- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Metropolitan Police.jpgWife of cyclist severely disabled by Met police car answering 999 call sues police force - who say they weren't at fault
A cyclist who was left with permanent disabilities from severe head injuries he sustained when hit by a police car answering a 999 call in London is suing the Metropolitan Police for more than £1m.
The former Guardian journalist, Donald MacLeod, spent six weeks in a coma after being hit in Islington by a police car on its way to investigate a shooting in May 2010. He is still unable to communicate with those around him.
Now his wife Barbara is flighting a High Court legal battle to make the Met take responsibility for his injuries.
The police force argues that Mr MacLeod himself cycled into the path of the police car.
His barrister, Angus Withington told the High Court that Mr MacLeod had been working at The Guardian’s offices in Farringdon Road and went for a drink at a wine bar before setting off to cycle back to his then-home in Scholars Place, Stoke Newington, North London.
The police car, responding to reports of a shooting on the Wilton Estate in Hackney, was also travelling along Southgate Road with its lights flashing and sirens blaring, he said.
“It is Mr MacLeod’s case that he was proceeding in a northerly direction on Southgate Road, in advance of the police car, and he was struck from the rear and the right,” he said, according to Chronicle Live.
“It is said on his behalf that the driver of the police car simply failed to identify his presence in the road and that that was the cause of the collision.”
David Waters, representing the Met, argued that the collision had happened differently, saying that Mr MacLeod cycled out of Northgate Road or straight from the pavement into the police car’s path at the junction with Southgate Road.
Barbara MacLeod told the court: “He was absolutely safety-conscious and I clearly remember him one night taking the bus because he had forgotten his lights.”
Mr MacLeod’s sister Janet told the paper his survival had been miraculous.
She said: “They thought he would be completely brain damaged but he’s re-learning how to do things despite the fact he’s still incredibly disabled.
“His understanding of things has improved and, although he can’t communicate with us, he understands conversation and he laughs at us. He’s made amazing strides over just a few years.
“I think that’s largely because of the amazing love and care of my sister-in-law and the support of his family and friends.”
The case is expected to conclude in the coming week.
In the year of Mr MacLeod’s collision, we reported how an average of 12 road traffic collisioner per day took place involving vehicles belonging to the Metropolitan Police.
Metropolitan Police drivers responded to 2 million 999 calls in 2009/10 and covered 73 million miles in their vehicles during the year.
Scaled up, that would equate to a fatality rate of 137 per 1 billion miles driven, compared to a national killed & seriously injured rate, according to Department for Transport Statistics, of 85 in 2009.
In all, there were 3,015 people injured as a result of accidents involving a police car during the three-year period covered by the figures, which were released in response to a Freedom of Information request. Of those, 247 were pedestrians and 135 cyclists.
Latest Comments
- chrisonabike 14 sec ago
When I first heard, I immediately thought that Chris Morris was back for a reprise of The Day Today!
- Hirsute 25 min 12 sec ago
Ex black cab https://twitter.com/KingArtAT/status/1783296299787309088
- brooksby 36 min 33 sec ago
Wait until you hear about HS2
- EK Spinner 41 min 47 sec ago
It isn't about policing the roads, it is about reducing the likely hood of a dangerous overtake, in this case the taxi driver choose not to expose...
- bensynnock 1 hour 21 min ago
Quite. I was wondering where the cycling infrastructure is located that causes drivers to go 90 on the M3?
- I love my bike 1 hour 50 min ago
If one is prepared to pay £28 for a TPU tube, the butyl comparison should be Continental's Supersonic ~50g or Schwalbe at 70g. Both costing £8 - ...
- I love my bike 2 hours 1 min ago
Media needs to do their part, but the readr/consumer also needs to do theirs as well:...
- ubercurmudgeon 2 hours 38 min ago
Kona makes practical, affordable commuter bikes and goes bust. Colnago makes toys for the affluent and it is booming. Just goes to show that the...
- Mathemagician 4 hours 5 sec ago
To answer your question, yes you can sometimes feel the difference. Built a set of wheels for a friend and he installed them with new lightweight...
Add new comment
47 comments
It is interesting that the contract conditions for providing a bus service for TfL London Buses now mean that every London bus has 8 external cameras, and a set of internal cameras, recording continuously. The 100% coverage came steadily as each bus route contract came up for its 5-yearly renewal, in much the same way that it has been a legal requirement to buy only low floor buses since 1999, with the aim of having a fully low floor UK bus parc by 2020.
A simple policy decision to specify dashcams, vehicle monitoring systems etc for vehicles offered to the Police on their lease contracts, would presumably get the suppliers making sure they offered the best package with all the required features, in order to win the contracts. Fitting data recorders, and other technology might also reduce the damage to the cars, and thus enhance their value at the end of the lease period, so it would have the incentive of being in everyone's interest
Blues & two's don't convey right of way, but Police officers do have certain driving exemptions, when it comes to observing speed limits, keep left/right signs and traffic lights, which are, I would suggest 'normal rules of the road'.
Just Saying
It's not just the cost of the vehicle and equipment that needs to be considered, it's the cost of the occupants as well. Two police officers, paid an average of say £30K (http://www.metpolicecareers.co.uk/newconstable/pay_and_benefits.html) add in perks, errs NI, pension etc we're looking at £40K per occupant - i.e. £80k per year. The cost of the car is neither here nor there, fit a GoPro and be done with it! One of the reasons behind public mistrust of the police is the proliferation of CCTV (pleb gate + channel 4 news), phone cameras (Ian Tomlinson) and YouTube. It's very easy to come to the conclusion that fitting cameras would not altogether be in the interests of the police - someone needs to remind them who they work for!
I live in a town centre and we don't call the police any more for anything, they simply don't turn up or if they do it's on a Sunday afternoon - must be double bubble. We certainly don't report bike thefts, or the army of police cars that drive through the no entry sign at the bottom of the street as it's the quickest way back to the station. Who's gonna police the police ? We the public are, fit cameras.
OK, that may or may not be true, but think about it from the POV of the statements of the defense - this guy was hit after having some drinks by an emergency vehicle WITH LIGHTS AND SIRENS ON.
Maybe the rules are different in the UK, but in Canada, the rules are that you need to PULL OVER AND STOP within 150m FORE AND AFT of an emergency vehicle with sirens active.
This guy did not, he kept on riding.
And you believe that he was dumb/drunk enough to keep riding while an emergency vehicle was in close proximity with lights and sirens on and wasn't having problems staying in a straight line?
You clearly haven't observed many people riding while drunk.
Regardless of whether you're on a bike, motorcycle or car, if you hear sirens, pull the fuck over.
err - we work for the Govt, next daft question please. .
Problem is the same as politicians, there are people who do the job because they want to help the community, there are those who do the job because they are on a power trip.
How you remind ALL Police that we pay their wages, that they are responsible to the general public. I guess that is the hard bit.
You being a victim-blaming bastard much?
UK guidelines is that you pull over when safe to do so. Here's the guideline from the Highway Code:
219
Emergency and Incident Support vehicles. You should look and listen for ambulances, fire engines, police, doctors or other emergency vehicles using flashing blue, red or green lights and sirens or flashing headlights, or Highways Agency Traffic Officer and Incident Support vehicles using flashing amber lights. When one approaches do not panic. Consider the route of such a vehicle and take appropriate action to let it pass, while complying with all traffic signs. If necessary, pull to the side of the road and stop, but try to avoid stopping before the brow of a hill, a bend or narrow section of road. Do not endanger yourself, other road users or pedestrians and avoid mounting the kerb. Do not brake harshly on approach to a junction or roundabout, as a following vehicle may not have the same view as you.
We do not know the road conditions at the time of the incident. There may have been parked cars at the time meaning that Mr MacLeod was unable to pull over safely. It is also highly unlikely that he has pulled out in front of an emergency vehicle.
Of course the driver concerned is going to say the cyclist pulled out in front of him (it makes not one iota if it was a police driver or not). All they are doing is trying to put the blame on the victim and escape the fact that were not paying attention to what was in front of them. Emergency vehicle drivers have a huge responsibility on them to be aware of their surroundings when on a call they also cannot "assume" that if a motoristcyclist pulls over to the side that it is safe to progress. They also cannot force another road user to make a dangerous manoeuvre.
I also find your assumption that Mr MacLeod was drunk highly insulting to him and his family. We have no idea as to how much drink was consumed or even if it was alcohol.
I'm surprised! The Met vehicles have various computer widgetry and such, which I'm sure is quite costly.
Must differ a lot by force, but I'm glad to hear there's no cost where none's needed.
Very true mate, put the money where its needed cos at the mo there isn't a lot being given to us by the govt.
I'm sorry but jumping to conclusions such as this helps no one, he may have been in the wrong, he may not but by blaming him straight, just like others who immediately blamed the Police is wrong on so many levels.
Let the case be dealt with and after that read the judgement and then make complaints if your not happy.
Exactly, and the elected government enacts the legislation (laws) which are discussed and voted for by the public. Therefore, in common with all public servants you work for the public!
Not being picky but when does the public vote on legislation ???????
No doubt you will go round in circles by saying the public vote for mp's and then they vote on laws so ultimatley the public vote
And if you believe that the mp's actually listen to you then well................
Well actually it's called an election. That is the way it works and there is nothing circular about it at all. You need to get involved and write to your MP on matters that you consider important.
As there is not enough room for everyone in the house of commons, MPs vote on behalf of their constituents (the public) in the house every day. Constituents lobby their MP to try and influence them to vote in line with their wishes, if they don't then they lose public support and possibly their seat in the commons at the next election. It's called democracy.
You can check all the legislation that is passed into law by a majority vote in the house of commons by the publics representatives (MPs) right here at legislation.gov.uk.
For example the road traffic act ...
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/all?title=Road%20Traffic%20Act
I have written to my MP about issues I consider important - for example, I once asked why lights aren't included with all new bikes sold. The answer that came back from the then Minister for Transport (his dept) was actually wrong as it said they were. I wrote back etc etc - that is how it works.
I suppose you have a better idea, would that be a police state ????
This is getting away completely from the original story but i'll give it one more go......
Elections are fought, won and lost on what the parties believe the public want to hear. When they win they bring in legislation they want and the vast majority of the time it has nothing to do with their election manifesto.
By all means lobby your mp and he / she may succeed in getting a very small amount of time to discuss a private members bill but if the general consensus is that its not suitable it wont get that far and if it does it will generally run out of time never mind getting through the house of lords.
The most your looking at is a question at pm's questions in which you will get a stock answer from a pm who will have been notified of the question a few days earlier and will have a prepared answer.
So if you still think the public decide on policy and legislation thats your prerogative.
The police aren't there to protect and serve society like we are told, they are simply there for social control and protection of property. We don't live in a democracy.
Pages