Police-related road deaths rise
Discussion
At this URL: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4451760.stm
I have not put this here as an excuse to beat up the police. My main concern is with the quotes from Hazel Blears and Nick Hardwick.
Hazel: "Everything that can be done must be done to minimise accidents involving police vehicles". What does that mean? Make all police travel below the speed limit at all times? Clear the roads whenever a police car is on a shout? It seems meaningless to me. What she should be saying, as far as I can see, is that root causes of all incidents will be assessed, patterns discerned, and actions taken to address them where it makes economic sense. Everyone understands that police drivers are in a very difficult situation balancing risk vs. duty in split-second decisions. Hazel Blears' comment doesn't address the real issues but sounds good to morons.
Nick: "The IPCC wants a debate on the risks police should take on the road". This sounds like he's taking his direction from Ian Blair, who basically said this week that he wants someone to tell him the job of the police. Does the IPCC really want the public to set the operational risk parameters for the police? Anyone who has had a relative killed by the police will say that all police should drive at 20mph, while all those who have benefited from a swift response will demand police being free of all risk-related shackles. Again it's meaningless. I assume that the number killed by police drivers is a very small percentage of the total of lives saved by police action, and that an increase in risk-aversion would mean a net increase in deaths, but I also assume this is the sort of reasoning behind the current policy. The police should therefore be willing to state and justify the policy, to explain the thinking behind it, and then stand behind it.
Logic is required, not vague promises of "taking all action" and asking for debates.
BBC said:
Police-related road deaths rise
An independent watchdog wants debate on policing the roads
There has been a rise in the numbers of people killed in road accidents involving police cars. The Independent Police Complaints Commission said 44 people died in England and Wales over the past year.
This is an increase of eight on the previous year and more than two-and-a- half times the 17 recorded in 2000/01.
The IPCC also released figures which said 106 people died during or after contact with police in the last year, up 24 from the year before.
'Degree of risk'
IPCC chairman Nick Hardwick said: "We are concerned about the increase in the number of road traffic-related deaths.
"This year there were a larger number of people killed but in a lower number of incidents."
The IPCC wants a debate on the risks police should take on the road.
He added: "There is an issue for public debate here - when you dial 999 you want the police to get there quickly, but there is a degree of risk involved in that.
"We have to have an intelligent debate about what degree of risk is acceptable and in what circumstances."
A 13-year-old girl was the youngest person to die and the oldest was a 90-year-old woman in Lancashire.
Of the 44 deaths, 23 were in police pursuits, six involved police vehicles answering 999 calls and 15 were listed as "other".
The overall 106 deaths total also included three fatal police shootings.
'Deep regret'
Home Office minister Hazel Blears said: "Everything that can be done must be done to minimise accidents involving police vehicles.
"Such incidents are a very grave matter and any increase is particularly worrying."
Association of Chief Police Officers spokesman and deputy chief constable of Leicestershire David Lindley said: "Acpo deeply regrets any death.
"But it should be recognised that as a 24/7 emergency service the police have millions of interactions with the public, often in difficult circumstances.
"The death of individuals following contact with the police is extremely rare."
I have not put this here as an excuse to beat up the police. My main concern is with the quotes from Hazel Blears and Nick Hardwick.
Hazel: "Everything that can be done must be done to minimise accidents involving police vehicles". What does that mean? Make all police travel below the speed limit at all times? Clear the roads whenever a police car is on a shout? It seems meaningless to me. What she should be saying, as far as I can see, is that root causes of all incidents will be assessed, patterns discerned, and actions taken to address them where it makes economic sense. Everyone understands that police drivers are in a very difficult situation balancing risk vs. duty in split-second decisions. Hazel Blears' comment doesn't address the real issues but sounds good to morons.
Nick: "The IPCC wants a debate on the risks police should take on the road". This sounds like he's taking his direction from Ian Blair, who basically said this week that he wants someone to tell him the job of the police. Does the IPCC really want the public to set the operational risk parameters for the police? Anyone who has had a relative killed by the police will say that all police should drive at 20mph, while all those who have benefited from a swift response will demand police being free of all risk-related shackles. Again it's meaningless. I assume that the number killed by police drivers is a very small percentage of the total of lives saved by police action, and that an increase in risk-aversion would mean a net increase in deaths, but I also assume this is the sort of reasoning behind the current policy. The police should therefore be willing to state and justify the policy, to explain the thinking behind it, and then stand behind it.
Logic is required, not vague promises of "taking all action" and asking for debates.
Found some stuff from previous posts:
"Forget the month-long course - bring back both the six week advanced course and the four week intermediate course. With the higher traffic levels these days you only want to give the Police drivers with the right attitudes and skills profile the right to use blues&twos. The policy in one force I worked with was to make selection for the Advanced course partially based on the percentage of emercalls answered inside charter time. Net result: an increase in non-vicinity-only POLACCs (sorry, POLCOLs, showing my age there ) becuase you had the drivers with the least training and experience and the most incentive to, shall we say, 'DLARC'. Of course the force's solution to that was to fit black box recorders. "
"Reinstate the old method for teaching police advanced driving. (As Dave says above) - I would be very interested to see the collision stats for police drivers before and after Class One was scrapped whic occured, apparently, because hendon was considered elitish. Gosh - what a crime - to be turning out the best drivers in the world. "
"Forget the month-long course - bring back both the six week advanced course and the four week intermediate course. With the higher traffic levels these days you only want to give the Police drivers with the right attitudes and skills profile the right to use blues&twos. The policy in one force I worked with was to make selection for the Advanced course partially based on the percentage of emercalls answered inside charter time. Net result: an increase in non-vicinity-only POLACCs (sorry, POLCOLs, showing my age there ) becuase you had the drivers with the least training and experience and the most incentive to, shall we say, 'DLARC'. Of course the force's solution to that was to fit black box recorders. "
"Reinstate the old method for teaching police advanced driving. (As Dave says above) - I would be very interested to see the collision stats for police drivers before and after Class One was scrapped whic occured, apparently, because hendon was considered elitish. Gosh - what a crime - to be turning out the best drivers in the world. "
Hendon still gives out a mark on the Advanced course - if you get 86% or over you are class one Advanced ...... and when I did my advanced course I think it was 58% of people fail the course.
Everyone who goes on an advanced police driving course has already passed a standard response driving course..... and of those who take that I believe the failure rate is very high...... none of the courses are easy in any way.
In the Met achieving response times going to calls has nothing to do with getting courses - if anyone is doing that they are totally wrong !
Everyone who goes on an advanced police driving course has already passed a standard response driving course..... and of those who take that I believe the failure rate is very high...... none of the courses are easy in any way.
In the Met achieving response times going to calls has nothing to do with getting courses - if anyone is doing that they are totally wrong !
It's just a thought, but I have noticed a lot lately that people just don't see/hear the emergency services even though they have their 'blues & twos' on. I personally find this amazing that people don't see them, but sadly that's the case.
I think that some of it could be put down to modern cars have better sound proofing than they used to and *maybe* the genral standards of driving is decreasing and therefore making it more dangerous ofr the emergency servives to make their way through traffic.
Just a thought...
John
I think that some of it could be put down to modern cars have better sound proofing than they used to and *maybe* the genral standards of driving is decreasing and therefore making it more dangerous ofr the emergency servives to make their way through traffic.
Just a thought...
John
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff