>> civilian deaths
Incorrect terminology being used again. The correct term is layman (or woman).
The police are not a military service, therefore members of the police service are all civilians.
|
Monday morning, 3am, a police car saw some scum in the main street of Kynsna in a - later turns out stolen - pick up truck without lights (ask henry k about the location).
The vermin dashed out of town, with plod in pursuit, and a few ks out, on the wrong side of the road, collided with a bus carrying football supporters back from a cup match.
Three vermin killed, including a decapitation, and one unfortunate football supporter (I knew the bloke). 30 injured in bus.
What is plod to do? NOT chase the scum?
RPG7 for the win!
|
Under 35 a year in a population of 60 million with millions of cars on the road. A drop in the ocean of annual deaths from all causes and quite a small proportion of all road casualties.
What else can (or should) the police do but follow, intercept or give chase when they see a car that is reported stolen or involved in some crime incident, or just being driven dangerously? Policy and training must be to stop such vehicles with minimum risk of collateral damage. But you can't win them all, people are only human, etc.
|
|
|
The police wouldn't risk the lives of the public to catch some bloke who had stolen a TV, what's so important about a car? Even if it's of high value it isn't worth anyone getting killed, criminal included.
I can't help but think that the police get involved in car chases because they enjoy them, they aren't so dogged when persuing someone on foot.
|
Surely the difference is that someone who has stolen a TV is not putting anyone's life at risk with it.
Someone in a stolen car is likely to kill or injure someone even if not being chased.
Police aren't perfect but in this case I don't see that they have any choice. IMO it needs tougher sentences on those who refuse to stop and anyone else in the car in most cases.
They are the ones who need to be dealt with not the police chasing them.
|
|
|
"So, Chief Inspector, we have some kid playing his 'stolen' TV really really loud... and annoying the neighbours... shall we arrest him?"
As opposed to
"So, Chief Inspector, we have some knob driving a stolen car at 90mph down a 30 zone, has already scared the bejesus out of two grannies trying to cross the road, and barely missed losing control near a bus shelter full of nuns"
That case in Blackburn recently, where a bloke lost it going HOW quick cos he he was being chased? Trashed the car, 3 people, and demolished some bloke's house?
Sorry - he was warned by flashing lights, and decided to try to outrun the police.
Luckily nobody 'innocent' was hurt. But they could have been.
|
It's Darwinism in action.
|
Put yourself in Plod's shoes (or pursuit car)...
Here we have a young joyriding scrote, absolutely fearless due to his age, mental capacity, bravado, drugs or booze, piloting a stolen turbo-charged nutter STi, GTi or similar.
What does plod do? Leave him - or chase?
IF there is a fatality - be it plod, scrote, or innocent bystander KILLED by scrote or plod, then plod is always to blame.
Who's to say that said scrote wouldn't have wiped out that bus queue, school bus, bingo hall without police intervention?
|
|
|
|
|
Perhaps you are right, krs one, and even the life of an utter toerag is far too precious to be risked for something as trivial as criminal law enforcement. I look forward to the peaceful, orderly and safe society that we will enjoy when your view prevails fully with the powers that be, instead of just partially as it does now...
|
I'm not saying law enforcement is a trivial matter, but in the great scheme of things car theft probably is.
My point was that the police possibly enjoy a good car chase and this is an attitude that needs to be looked at.
If every innocent person killed by a police car had instead been shot dead by firearms officers, you can bet your life that something would be done.
|
Car theft is trivial???
Sorry, I don't agree with you, krs.
|
|
|
Not the same at all krs. I can see what you mean of course - there are quite widespread crimes more serious than car theft - but large towns in which car theft and dangerous driving were known to be off limits to plod would quickly get, er, I think 'even worse' just about covers it.
Personally I hope they do enjoy a good car chase, although it must often be quite a fraught and stressful experience perhaps precisely because of the risk it can pose to other road users. It would make them better and safer drivers to enjoy it though, assuming they are any good to start with.
Could you be suggesting that the police start chasing other cars on the road just because they fancy a car chase? If they did it to me I would let them catch me immediately. But they never have yet.
Another thing: I am quite old, very observant and interested in this sort of thing, but in half a century plus living in London I doubt if I have witnessed half a dozen real police pursuits with the fugitive making desperate efforts to escape.
|
|
|
|
|
The full article might be of use.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawan...l
Its from the paper that our esteemed board provider works for.
His last quote,
'"I suspect there will be many cases where the level of speed was disproportionate to the crime."
To me I think it's not a case of people being killed whilst just committing motoring offences but innocent people being killed by the rush to get to other criminal acts, not all of which are a matter of life and death. I know that the Chief Con of Merseyside put blocks on the use of sirens and lights a couple of years ago whilst issuing a directive as to which reported crimes should see vehicles attending via normal driving.
|
but innocent people being killed by the rush to get to other criminalacts not all of which are a matter of life and death.
Here's the rub... how does one determine exactly WHAT constitutes life and death, unless you have a very very good description of the crime being committed?
A full-scale screaming match reported by a neighbour could be aither a drunken domestic argument, or a murder/rape.
Do the plod err on the side of caution on their way to the scene?
And where does one draw the line - what if there WAS a life-and-death scenario, and plod had an accident en route? Who's to blame?
Seems they are damned if they do, damned if they don't...
|
|
When a pensioner was wiped out and killed by a police 4X4 in my area which collided with a bus shelter whilst answering a call with blues and twos, the reported crime turned out to be some one seen climbing over a back garden fence. That's when the then Chief Con drew up a list of what he considered should be treated as ' make normal progess to " reports.
|
I gave up reading this thread about a third of the way through and now see Mr X's last post. Mr X - response to incidents is a very worthy topic, but perhaps separate to the original post, so I'll return to that if I may. Perhaps it is time for the public to be canvassed on what they want from their Police service. At least that way these debates would end. The Police would do what was wanted. Do the public want vehicle thieves/joyriders pursued, or not? The implication of either decision should be obvious, but perhaps the decision should not be made by the Police. One contributor has rightly pointed out that neither the article nor the Coroner makes clear the level of Police 'involvement' in each case. If officers attempt to stop a car that flees and crashes, are they to blame for that? Pursuits are actively managed and frequently discontinued because of the risks. But the public must be aware of the mentality of some elements of society. It is a known tactic to evade the Police to drive the wrong way on a motorway or dual carriageway, knowing that a pursuit will end. A crash is highly likely, but exactly what do people expect officers to do? They cannot know that this will happen in every case. Perhaps there should never be a pursuit and no-one would be required to stop.
General responses to incidents is another topic. Gross errors are made; there is a certain inevitability to this. Haste matters, but requiring officers to get there quickly and arrest people/prevent crime will always conflict with the right amount of care. There can be no excuses, and many an officer has been prosecuted for poor driving standards-rightly so. But to look at this objectively the number of accidents needs to be viewed in the context of the number of incidents attended daily/annually. Of the three emergency services the Police attend far more than the others, who incidentally are unfortunately not accident free either.
|
Sorry if I have come across as anti-police, but my car was rear-ended today in the panic to stop for a police car that was tearing around a roundabout with his lights and sirens on.
Not the police's fault obviously, and I'm sure whatever incident they were attending was of the utmost importance.
|
|
Most forces would class this as a 'vicinity' accident (or some similar wording). Meaning that the actions of the Police driver are at least contributory to your accident. (This links directly to the Road Traffic Act definition of an 'accident') You should report this as an accident and if you think the drivers actions excessive, complain. If the driver is at fault in some way then he/she may be prosecuted and/or retrained/reclassified as a driver. He/she has nothing to fear if acting correctly and can account for their action. You may benefit in terms of insurance and repairs. I'm not being rude but you'll likely get better satisfaction at the Police station than posting on here!! Perhaps let us all now how you get on??
|
|
The low-life in this country weigh up the chances of being caught and consider the implications of the penalty if they are caught. As numerous TV shows highlight you can drive like a maniac at high speeds, and if caught, escape, with what is to them, a slap on the wrist.
If you are a career yob following your father's footsteps, time spent in jail, young offenders' finishing school or community service is part of life. As they have very little direct negative effect on their life those punishments are of little deterrent.
They must all sit there in jail watching the police shows, on the large widescreens, hooting with delight as their crimes are shown as entertainment. Because their actions are what makes us watch. It's not to see slightly rotund northern coppers tell us why the yobs' driving is so bad, is it?
So either show that they get real punishment by implementing some tougher laws or stop showing the programmes.
|
"They must all sit there in jail watching the police shows, on the large widescreens, hooting with delight as their crimes are shown as entertainment. Because their actions are what makes us watch. It's not to see slightly rotund northern coppers tell us why the yobs' driving is so bad, is it?
So either show that they get real punishment by implementing some tougher laws or stop showing the programmes."
You make a very good point Ho Chi Minh.
Whenever I turn on one of those programmes my flesh creeps listening to the presenter sexing up the the cars, the speed,the abilities of Police drivers and the lack of ability of the criminals. All macho talk. That is why you will note that some of the programmes have contributions form only a minority of forces for that very reason as others do not deem those programmes as a suitable platform for public information. Traffic Cops seems to be held in good regard as, despite some cringeworthy moments overall the programme is well put together and does not glamorise policing.
Edited by Fullchat on 05/12/2008 at 20:43
|
Road deaths in Great Britain over the past ten years have been fairly constant at approximately 3,200 per year. Using the figure given by OP then 33.3 each year 'involved' the police in some way - although I dislike the implications of word 'involved' being used.
France has approximately 8,000 deaths per year, but I cannot find statistics to say how many involved Police. I suspect that figures of Police 'involvement' in road deaths elsewhere in Europe would not be reported as it is here, as Police are still respected on the whole. Does anyone know if this is so?
|
I think you can only judge each fatality on it's own circumstances.
Here, in Manchester, the policy of the police seems to have changed since I retired some years ago. When beat officers became motorised in about 1966, first with mark 2 Cortinas, then Morris Minors and later 850cc Minis, these cars, together with the divisional J4 vans were not equipped with 'blues and twos' and drivers were forbidden to become involved. Training for the 'Panda cars' was minimal, only an hour or so.
Since then and more recently I have noticed nearly every police car and van has blue lights and music. This city is the worst outside the Met for 'police involved' fatals and I sometimes wonder if it is the 'red mist' of untrained drivers that is a factor in this.
Ted
|
|
Ted - what you say is probably fair. Many forces have diluted their training on the premise of 'need' in the individual officer roles. Fine if properly managed, but inevitably I suspect lesser trained drivers end up responding to more urgent jobs and so 'red mist' takes over. Training is horrendously expensive and time consuming. One of the outcomes is that whilst there are some very good Police drivers, they are not so many, and so the Police perhaps lose the moral ground in driving standards. The other outcome is perhaps more Police related accidents. I don't have figures, but if I did, I maintain that they would have to be viewed in the context of volume of work attended by officers, which itself has risen considerably over the years.
|
200 deaths in 6 years??
In the last 6 years 4 million-ish people have died in the UK of all causes that really should put thing in perspective
As well as the fact that in the last 6 years 240,000 people have died from mistakes made in their hospital treatment
Edited by malden blue on 05/12/2008 at 22:00
|
Numbers like that put it all in perspective - even the 3200 per year disappear into the noise.
Obviously, if it affects someone who is close to you, then it's awful, I don't dispute that, but, perhaps we focus on road safety a bit too much when perhaps there are bigger problems which need fixing.
|
> even the 3200 per year disappear into the noise
Exactly as I have repeatedly said on here. The numbers of cars and road users on our roads is ever increasing, yet the numbers of deaths and serious injuries remains the same. Road deaths are at the level of statistical noise, yet attract a disproportionatly large amount of attention and money with little statisitcal hope of making any significant reduction in numbers.
On the other hand, far more people die of what are curable or surviveable diseases due to lack of medical funding.
I am heartily sick of the motorist and the car being portrayed as a mass murderer with all the unwelcome attention that brings, when in fact similar attention and resources would have a far greater benefit when directed elswhere.
Frankly to bleat about 33 deaths a year that might loosely be connected to police driving in some way or other is nearly as much of a waste of time as the police believing that there is no such thing as an accident and that every collision needs to be treated as murder so so some poor sod can be beaten severely with the full weight of the law.
when are we going to get a sense of proportion in this country.
|
AE,
I agree with you.
Factor in people who become ill in a car (e.g. heart attack) and would die anyway, but also have a car accident; Peripheral issues, e.g. suicide off a road bridge, that has a motor vehicle hit the unfortunate person... or people that are so reckless for whatever reason e.g. drug/drink/criminality that an accident is virtually inevitable in any case
then the good old car and its' driver does quite well nowadays in the statistics for this country
|
police driver training for pursuits is based on the philosophy of letting the 'bandit' car have some slack at times of great danger, so that the pursued is not pressured into doing something excessively dangerous...and you can catch up again afterwards..the only problem with that is that this was formulated at a time a pursuing police car might have been a Jaguar S Type versus an Anglia or a V8 P6 Rover versus a 1100 Escort
times have changed...and police budgets have not. So although that principle is still taught, the vast majority of officers do not have the correct equipment...so they have their hands tied behind their backs before you start...unless you can get a force helicopter there quickly enough.
then there's the policies etc to promote safety. Control room supervisors now have the say when a pursuit has to end...and most of them are civilian staff...who have never experienced any policing let alone police driving courses
many, many pursuits nowadays are terminated early...the crook knows this, so perversely, they now drive in a worse fashion early on, in an effort to get the pursuit called off (this never used to happen deliberately). Driving at 100mph plus down the wrong side of dual carriageways or throwing away your crash helmet on a motorcycle is now becoming more prevalent... as a deliberate act to end the pursuit... over and above the 'usual' 100mph plus through red lights etc
you cannot possibly have the situation where pursuits are commonly banned...because there'd be absolute anarchy...think about it. Anyone could hop in/on anything motorised and they'd be away scot free for any crime they fancied committing.
comment by armchair warriors about not pursuing people for stolen t.v.'s is laughable. More often than not you have no idea what the person has done when they fail to stop for you..it could be for no MOT or there could be a dead body freshly murdered in the boot...how would you know? If anyone can arrange for a 'Psychic' button to be fitted to the dashboard of a police car, i'll gratefully receive it. Bear in mind if you were lazy or unduly cautious the easiest thing in the world would be to ignore the beginning of a pursuit...who would know? I cannot think of anyone in public service who would want to go home at night with the death of another human being on their conscience...yet the average crook couldn't give two hoots.
My solution is thus:
1,Decent penalties at court for Failing to Stop for Police,
2,heavier penalties for pursuits e.g. automatic jail, as it is so dangerous (maybe a specific offence)
3, decent equipment (like Essex have at the moment..see The Interceptors)
4, more police driver training
5, more helicopters
the above isn't going to happen, so we'll have to put up with what we've got. Please note that if it goes horribly wrong and a police driver mucks up, ultimately they'll be prosecuted for everything that a member of public would..there are no exceptions for emergency service drivers, none whatsoever, the rules are the same (for driving without due care or reckless driving or worse...there are some exceptions for red lights, speed etc)...although i do believe that Magistrates or Judges bear in mind the unique circumstances of those cases..but I wouldn't want to have to rely on that
|
Yes, right, Westpig, there probably is a dead body in the boot. Of course, I should have thought about this with a policeman's mind. Obviously there is a dead body in the boot.
Is this your justification for chasing some teenage scrotes to the point of no return?
Do you have any figures to show how many car chases have ended up with dead bodies being found in the boot of the fugitives car. Then maybe compare that with the amount of drivers who have no tax, or maybe a bald tyre, or god forbid may have drunk a couple of pints. As I said above, a stolen car isn't a good reason to put anybody's life at risk.
You make it sound like they think they are living in a Hollywood movie.
As you said, more often than not you have no idea what someone has done. More often than not they have done nothing surely?
Edited by krs one on 05/12/2008 at 23:19
|
As I said above a stolen car isn't a good reason to put anybody's life at risk.
fair enough krs one, I take the point, it's well made...but...could you just answer the one about the potential anarchy please...i.e. if you let the stolen car driver go (and incidentally you might not know that it's stolen at that point, so you still wouldn't know why the vehicle was failing to stop)... the presumably all the low life will soon know (because the word does go around) that the Old Bill won't bother you if you 'just' steal a car..it would soon be a 'free for all'. How would you plan to combat that please...i'd really appreciate an answer
Edited by Westpig on 05/12/2008 at 23:21
|
I know what you're saying, it seems wrong to give up on car crime, but this seems to have happened with other crimes. Drug dealing for example, prostitution, underage drinking, burglary, mugging. There are a lot of crimes committed that nobody really expects anything to be done about.
|
This civilians killed thing isn't just about chasing stolen cars and having an accident. The coroner is asking for figures thats show the number of people killed in PVA's that are not the result of a car chase but the result of a police car making it's an to an incident of some other nature. We've all seen the local Panda / Incident response car racing down the road with sirens and lights going. Very appropriate if some one has rung in to report a possible rape, not reasonable if some one is complaining about youths kicking a football around in the street.
This is what the Coroner is trying to determine- what is the make up of such accidents involving police and civilians. Not an unreasonable inquiry in my book.
|
I agree with WP above. We had Jags, Triumph TR4A, and Mini Cooper 1275S amongst others to chase mostly ordinary cars with little performance so the chases were never too long. Incidentally our Accident cars were a pair of Humber Super Snipe automatic estates and couldn't catch a cold.
One thing that does concern me is that two of our recent local fatals involved Transit divisional vans, surely not a pusuit or fast response vehicle, even when fitted with lights and music, especially in fairly unqualified hands.
Ted. Ex' H' division. Manchester City Police.
|
From what I've seen, krs, all the crimes you listed are being dealt with by the Police to a greater or lesser extent.
WP, one point you make was about tougher sentances, and this is the one that needs tackling... I often wonder what the point of "banning" someone is when they've already been banned several times before and continued to drive... you tend to see it at least once a month in the local paper where a scroate who has been banned at least 3 or 4 times finally manages to kill or injure some innocent bystander... we need to get across that "banned" MEANS "banned" and if you do it the second time you are sent down.
Quite honestly those sorts of drivers cause more deaths and general mayhem than any Police chase, the JP should be concentrating on the sentanses he and his fellow JPs are giving out rather than the Police who are only trying to keep the law but without the backup of their "learned"(?) friends....
|
I wonder what happened with the US "three strikes and you're out" policy? Many years ago I remember the late Brian Redhead discussing with a prominent member of the Muslim community the practicality of operating Islamic law in Bradford. Redhead: "But it wouldn't really be practical to amputate a hand for theft would it? You'd have hundreds of handless people!" Interviewee: "I don't think so....".
I'm not advocating this of course, but the question is, what is an effective deterrent? Prison clearly doesn't work, other than as a means of keeping troublemakers out of the way for a while.
|
Manatee, I would only change one slight thing in your post:
"Prison clearly doesn't work"
to:
" The current type of Prison clearly doesn't work"
Its supposed to be there as a deterent but giving it all mod cons is not a deterent... they should be basic, no TVs, etc and the criminals made to do useful work... I am not advocating a return to the squalor of the 19th century, but Prison should be seen as somewhere you don't want to go, rather than somewhere where you can get a good nights kip after watching TV and having a good meal...
(Awaits brickbats from the more "liberated" amongst us!)
|
>>I am not advocating a return to the squalor of the 19thcentury but Prison should be seen as somewhere you don't want to go rather than somewhere where you can get a good nights kip after watching TV and having a good meal...
As an advocate of a 'good clip round the ear' (unfortunately you'd get done for assault these days), I'd also advocate anyone under 21, caught for a twoccing or failing to stop offence to be birched.
No, I'm NOT kidding - strip the miscreant, lash him to a grating, and apply a dozen strokes to the buttocks with a heavy cane, preferably wielded by a large gentleman with a background in tennis, squash or cricket.
All within 48 hours of the offense.
The very second he ignored the siren and flashing blue lights and put his foot down, he was guilty of an offence, in my fascist opinion.
(By the way, the thrashing he recieves should be a really really good one. None of this namby-pamby stuff performed by women in nazi-era regalia...)
.
Edited by Ian (Cape Town) on 06/12/2008 at 13:31
|
(By the way, the thrashing he recieves should be a really really good one. None of this namby-pamby stuff performed by women in nazi-era regalia...)
Personal experience there I? I would have demanded my money back if i were you.
|
"Naughty Boys get bottom marks"...?
Nope, having witnessed somebody I knew get 'six strokes with a cane' once, after he was found guilty of stealing, of all things, a Boney M cassette from a shop, it is NOT something I'd like to happen to my person, no matter what.
Having been 'thrashed' during my school days, i assumed it was the same sort of procedure... forget it, this corporal punishment was real nasty stuff - A-frame, leather straps, and "lay on with a will, sergeant major".
Think about that, as you listen to Little Drummer Boy when you are out shopping in the next week.
|
And of course the miscreants are always "loveable rogues."
Some years ago there was uproar by the parents of a fifteen year old who was killed in the Mersey Tunnel driving a stolen Vauxhall in the early hours of the morning. The Police were castigating for persuing the dead youth. Nothing said about the parents who should have known what their son was up to.
Watching the various TV programmes it appears that the criminals are all conviced that they are better drivers, and can outrun the traffic police.
|
. The Police were castigating for persuing the dead youth.
Of course, should be "castigated."
|
namby-pamby stuff performed by women in nazi-era regalia...)Personal experience there I? I
Probably been watching Max's latest video!
|
|
Since this is a motoring related thread, I think users will find that 'Scrote' is spelt thus and not as I have seen posted. Interestingly (to me, anyway!) it's an anagram of Escort. As in: Old Ford generally driven by....
|
Perhaps an effective deterrent would be for the "joyriders" to be sent to a road safety research centre and be put to good use as crash test dummies. The feedback would be benificial and save the taxpayer money. I don't suppose the "joyriders" would have much joy though...
Better put one of these in... ;-)
|
I suspect my opinion will not be popular here, but the vast majority of deaths are joy riders and not innocent people. As such this is as stated by another poster Darwinian selection at its finest. I feel that people should take responsibility for their actions. The fact that the police are not allowed to give chase when someone steals a motorbike without using a helmet, due to the danger to the rider, is IMO absurd. When I grew up, noone I knew would have dreamt of stealing a car. There were children from council estates who roamed the streets in gangs, beating up people they met, and for example stoning my late mother. These foul scum were probably the sort who went joy riding.
I have seen the scum who steal cars and endanger other people. On one occasion I was overtaken on a blind bend by someone who tried to do likewise to another car, and then went on to drive on the wrong side of a dual carriageway, and go the wrong way around a roundabout. I rang the police and was informed that a vehicle matching the description that I gave was involved in a crash. I suspect that the police are well aware of the danger to innocent bystanders. Of course they do not always get it right, and they should be watched over to ensure that suitable procedures and training are in place. But if a joy rider dies, I'm afraid my attitude is "good riddance".
Of course there are issues around police driving in response to emergency calls, but that is another topic.
|
You are never going to have "zero" deaths in these circumstances. You can only mitigate the number of deaths to a publicly acceptable level through rules, processes, proceedures, on the hoof risk assessments, driver training etc.
What becomes an acceptable figure? Maybe 200 in 6 years is the lowest it will ever go, but you must always strive to reduce if you can. That is a job for ACPO and their rules of engagement are far more stringent than when I was on the beat in the 70's.
Is the coroner including "vicinity only" POLACS? There are plenty of those I should think. If you had access to the figures, you might find that the full blooded, full on, nee naw, nee naw pursuits account for a lot less than the 200 quoted.
What if I was chasing a thief on foot and he ran around the corner without looking, knocked over an old dear who then broke her hip and died from complications? Or if he ran into the road, causing a car to swerve to avoid him, thereby striking a car coming the other way killing all the occupants? Does that happen? I am sure it does. Should that stop police chasing tea leaves? No. The public expects police to act.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
