Sometimes the police get it wrong

This post details two different car accidents in which I was unfortunate enough to be involved. What they have in common is that the police account of what happened didn’t align with reality, even though there was plenty of evidence to accurately recreate the events.

Accident 1: four car pileup at a highway traffic light

I was driving the second car from the light. The first car was stopped. My car was stopped. Car 3 struck me from behind into Car 1, Car 4 struck the back of Car 3. The question is, did the the driver of Car 3 cause the accident or did the driver of Car 4?

I told the police exactly what I would later tell the insurance company, but didn’t dig too deep once I knew my vehicle was being repaired, my insurance premium wasn’t going up, and I wasn’t being held responsible. When an insurance company of one of the other drivers called me to ask for a statement, I told them what I thought was obvious.

Me: the vehicle behind me barely slowed down as she approached, even though I had been stopped at a red light for quite a while, She couldn’t have been looking - might have been checking her phone or something. Anyway, she hit me hard enough that I smashed into the car in front of me. The car behind her didn’t stop in time because the driver never saw break lights until it was way too late.

Insurance: The police report says that Car 4 caused the accident.

Me: I told them the same thing I’m telling you. If you’re just going to go by the police report, and they didn’t think what I told them was important enough to mention, why do you need my statement? (note: I know they were looking to corroborate the police report, but their tone implied they either didn’t believe me or didn’t want to, so I was annoyed.)

Insurance: Well what makes you think your account is more accurate?

Me: I saw in my rearview mirror she was coming up on me way too fast. I braced for impact before it happened. I didn’t even see car 4 at this point. I heard three impacts in this order: behind me, in front of me, then further behind me. Car 4 hit Car 3 after she had already hit me. Also look at the damage. The back end of my car and front end of car 3 got it the worst.

Insurance: Ok thank you.

I never heard from them again. My guess is they represented the Driver of Car 3 and wanted me as far away from the case as possible. No one else contacted me for a statement.

So how did they get it wrong?

In a multi-car pileup, it’s just easy to pin it on the rearmost vehicle. To be fair, I think Car 4 was at least partly responsible for its collision with Car 3. If they had left more stopping distance, that impact could have been avoided. But the idea that they were the primary cause of all the damage places more value on the rule of thumb than on the evidence and clear witness testimony. It happened in a municipality where there were, frankly, not enough police based on the population and area. It might be tempting to label it lazy police work, but I think there was probably a department directive to pin a property-damage-only collision on the car in the back and move on. It’s not really any better than to be wrong by design instead of failing in the course of carrying out a duty, but I think it’s important to understand that not all investigative shortcomings are the fault of the person doing the investigating. This is a valuable thing to understand if you find yourself charged with a violation where the police’s version of the facts is inconsistent with reality. Whereas the police may have instructions to wrap up the matter quickly, you have every incentive to spend the time needed to make sure the facts are presented accurately and favorably.

Accident 2: a last minute swerve and rolling SUV

This time I was in the passenger seat - you know, the really dangerous one when the car doesn’t have airbags. It was an early 2000s Explorer, and this happened in 2016. The driver turned onto the highway from a restaurant driveway. It was probably around 9:30 PM, and there wasn’t much traffic at all. One Mississippi, Two Mississippi, Three Mississippi, Four Mississippi, Five Mississippi, Six Mississippi, Seven Mississippi, Eight Mississip —OHMYGOD OHMYGOD OHMYGOD HE’S NOT STOPPING! That was the driver, panicking after noticing headlights approaching rapidly from behind. Nine Missisippi, Ten Mississippi, Elev —

Impact.

The Explorer banked hard to the right. The other driver had tried to move into the other lane, which had been empty the entire time, at the last possible moment. The Explorer was going about 50 mph, which was the speed limit. The other car was probably traveling around 75. There was ample time to slow down or pass, but neither was attempted until it was far too late. He clipped the left side of the Explorer’s rear bumper, which is what pushed it hard to the right.

The explorer, now on grass and still going extremely fast was heading straight for a steel pole supporting a big KFC/Long John Silver’s sign. I noticed how cold, calculated, and emotionally detached my voice sounded when I said the words out loud. “We’re going to die.”

And we would have if the Explorer didn’t roll, but, an instant before smashing into the pole, it did. It rolled around the pole for something like four or five revolutions, leaving behind a mud smear that from overhead looked like a sickle. I’m so exceptionally grateful that I’m able to recount these events eight years later. Everyone walked away mostly unscathed. There were cuts and bruises - lots of them - and there was a lingering whole body pain you might expect if you were placed inside a giant rattle and shaken. But whether by a miracle or via the intersection of physics and dumb luck, everybody survived.

The driver of the Explorer got a reckless driving ticket.

It seems insane. “You caused the accident when you entered the roadway in front of him.” One Mississippi, Two Mississippi. “It doesn’t matter how fast he was going.” Three Mississippi, Four Mississippi. “He’s under no obligation to move to the passing lane “ (okay, that’s actually a reasonable point, but going 75 in a 50 probably means you should be using the passing lane a fair bit and keeping your eyes on the road). Five Mississippi, Six Mississippi, Seven Mississippi. “Don’t argue with me - just be grateful you’re alive and let me do my job.” Eight Mississippi, Nine Mississippi, Ten Mississippi.

If you completely disregard math, science, and manufacturer’s engineering specifications, the officer’s argument was entirely defensible. Okay, that’s a little mean. He was trusting his instincts, and I think I know where and how his assessment went awry. If you look at the driveway, and you look at where the collision occurred (just find the handle of the sickle), they don’t seem to be that far apart. He looked at the starting point and end point, decided there wasn’t a lot of room to stop, and made a determination.

There are two problems with using that visual assessment as a basis for determining fault. One, it’s a bit deceptive when you stand next to the highway and look at the two ends, but taking an actual measurement showed there was over a football field between them. The other problem is that what’s important isn’t how much ground the Explorer covered - it’s how much ground the car going 75 mph covered in the time it took the Explorer (which takes over 10 seconds to go 0-60 on its best day), to drive the length of a football field. The point is, when the Explorer entered the roadway, it was entirely safe. The accident occurred because the other driver was going way too fast and not paying attention.

The officer’s instincts fooled him, which isn’t ideal, but it’s forgivable. What burns me up as I’m revisiting this is thinking about how he berated a person who just escaped the jaws of death and tried to convince her it was her fault, even though she knew (and the math eventually revealed) that it wasn’t. It was the bully behavior of someone desperately hoping not to be fact-checked.