[arista]

[Boy, 11, is hit by police van 'with its lights
and sirens on' in Lancaster and left in
critical condition: IOPC announces
it will investigate incident

Child crossing Owen Road in Lancaster
at 8.30pm when he was hit by Police van
Lancaster Police has referred itself
to the Independent Office for Police Conduct]



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...condition.html


I assume,
seconds to move out of the way.
Tragic.

[thesheriff443]

Headphones?

[arista]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Headphones?

Yes,
he could have them on.

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by thesheriff443

Headphones?

That was actually my first question too; literally just yesterday I was reminding my daughter to only put in one earbud when she was off out to meet her friends, for this very reason.

[Niamh.]

Poor boy, I hope he recovers

[Liam-]

Notice how there’s always a question to try and justify police actions and blame everybody else for the things they do?

An 11 year old boy has been hit by a police van going high speed and it’s automatically being questioned whether the child is to blame, when will the bootlicking end?

[arista]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Notice how there’s always a question to try and justify police actions and blame everybody else for the things they do?

An 11 year old boy has been hit by a police van going high speed and it’s automatically being questioned whether the child is to blame, when will the bootlicking end?

Slick Liam
it is legit,
to find out if he had headphones?


As the Police had Loud Sirens and Flashing lights
but only for a few seconds
before they hit that lad.


Police are Rushing to a crime
it can happen.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Notice how there’s always a question to try and justify police actions and blame everybody else for the things they do?

An 11 year old boy has been hit by a police van going high speed and it’s automatically being questioned whether the child is to blame, when will the bootlicking end?

It takes two to tangle. There must be a reason a highly visible and audible vehicle wasn't noticed, and earbuds could be it.

[bots]

part of the police training for high speed driving is that they are always in control and safe on the streets. It requires a very specialist set of skills. Clearly this police van was not being driven by someone with that training

[UserSince2005]

maybe the boy had mental difficulties and didnt understand what police sirens were.

[bots]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

It takes two to tangle. There must be a reason a highly visible and audible vehicle wasn't noticed, and earbuds could be it.

Sorry but thats complete rubbish. The person driving at high speed and not in control is entirely to blame.


If i go out and run over someone walking across the road, it's entirely my fault for not being properly in control of my vehicle. The same rules apply to the police

[arista]

Originally Posted by UserSince2005

maybe the boy had mental difficulties and didnt understand what police sirens were.

We will find out
soon

[arista]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

part of the police training for high speed driving is that they are always in control and safe on the streets. It requires a very specialist set of skills. Clearly this police van was not being driven by someone with that training

We have to wait
for the inquiry, first

[bots]

there are plenty deaf and blind people on the streets. It's not up to them to listen for sirens, it's up to the police to be driving their vehicle in such a way that they can stop without killing someone

[Liam-]

Originally Posted by arista

We have to wait
for the inquiry, first

But you’re happy to try and take blame away from the police before the inquiry?

[Quantum Boy]

Originally Posted by Liam-

Notice how there’s always a question to try and justify police actions and blame everybody else for the things they do?

An 11 year old boy has been hit by a police van going high speed and it’s automatically being questioned whether the child is to blame, when will the bootlicking end?

It's not bootlicking, and it's correct that if a vehicle hits a pedestrian then 99% of the time there's been some sort of driver error.

What we come up against here though is the "making excuses" fallacy. Pointing out how to potentially keep people safer isn't about blame or making excuses, it's about being honest about the dangers that exist. This could have been a police van, or a drunk driver, or a speeding inexperienced teenager in their first car ... all would be to blame for an accident ... so does that mean we shouldn't bother pointing out the risks of poor road awareness?

It's similar to the McCann's defense which anyone should clearly see is false -- "Well there shouldn't be predators around who will harm kids, so the parents did nothing wrong leaving them unattended."

It can be both true that it was the van driver's fault, AND that there are other road awareness factors to consider and that would be worth knowing about, not for the purposes of blame, but in order for people to be safer in future.

[arista]

Originally Posted by Liam-

But you’re happy to try and take blame away from the police before the inquiry?

No
there must be a reason
why he did not move back.

[Strictly Jake]

Yeah it's about 5 mins from where I live. Lots of conflicting info going around ATM though. Some saying it might be a traveller. If so you can imagine the carnage of police Vs travellers! It'll be another Cardiff situation

[thesheriff443]

Originally Posted by bitontheslide

Sorry but thats complete rubbish. The person driving at high speed and not in control is entirely to blame.


If i go out and run over someone walking across the road, it's entirely my fault for not being properly in control of my vehicle. The same rules apply to the police

Sorry you are talking crap having hit an 8 year girl years ago that ran into the road to get away from some boys, it was her fault entirely , it was only my reaction to swerve that saved her from serious injury

Police and ambulance attended and witnesses said the girl ran into the road without warning

So no it’s not always the drivers fault and having been driving 30 years I can tell you there have been countless times people have put themselves in danger while I was driving and only my second guessing or awareness has saved them

[Strictly Jake]

As for having earbuds in I drive a van round work and the amount of people just with earphones in staring down at their phone walking not paying attention is ridiculous. It's an electric van so it's silent. Not saying this is what happened here, and obviously the police van had sirens and lights on too

[arista]

[arista]

Originally Posted by StrictlyJake2

Yeah it's about 5 mins from where I live. Lots of conflicting info going around ATM though. Some saying it might be a traveller. If so you can imagine the carnage of police Vs travellers! It'll be another Cardiff situation

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by StrictlyJake2

As for having earbuds in I drive a van round work and the amount of people just with earphones in staring down at their phone walking not paying attention is ridiculous. It's an electric van so it's silent. Not saying this is what happened here, and obviously the police van had sirens and lights on too

Quite a few electric vehicles these days have some sort of "artificial" noise don't they, to warn pedestrians of their presence.

[Quantum Boy]

Yes phones are another issue, should be part of hazard perception test not if they aren't already: if you see someone walking along the side of the road looking down at a phone pay extra-close attention to them because I've had NUMEROUS people (often teens) step onto the road without looking at all. Distracted and on autopilot.

And I drive a diesel SUV, she certainly is not quiet.

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Quite a few electric vehicles these days have some sort of "artificial" noise don't they, to warn pedestrians of their presence.

I read something about them having an artificial high-frequency noice too, above human hearing but so that animals can hear them. Wildlife and domestic cats have adapted to co-exist with traffic (semi) successfully but they do it mainly by sound not sight... silent vehicles aren't ideal.

[Oliver_W]

Originally Posted by Soldier Boy

I read something about them having an artificial high-frequency noice too, above human hearing but so that animals can hear them. Wildlife and domestic cats have adapted to co-exist with traffic (semi) successfully but they do it mainly by sound not sight... silent vehicles aren't ideal.

What I was thinking of was literally a ... Functionless noise, is all I can think to describe it as something which has the sole purpose of making a sound, so the car isn't perfectly silent. Something like a clacker, which makes noise as the vehicle is driven, but doesn't have a function beyond that.
(In the way engine noises tell us a car is coming, but are produced by the engine working)

Maybe it's something I made up in my head but I coulda sworn some electric vehicles have something of the kind.