147mph on motorway
Discussion
Red 4 said:
R8Steve said:
Red 4 said:
The other guy came off worse.
Statements like this are exactly the reason personal comments from police officers should be avoided.Someone asked a question and I gave an answer.
If you are suggesting I went overboard you are very wrong.
I did what I had to do. I was seriously injured and I lost my job as a result.
Some people (like you) have no idea.
Your comment reads very much like someone went overboard and public perception of such a comment would be the same.
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you but my original point was that perhaps these comments shouldn’t be made outwith official and factual channels.
Red 4 said:
Haha.
Sorry Toltec, I was skim reading - apologies.
Blues and twos should be on at those speeds.
The idea is to look at vehicles in Lane 1/ Lane 2 and assess how fast they are gaining on the vehicle in front.
That gives you an idea if/ when they are going to pull out.
The idea of the training is to give yourself time to react - but as the speeds increase so does the risk.
Not easy at 150 MPH.
Doesn't everyone do that on a motorway? Start a count at about 20 seconds and see how close you get to when they actually pull out etc.Sorry Toltec, I was skim reading - apologies.
Blues and twos should be on at those speeds.
The idea is to look at vehicles in Lane 1/ Lane 2 and assess how fast they are gaining on the vehicle in front.
That gives you an idea if/ when they are going to pull out.
The idea of the training is to give yourself time to react - but as the speeds increase so does the risk.
Not easy at 150 MPH.
Its one of the things that keeps me engaged at the speeds we are allowed to do on a motorway. To be fair I generally don't want to go much faster due to fuel consumption, to put it another way it is one of the reasons I don't buy diesels, driving at 35mpg would lose me my license.
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
If it wasn't dangerous, why imperative to use blues & twos?
I never said it wasn’t dangerous.Being more interested in a conviction than public safety perhaps.
It's you saying he should have blues/twos on here though, not PC Foster.
He has just chosen words poorly to the press. That's not a reason for having blues/twos on.
There is just as much of a chance of someone pulling out on the police car as there is the guy in front, with the blues and twos on this risk would be slightly mitigated.
If it wasn’t dangerous then he shouldn’t have come out with all the comments that it was afterwards.
R8Steve said:
You mean you’re training doesn’t teach you to restrain someone without them being seriously injured?
Your comment reads very much like someone went overboard and public perception of such a comment would be the same.
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you but my original point was that perhaps these comments shouldn’t be made outwith official and factual channels.
You are just reinforcing the fact that you have no idea.Your comment reads very much like someone went overboard and public perception of such a comment would be the same.
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you but my original point was that perhaps these comments shouldn’t be made outwith official and factual channels.
Training ? Yep - tried that with all the tools and equipment I had available.
Didn't work. I was losing.
Reverted to the law of the jungle.
I survived.
You do not have a clue.
Red 4 said:
R8Steve said:
You mean you’re training doesn’t teach you to restrain someone without them being seriously injured?
Your comment reads very much like someone went overboard and public perception of such a comment would be the same.
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you but my original point was that perhaps these comments shouldn’t be made outwith official and factual channels.
You are just reinforcing the fact that you have no idea.Your comment reads very much like someone went overboard and public perception of such a comment would be the same.
I’m sorry to hear about what happened to you but my original point was that perhaps these comments shouldn’t be made outwith official and factual channels.
Training ? Yep - tried that with all the tools and equipment I had available.
Didn't work. I was losing.
Reverted to the law of the jungle.
I survived.
You do not have a clue.
You are just reinforcing the fact why comments about police work should be left to official channels.
xjay1337 said:
I don't understand half the posters here.
Doing 140 odd on a motorway at 2am when you are the only car around is one thing, doing it in a RELATIVELY busy motorway is quite another.
I'd say he got off VERY lucky. Motorcyclists have gone to jail for less.
Nobody in this country has ever been imprisoned for speeding.Doing 140 odd on a motorway at 2am when you are the only car around is one thing, doing it in a RELATIVELY busy motorway is quite another.
I'd say he got off VERY lucky. Motorcyclists have gone to jail for less.
R8Steve said:
You mean you’re training doesn’t teach you to restrain someone without them being seriously injured?
It does, up to a point, but the law has included for use of force as appropriate where necessary up to and including lethal force. Outside of the world of internet experts and Kung Fu masters, of course, who would never in any scenario need to divert from the training manual. A friend of mine who is a PC snapped a bloke's arm using his baton as an improvised torque-bar to get him out of a door to reach a stabbed woman on the other side. A quality piece of improvised life-saving action that wasn't taught but was necessary and proportionate.
R8Steve said:
So travelling at 155mph in traffic the same as the guy in front is fine, yet with the guy in front it was sheer luck a fatal accident didn’t happen?
There is just as much of a chance of someone pulling out on the police car as there is the guy in front, with the blues and twos on this risk would be slightly mitigated.
If it wasn’t dangerous then he shouldn’t have come out with all the comments that it was afterwards.
No he shouldn't have, I said he chose his words poorly in the interview when describing the Audi driver's driving.There is just as much of a chance of someone pulling out on the police car as there is the guy in front, with the blues and twos on this risk would be slightly mitigated.
If it wasn’t dangerous then he shouldn’t have come out with all the comments that it was afterwards.
That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
PorkInsider said:
As someone else said above, if it was so dangerous why didn’t plod have blues and twos going?
And why didn’t he/she pull back and not continue the pursuit?
They seem to give up regularly enough on the police fly-on-the-wall TV shows when they think it’s dangerous to continue.
Because he didn't truly believe it was dangerous to do that speed at that time, he just chose his words poorly for the interview.And why didn’t he/she pull back and not continue the pursuit?
They seem to give up regularly enough on the police fly-on-the-wall TV shows when they think it’s dangerous to continue.
vonhosen said:
No he shouldn't have, I said he chose his words poorly in the interview when describing the Audi driver's driving.
That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
Because it’s safer to have blues and twos on at that speed to make cars more aware you are there. If they have them then surely they should be using them, without doing so makes him just as much as a danger as the guy in front.That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
vonhosen said:
No he shouldn't have, I said he chose his words poorly in the interview when describing the Audi driver's driving.
That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
To draw attention to the Police vehicle and get him to slow down maybe?That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
Red 4 said:
R8Steve said:
I don’t have a clue about how comment is perceived? Ok then.
You are just reinforcing the fact why comments about police work should be left to official channels.
No.You are just reinforcing the fact why comments about police work should be left to official channels.
You have no clue about reality.
And what police officers can and cannot do within the law.
Bigends said:
vonhosen said:
No he shouldn't have, I said he chose his words poorly in the interview when describing the Audi driver's driving.
That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
To draw attention to the Police vehicle and get him to slow down maybe?That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
R8Steve said:
vonhosen said:
No he shouldn't have, I said he chose his words poorly in the interview when describing the Audi driver's driving.
That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
Because it’s safer to have blues and twos on at that speed to make cars more aware you are there. If they have them then surely they should be using them, without doing so makes him just as much as a danger as the guy in front.That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
You keep mentioning 'danger'. The allegation is not one of dangerous driving by the Audi (who didn't even have the blues/twos available).
vonhosen said:
Bigends said:
vonhosen said:
No he shouldn't have, I said he chose his words poorly in the interview when describing the Audi driver's driving.
That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
To draw attention to the Police vehicle and get him to slow down maybe?That doesn't alter you saying here he should have had is blues/twos on, I'm asking why you are saying he should have?
(We aren't disagreeing that he chose his words poorly, we are disagreeing over why blues & twos were necessary given the video).
Bigends said:
vonhosen said:
He undoubtedly did that when he wanted to stop the vehicle (a legitimate & necessary use for the blues & twos).
Having given him enough rope to hang himself as well as allowing him (and the officer ) to continue at those speeds endangering others.Yes he obtained the evidence, then acted.
The Police have to make much harder calls in allowing serious criminals to go down a path that allows them to gather sufficient evidence prior to intervening.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff