Thinking about this the other day, it occurred to me that the usual tactic (one police car in front, one behind, one atthe side and edging the stolen car towards the central reservation), while being probably the safest (and perhaps only) method, may have consequences if the stolen gar has a high centre of gravity and the central reservation has only a low barrier.
Is there a better way?
|
Might you have seen today's news item about the lethal consequences of one such manoeuvre GM?
If so, yr post here is a little, er, disingenuous.
|
|
|
topical subject, well worth a chat about, but unless there is restraint on here i'm willing to bet this will be 'read only' before too long
to answer the question, not really
Stinger or Stop Sticks are good at puncturing the tyres to slow it all down and eventually cause the stolen vehicle to stop...but... for that to happen a police officer has to be on foot, in front of the speeding miscreant, which on a motorway would not be a practice i'd fancy doing. Police offiers have been killed attemtping this.
The USA uses the PIT manouevre (couple of interpretations for the acronym, but the most used seems to be Precision Intervention Technique) which basically means the pursuing police driver chooses his/her moment and connects with the offending car at its extremity, turning it around a bit like you do with a dodgem (or some seem to do in Touring Cars). Not an accepted practice over here.
TPAC (Tactical Pursuit And Containment) is authorised here, but is cumbersome, because it needs 4 police cars (3 if you use the central barriers), which is expensive because you damage 3 or 4 police traffic cars.
The basis police training for pursuits is to pursue it until it runs out of fuel or crashes.
Personally I think the PIT is best, but politically it won't happen here, guarantee it.
There is another option of course, a non pursuit policy, regularly mentioned by 'armchair experts', but that of course would cause anarchy, because any crook of whatever level at all could commit any crime they liked then hop in a car or on a bike and be off scot free
Edited by Westpig on 19/07/2008 at 15:25
|
Lud - I was trying not to refer to anything current (it was all a little close to home, you might say, as well as being a very sad story) - and all I know of that case is what's in the papers. I just wondered if the fine minds in here had any ideas.
I suppose the PIT thing is difficult because of our crowded roads (as well as the political aspect). TPAC would have to use the central reservation on two-lane roads, of course.
I don't know what the answer is.
|
I don't know what the answer is.
Nor me. There aren't enough helicopters and they cost too much to run to be used on mere stolen-car pursuits. Unless the fugitive is deliberately menacing other traffic, in which case he should be stopped as soon as possible even at the cost of police vehicle bodywork, the sensible solution seems to be to follow at a safe distance until the toerag stops, then pounce, as most British forces seem to do.
Australian, US and British police-pursuit schlock TV seems to indicate, when it isn't telling us what to think in an annoyingly overbearing way, that most fugitive drivers aren't much use even when sober, but that a smallish minority are extremely good getaway drivers who can cope with very high speeds. It's probably OK to try to corral these last on the move (if they can be caught!), but the average fugitive driver under pursuit is liable to do something dumb and unexpected, sometimes with dire results as we read in today's paper.
Of course no one knows about most stolen cars and they drive about unmolested.
|
|
|
|
Having had a non pursuit policy our force became known locally as 'Mexico'. That has been reversed and Traffic Officers brought up to speed with Pursuit Management (TPAC).
there is now another option which; providing the appropriate resources are ahead on a motorway or dual carriageway is to deploy a Motorway Stinger(a bit longer than a normal one) Resources are still required to perform a rolling road to minimise danger.
Its another option but its all about having the correct number of trained resources , in the appropriate vehicle and in the right locations and weighing up the risk factors. If something is or cant be in place then an alternative has to be considered.
All this has to be done with a dynamic situation. It ain't easy
|
|
I once came off M6 J19 heading for the A556 where there were a few police vehicles and and officer crouched down ready to throw something. Always assumed it was a stinger ready for someone if they came off that junction. This was a few years ago mind.
|
Manually-deployed Stingers are too difficult to co-ordinate and too dangerous for the deployer.
Given their, often portrayed, effectiveness; work needs to be done on developing a car mounted, gas-deployed, version that can be shot out sideways from an under-car storage tray.
Then, even one traffic car could slow the target vehicle, at any point, by simply getting alongside and taking one, or both, rear tyres out.
|
Couple of years or so ago wasn't there something that the Police Scientific Branch were looking at a 'zapper' to take out the electronics of a car being followed by Police?
Badly needed these days unless MOP starts to put the blame fairl;y and squarely where it lies with the muppets that do not stop.
dvd
|
Im sure some clues could be gained from watching re-runs of "Wacky Races". That Dick Dastardly fellow had some cool gadgets !
Heh heh heh heh..........
;-)
|
|
|
one other thing often forgotten, is that a pursuing police officer needs to be in a vehicle that has enough performance to back off from the stolen vehicle at times of severe danger and then catch back up again when the severe danger has subsided somewhat
e.g.
- stolen vehicle goes through red light at speed and police vehicle goes through far
slower and Gives Way for other traffic or,
- stolen vehicle approaches school with all the kids about, police vehicle backs right off,
to give stolen one opportunity to slow down a bit.... etc, etc
giving most police officers 1.7 diesel Astras or similar Ford Focus is not what is required, however it costs money to properly train officers at Advanced level and it costs money to provide decent equipment... so the whole issue is fudged.
thinning down traffic police budgets isn't a good idea either, as they tend to have bigger, more powerful vehicles for the m/way type work
historically the type of vehicle issued has not been up to the job, that alone could help with safety
|
|
|
a 'zapper' to take out the electronics of a car being followed by Police?
Might the main difficulty be making sure that the thing works on the car it is aimed at without including any others? I would think so.
Of course the electro-magnetic pulse from a nearby nuclear explosion will damage all electronic devices within range. But I don't think modern police budgets run to small nuclear weapons. Pity, because I am sure the authorities would be keen to allow plod to use them.
|
A US company called Eureka Aerospace has developed a microwave transmitter than can fry a cars electronics and bring it to a halt without harming passengers.
They are working on a production model that weighs 20 kilos are can be car mounted and operate out to 600 metres. They say they are about 2 years away from commercial production.
Likely the US army will get it first.
|
|
|
|
The PIT manoeuvre can be very accurate, and only mildly damaging to the pursuit vehicle, our patrol cars should have strong bars fitted to the front end like our cousins do anyway.
Many years ago when a practitioner of the intricate art of banger racing, we could spin vehicles round and trap them very accurately, done well the vehicle can be trapped against a wall or armco with occupants unable to get out until the trapper releases them.
I for one don't want the police unable to follow and stop and nick those who fail to stop for whatever reason, hopefully before the miscreants manage to hurt some innocent soul. What happens to them afterwards is unfortunately out of plods hands.
|
our patrol cars should have strong bars fitted to the front end like our cousins do anyway.
that'll never happen because of pedestrian safety concerns
|
|
Another thing that won't happen: regarding drivers in such pursuits (the miscreants that is) as being in possession of a dangerous 'weapon' & putting other peoples' lives at risk. Draw your own conclusions as to what that could result in.
|
|
I have a friend who works for QuintiQ - this was a conversation a few weeks ago - they have worked on and successfully deployed and electronic suite for Army vehicles in Iraq and Afghanistan for use against roadside bombs - apparently this has other applications as well - much a described above.
|
www.qinetiq.com/home/products/x-net.html
there's always this - most of you will know that these guy were the original "Boffins" before they were privatised and were the envy of the world in their amazing gadgetry and cost - effective (read shoestring) solutions.
|
|
I always had mixed feelings about qinetiq. But that looks stupendous.
Edited by GroovyMucker on 19/07/2008 at 20:57
|
But, as with stingers, those using the Qinetiq device have to get the timing right if there is traffic, or do it on an otherwise empty road, to avoid involving innocent third parties perhaps with expensive results.
Nor is it necessarily the case that a car travelling at any real speed will be brought to a halt safely and 'with minimal damage' if spikes and wires suddenly - and things happen very suddenly indeed at 70-plus - jam up its front wheels and transmission. It might happen like that, but I can imagine it happening differently. A stinger is better in a way because the car will lose adhesion and traction over several seconds rather than instantaneously.
Unless a stolen vehicle is being driven in an obviously dangerous way, the best solution is the low-key plod one of following discreetly until it stops, then trying to catch the miscreants and prevent it from driving off again. If it's a threat to lives and limbs, or contains seriously wanted fugitives rather than simple car thieves or crazed teenagers who drive all right, harsher methods may be necessary.
|
|
But the signal-jammer for roadside bombs, if it can be applied in a fairly tight beam to a car's engine electronics, might have its uses...
|
>>the signal-jammer for roadside bombs..
Isn't that a different animal to something for "the disabling of a car's engine electronics"?
It's not my field, for want of a better pun, but I thought the signal jammer for bombs is to stop remote RF detonation of roadside bombs.
IE the receiver on the bomb can't receive the trigger signal because it is swamped with high level RF transmitted from the vehicle which would be target for the bomb, if you get my meaning.
|
|
They should just hang a whopping gert electromagnet off the helicopter, two birds one stone.
|
I know its not plods problem directly.
But until there is sufficient punishment for those caught stealing the cars then the ways of catching them are going to have to get more and more technical.
Needs attacking from the opposite view point imo. Punish people so they dont want to steal the cars, then its only the hardened criminals who will need the full attention of whatever force is required.
Might just save money in the long term too !
|
Yorkiebar said, "... until there is sufficient punishment ..."
I agree that's part of the problem. There is a big difference between an aggravated TWOC and a death by dangerous driving in sentencing terms, yet any agg TWOC might well turn into a death with very littler difference in the facts.
|
Unless a stolen vehicle is being driven in an obviously dangerous way the best solution is the low-key plod one of following discreetly until it stops then trying to catch the miscreants and prevent it from driving off again. If it's a threat to lives and limbs or contains seriously wanted fugitives rather than simple car thieves or crazed teenagers who drive all right harsher methods may be necessary.
Lud, there's nothing discrete about an 80mph dash down your average high street and most pursuits start either when miscreant sees police car and 'goes for it' or police officer decides to stop said car and it 'goes for it'.
the other problem is you often have no idea at all what the other person has been up to, it starts off that they just try to evade you. A fair amount of time there's a really good reason e.g. stolen car or whatever, but there have been times when it's been minor documents wrong that have caused it.....madness. Until you stop them and establish the full facts you can often be in the dark. I've forgotten how many times a pursuit starts and when they're eventually caught you realise what a good job you've stumbled across.
|
Yes Westpig, but 80mph down the high street would definitely count as dangerous driving so would call for harsh methods from the off.
I do see that pursuing such people would not be regarded as fun by plod and one can quite understand that when they are caught no one is going to be surprised if they get jostled a bit in the process.
|
|
Seeing as we will never again see the days when even the most hardened motorised felon would shrink in terror at the approaching glow of a police Wolseley 6/110 radiator light and the blood-curdling sound of a Winkworth bell, it's seriously time to think about... 1. harpoons 2. rocket propeleld grenades 3. car-sized Tasers
|
Is there a better way?
Not necessarily better but very effective at stopping a stolen car, air-to-ground missile.
Edited by MikeTorque on 20/07/2008 at 01:15
|
www.qinetiq.com/home/products/x-net.html
the associated sudden stop and noise created by running over this in a car would more then likely result in a brown trouser situation for anyone inside the car which lets face it would bring some much needed amusement to the police officers involved in a chase
|
>>the associated sudden stop and ....
provided it is in a straight line on an open road.
|
>>the associated sudden stop and ....provided it is in a straight line on an open road.
>>
i think you'll find that standard operatering procedure for stops anyway
|
So the message is "if you do steal a car and plod catches up with you, do not drive in a straight line"; they then wont attempt to stop you?
And I always thought they did that because they were poor drivers ! :)
|
|
|
|
|
Is there a better way?
As far as I'm concerned it's solely the police's problem.
|
|
|
