Police driver on speed camera training in fatal crash
Discussion
Tragic for all concerned, I imagine the police officer feels awful about what has happened, and of course Mr Williams family will be devastated.
If this happened on the section of road that I think it happened on I would question its use for training at speed. It is relatively narrow, fairly straight road which is potentially very dangerous if you don't know it. Why? Because it is so uneven, and many of the dips are not easily visible, but have the potential to severely unsettle the car if taken at speed. I know, I have driven it many times.
(Used to run the post ofice in Bolton-le-Sands)
If this happened on the section of road that I think it happened on I would question its use for training at speed. It is relatively narrow, fairly straight road which is potentially very dangerous if you don't know it. Why? Because it is so uneven, and many of the dips are not easily visible, but have the potential to severely unsettle the car if taken at speed. I know, I have driven it many times.
(Used to run the post ofice in Bolton-le-Sands)
mattyboy101 said:
48 people killed in collisions with Police vehicles this year?!!
I wonder how that compares as a %age of vehicles they make up, or of how many miles they cover?
I wonder how that compares as a %age of vehicles they make up, or of how many miles they cover?
The vast majority of those won't involve the Police vehicle hitting anything. Most are where a fleeing vehicles hits something. That still counts as a Police fatality under the counting rules.
I think it safe to say that pursuing people is a little more risky than normal driving, so any comparison you are trying to draw is pretty pointless.
Do you want the Police not to pursue at all ?
(I know this particular case wasn't a pursuit & any death is of course both tragic & regrettable)
Edited by vonhosen on Monday 13th November 20:17
Unfortunetly, it will continue to happen while CC feel they are the only people that can practise and train their workforce in potential dangerous activities (or activities with potentially dangerous outcomes) in completely uncontrolled environments. Not only that they insist on including the general public into those environements.
The arrogance of the average CC never ceases to amaze me.
The arrogance of the average CC never ceases to amaze me.
One small factual point - VASCAR isn't a speed camera technique, and it's been in use for about 30 years that I can recall.
One other point - nowhere in that article does it say that they were driving at a speed higher than the traffic around him - they were simply measuring their speed. He might even be going slower than the "target", if using VASCAR.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
One other point - nowhere in that article does it say that they were driving at a speed higher than the traffic around him - they were simply measuring their speed. He might even be going slower than the "target", if using VASCAR.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
A bit more about it here.
www.lancastertoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=31&ArticleID=1869659
www.lancastertoday.co.uk/ViewArticle2.aspx?SectionID=31&ArticleID=1869659
vonhosen said:
The vast majority of those won't involve the Police vehicle hitting anything
VH I appreciate your lightning speed with which you seek to portray in a different light anything that puts the police in a bad light but the above is simply errr....not correct. Of those 48 fatalities they involved a police vehicle hitting somebody or something that resulted in a fatality. These come from IPCC data.
tvrgit said:
One small factual point - VASCAR isn't a speed camera technique, and it's been in use for about 30 years that I can recall.
One other point - nowhere in that article does it say that they were driving at a speed higher than the traffic around him - they were simply measuring their speed. He might even be going slower than the "target", if using VASCAR.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
One other point - nowhere in that article does it say that they were driving at a speed higher than the traffic around him - they were simply measuring their speed. He might even be going slower than the "target", if using VASCAR.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
Having read the article in the paper in more detail I have a pretty good idea where this happened, so sorry, I was speculating a bit about speed. However I do know that road, and as well as lots of small scale dips that can upset the suspension, there are large ones leading to blind spots. Put the two together, with a bit of speed, leading to a slight unsettling of the handling, especially if you are not familiar with the road, could place you close to, or over the centre line, at or near one of the blind spots. Recipe for an unfortunate accident, and I in no way wish to blame the police driver, same thing could easily have happened to me. This stretch of road is a favorite of mine for a bit of a blast, I have driven it a lot, and there are a couple of spots that I now know deserve a lot of care and respect. I didn't know that at first however, and as the saying goes, "there but for the grace of god...."
Richard C said:
vonhosen said:
The vast majority of those won't involve the Police vehicle hitting anything
VH I appreciate your lightning speed with which you seek to portray in a different light anything that puts the police in a bad light but the above is simply errr....not correct. Of those 48 fatalities they involved a police vehicle hitting somebody or something that resulted in a fatality. These come from IPCC data.
And I wonder if the 48 fatalities are exempt from being included in the figures for people kiled of seriously injured whilst speeding!?
I think not...
Richard C said:
vonhosen said:
The vast majority of those won't involve the Police vehicle hitting anything
VH I appreciate your lightning speed with which you seek to portray in a different light anything that puts the police in a bad light but the above is simply errr....not correct. Of those 48 fatalities they involved a police vehicle hitting somebody or something that resulted in a fatality. These come from IPCC data.
Police car chases stolen vehicle, stolen vehicle crashes & someone dies = Polcol fatality.
Even if the Police vehicle itself hit nothing.
That's the way Polcols are counted. Their mere presence makes it count as a polcol.
I haven't seen this years figures, have you got a link ?
In previous figures, in 53 pursuit fatal collisions the Police vehicle actually hit the victims vehicle in only 1 of those 53. The rest being the target vehicle striking other people or vehicles.
edit
****
IPCC said:
There were 48 individual fatalities as a result of police-related road traffic incidents
That doesn't say that Police hit 48, it says Police related.
As I said you have to look at the counting rules to get a true picture of what that 48 can entail.
Of the 48 that died in 2005/6, 32 died during or shortly after a pursuit & 7 when a vehicle made off from Police but weren't actually being pursued.
Forty of those who died were male. The average age was 31 years, while 16 people were under 21 years of age. Six of those who died were reported to be from minority ethnic groups. (If any of that helps).
The 48 died from a total of 42 collisions in 2005/6 compared to 44 from 43 collisions in 2004/5. So there was actually one less fatality collision.
Pursuits are inherently risky. There are stringent control measures, but with the best will in the world if you are going to pursue at all, inevitably it's going to go wrong sometimes. Even if you don't pursue there are going to be some where people make off at speed just because they've seen Police, as the 7 fatalities from such a circumstance in 2005/6 show.
Do we want the Police to have a blanket no pursuits policy, is that the answer ?
Edited by vonhosen on Tuesday 14th November 00:01
23 of a total of 44 fatalities were a result of 'pursuit' in 2004/05, according to the IPCC.
the remainder were attributed to 'emergency response' - 6
and 'other incidents' - 15.
It's not apparent from a cursory read what the 'other incidents' constitute - presumably non emergency response RTAs - but neither is it clear how many of the 44 unfortunate individuals were actually police officers.
the remainder were attributed to 'emergency response' - 6
and 'other incidents' - 15.
It's not apparent from a cursory read what the 'other incidents' constitute - presumably non emergency response RTAs - but neither is it clear how many of the 44 unfortunate individuals were actually police officers.
I can confirm what VH says in relation to police collision reporting .... it includes absolutely anything where the police car gets anywhere near a crash. It certainly doesn't have to include the police car itself. I report them and most of what I deal with is what we call 'vicinity only'.
An example is where a car pulling over to let a police car on a call go past clips the wing mirror of a parked unattended car. That is reported as a police collision .... but the police car has hit nothing - and so it goes on.
Another example was when I reported a possible fatal police collision a couple of years ago where the police driver was having a coffee at the side of the road and saw a car come through a no entry the wrong way. It was in summer and the other driver had his window down. The policeman shouted for the other driver to pull over. The other driver indicated OK but then made off at speed. He crashed about two miles away and nearly died. At no stage was the police car ever near this other vehicle apart from the initial moments when asked to stop yet because of the police contact it was recorded as a possible fatal vicinity only police collision.
Please be aware of what sort of things the figures contain !
An example is where a car pulling over to let a police car on a call go past clips the wing mirror of a parked unattended car. That is reported as a police collision .... but the police car has hit nothing - and so it goes on.
Another example was when I reported a possible fatal police collision a couple of years ago where the police driver was having a coffee at the side of the road and saw a car come through a no entry the wrong way. It was in summer and the other driver had his window down. The policeman shouted for the other driver to pull over. The other driver indicated OK but then made off at speed. He crashed about two miles away and nearly died. At no stage was the police car ever near this other vehicle apart from the initial moments when asked to stop yet because of the police contact it was recorded as a possible fatal vicinity only police collision.
Please be aware of what sort of things the figures contain !
tvrgit said:
One other point - nowhere in that article does it say that they were driving at a speed higher than the traffic around him - they were simply measuring their speed. He might even be going slower than the "target", if using VASCAR.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
Their speed is irrelevant. They are undertaking activities not directly related to driving in a public place when the activity can easily be done in private in more controlled circumstances. No other industry would get away with the complete lack of controls imposed by the police when they undertake training activities.
bluepolarbear said:
tvrgit said:
One other point - nowhere in that article does it say that they were driving at a speed higher than the traffic around him - they were simply measuring their speed. He might even be going slower than the "target", if using VASCAR.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
Less sensationalism based on speculation, would help.
Their speed is irrelevant. They are undertaking activities not directly related to driving in a public place when the activity can easily be done in private in more controlled circumstances. No other industry would get away with the complete lack of controls imposed by the police when they undertake training activities.
Their speed might be relevant, it might not. I was only commenting on the earlier posts about training to use a speed camera at high speed. The device is not a camera nor is there evidence in those reports that the car was travelling at high speed. I was merely asking for a less sensationalist approach.
How do you propose they train then? Do you propose that all driver training, including bus drivers, HGV and even normal learners, should take place off-road? How do you then learn the skills you need when you go out on the road?
I suspect that their training is considerably more controlled than you think, and carries less risk than a lot of drivers bumbling along in a semi-trance.
I admit that I don't know. I have no idea what I am talking about. I suspect neither do you. Speculative argument is therefore superfluous.
VH, John57 thanks for the detailed explanation. I read the IPCC reports and they simply don't make it clear that the term 'police collision' can be down to only non-police vehicles.
I would have thought that from a PR point of view as well as simple misrepresentation the IPCC and police should campaign to get this term changed. If only about 2% of 'police collisions' actually mean a police car hit and injured or killed somebody that is going to be far more sympathetically accepted by the GP ( and the anti-speed pressure groups ) than the present statistic.
I would have thought that from a PR point of view as well as simple misrepresentation the IPCC and police should campaign to get this term changed. If only about 2% of 'police collisions' actually mean a police car hit and injured or killed somebody that is going to be far more sympathetically accepted by the GP ( and the anti-speed pressure groups ) than the present statistic.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff