Just heard on grapevine....
Discussion
Whoever gave the quotes to the paper have either been misquoted or don't know the correct terminology.
It is NOT a "target" or "bandit" vehicle, it is a "subject" vehicle. The reasoning behind this is that to refer to it as the former rather than the latter can sometimes make the incident more "personal", and make judgement less sound.
Having done this course myself, it is very tightly run, and the instructors are all very experienced, top notch trainers.
Obviously, I don't know what happened on this occasion, but fortunately it seems that the officers involved received only minor injuries, and no members of the public were involved.
This course is approved at national level, and I guess there have been about fifty or so week long courses run in this area, usually with about 4-6 scenarios per day, adding up to a total of about 25-30 "pursuits" over the duration of the course.
All in all, considering how many courses have been done without major incident, my own personal view is that this is in danger of getting somewhat blown out of proportion (although I'm willing to listen to people's feelings about it).
It is NOT a "target" or "bandit" vehicle, it is a "subject" vehicle. The reasoning behind this is that to refer to it as the former rather than the latter can sometimes make the incident more "personal", and make judgement less sound.
Having done this course myself, it is very tightly run, and the instructors are all very experienced, top notch trainers.
Obviously, I don't know what happened on this occasion, but fortunately it seems that the officers involved received only minor injuries, and no members of the public were involved.
This course is approved at national level, and I guess there have been about fifty or so week long courses run in this area, usually with about 4-6 scenarios per day, adding up to a total of about 25-30 "pursuits" over the duration of the course.
All in all, considering how many courses have been done without major incident, my own personal view is that this is in danger of getting somewhat blown out of proportion (although I'm willing to listen to people's feelings about it).
Munter said:
And if anybody knows anything about crashing a police car (without injury to civilians!), it's Dibble!
Oh I think that's a bit off. As far as I know it has not yet been established that Dibble was to blame for his shunt. If the outcome is known I've obviously missed it, sorry.
I have previously indicated my admiration (subject to certain reservations) for top notch advanced police drivers, but it seems odd that they can have such a spectacular pile up at what has been described as low speed. At the moment my reservations are increasing somewhat. Hopefully the true story will reach us in due course.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
And if anybody knows anything about crashing a police car (without injury to civilians!), it's Dibble!
Oh I think that's a bit off. As far as I know it has not yet been established that Dibble was to blame for his shunt. If the outcome is known I've obviously missed it, sorry.
I didn't mean to imply that Dibble was at fault for his cars rapid departure from service. Just that he would know what the drivers of the cars in question are going through. (I presume a LOT of paperwork and ribbing from others!)
Munter said:
I didn't mean to imply that Dibble was at fault for his cars rapid departure from service. Just that he would know what the drivers of the cars in question are going through. (I presume a LOT of paperwork and ribbing from others!)
OK Phillip, sorry. Maybe I was a bit quick off the mark there.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
PMSL! I was just trying to give another view to this story - I don't particularly view the newspaper in question as very "pro" (not that that's their job, obviously).
No, Dave, you haven't missed anything. I'm still sweating on the outcome of the investigation into "my" collision - 5 months ago. Even if I'm not prosecuted, I've still got the discipline side of things to get through.
As I've posted before (apologies if you've missed ot), once a decision is made, I'll post the full circumstances as I saw them.
My earlier post in relation to this job was that accidents/collisions/call them what you will, on this training, are, thankfully, remarkably few and far between.
The course content and delivery have been ratified at national level, so it's not as though it's half a dozen bobbies making it up as they go along.
And if I can't take a bit of ribbing, I'm in the wrong job on the wrong forum! What do you think I expected when I posted those pics (and drew attention to them) in my profile?!
No offence meant I'm sure, and certainly none taken by me!
Between J8 and J9 - that's the tricky bit where the L1 moves off to M65 and L2/L3 remain M61.....leading to M6 merge. Chosen for training presumably because it is a bit "tricky"
Not my favourite stretch of motorway as it is usually congested...... And the other problem .... less traffic police in Lancs - though no doubt the talivan activity will be increased at this bit ......
which will lead to more congestion and more panic braking ..... >> Edited by Mad Moggie on Friday 24th September 07:39
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff