a big deal on that we have sirens but you have to realize they do not work that well . i do this with all my probies tell them next time you here a siren roll up your windows put on the a/c and turn the music on regular not blaring and now tell me when you hear the siren....... Big difference . Now just for kicks maybe the van had a crying kid in the back :?: :?: officer did stop but obviously did not clear the intersection . Also how long is the light and what is the sped limit ?? if it is a 40 mph zone the vehicle on left could have been blocking the view of the officers lights???
Obviously we don't have all the details, however, I won't go through a red light until I make eye contact with the vehicles around me, and see that all lanes are stopped, even if that means sitting there for 10-15 second with the sirens blaring. I never, ever trust anyone in an intersection.
The woman may not have heard as much from the siren as we would like to think, since she was perpendicular to the police car. Head on, they are great. From the side, when you're doing 40+mph, it's a lot harder to see.
Is there fault on both parties, most likely. Should she be suing, absolutely not.
The woman may not have heard as much from the siren as we would like to think, since she was perpendicular to the police car. Head on, they are great. From the side, when you're doing 40+mph, it's a lot harder to see.
Is there fault on both parties, most likely. Should she be suing, absolutely not.
re: suing i know in new jersey if you are injured in an mva in order to have the other parties ins pay for it you have to sue them . My wife was hit by someone coming out of a side street so it was the other parties fault. In order for the doctors bill to be covered by the other party she would have to sue them.fp13-2 said: