What would you do if you were banned?
Discussion
Hi WMHV70,
I appreciate your reply, but notwithstanding the operational needs for training, I really don't think open and crowded roads are the place for 100 mph pursuit training which puts at risk ordinary people like my kids and grandchildren and yours.
Imagine training aircrew in emergency situations, like a Jumbo trying to land with 2 engines out, or after suffering major hydraulic failure. There would be an outcry at the risk to other air traffic, and rightly so.
The answer, as with flight training, is to use simulators. Current simulators are very representative of the real thing and are used not only for aviation, but for marine applications, driving supertankers, for example, and most situations can be synthetically reproduced these days.
Not cheap to set up, I grant you, but available 24 hours a day and 365 days per year, so one simulator could cover several police and other emergency vehicle areas. You could also sell time on a simulator to advanced driving organisations. I'm talking multi-axis simulation here, not just a wheel, pedals and a screen.
I appreciate your reply, but notwithstanding the operational needs for training, I really don't think open and crowded roads are the place for 100 mph pursuit training which puts at risk ordinary people like my kids and grandchildren and yours.
Imagine training aircrew in emergency situations, like a Jumbo trying to land with 2 engines out, or after suffering major hydraulic failure. There would be an outcry at the risk to other air traffic, and rightly so.
The answer, as with flight training, is to use simulators. Current simulators are very representative of the real thing and are used not only for aviation, but for marine applications, driving supertankers, for example, and most situations can be synthetically reproduced these days.
Not cheap to set up, I grant you, but available 24 hours a day and 365 days per year, so one simulator could cover several police and other emergency vehicle areas. You could also sell time on a simulator to advanced driving organisations. I'm talking multi-axis simulation here, not just a wheel, pedals and a screen.
Cooperman
I understand what you are saying, but I would disagree that this incident was down to 'live pursuit training'.
As far as I am aware there is a driving school policy of not even having two cars running together on the same course because of a tendancy for the drivers to get into competition during that training. Courses usually have more than 1 car running and from my experience, the instructors are careful to plan routes that do not co-incide with each other.
Most courses have occaions where the two or three cars on the course go to the same destination for lunch at some time during that course. I have never expereinced meeting another car en-route from any course I have been on during any of those training routes.
Specific pursuit training is not carried out on public roads and from experience is usually done on airfields where there is no conflict from other road users.
I vaguely remember the incident you refer to. I believe it was a Metroplitan car that was being driven when it was involved in the crash. It was also being driven by the Instructor at the time of the collision!
I also believe it was just an advanced course undertaking ordinary advanced tuition and not a pursuit course as you state.
As far as double standards are concerned, that will be down to the courts!
If the courts decide that there is no penalty for a specific offence because of the situation and the people involved, it is hardly a double standard by the Police who had the unfortunate experience of dealing and prosecuting yet another fatal collision!
I understand what you are saying, but I would disagree that this incident was down to 'live pursuit training'.
As far as I am aware there is a driving school policy of not even having two cars running together on the same course because of a tendancy for the drivers to get into competition during that training. Courses usually have more than 1 car running and from my experience, the instructors are careful to plan routes that do not co-incide with each other.
Most courses have occaions where the two or three cars on the course go to the same destination for lunch at some time during that course. I have never expereinced meeting another car en-route from any course I have been on during any of those training routes.
Specific pursuit training is not carried out on public roads and from experience is usually done on airfields where there is no conflict from other road users.
I vaguely remember the incident you refer to. I believe it was a Metroplitan car that was being driven when it was involved in the crash. It was also being driven by the Instructor at the time of the collision!
I also believe it was just an advanced course undertaking ordinary advanced tuition and not a pursuit course as you state.
As far as double standards are concerned, that will be down to the courts!
If the courts decide that there is no penalty for a specific offence because of the situation and the people involved, it is hardly a double standard by the Police who had the unfortunate experience of dealing and prosecuting yet another fatal collision!
TripleS said:
Many thanks 'gone' for your detailed response to the concerns I expressed. I really would like to be able to say that all my doubts have been removed, but to be quite honest I can not.
I do not seek to remove your doubts.
I merely try to give some understanding about where the Police are coming from in relation to their response options.
Many Chief Officers are highly concerned and pro-active in their attempts to regulate driving practice. Policy changes regularly not only in relation to pursuits but general response tactics too.
tripleS said:
It seems to me that considerable reliance is being placed on the use of prominently marked cars, and their special lights and audible warning systems. All this should help to keep people out of the way - but what if it does not?
Mostly it does. Then there are the systems that are employed by the driver to reduce risk in areas where that is more likely. The reliance in driving to a particular response option is using a combination of the equipment available and the training that is given.
I note that in your earlier posts you mentioned the double standard that appears to operate because if a Police Officer drives down a street at speed with inherrent obvious dangers and does not hit anyone, they are not prosecuted. If you do the same inyour vehicle, you will be for the same actions.
My answer to that is that the use to which each vehicle is being put! Do you have an objective in law to achieve and do you have an exemption in law to achieve it? I would suggest that in your case, the answer is a resounding 'NO' (unless you have not told us about something that you do which would give you the same exemptions to do so)
tripleS said:
All due credit to those with advanced driving skills, but if for some reason a pedestrian or another vehicle suddenly gets in the way of a very fast moving police car I do not see how a very serious collision can be avoided.
The training is based at planning and observation which also brings in anticipation throufgh observation links. This very often (if practised properly) gives you a big advantage in appraoching situations that are or may develop in front and behind you.
You are quite correct though, No one, however good they are or whatever equipment they have to help them will be able to overcome the laws of physics. When these laws (physics) are put to the test by someone in uniform and they do not manage to overcome them, the criminal law of the land takes the next step!
tripleS said:
With the best will in the world the most expert of police drivers are not immune to the laws of physics.
As above. They are also not immune from the criminal law either!
tripleS said:
I remember another incident shown on TV where a stolen car was being pursued by a police car at up to 90 mph through a residential area on wet roads, during the hours of darkness. How can that be done safely?
From the ground, it cannot. From the air it is possible. There are risks in both methods. Drivers of stolen cars do not always drive them like lunatics just when there is a Police presence behind or above them. If the Police however decide they will not try to aprehend those who drive dangerously in stolen vehicles or after committing 'serious' crime, then where does society go from there? A green flag to those who would rob, steal and assault us?
tripleS said:
So far as the Lothian and Borders example is concerned, Mungo has very kindly given me his address so I will send the tape to him for your reference, and in due course I shall be interested to hear what you think about it. It has been a little while since I viewed that tape myself so I will have another run through it and make a few notes before sending it.
I will watch it with interest when it arrives.
>> Edited by gone on Wednesday 12th May 17:05
gone - you may be interested to know our pursuit training does take place on "live" roads - after the initial phase which is on an airfield.
Each vehicle has an instructor, all using a dedicated radio channel. The training doesn't happen at peak periods, but is realistic.
All students are alreacy advanced drivers, and not only are pursuit/containment/"stinger" tactics taught, but driving standards are also monitored. If a student's driving isn't up to scratch, he or she loses their advanced permit.
Each vehicle has an instructor, all using a dedicated radio channel. The training doesn't happen at peak periods, but is realistic.
All students are alreacy advanced drivers, and not only are pursuit/containment/"stinger" tactics taught, but driving standards are also monitored. If a student's driving isn't up to scratch, he or she loses their advanced permit.
WMHV70 said:
gone - you may be interested to know our pursuit training does take place on "live" roads - after the initial phase which is on an airfield.
Each vehicle has an instructor, all using a dedicated radio channel. The training doesn't happen at peak periods, but is realistic.
All students are alreacy advanced drivers, and not only are pursuit/containment/"stinger" tactics taught, but driving standards are also monitored. If a student's driving isn't up to scratch, he or she loses their advanced permit.
I am surprised your Force Policy allows you to undertake that sort of activity where there are convoying tactics employed!
I understand the neeed for it to be done though. We used to do that in my force but it no longer happens on live roads for obvious reasons (least of all the possibilty of giving away the tactics employed)
I undergo regular MASTIF (if you know what that is) training which is done at full speed and sometinmes with full contact but we are never allowed to do this on the road (Full contact is only ever done with old cars which are to be scrapped). That is left for the real job!
There seems to be an opinion from the last few posts that because police drivers have special training it somehow makes them largely immune from the normal road risks. This is, of course, totally incorrect. The A10 incident is reprehensible, whether it was pursuit training (as the local press reported) or just high speed training.
In the mid-80's I was manager and coach to the Met Police Int. Rally Team (yes, really!) and I can tell you that their 'at the limit' car control is good, but not exceptional. On dry tarmac with standard road tyres they were quite OK, but in the wet or on loose surfaces their 'shuffle-the-wheel' driving style did leave a bit to be desired (I'm being kind here). Many years ago my rally navigator was Chief Driving Instructor to Herts Police and he was always critical of the quality of material he was asked to teach high speed driving to.
Now I am not saying this as a criticism of the BiB as I have many friends still in the Met, but it is a fact of life that you can't train away the danger, only train to minimise it. It might be said that 100+ mph on a public 'A' road at 14-30 hours in no-way is minimising the risk, rather the opposite in fact. The instructor must carry a large proportion of the blame here, whether he was driving or not, as he was untimately responsible for the dangerous driving which resulted in the death of a member of the public. Sad, but true.
What has always surprised me is the attitude of police trainee drivers who describe the de-limit signs as 'GLF' signs, which stands for 'Go Like F***'. A bit too 'gung-ho' for safety in my humble opinion.
There has to be a better way. If Royal Air Force combat pilots in their Tornados practised for the defence of the realm in the London Air Traffic restricted airspace near Heathrow there would be uproar, so how is this any different?
In the mid-80's I was manager and coach to the Met Police Int. Rally Team (yes, really!) and I can tell you that their 'at the limit' car control is good, but not exceptional. On dry tarmac with standard road tyres they were quite OK, but in the wet or on loose surfaces their 'shuffle-the-wheel' driving style did leave a bit to be desired (I'm being kind here). Many years ago my rally navigator was Chief Driving Instructor to Herts Police and he was always critical of the quality of material he was asked to teach high speed driving to.
Now I am not saying this as a criticism of the BiB as I have many friends still in the Met, but it is a fact of life that you can't train away the danger, only train to minimise it. It might be said that 100+ mph on a public 'A' road at 14-30 hours in no-way is minimising the risk, rather the opposite in fact. The instructor must carry a large proportion of the blame here, whether he was driving or not, as he was untimately responsible for the dangerous driving which resulted in the death of a member of the public. Sad, but true.
What has always surprised me is the attitude of police trainee drivers who describe the de-limit signs as 'GLF' signs, which stands for 'Go Like F***'. A bit too 'gung-ho' for safety in my humble opinion.
There has to be a better way. If Royal Air Force combat pilots in their Tornados practised for the defence of the realm in the London Air Traffic restricted airspace near Heathrow there would be uproar, so how is this any different?
Cooperman1 - I'm sory if you think from my posts that we think we are immune from risks. This was not my intention, I was trying to be as honest as possible.
Thinking about it logically, it could be argued that because we have (when appropriate(possibly subjective, I know)) legal exemptions, we could be MORE likely to be involved in a collision - going through red lights etc must increase the chances of things going wrong.
I think the general point I and other Bib colleagues were trying to make was that training can help, but it doesn't make us either superhuman or immune to mistakes (our own or other people's).
We also seem to have gone a bit off the original thread as well... again, probably my fault!
Thinking about it logically, it could be argued that because we have (when appropriate(possibly subjective, I know)) legal exemptions, we could be MORE likely to be involved in a collision - going through red lights etc must increase the chances of things going wrong.
I think the general point I and other Bib colleagues were trying to make was that training can help, but it doesn't make us either superhuman or immune to mistakes (our own or other people's).
We also seem to have gone a bit off the original thread as well... again, probably my fault!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff