Police Car chases in urbna areas - is it right?

[Blue in Munich]

Im pursuit trained, and yes OP, you're talking rubbish.

The decision to pursue is not taken lightly. Its risk assessed dynamically over and over. Every Street junction and hazard changes the continued assessment and risk. The driver feeds it all back via live commentary as well as everything eles. The control room supervisor review the commentary and also risk assess and will often cancel the pursuit if they feel it is too high a risk.

No Police Officer I know (including me) wants to pursue a stolen vehicle because of the dangers involved and potential consequences of making a mistake which could ultimately be jail.

But, if you dont try to stop them, they will go on to commit further offences. Dangerous driving anyway, without police behind them. Mostly driven by unlicensed drivers who will eventually crash without anyone chasing them.

When you consider lots of stolen cars are used purely for violence offences including robbery/ assault/ kidnapp etc, do you not try to prevent this, or just leave the car to it and tell the victims we didn't want to intervene in case the car crashed?

Almost every stolen car I have recovered has had drugs paraphernalia in it. Most driversare under the influence of cannabis when theybare driving, if not cocaine, heroin or alcohol. Do we allow these people to just carry on driving innthe hope that once we leave them be they will loc the car up and walk?

Good luck getting a chopper over head. Most pursuits last no more than a few minutes. Choppers wont even lift in this time.

Drones? This isn't afghan, we're not navy seals looking to secure a high profile target that posses a significant threat to a nation.

UAV's? A non starter.

Cctv? The real world isnt watchdogs, its not all linked and most of it is so poor it cant even read a reg let alone ID an offender.

DNA, as soon as the car is scrambled and lost, its burnt out, No DNA.

And if you even knew how difficult the legal process was in order to convict people who are caught after a police pursuit, you'd know why you need to physically pull a driver out of the drivers seat. Even that isn't enough sometimes.

Denying criminals the unlawful use of the road network and disrupting their operations is why we live in a reletively safe country. You allow this problem to go unchallenged and eventually it will require much more drastic action.

You allow a driver to go, unchallenged in a stolen car, they grow more confident, take more risks, feel more powerful eventually untouchable. That is when a criminal is most dangerous and most active.

The amount of training required and level of skill need to even drive a police car on blues, let alone pursue a vehicle is immense, its not all done on a whim and a prayer. Yes, inevitably some will end with a negative result, but you dont hear about the thousands that end positively.

All Police vehicles have a 'black box' and are subject to serious scrutiny following a police vehicle collision. Us more so than criminals usually.

You want a solution to the problem? Lobby your MPs for tougher sentencing.

Prevention is always better than cure.

I'd initially avoided commenting too deeply on this because it does nothing for my blood pressure to see the sort of ill informed cobblers that was originally posted, but as a former pursuit trained driver I can only endorse the comments in this post.

The only thing missing in my opinion is also to educate MPs that speed cameras are not the answer to everything as they do not catch the drunk, drugged, uninsured, unlicensed or plain incompetent. Only a trained police officer, preferably a traffic officer, will do that, but they have practically been done away with. :angry:

No, there are no prizes for guessing which branch I retired from.

 

[User62651]

Im pursuit trained, and yes OP, you're talking rubbish.

The decision to pursue is not taken lightly. Its risk assessed dynamically over and over. Every Street junction and hazard changes the continued assessment and risk. The driver feeds it all back via live commentary as well as everything eles. The control room supervisor review the commentary and also risk assess and will often cancel the pursuit if they feel it is too high a risk.

No Police Officer I know (including me) wants to pursue a stolen vehicle because of the dangers involved and potential consequences of making a mistake which could ultimately be jail.

But, if you dont try to stop them, they will go on to commit further offences. Dangerous driving anyway, without police behind them. Mostly driven by unlicensed drivers who will eventually crash without anyone chasing them.

When you consider lots of stolen cars are used purely for violence offences including robbery/ assault/ kidnapp etc, do you not try to prevent this, or just leave the car to it and tell the victims we didn't want to intervene in case the car crashed?

Almost every stolen car I have recovered has had drugs paraphernalia in it. Most driversare under the influence of cannabis when theybare driving, if not cocaine, heroin or alcohol. Do we allow these people to just carry on driving innthe hope that once we leave them be they will loc the car up and walk?

Good luck getting a chopper over head. Most pursuits last no more than a few minutes. Choppers wont even lift in this time.

Drones? This isn't afghan, we're not navy seals looking to secure a high profile target that posses a significant threat to a nation.

UAV's? A non starter.

Cctv? The real world isnt watchdogs, its not all linked and most of it is so poor it cant even read a reg let alone ID an offender.

DNA, as soon as the car is scrambled and lost, its burnt out, No DNA.

And if you even knew how difficult the legal process was in order to convict people who are caught after a police pursuit, you'd know why you need to physically pull a driver out of the drivers seat. Even that isn't enough sometimes.

Denying criminals the unlawful use of the road network and disrupting their operations is why we live in a reletively safe country. You allow this problem to go unchallenged and eventually it will require much more drastic action.

You allow a driver to go, unchallenged in a stolen car, they grow more confident, take more risks, feel more powerful eventually untouchable. That is when a criminal is most dangerous and most active.

The amount of training required and level of skill need to even drive a police car on blues, let alone pursue a vehicle is immense, its not all done on a whim and a prayer. Yes, inevitably some will end with a negative result, but you dont hear about the thousands that end positively.

All Police vehicles have a 'black box' and are subject to serious scrutiny following a police vehicle collision. Us more so than criminals usually.

You want a solution to the problem? Lobby your MPs for tougher sentencing.

Prevention is always better than cure.

Informative post. As the 'rubbish spouting' OP I am big enough to accept I perhaps need become better educated on the matter. I accept the police view but as a law abiding taxpayer it should be ok to question policy and throw some ideas around I think. Interesting range of views through the thread and great to get some real police views.

Shame then that the powers that be can't bring about harder sentences for car thiefs to deter - however seems the UK is not near the top of the list of countries for car theft crime thankfully but 250 ish related pursuit innocent party deaths in 10 years for Eng/Wal to the lay person probably seems unacceptably high.

The IPCC were reviewing pursuit policy before this latest incident so glad to read that's ongoing. In my defence questions will be asked and rightly so for the families affected.

Suppose if deterrents aren't working and law unlikely to change they need to go about making the vehicles even harder to steal then, technology moves quickly (as do the crooks) so start up codes, voice or retinal/fingerprint recognition or remote immobiliser or other tech may be something in the future to deter theft or am I talking rubbish....again?:mmm:.......least I'm consistent........

Apologies if anyone's blood pressure is on the rise!

 

[Blue in Munich]

Informative post. As the 'rubbish spouting' OP I am big enough to accept I perhaps need become better educated on the matter. I accept the police view but as a law abiding taxpayer it should be ok to question policy and throw some ideas around I think. Interesting range of views through the thread and great to get some real police views.

Shame then that the powers that be can't bring about harder sentences for car thiefs to deter - however seems the UK is not near the top of the list of countries for car theft crime thankfully but 250 ish related pursuit innocent party deaths in 10 years for Eng/Wal to the lay person probably seems unacceptably high.

The IPCC were reviewing pursuit policy before this latest incident so glad to read that's ongoing. In my defence questions will be asked and rightly so for the families affected.

Suppose if deterrents aren't working and law unlikely to change they need to go about making the vehicles even harder to steal then, technology moves quickly (as do the crooks) so start up codes, voice or retinal/fingerprint recognition or remote immobiliser or other tech may be something in the future to deter theft or am I talking rubbish....again?:mmm:.......least I'm consistent........

Apologies if anyone's blood pressure is on the rise!

Questioning policy is quite acceptable, most coppers do it as well. Your original post questioned the integrity and attitude of those who find themselves between a rock and a hard place, which is not.

As far as making cars harder to steal it's not going to happen. There is always more financial incentive for the criminals than there is for the car manufacturers and even if it was possible it won't happen for another 25 years or so until the vast majority of the current vehicles on the road have expired. As far as manufacturers making them safer, where's the incentive? If it gets nicked the insurance pays out and they sell another. And regardless of how secure the manufacturers make them, how secure do the owners make them? If you go out, where are your keys? Locked up in a safe or just sitting on the kitchen table for any burglar to take. If all else fails they will just hang around a supermarket car park and carjack one off of a lady shopper (nothing personal ladies but generally you make easier targets). They will always get stolen.

As far as your figure of 250 innocent victims go, is there a split in that between genuinely innocent bystanders as in the Penge incident and those who kill only themselves when they fail to stop? A link to the source might be interesting.

 

[User62651]

Questioning policy is quite acceptable, most coppers do it as well. Your original post questioned the integrity and attitude of those who find themselves between a rock and a hard place, which is not.

As far as your figure of 250 innocent victims go, is there a split in that between genuinely innocent bystanders as in the Penge incident and those who kill only themselves when they fail to stop? A link to the source might be interesting.

I don't quite follow the end '...which is not..' part above - possibly an unfinished sentence?
I agree I may have questioned attitude, not integrity though, we all know it is a tough job and is under resourced.
Lot of deaths though, could any have been avoided by better police decision making?

The bbc had the 250 stat from IPCC in this article -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37241655, dont know about splits.

 

[USER1999]

One of my colleagues had his BMW 'broken' into on Thursday night. No apparent damage. He reported it to the police, and their answer was interesting.

BMW? You can buy a gadget on eBay that will open a BMW without a key.

Great.

 

[hovis]

One of my colleagues had his BMW 'broken' into on Thursday night. No apparent damage. He reported it to the police, and their answer was interesting.

BMW? You can buy a gadget on eBay that will open a BMW without a key.

Great.

A hammer?

 

[USER1999]

A hammer?

A hammer might leave apparent damage? I mean I'm an artist with a hammer, or an angle grinder, but even I, at my best, might leave evidence of a little tickle.

 

[Blue in Munich]

I don't quite follow the end '...which is not..' part above - possibly an unfinished sentence?
I agree I may have questioned attitude, not integrity though, we all know it is a tough job and is under resourced.
Lot of deaths though, could any have been avoided by better police decision making?

The bbc had the 250 stat from IPCC in this article -http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-37241655, dont know about splits.

I'll simplify it; questioning policy is acceptable, questioning their attitude is not and by questioning their attitude you question their integrity. Sorry if that seems harsh but that's the way I see it.

Could any of the deaths have been prevented? Tell us the circumstances in each case and we might be able to come to a reasonable conclusion as to whether the police could have made a better decision. Sometimes the decisions made when under pressure in a pursuit do indeed look like the wrong one when judged from the comfort of your keyboard with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, but unfortunately that's a luxury not available to those trying to do the job.

But I'll give you one indisputable fact; every one of those deaths was preventable if the criminal hadn't committed the offence or had pulled over when signalled to do so. Maybe if we adopted the attitude described by the retired officer in that same article we wouldn't have a problem.

 

[Deleted member 16999]

It'll never happen, but someone taking a life whilst driving a stolen car should be charged with murder imo.