Accident with Off-Duty Police Officer (ABC News)

GordonD on 20/06/2025 - 09:07
Last edited 20/06/2025 - 12:15 by 2 other users

This one is in the news. A collision between an off-duty police officer and a member of the public.

Crash involving SA Police sergeant prompts calls for more oversight

The driver who is complaining says he was on the right, so he was in the right, and he has consulted road law lawyers and experts who confirm that, as does the politician he complained to, so he'll be going to court and expects to win. And the ABC has unquestioningly accepted all that and runthe story without getting an other advice other than what the complainant asserted.

The police say the driver who is complaining was in the wrong in the collision, and will be booked accordingly. And the police officer committed the offence of not stopping and giving his details after a collision, and will be charged accordingly.

My opinion?

The police got it exactly right. I'm not surprised they took time and made sure they did. The driver complaining is wrong about what the road rules say if he thinks the vehicle on the left was required to give way to the vehicle on the right. In fact in that circumstance the vehicle in the lane that is blocked who has to cross a lane line into the other lane is the one required top give way.

Your opinion?

Poll Options

  • 35
    Off duty police officer - on the left - was at fault.
  • 163
    Member of the public - on the right - was at fault.
Automotive

Comments

  • Duckie2hh on 20/06/2025 - 09:17
    +34

    Who cares. It must have been a slow news day.

      • MS Paint on 21/06/2025 - 11:41
        +6

        Another useless Dr Phil time wasting comment hanging off the top thread. FFS

  • SBOB on 20/06/2025 - 09:35
    +29

    Your opinion?

    My opinion is that people don't need to have an opinion on literally every trivial thing that happens in the world.
    (And even if they do, the majority of the time it's unlikely to actually be an opinion that's worth listening to.)

    • iDroid on 20/06/2025 - 11:06
      +6

      Opinions are like bum holes - everyone has one and most of them stink.

    • topherboi on 21/06/2025 - 07:37
      +9

      You have 16 thousand comments on this site, I don't gamble but I'd bet a lot of them contain your opinion.

  • Davo1111 on 20/06/2025 - 09:40
    +1

    Ok so it took me a second. This is about the lane closing. Whether or not it's a merge. Or zipper.

    In wa you don't have to give way to a merge , but I think with a zipper it's whoever is first. Maybe SA has different rules. I think this is a merge not a zipper

    I think either way the cop is wrong

    • Bruceflix on 20/06/2025 - 10:21
      +29

      Zip is front car has right of way. This is not a zip. Right lane ends, right lane must give way.

      • Davo1111 on 20/06/2025 - 11:40
        -1

        Yeah I agree. I was trying to understand the cops POV

      • iDroid on 20/06/2025 - 16:54

        And it's wild the number of people I see drive daily that do not understand this.

        Does my head in.

    • Davo1111 on 20/06/2025 - 11:43
      +4

      Can't edit my own comment. I'm getting the "cop" mixed up.

      I believe the right car is legally at fault.

      Although left car is still a d canoe for not avoiding an accident.

      • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 11:49
        +6

        More importantly he failed to stop after the collision.This is a person who wanted to be a police union deputy president.

        • Davo1111 on 20/06/2025 - 12:18
          +1

          Yeah that's not good either.

      • AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 15:59
        +1

        If the cop hit the back of the car that was trying to merge, isn't the cop at fault for either not paying attention or for deliberately hitting the car?

        • Davo1111 on 20/06/2025 - 16:27

          Ultimately you're at fault if you change lanes when it's not clear.

          If the left vehicle sped up deliberately, that's a different issue.

          • AustriaBargain on 20/06/2025 - 16:45

            @Davo1111: I guess if there was a rear cam they would have uploaded it. So we'll never know. Fleeing the scene suggests the cop thought he was at fault though.

  • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 09:49
    -4

    Police going in to bat (charge the other driver) sounds like typical overreach plod behaviour.What serious injuries or damage justifies the intervention? (Nothing, just too much media scrutiny) The traffic matter is the least important matter IMHO.

  • c64 on 20/06/2025 - 09:53
    +6

    i vote we call in bikies to settle the dispute …

    • 87percent on 20/06/2025 - 11:03
      +1

      They’re all in Bali getting shot

    • Caped Baldy on 20/06/2025 - 13:39
      +1

      Bickies and tea help to calm the nerves.

      • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 17:46

        What sort of bikkies? Vovos,Ginger Nuts,wafers,Monte Carlos,Tim Tams,Digestives, Choc Chip,Bonios?

        • miwahni on 21/06/2025 - 01:25

          Delta Creams

    • Poor Ass on 22/06/2025 - 22:09

      @jv

      • c64 on 23/06/2025 - 09:13

        while jv publicly proclaims his love of Monto Carlos, deep down he secretly longs for cream puffs

        • Poor Ass on 23/06/2025 - 09:27

          i'm after bikies

        • Muppet Detector on 23/06/2025 - 15:56
          -1

          Why be so rude and mean?

          If I get your terrible insinuations not to mention your derogatory name calling, then I'm sure plenty of other people do too.

          Not cool. Stop being so horrible.

  • oscargamer on 20/06/2025 - 10:06
    +24

    There is a broken line that the dash cammer has to cross to merge. Dash cammer must give way to vehicles in that lane.

    Off duty member should have stopped and exchanged details

    Both guilty of an offence

    • Tleyx on 21/06/2025 - 17:27

      Not stopping is the much bigger offence

      • oscargamer on 21/06/2025 - 18:30
        +2

        What does "bigger" mean in your mind?

        In my opinion, crashing into another vehicle because you think you have 'right of way' is more dangerous than shouting and driving off.

        They are both idiots.

        • Tleyx on 21/06/2025 - 18:48

          You can get a prison sentence for not stopping.

          Thats why i said its bigger.

          I think the penalty is the only way to compare objectively

          • oscargamer on 21/06/2025 - 19:23

            @Tleyx: You can also get a prison sentence for not giving way, depending on the result ….

            • Tleyx on 22/06/2025 - 08:25

              @oscargamer: Not for the result in the op. Also its not the giving way it would be higher chargers of dangerous driving

      • GordonD on 22/06/2025 - 09:14

        Not stopping is the much bigger offence

        It is, because the offence covers not stopping after a crash that involves injury. It is unlikely the cop will get a higher penalty for not stopping after a minor no-injury accident than the other driver will for causing it.

        That said, the other driver will just get a fixed penalty infringement notice to pay, and demerit points, whereas the cop has to go to court to face a magistrate and will face an internal police investigation as to whether he engaged in unprofessional conduct which could demote him or limit or delay his future promotion.

        • Tleyx on 22/06/2025 - 11:26

          The cop didnt know if there wrre injuries or not, so may be charged quite high

  • Bruceflix on 20/06/2025 - 10:19
    +13

    Right lane ends. Not a zipper. This is a merge. Right lane needs to give way.
    Dash cam owner needs to hand in license.

    • Caped Baldy on 20/06/2025 - 13:40
      +2

      Dash cam owner needs to hand in license.

      and the other passenger.

  • tenpercent on 20/06/2025 - 10:22
    +1

    My opinion: Where's the obligatory MS Paint digram?

    • ThithLord on 20/06/2025 - 10:40

      To be fair, that's obligatory if the OP is actually involved, or witnessed, the event.

      • tenpercent on 20/06/2025 - 10:42
        +1

        We don't know the OP isn't involved. Their profile says they're in Adelaide, so they're either involved or a close relative.

      • MS Paint on 20/06/2025 - 10:54
        +4

        To be fair this is exactly how I imagined OP to look like based on usual boomer type posts/comments.

        • ThithLord on 20/06/2025 - 10:57

          haha I forgot it was GordonD. Should have realised when they inferred the ABC were going on the defensive for the Dashcam driver when, in reality, they were just reporting. I am never one to defend the ABC without reason, they're a shitshow of an organisation

          • GordonD on 22/06/2025 - 12:24

            @ThithLord: You are right about me. I do have a thing about the ABC. It is my preferred source of news but it doesn't do what it preaches. It preaches that balanced reporting shouldn't just give equal time to every view, it should give time to views that the facts and evidence say deserve it. If a view conflicts with the facts the reporter should point that out. And I totally agree. Just reporting isn't good journalism. People reading a news item should walk away better informed, not thinking that something that isn't true is. If there's a likelihood it isn't the report should check. And there needs to be a grownup somewhere in the editorial process who knows stuff like the road rules.

            Nearly everyone here agrees that while the cop was a you know what, it was the complaining occupants of the other car that were in the wrong. But reading/listening to that ABC report you'd think they were in the right, and in the same circumstances on the road what they did is what people should do.

            • Protractor on 22/06/2025 - 13:10
              +1

              @GordonD: So you think the ABC should seriously have written story that depicts the cop as a victim ? LOL
              I think you are the one reading the story with a bias. I can't read anywhere that says the other driver was being held up was 100% in the right.The guts of the story is about a collision, a follow up charge only AFTER the other driver reported a hit and run.I'm happy with this story's balance. Plenty of other stories to cherry pick that aren't.

    • GordonD on 21/06/2025 - 08:42

      If I ever had a crash again - my last one was in 1971 - I would be unable to post anything about it on OzBargain because I don't have or use MS Paint. My thanks to MS Paint for doing it for me in this case.

  • ValueInvesting on 20/06/2025 - 10:23
    +1

    After viewing the footage several times, reading this section of the road rules and showing it to an experienced road traffic lawyer, not only does Mr Kelson have a rock-solid defence but (SA Police) appears to have made an error of judgement

    I don't have an opinion but would trust an experienced lawyer over yours

    • Deridas on 20/06/2025 - 21:59
      +4

      How experienced?
      What was his/her name?
      There's a reason why the news article didn't specify a name so we can't verify it. It's a journalist sleight of hand, take it with a grain of salt.

      • GordonD on 21/06/2025 - 08:46
        +2

        That is exactly what the ABC should have done before it ran with the story. Asked those questions. Verified those facts. It shouldn't have just taken the complainants word that they had consulted an experienced road traffic lawyer, They should have asked who, verified he/she really did have that expertise, and verified that was the advice given.

        • Protractor on 21/06/2025 - 10:10
          +1

          There's no evidence they didn't verify the claims or contact the 'lawyer/expert'.I'm sure this story has more legs yet.

          Mr Pangallo asked Police Minister Stephen Mullighan to request a full independent review of the matter.
          He said the review should be used to rule out any suggestion of police bias or connection to the police union election.

          I can't imagine the police, or their union, objecting. Can you?

      • Muppet Detector on 21/06/2025 - 09:28

        Anybody can have experience with something. This does not mean they are good though. This also doesn't mean that a good one can't/won't make a mistake.

        Not even the best in the world at their relevant activity are 100% accurate every single time.

  • ForkSnorter on 20/06/2025 - 10:29
    +11

    Right lane ends, so right lane needs to give way.

    On the other hand, if the driver was significantly in front of the off-duty police officer, I'd say it's partly the off-duty police officer's fault for being impatient, because all driving is negotiation based on what other drivers are doing.

    I have many times slowed a bit and given way to people trying to merge when their lane ended, because trying to drive past them while they're trying to merge can be dangerous. Aggressive, impatient driving is dangerous. Considerate, patient driving is safer.

    He should have seen the other car was in front and was trying to merge. Most likely he was an impatient bogan and didn't want to wait, or didn't care to look. Then he yelled out aggressively, drove off, and didn't report it. All bad behavior.

    I'd call out both drivers in this case.

    • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 10:37
      +2

      bUt i'M mOrE iMpoRTaNt

      I'd argue the off duty cop should have been more patient and conciliatory.Not a good look.
      And it appears he may have been following too close, or not paying proper attention. Situational awareness.Comes with the job, doesn't it?

      • ForkSnorter on 20/06/2025 - 10:42
        +1

        The reality is, the driver in the right has to merge at some point. If everyone in the left is impatiently trying to drive past them, they won't be able to merge. If the left lane has a constant stream of traffic, at some point someone in the left will have to give way to them.

        • MS Paint on 20/06/2025 - 10:57
          +10

          That would be out of courtesy not because they are legally obliged to.

          • p1 ama on 20/06/2025 - 11:19
            -1

            @MS Paint: Why do people have this mindset when it comes to driving?

            We are not "legally obliged" (whatever that means) to do most of the things we do on a day-to-day basis that make the world go round. You are not "legally obliged" to wait in line, to give up your seat for a person in crutches on the train, to be respectful and polite, to treat others well, to be empathetic, to be kind…etc.

            I always analogise to walking. If you were walking and someone was trying to merge in front of you as the footpath narrows, would you let them through, or would you just continue walking in a straight line and ignoring them? Somehow being in a car makes people lose any sort of common sense behaviour.

            • OMGJL on 20/06/2025 - 15:19
              +3

              @p1 ama: He didn't say he won't do the courtesy did he??

              tell me which part @MS Paint is wrong??

              • p1 ama on 20/06/2025 - 15:33

                @OMGJL:

                tell me which part @MS Paint is wrong??

                The mindset of operating in a black and white "legally obligated" point of view when driving.

                The reality is that most of the world we live in is grey and we get by through judgement and courtesy.

                This is all out the window when driving because of this mindset of only focusing on the letter of the law and being more obsessed with who is at fault rather than just not creating trouble in the first place.

                • OMGJL on 20/06/2025 - 15:33
                  +2

                  @p1 ama: He didn't say he won't do the courtesy did he??

                • gromit on 21/06/2025 - 11:27
                  +2

                  @p1 ama: When it comes to the law it is actually pretty black and white most of the time, including this incident. yes the cop may have been a dick as well, but legally the car on the right is in the wrong.

                  • Muppet Detector on 21/06/2025 - 15:33
                    -1

                    @gromit: If the law is black and white, why do we have 12 people on a jury and 7 judges in the High Court?

                    • gromit on 21/06/2025 - 15:53
                      +1

                      @Muppet Detector: That is nothing to do with black and whute of the law, that is to determine if you were actually guilty or not. The law is still black and white in most cases

                      • Muppet Detector on 21/06/2025 - 19:18
                        -1

                        @gromit: It's really not.

                      • Muppet Detector on 23/06/2025 - 16:19

                        @gromit: Think about what your reply means.

                        Sure, you've kind of outlined the role of the jury but you've failed to consider why we need a jury at all, far less why we rely on the opinions and **beliefs* of **12* members of the jury to make those decisions if the law really is as black and white as you say.

                        Do you wonder why the jury can only determine guilty or not guilty and cannot determine if a person is innocent if the law is so black and white?

                        You also failed to consider why we have 7 judicial members of the High Court who frequently all issue different rulings and reasonings for their findings. If the law is so black and white, why do you believe this happens?

                        I mean, these people are considered to be the ultimate experts in the legal framework and they can't even all come to the same decision or apply the same reasoning for most of the rulings they make.

                        A bit more to consider,

                        If the law is so black and white:

                        • why does "though shalt not kill" have at least 10 caveats?

                        • if the law is so black and white, explain why there are at least three legal definitions of death that differ depending on the situation and when each definition applies?

                        • if a person is found guilty of a crime, why do judges have over 260 caveats to consider when arriving at their sentencing decision?

                        • if the law is so black and white, why do these crimes and other breaches of law come with such a wide variety of sentencing and punishment options?

                        • if the law is so black and white, why do we have a legal appeal system, especially one that is used as frequently as it is?

                        • if the law is so black and white, why do any questions of law go before a court or tribunal and why does contemplation of these cases take so long to resolve?

                        • if the law is so black and white, why the need for so governing and reporting bodies at all, apart from why we have so many of them?

                        • if the law is so black and white, why is there such a need for the level of specialisation and separation that we have?

                        Please, explain to the people following along at home why you believe that the law is black and white?

                  • p1 ama on 21/06/2025 - 20:56

                    @gromit:

                    When it comes to the law it is actually pretty black and white most of the time, including this incident. yes the cop may have been a dick as well, but legally the car on the right is in the wrong.

                    As someone with a law degree, the idea that the law is "pretty black and white most of the time" is ludicrous. However, this is besides the point, as I'm not trying to argue about the details of traffic law.

                    The point that I'm trying to make, more broadly, if you will open your mind for a second is that who is "in the right" or who is "in the wrong" is of little consequence outside (in this case) minor traffic offences, or civil liabilities.

                    The problem is that some people drive with the mindset that "being in the right" is an infallible armour that can protect them from incidents, serious injury, or death. Ultimately, what matters is to get to your destination alive. Unfortunately, if you find yourself at death's door, "but I had right of way" won't save you.

                    • AlexF on 22/06/2025 - 11:55

                      @p1 ama:

                      The problem is that some people drive with the mindset that "being in the right" is an infallible armour that can protect them from incidents, serious injury, or death.

                      "being in the right" can protect them in court.

                      • p1 ama on 22/06/2025 - 22:21

                        @AlexF:

                        "being in the right" can protect them in court.

                        And if your primary judgement when driving is what "protects me in court", as opposed to what is safe, what is courteous, and what leads to the lowest risk of having an accident or putting myself / other road users in danger, then you are part of the problem.

                        I'll give you a different example, since being a car breaks some people's brains - if you don't lock you front door and you get burgled, you are technically still "in the right", and the other party "in the wrong". Yet I assume that you still inconvenience yourself to lock your front door (along with most others).

                        Now apply the same principle when driving.

      • ThithLord on 20/06/2025 - 10:57
        +1

        Police should be practising defensive-driving as a default

        • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 11:02
          +1

          Agree & police should not investigate police.

  • JIMB0 on 20/06/2025 - 11:13
    -2

    It's always the dash cam car's fault.

  • nomoneynoproblems on 20/06/2025 - 11:52
    +9

    Everything wrong with driving culture in this country. Share the road ffs. Road ends, someone is in front just let them in.

    • battler on 20/06/2025 - 11:54
      +2

      Agree. Tradies/ute drivers, then P platers, are a law unto themselves… or so they think/act.

      • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 12:16
        -1

        Maybe they are all waiting for good examples from those who talk the talk?

      • p1 ama on 20/06/2025 - 15:34
        +1

        Assuming you're none of the above?

        Always so convenient that it's someone else's responsibility to do better.

  • Drakesy on 20/06/2025 - 12:06
    -5

    Cop fcuked it and then their department did everything to kill it.

    Dashcam car was in front and the cop went up their backside.
    It was a closed lane zip merge.

    Cop has an ego and anger management issues.

    • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 12:14

      He is a sgt, after all.

    • bargaino on 20/06/2025 - 12:19
      +5

      Gemini:
      "In South Australia, when a lane closes and you need to merge, you must give way to traffic already in the lane you're entering. If you are in the lane that is ending, you need to signal, check your blind spot, and merge when it's safe, giving way to any vehicle in the lane you're entering."

      It pains me to say it, but technically the arsehole in the Hilux had right of way. Not that this an excuse to run into the other arsehole.
      Most people would have the courtesy to treat it as a zipper-merge, ie. people in the left lane allowing cars from the right in. But you can't just push in. The whole incident is embarrassing all round.

      • Drakesy on 20/06/2025 - 12:32
        +3

        I'd debate the dashcam car was already straddling the left hand lane (had already entered it) when the cop came up his backside.

        • bargaino on 20/06/2025 - 12:34
          +2

          Agreed. As I said, not an excuse for the cop hitting him. But in the video he is yelling about his non-existent right of way. Both of them are arrogant.

          • Drakesy on 20/06/2025 - 12:35
            +1

            @bargaino: Yeah, you're right though, the ego's got in the way.

    • Deridas on 20/06/2025 - 22:02
      -1

      It wasn't a zip merge though.

      • oooooooo ahhhhhhh on 24/06/2025 - 12:04
        -1

        If you're merging into any lane, it doesn't give anyone the right to rear end you just because they were already there. Obviously the car merging should give way but once they've started straddling the lane they are technically in it.

        • Deridas on 24/06/2025 - 12:21

          I was also replying to Drakesy above, it wasn't meant to be a standalone statement and should be taken in context with Drakesy's comment.
          It wasn't a zip merge.
          Rear ending someone has nothing to do with my statement that it wasn't a zip merge.

  • DingoBilly on 20/06/2025 - 12:45
    +1

    I'd give it to the member of the public. Looks like the person had already indicated and started turning.

    Cop just pulled aside/in front and was a (profanity). Yeah you have to give way but looks like traffic was slow and the merge was already happening so looks fine.

    But as others stated, who honestly cares.

  • jv on 20/06/2025 - 13:29
    -2

    In fact in that circumstance the vehicle in the lane that is blocked who has to cross a lane line into the other lane is the one required top give way.

    That is not the case in Vic as far as I'm aware.

    The car in front has right of way and you need to do a zipper merge.

    • burningrage on 20/06/2025 - 22:30

      I agree. If this is Vic, the merging car (especially when the car is already ahead) has the right of way.

      Even if this is not the case, logically speaking, the cop just pulled out of a parking spot and the complainant iwasalready ahead of him so how on earth would the driver be expected to see the cop pulling out? He would be in the blind spot!

      On the side of the member of the public on this one.

      • Butterchurner on 21/06/2025 - 10:25
        +2

        No. In Vic (and I dare say every state) car ahead only has right of way if there are no lane markings. Zip merge where there are lane lines might be a thing in practice but not in the rules.

        https://transport.vic.gov.au/road-rules-and-safety/merging-l…

        • jv on 22/06/2025 - 14:31
          -1

          No. In Vic (and I dare say every state) car ahead only has right of way if there are no lane markings.

          They still have the right of way… as I said…

  • ReaperX22 on 20/06/2025 - 14:22
    +4

    Both wrong. Both could've easily avoided the accident. One assumed right of way, one just.. could've not been an ass and given them space. Ultimately as the vehicle from behind they had the time to stop/prevent the accident, whether the right-driver was meant to give way or not.

    We'd have a lot less accidents (and subsequent injuries/death) if people just stopped feeling so entitled… Generally speaking, a few seconds or even minutes of having to wait/not beat that one other person will not drastically change or affect your arrival time.**

    More car drivers need to start thinking like Motorcylists.. 'if I do this, I'm going to risk getting hit(or just flat out die), so I'm not going to do this' - assume everyone is an idiot and do your best to avoid your own accidents/put aside your pride!

    (**not accounting for emergency vehicles here.. Should be the only vehicles trying to shave off those few minutes as it CAN save someones life…)

  • Euphemistic on 20/06/2025 - 14:55
    +10

    Dashcam driving saying 'give way to the right' is almost funny, except that not knowing the road rules isnt funny.

    Give way to the right was about intersections, not merging, but its an outdated notion in most situations.

    Qe seriously need retesting for driving licences. At the very least, a knowledge test when your licence gets renewed might help reduce some of the problems with drivers having forgotten half the rules, or not been taught properly in the first place.

    • skid on 20/06/2025 - 16:12
      +1

      Give way to the right was about intersections

      haha +1 for explaining it to me because I had no idea what they were on about. Thought it was some SA specific road rule.

  • OMGJL on 20/06/2025 - 15:15
    +4

    Road_Rules_refresher.pdf - from MyLicence SA (GOV website)

    There are two different give way rules for merging.
    i) On roads where there are lanes marked on the road, if your lane comes to an end, you must give way to traffic already in the lane you are moving into.
    ii) On roads where there are no lanes marked on the road, when lines of traffic merge, you must give way to any vehicle that is ahead of you.

    nothing says give way to the right. The lady should get her license revoked, she clearly would fails give way test.

    Legally, cop's right. any damage the lady need to pay out of her pocket.

    but the accident could be easily avoided..

    • pegaxs on 20/06/2025 - 22:14
      +3

      That was the part the triggered me. It was that horrible wretch of a woman screeching “give way to the right.. tHaT’s tHe RuLeZ!!1!1!” when it most definitely, is not.

  • Protractor on 20/06/2025 - 15:44
    +6

    The impact was down to plod, period. He chose not to avoid contact, and he then drove off. That's a real problem.

  • Widget on 20/06/2025 - 22:02
    +1

    It looked like the DC car was already merged across the line & indicating. I don't know SA Law though, so I dunno. But it makes a good case for rear-facing dash cam, no?

  • Trickey on 20/06/2025 - 23:12

    Not a single mention of driving to the conditions. There’s roadworks, the car in front stops because of the vehicle being parallel parked, the driver of the vehicle changing lanes has to stop, and the driver in the 4WD hits them. Not entirely black and white and we don’t have the viewpoint of the other driver making it unclear as to whose fault it is. I think any court would find both parties at fault but it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out.

  • SpicyStew on 20/06/2025 - 23:51
    -3

    FTP

  • Nebargains on 21/06/2025 - 07:15
    +1

    With our a rear facing cam it's hard to really say, perhaps the car on the right had already entered the lane safely and the car on the left was not paying attention.

    In any case, regardless of who is technically correct the cop should have seen the lane was ending and allowed the car to merge in front, some awareness on their part could have avoided an accident.

  • OBEY YOUR MASTERS on 21/06/2025 - 07:16
    -1

    The ABC is the most trusted news source in Australia. How dare you.

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join