Officer Doofy reporting for duty!

[Boat 405]

Ok I’ll detail. It’s not illegal for a cop to do that U turn to chase after someone

 

[4Waters]

Ok I’ll detail. It’s not illegal for a cop to do that U turn to chase after someone

But it has to be done safely and it's obvious it wasn't.

 

[Boat 405]

But it has to be done safely and it's obvious it wasn't.

Yes, you are correct, but when you try to convince that to a judge in the situation. I’m betting the cop will have the upper hand.

 

[WYRD]

Ok I’ll detail. It’s not illegal for a cop to do that U turn to chase after someone

My ass it's not. First thing they teach you in advanced evoc is running code does not give you the right of way, it requests the right of way. Failure to yield the right of way when requested is an infraction but emergency vehicles are still bound by laws.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

You want to apply logic or laws? Some times you can’t get both.

The cop failed to use both which is why this happened in the first place

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Yes, you are correct, but when you try to convince that to a judge in the situation. I’m betting the cop will have the upper hand.

Not with that video he won’t.

 

[OC Mike]

Of course this is only a video but I didn't see the E lights the first time I watched.
Had to rerun several times. Those E lights in the back window are hard to see.
I think the Cop is at fault for making an unsafe manuever.
BTW, I am Pro Cop.
Being in pursuit shouldn't alleviate his responsibility to execute safe manuevers..
Flame away.....

 

[DRYHEAT]

Yes, you are correct, but when you try to convince that to a judge in the situation. I’m betting the cop will have the upper hand.

On the other hand he is the highly trained professional that should be aware of his surroundings and driving defensively at all times. The drivers of the pick up trucks may have been following too close I can’t judge that from the video it didn’t look like it to me.

The highway patrolman locked on and got tunnel vision from what I can see. In 32 years of driving a commercial truck I’ve had four officers do the same fortunately for them I was anticipating it and saved their lives.

Bottom line everyone makes mistakes just glad no one was seriously injured in this.

 

[Boat 405]

Some of you guys are getting panties twisted here. The cop did a dumbfuck move, I’m not arguing that. I’m still saying it could have been largely avoided had both trucks given enough distance to stop. The guy in the raptor is 100% at fault for not leaving enough room. The guy in the rebel didn’t have much to work with but had he given more room he would have been fine.

 

[4Waters]

Yes, you are correct, but when you try to convince that to a judge in the situation. I’m betting the cop will have the upper hand.

IDK, his maneuver wasn't safe. If an emergency vehicle passes on the right coming up to an intersection to turn right and someone at the last minute remembers they need to pull to the right and they collide it's the emergency vehicle's fault. If the emergency vehicle passes on the left opposing traffic at an intersection and turns right across the front of the stopped vehicle's and one of those vehicle's decides to go and t-bones the emergency vehicle it is not the emergency vehicle's fault, one was safe and one was not safe. This officer has higher driver training (EVOC) than the person in the truck an is held to a higher standard.

 

[JD D05]

If that was me I would assume the cop was pulling over and not hit my brakes to stop just like this guy did. Just wouldn't think he was dumb enough to cut back across traffic. Cops fault 100%

 

[Tank]

Not that I agree and not that I think the cop chose the best decision to flip a bitch but...In Ca. the truck that hit the cop is at fault by law under Ca vehicle code. Pretty much common practice if you rear end ANYONE you are in violation of 21703 of the vehicle code. Only contributing factor you could put on the cop is that he went to the right before flipping a bitch 22100 B CVC violation which requires drivers preparing to turn left (which you need to do to complete a u-turn) be to the furthest left portion of the roadway. However, the cop can fall back on 21806 of the vehicle code which requires all vehicles yield the right of way with emergency lights on.

In my opinion, with the little info provided (from someone that worked traffic for over 7 years and investigated literally thousands of traffic collisions including fatals, reconstruction, etc. and as a emergency vehicle operations instructor for 20 years and as someone who has testified in court as a subject matter expert) after looking at the video over and over, working some time/ distance - dude in truck was following way to close. ESPECIALLY for towing.

I only post this as a learning moment for the inmates here. Give ample distance, especially when towing. And if you're under the impression that you wont be at fault if you rear end someone, even when they do something stupid, you'll quickly find out you're sorely wrong when it happens.

Flame away.

 

[CLdrinker]

Funny thing is Boat405 is all about traffic laws and following distance. But has a thread where he admitted that he was busted for speeding.

Hmm...do as he says not as he does folks.

 

[Boat 405]

Funny thing is Boat405 is all about traffic laws and following distance. But has a thread where he admitted that he was busted for speeding.

Hmm...do as he says not as he does folks.

Hey I got caught and paid the ticket. Didn’t complain about it. Didn’t blame it on someone else. Didn’t rear end anyone, didn’t post a video online about it. Manned up and paid the ticket. First ticket in 26 years

 

[CLdrinker]

For the record I completely agree with both sides of this argument.

 

[LargeOrangeFont]

Not that I agree and not that I think the cop chose the best decision to flip a bitch but...In Ca. the truck that hit the cop is at fault by law under Ca vehicle code. Pretty much common practice if you rear end ANYONE you are in violation of 21703 of the vehicle code. Only contributing factor you could put on the cop is that he went to the right before flipping a bitch 22100 B CVC violation which requires drivers preparing to turn left (which you need to do to complete a u-turn) be to the furthest left portion of the roadway. However, the cop can fall back on 21806 of the vehicle code which requires all vehicles yield the right of way with emergency lights on.

In my opinion, with the little info provided (from someone that worked traffic for over 7 years and investigated literally thousands of traffic collisions including fatals, reconstruction, etc. and as a emergency vehicle operations instructor for 20 years and as someone who has testified in court as a subject matter expert) after looking at the video over and over, working some time/ distance - dude in truck was following way to close. ESPECIALLY for towing.

I only post this as a learning moment for the inmates here. Give ample distance, especially when towing. And if you're under the impression that you wont be at fault if you rear end someone, even when they do something stupid, you'll quickly find out you're sorely wrong when it happens.

Flame away.

Well it is UT, so the laws are probably slightly different. He didn’t even hit the back of the cop car, he hit the rear quarter panel meaning the cop car was perpendicular to traffic upon impact. I’m sure that is still considered rear ending someone however.

I dunno man, like with rental boats, I thought safety cards and licenses would remove all accidents from existence.

 

[HubbaHubbaLife]

Not that I agree and not that I think the cop chose the best decision to flip a bitch but...In Ca. the truck that hit the cop is at fault by law under Ca vehicle code. Pretty much common practice if you rear end ANYONE you are in violation of 21703 of the vehicle code. Only contributing factor you could put on the cop is that he went to the right before flipping a bitch 22100 B CVC violation which requires drivers preparing to turn left (which you need to do to complete a u-turn) be to the furthest left portion of the roadway. However, the cop can fall back on 21806 of the vehicle code which requires all vehicles yield the right of way with emergency lights on.

In my opinion, with the little info provided (from someone that worked traffic for over 7 years and investigated literally thousands of traffic collisions including fatals, reconstruction, etc. and as a emergency vehicle operations instructor for 20 years and as someone who has testified in court as a subject matter expert) after looking at the video over and over, working some time/ distance - dude in truck was following way to close. ESPECIALLY for towing.

I only post this as a learning moment for the inmates here. Give ample distance, especially when towing. And if you're under the impression that you wont be at fault if you rear end someone, even when they do something stupid, you'll quickly find out you're sorely wrong when it happens.

Flame away.

Was wondering if you'd participate on this one..... thanks for the expertise. I'll go watch that video again..... so following distance issue is your summation.... especially when towing.... just re watched..... maybe an overly aggressive pit maneuver lol

 

[Tank]

Was wondering if you'd participate on this one..... thanks for the expertise. I'll go watch that video again..... so following distance issue is your summation.... especially when towing.... and especially behind a cop car.

LOL...Pretty much, yes.

When I'm towing I give people in front of me a gang of room. And then you keep getting people cutting in front of you and it's a constant game. But rolling down the road with nearly 20k lbs (truck and boat loaded) I'm thinking the best option is give yourself a lot of room for evasive action. I always say, "always have an out"....Sometime that "out" is just distance.

 

[HCP3]

I am surprised this hasn't turned into a housing market thread yet.

 

[JD D05]

So who here when you see anyone pulling off the side of the road in front of you comes to a complete stop in traffic?

 

[Tank]

Well it is UT, so the laws are probably slightly different. He didn’t even hit the back of the cop car, he hit the rear quarter panel meaning the cop car was perpendicular to traffic upon impact. I’m sure that is still considered rear ending someone however.

I dunno man, like with rental boats, I thought safety cards and licenses would remove all accidents from existence.

You'd think right?

I'm not saying this wont go to court. Pretty much can guarantee that. But I'd put money on the court finding the truck at fault for following too close. You get into perception / reaction time, following distance safety is paramount.

Oh, and for the most part, traffic laws across the country or like 99% the same when it comes to the big stuff like this.

 

[CLdrinker]

Hey I got caught and paid the ticket. Didn’t complain about it.

Well it is UT, so the laws are probably slightly different. He didn’t even hit the back of the cop car, he hit the rear quarter panel meaning the cop car was perpendicular to traffic upon impact. I’m sure that is still considered rear ending someone however.

I dunno man, like with rental boats, I thought safety cards and licenses would remove all accidents from existence.

lol not sure anyone has realized this and it’s a very good point.
Technically he did not rear end the cop.

 

[CLdrinker]

So who here when you see anyone pulling off the side of the road in front of you comes to a complete stop in traffic?

Boat405 does if he isn’t speeding at the time.

Lol sorry had to

 

[DRYHEAT]

LOL...Pretty much, yes.

When I'm towing I give people in front of me a gang of room. And then you keep getting people cutting in front of you and it's a constant game. But rolling down the road with nearly 20k lbs (truck and boat loaded) I'm thinking the best option is give yourself a lot of room for evasive action. I always say, "always have an out"....Sometime that "out" is just distance.

Smith system rule #4. But I think the officer may have broken rule #5. shit happens

 

[CLdrinker]

You honor this officer claimed I was following to close and rear ended him therefore he believes I’m at fault.

But your honor if you look at this picture how could I be following so close that the officer had time to pull of the side of the road and turn in front of me?

I rest my case your honor.

 

[Tank]

So who here when you see anyone pulling off the side of the road in front of you comes to a complete stop in traffic?

I would presume no one. However, if you watch that video over and over, you'll see the driver of the truck really didn't even slow down when the cop hit his lights and began to brake. Coupled with the fact the cop never left the lane of travel. yes, he pulled over to the right but actually never left the roadway. Again, in my opinion, trucks fault. And I'll guarantee the court will decide the same.

And concerning the technicality of rear ending when he hit the quarter panel I'm sure it'll be brought up in court that the driver of the truck drove left of the double yellow prior to striking the patrol car. Whatch the video again.

Another teaching moment - remember to consider steering to the rear when in a situation like this. Instead of reacting and going left, dude couldve gone right and sailed right past.

 

[Tank]

You honor this officer claimed I was following to close and rear ended him therefore he believes I’m at fault.

But your honor if you look at this picture how could I be following so close that the officer had time to pull of the side of the road and turn in front of me?

I rest my case your honor. View attachment 1023247

Because you struck his vehicle.

Wheres the mic drop emoje?

 

[Tank]

And let me just say this for those that want to debate if the driver of the truck was following too close -

What would've happened if the cop slowed to a rapid stop with his lights on (perfectly legal) right in the middle of the road? Do you honestly still think dude in truck would have had enough time to stop?


Of course, these are things that will be brought up in deposition.




But again, we can debate if the cop was "right or wrong" to drive like that all day. I personally would never drive like that (hopefully). It appears to me cop got too fixated on the porsche flying by the other way and went all pointer dog tunnel vision, expecting those around him to be driving carefully. The object is to avoid collisions NO MATTER THE CIRCUMSTANCES. No matter fault. You drive around expecting other people to take care of you, you're gonna crash.

 

[zbudman]

Let's change the scenario a bit. What if the cop did the same thing to avoid hitting something in front of him. Something the other drivers didn't see. Would everyone have the same opinion about the two drivers behind him?

 

[WYRD]

Not that I agree and not that I think the cop chose the best decision to flip a bitch but...In Ca. the truck that hit the cop is at fault by law under Ca vehicle code. Pretty much common practice if you rear end ANYONE you are in violation of 21703 of the vehicle code. Only contributing factor you could put on the cop is that he went to the right before flipping a bitch 22100 B CVC violation which requires drivers preparing to turn left (which you need to do to complete a u-turn) be to the furthest left portion of the roadway. However, the cop can fall back on 21806 of the vehicle code which requires all vehicles yield the right of way with emergency lights on.

In my opinion, with the little info provided (from someone that worked traffic for over 7 years and investigated literally thousands of traffic collisions including fatals, reconstruction, etc. and as a emergency vehicle operations instructor for 20 years and as someone who has testified in court as a subject matter expert) after looking at the video over and over, working some time/ distance - dude in truck was following way to close. ESPECIALLY for towing.

I only post this as a learning moment for the inmates here. Give ample distance, especially when towing. And if you're under the impression that you wont be at fault if you rear end someone, even when they do something stupid, you'll quickly find out you're sorely wrong when it happens.

Flame away.

You are mostly correct except the cop wasn't rear-ended. He pulled out in front of the trucks path and was hit in the side. +1 to the truck for a nice pit maneuver

 

[Tank]

You are mostly correct except the cop wasn't rear-ended. He pulled out in front of the trucks path and was hit in the side. +1 to the truck for a nice pit maneuver

Nice try...Except the cop didn't pull out in front of him. He was in front of him the whole time. Cop never left the roadway. Go watch the video again.

 

[WYRD]

LOL...Pretty much, yes.

When I'm towing I give people in front of me a gang of room. And then you keep getting people cutting in front of you and it's a constant game. But rolling down the road with nearly 20k lbs (truck and boat loaded) I'm thinking the best option is give yourself a lot of room for evasive action. I always say, "always have an out"....Sometime that "out" is just distance.

You're assuming the guy that hit the cop was Towing I never seen evidence of that

 

[530RL]

Not that I agree and not that I think the cop chose the best decision to flip a bitch but...In Ca. the truck that hit the cop is at fault by law under Ca vehicle code. Pretty much common practice if you rear end ANYONE you are in violation of 21703 of the vehicle code. Only contributing factor you could put on the cop is that he went to the right before flipping a bitch 22100 B CVC violation which requires drivers preparing to turn left (which you need to do to complete a u-turn) be to the furthest left portion of the roadway. However, the cop can fall back on 21806 of the vehicle code which requires all vehicles yield the right of way with emergency lights on.

In my opinion, with the little info provided (from someone that worked traffic for over 7 years and investigated literally thousands of traffic collisions including fatals, reconstruction, etc. and as a emergency vehicle operations instructor for 20 years and as someone who has testified in court as a subject matter expert) after looking at the video over and over, working some time/ distance - dude in truck was following way to close. ESPECIALLY for towing.

I only post this as a learning moment for the inmates here. Give ample distance, especially when towing. And if you're under the impression that you wont be at fault if you rear end someone, even when they do something stupid, you'll quickly find out you're sorely wrong when it happens.

Flame away.

Couple questions:

Doesn't 21806 require both the sounding of a siren and at least one red light? And how much time is reasonable for someone to recognize the sounding of the siren and one red light?

Doesn't 22100 B require a left turn to be undertaken from a portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle? The left hand turn appears to be made from a portion of the roadway not lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel, specifically from the shoulder beyond the boundary of the lawful traffic lane marked in white?

Does the officer have a duty of reasonable care under California law?

Couldn't one argue that both sides are correct in here in the sense that it is a shared-fault situation?

 

[Tank]

You're assuming the guy that hit the cop was Towing I never seen evidence of that

There's photos above. But really irrelevant.

 

[WYRD]

There's photos above.

Didn't see those pics only watch the video

 

[WYRD]

Couple questions:

Doesn't 21806 require both the sounding of a siren and at least one red light? And how much time is reasonable for someone to recognize the sounding of the siren and one red light?

Doesn't 22100 B require a left turn to be undertaken from a portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle? The left hand turn appears to be made from a portion of the roadway not lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel, specifically from the shoulder beyond the boundary of the lawful traffic lane marked in white?

Does the officer have a duty of reasonable care under California law?

Couldn't one argue that both sides are correct in here in the sense that it is a shared-fault situation?

BOOM drop that mic here and close the thread

 

[CLdrinker]

Because you struck his vehicle.

Wheres the mic drop emoje?

That tends to happen when your officer drives like a dickhead.

 

[CLdrinker]

Next time a cop gets behind me im
Slamming on the brakes calling Tank and taking my lawsuit to the bank.

Oh wait it’s only ok because a cop did it

 

[Tank]

Couple questions:

Doesn't 21806 require both the sounding of a siren and at least one red light? And how much time is reasonable for someone to recognize the sounding of the siren and one red light?

Doesn't 22100 B require a left turn to be undertaken from a portion of the roadway lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel of the vehicle? The left hand turn appears to be made from a portion of the roadway not lawfully available to traffic moving in the direction of travel, specifically from the shoulder beyond the boundary of the lawful traffic lane marked in white?

Does the officer have a duty of reasonable care under California law?

Couldn't one argue that both sides are correct in here in the sense that it is a shared-fault situation?

Yes, under 21806 lights and sirens have to be activated to exempt an officer legally violating the rules of the road. It's unknown if the officer's siren was on from the information provided. However, his warning lights were on giving notice to those behind him. Again, as I stated above, I could see the officer or attorney for the state bring this into the topic into debate.

22100b does require someone make a left from the left portion of the road. Thus, I said I can see it being cited (in ca and I'm sure Utah has a similar section) an associated factor to the collision report citing this section. However, a turn over the double yellows is not illegal. And by law, the officer still maintained possession of the roadway he was traveling in as he did not leave the lane of travel.

Can we argue both parties have a shared fault here on a thread in RDP? Sure. Will it be argued in court? Most likely. But again, just my opinion based on dealing with this stuff for 25 years...this will come down to the dude in truck at fault for following to close. Maybe cop is held partially responsible for 22100b. Wouldn't matter in Ca. however as dude in truck would be party 1 (at fault).

 

[Tank]

That tends to happen when your officer drives like a dickhead.

Dude, he's not "MY Officer" LOL. I've said over and over I don't think what he did was smart. Don't kill the messenger. I'm only trying to relay some actual factual experience as it seems most on here don't really understand how a situation like this works.

Next time a cop gets behind me im
Slamming on the brakes calling Tank and taking my lawsuit to the bank.

Oh wait it’s only ok because a cop did it

This is literally an insurance scam scenario. They do it all the time. To make matter worse, the driver will cut over (cut off) the car behind them and then lock 'em up.

 

[stingray11]

Bone headed cop move a 100%. Should have turned his emergency lights on way before that maneuver. Never signaled his intentions And probably never even looked in the mirror. Truck hit the cop on the side not the back cop is at fault.
It's kind of like a cop running up behind you just before impact turn the Emergency lights on and saying it's your fault. You didn't get out of my way

Sent from my SM-G970U1 using Tapatalk

 

[GRADS]

Under section id10T of RDP law, the cop is at fault.

 

[JD D05]

I would presume no one. However, if you watch that video over and over, you'll see the driver of the truck really didn't even slow down when the cop hit his lights and began to brake. Coupled with the fact the cop never left the lane of travel. yes, he pulled over to the right but actually never left the roadway. Again, in my opinion, trucks fault. And I'll guarantee the court will decide the same.

And concerning the technicality of rear ending when he hit the quarter panel I'm sure it'll be brought up in court that the driver of the truck drove left of the double yellow prior to striking the patrol car. Whatch the video again.

Another teaching moment - remember to consider steering to the rear when in a situation like this. Instead of reacting and going left, dude couldve gone right and sailed right past.

I personally think the guy had time to stop if he committed to it and knew he needed to, but it appears it would have taken a quick reaction. I know that road well and was on it 2 weeks ago, some people haul absolute ass and it can make it very dangerous. I almost got in a bad wreck due to a guy hauling ass 2 weeks ago.

I was towing the Nordic so 40 feet of shit and came up on a farmer towing hay with a tractor at 5 mph. I am a very defensive driver and tow my boat like I don't have trailer brakes from a space standpoint, which I have done when they went out. I decided to pass the farmer at the tail end of the passing zone and this decision has really upset me since it happened because it is so out of my norm. I know I had enough space but once I got along the side a car comes and it is hauling ass. I instantly make the decision to punch it ( cars stacked up right on my tail don't think I could have tucked back in) not sure if that was right or wrong honestly, I hugged the farmer who completely disappeared in a cloud and watched my side mirror until I felt I was clear of him and whipped back into my lane. I NEVER fuck up like this until I did and it will never stop bugging me.

I was lucky I was in manual mode with my trans because I was able to hold my gear and build RPM's fast.

 

[Terminal Velocity]

ummm, aren't you supposed to use the blinker if you're turning?

 

[kurtis500]

Cop never left the roadway and that is a no passing zone. Car behind did not give themself sufficient space to stop. Truck and trailer didn’t either. This won’t even get disputed by insurance.

Cop should have known better than to create a situation that could have caused this. He’s the professional driver.

 

[Willie B]

…Don’t know how Utah works… but a court may find partial fault with all three drivers as to what percentages who knows ???…Common sense would say the cop was the majority at fault but as we know common sense is not how the law always works..,

 

[C-Ya]

I just showed the video to my wife the lawyer........ she would ask for a jury trial, and let the video do the talking. The video speaks for itself. The cop screwed up. It’s that simple.

It also might surprise you guys to know my wife had a case like this more than 20 years ago in Arizona. However, the difference is, when The Arizona DPS officer flipped his U-turn....... He killed an entire family in a Suzuki Samurai.

In my opinion, this stopped being a rear end collision when the officer pulled his car off to the right. Any ordinary driver would believe that is where he was heading. Also, there might be lights on, but with out adequate notice.

I find it hard to believe that a person could watch the video and not come to the conclusion the officer was at fault? It so crystal clear!

 

[DLC]

Watching the video …

second -1
cop hit brakes start to swerve to rt bike lane. Porsche is in the the pic still

second - 2
hits lights is actually in bike lane

second - 3
slows & starts to turn left

second - 4
turns left blocking road

second - 5
impact side rear fender

 

[DLC]

The cop made 2 maneuvers

the right and then left besides slowing

the roadway way is clear you can see way down the road Accross all 3 lanes

 

[grumpy88]

I dont understand how this is even debatable . The cop made a stupid move with the intent to write a cell phone ticket or something ! He put the public at risk and luckily its only body damage to vehicles .