Warning Dispute (kerzify)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Messages
369
Reaction score
531
Points
685
Location
House of PD Mains
Punishment Type: Warning
Appeal Type: Dispute[Evidence]
Which staff member issued the punishment?: @kerzify
How long were you banned/blacklisted for?: Not Applicable

Your Steam Name: Headline
Your Roleplay Name: Roxanne Cole
Your SteamID: STEAM_0:0:128906278

Why were you punished?: 4.1 - User as an LEO drove on the wrong side of the roundabout without the other lane of travel being obstructed, this was the cause of a collision via recklessly driving as a government employee.

Why should this appeal be considered?: The whole argument within this dispute is whether or not this is classified as reckless driving under 12.12, thus making it a rule break under 4.1. In accordance to the own law:
"Any person who drives any vehicle with disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of this offence."

For this to be classed as reckless driving, I would have to had sent it into the wrong side of the roundabout without ensuring it was clear when I first entered the wrong side thus making the action "Reckless" in nature. My issue with the situation is that the argument used was simply that 40mph on the wrong side of the highway was reckless which is a HIGHLY debatable fact. I was doing around 40/50mph at the time of the crash and less when I took the corner as I did clear the roundabout before entering the wrong side making sure I wouldn't break 12.12.
Afterwards and as a result of poor visibility in 3rd person around that specific corner I spotted the rocket strapped Gwagon doing mach jesus too late and had no chance to avoid the collision. The reporter's vehicle was not fixed either as the accident was clearly not my fault, at least in it's entirety for sure. To emphasize this, the fact an emergency vehicle is on the wrong side of the road doesn't inherent direct responsibility to the driver, specially when the vehicle colliding is doing double the speed limit in the first place when approaching a roundabout.

For further context, here's a clip of Emergency services personnel going around the wrong side of the roundabout in a reckless manner (obviously not) : https://www.itv.com/news/westcountr...ts-pavements-and-goes-wrong-way-on-roundabout

This is obviously an IRL context of the same situation, although it was a police chase and not a response to a shooting with police in Lakeview, notice how the other vehicles around are not driving at speeds exceeding double the speed limit when approaching the roundabout as well.

Additional Information: n/a
 




@Headline we would like to see your POV of the situation.

Can you go into demo perpheads_demo_2026-2-18 00-07-08 and record the incident, or upload any relevant clips you already have of the situation and post it here.
 



For this to be a rule break, a law needs to be broken. Police Officers are exempt from the law (including traffic laws) so long as breaking them is reasonable, justifiable, proportionate and necessary for the effective execution of their duties. Legally speaking, the emergency response made using the roundabout this way reasonable and justifiable. The incident you were responding to being time critical also made it proportionate. This factors absolve you of criminal liability and, by extension, rule 4.1.

Generally, I would not comment on the policy implications so as to not give rise to prejudice and also because policy is not relevant in the context of a rule violation. That being said, I will confirm that policies were broken, but will comment no further on the matter so as to let the IA process run its course should a complaint be made. Officers are allowed to break 12.12 under the law so long as the conditions above are met. Further conditions are applied by policy, not by law, in regards to emergency driving and the roundabouts specifically. The specifics of your situation are covered by policy.

I would like to add that in terms of assigning fault, you certainly carry more culpability for the crash, but that is a matter for the refund request process.

This decision was reached via a majority decision in server and PD SMT.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top