This one is for "Notawannabee", who recently wrote a comment that included the following statement "False accident reporting... Figment of your imagination, you are trying to make up issues where none exist" and thought I shouldn't be complaining about it.
Consider these facts:
Deputy started U-turn from highway shoulder and hits right side of car passing.
MCSD sergeant investigated the crash (didn't call Illinois State Police).
Sergeant put civilian driver as Unit 1, the at-fault vehicle.
Sergeant put deputy as Unit 2 AND recorded the contributory cause of the accident as "2 Failure to yield right-of-way".
County refused to pay for damage to Unit 1, because it was listed as the (more) at-fault vehicle.
Driver of Unit 1 was not cited.
Deputy was not cited.
Sergeant refused to return civilian's telephone call about correcting the report.
Does the "2" mean Unit 2 (the deputy)?
There is no requirement for a vehicle on a highway to yield the right-of-way to a vehicle on the shoulder waiting to make a U-turn.
In your wildest imagination, can you find any way to think that a civilian who caused an accident and damaged a squad car would not be ticketed? Clearly, the civilian did not cause that crash!
The deputy had a prisoner in the rear seat of the squad car, yet he still had his overheads on. They should have been turned off, once he was ready to roll. You can't use your overheads to transport a prisoner to the jail, and you can't use them to create a break in traffic so that you can make a U-turn.
The false part of the report? The deputy should have been listed as Unit 1, the at-fault vehicle.
In fact, I heard that initially he was Unit 1, but he persuaded the sergeant to switch the order of vehicles in the report. And I heard that several deputies were very unhappy about that decision.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
14 comments:
...
As used in this subsection (c), "authorized emergency vehicle" includes any vehicle authorized by law to be equipped with oscillating, rotating, or flashing lights under Section 12-215 of this Code, while the owner or operator of the vehicle is engaged in his or her official duties.
(d) A person who violates subsection (c) of this Section commits a business offense punishable by a fine of not less than $100 or more than $10,000. It is a factor in aggravation if the person committed the offense while in violation of Section 11-501 of this Code. Imposition of the penalties authorized by this subsection (d) for a violation of subsection (c) of this Section that results in the death of another person does not preclude imposition of appropriate additional civil or criminal penalties.
(e) If a violation of subsection (c) of this Section results in damage to the property of another person, in addition to any other penalty imposed, the person's driving privileges shall be suspended for a fixed period of not less than 90 days and not more than one year.
(f) If a violation of subsection (c) of this Section results in injury to another person, in addition to any other penalty imposed, the person's driving privileges shall be suspended for a fixed period of not less than 180 days and not more than 2 years.
(g) If a violation of subsection (c) of this Section results in the death of another person, in addition to any other penalty imposed, the person's driving privileges shall be suspended for 2 years.
(h) The Secretary of State shall, upon receiving a record of a judgment entered against a person under subsection (c) of this Section:
(1) suspend the person's driving privileges for the
mandatory period; or
(2) extend the period of an existing suspension by
the appropriate mandatory period.
(Source: P.A. 95-884, eff. 1-1-09.)
You also state "They should have been turned off, once he was ready to roll. You can't use your overheads to transport a prisoner to the jail, and you can't use them to create a break in traffic so that you can make a U-turn."
Okay Clarence Darrow, I showed you a statute that moves the blame to the civilian (at least in part), why don't you show us all where the law says that an emergency vehicle cannot use its lights to make a u-turn, create a break in traffic, etc.
Are you sure that it would be violation of Illinois law, or merely Gus's law, if police officer transported a prisoner with red lights on? I'm from Missouri, show me!
Looks like your friend may have gotten a pass is all that occurred here. Ever hear of "Scott's Law" for the firefighter that was killed by some idiot who doesn't know what flashing lights on stationary emergency vehicles means? It's section (c) below. Read on to the penalties, if they'd ticketed the driver he/she could have lost their license as well.
Unit 1, as I recall, is for the vehicle at fault but if they get it in the wrong spot...? So what. Look to the circumstances and the whole story, not just your "I heard this" and "I heard that" unless you were there who cares?
(625 ILCS 5/11-907) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11-907)
Sec. 11-907. Operation of vehicles and streetcars on approach of authorized emergency vehicles.
(a) Upon the immediate approach of an authorized emergency vehicle making use of audible and visual signals meeting the requirements of this Code or a police vehicle properly and lawfully making use of an audible or visual signal,
(1) the driver of every other vehicle shall yield
the right-of-way and shall immediately drive to a position parallel to, and as close as possible to, the right-hand edge or curb of the highway clear of any intersection and shall, if necessary to permit the safe passage of the emergency vehicle, stop and remain in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by a police officer and
(2) the operator of every streetcar shall
immediately stop such car clear of any intersection and keep it in such position until the authorized emergency vehicle has passed, unless otherwise directed by a police officer.
(b) This Section shall not operate to relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons using the highway.
(c) Upon approaching a stationary authorized emergency vehicle, when the authorized emergency vehicle is giving a signal by displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, blue, or red and blue lights or amber or yellow warning lights, a person who drives an approaching vehicle shall:
(1) proceeding with due caution, yield the
right-of-way by making a lane change into a lane not adjacent to that of the authorized emergency vehicle, if possible with due regard to safety and traffic conditions, if on a highway having at least 4 lanes with not less than 2 lanes proceeding in the same direction as the approaching vehicle; or
(2) proceeding with due caution, reduce the speed of
the vehicle, maintaining a safe speed for road conditions, if changing lanes would be impossible or unsafe.
Continued...
Tao, keep reading the statutes. You'll come to the ones that state when an officer CAN use his emergency lights/siren.
Transporting a prisoner is not one of them.
The deputy cried about Scott's Law, but the sergeant didn't fall for that. Even so, the driver of Unit 1 had to have slowed down, or the side impact would have sent her into oncoming traffic or rolled her vehicle.
The "pull to the right and stop if necessary" applies to oncoming emergency vehicles or those approaching from behind.
The deputy "thought" the other driver was going to stop. He thought wrong. If he had waited two seconds, she would have been past. It was just an accident, but the civilian loss was $5,300.
Cite the statute, Gus. You speak so authoritatively, you MUST have one right in front of you. Share it. Don't keep us in suspense.
Your comment "
The "pull to the right and stop if necessary" applies to oncoming emergency vehicles or those approaching from behind." is lame. That's NOT the section I quoted and you know it. I spoke of the section that requires care when the emergency vehicle is stationary and the driver is approaching the car. You keep throwing b.s. in the game, and love it, don't you. Why not quote the statute about vehicle emission testing or cutting across private property to avoid a traffic control device? They have as much relevance.
Gus, the cowboys always hide behind the statutes and their liberal interpretation of an event. A "reasonable person" does not use lights and sirens when transporting a prisoner and just take off making a U-turn into traffic.
You will never, ever get one of these self-righteous "officers" to ever admit fault, Never!
Thanks, Richard. I recall a year or two ago when a sheriff in Wisconsin caught himself passing a stopped school bus, and he wrote himself a $200 ticket! I think I'll ride up and meet him this summer.
And then retired Charleston (S.C.) Police Chief Reuben Goldberg who, when he was a rookie, got into an accident enroute to a call. It was his fault, and he wrote himself a ticket. I hope to meet him this summer.
Well, Toa, I'll give you an A for spelling. You're right; it's Greenberg, not Goldberg.
Now Keith really ought to be worried about what you'll be saying about him after HE retires.
None of your information is new news, Toa, so I think I'll delete it now.
(c) Upon APPROACHING a STATIONARY authorized emergency vehicle, when the authorized emergency vehicle is giving a signal by displaying alternately flashing red, red and white, blue, or red and blue lights or amber or yellow warning lights, a person who drives an approaching vehicle shall:
(1) proceeding with due caution, yield the right-of-way by MAKING A LANE CHANGE INTO A LANE ADJACENT TO THAT OF THE AUTHORIZED EMERGENCY VEHICLE, if possible with due regard to safety and traffic conditions,.......
What part of STATIONARY is unlear here Gus? Nothing about approaching from the front or rear. Scott's Law is specific to this situation. You're wrong but will never admit it.
Nota, the other guy's quote wasn't about Scott's Law; yours is.
In the crash under discussion, if the deputy hadn't pulled out suddenly into the roadway, the civilian's car would have passed safely by.
The deputy pulled out into moving traffic and struck the right SIDE of the civilian's car. The civilian driver slowed to pass by.
If I'm wrong, I admit it. Not so with some deputies.
That is SCOTTS LAW...had the motorist followed the law there would not have been a collision. In stead of rubber necking to see what’s going on, they are required to move over and slow down. NOT slow down and stay in the same lane. Why don’t you look up the legislative history of the law and read the testimony.
I think TOA asked the question of where it forbids using the use of police flashing lights to interrupt traffic to make a U-turn into traffic. It is done all the time GUS. You were not there and only know the he said she said, as I heard it, or as I was told version. Face it Gus, your sources give you baaaad info/.
Also the ISP is seldom available. They were probably doing some critical investigation digging in a dumpster at the Government Center trying to find a phantom dumpster diver. If they come and write report/investigation great , if not, too bad. Who do you think investigates the troopers when they bang up on the Tollway? They investigate themselves. NOTHING in the law or any rule states that police of the same agency can not complete the report. It’s a report Gus. Not brain surgery
Nota, ok, tell us this. When oncoming traffic prevents a driver from moving over, what does she do?
Move over anyway? Cause a head-on wreck?
Or follow the law and slow down and continue in the lane?
You just are unwilling to acknowledge that a deputy did make a mistake. He even says so in his own written report.
"Oncoming traffic prevents a driver from moving over" -- ??? Why would there be oncoming traffic on the shoulder? Or in the adjacent lane heading the same direction?
Having said that, I seldom can hear the sirens of police cars. I don't listen to a loud radio; I just can't hear the particular pitch of the siren. Almost side-swiped a speeding police car because I had no idea he was coming up from behind...
Here was the deal on Route 12 that evening.
It's a two-lane highway. The deputy's squad car was one of several cars on the shoulder, including other squad cars and alleged violators' cars.
As she passed the stopped squad car, the deputy suddenly pulled into the roadway, striking the right side of her vehicle, missing the right front fender and the right front passenger door.
As crashes go, it was relatively minor. The woman driver and her child were injured; the deputy and his prisoner were not injured.
The only reason this is a big deal is the attempt by MCSD to avoid liability.
Post a Comment