What would you do if you were banned?
Discussion
TripleS said:
My thanks to 'gone' for his detailed replies to my question, but I wonder how upset he might have felt had I actually chosen to try and get at him!
However I do not think my doubts about the incident are unjustified, even if the situation I envisaged was not quite in line with the impression originally given by 'gone'.
However, I find his reference to speed differential when passing other traffic very interesting. Some weeks ago in another topic I queried a police chase shown on TV involving a Lothian and Borders traffic cop. In that pursuit the police car was travelling at up to 85 mph in lane 2 of a four lane single carriageway road in Edinburgh, passing slow moving traffic in lane 1. With all due respect to advanced police driving skills that cannot avoid presenting considerable risks, and yet no one offered any reassuring indication of how this sort of thing can be done safely.
It is all very well talking about highly developed observation and car handling skills, but if anyone were to get in the way at such a time, I do not see how a police driver would avoid disaster any better than anyone else.
Take care all,
Dave.
When you have a little time to spare 'gone' please could you explain how the Lothian and Borders Traffic Car driver really managed to maintain safety in the instance I described above.
At the moment I am inclined to feel that double standards are being applied here, and I will justify that suspicion if necessary.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
When you have a little time to spare 'gone' please could you explain how the Lothian and Borders Traffic Car driver really managed to maintain safety in the instance I described above.
I would love to but I am unable to because.
a) I was not there at the time.
b) I have not seen the particular footage you refer to.
TripleS said:
At the moment I am inclined to feel that double standards are being applied here, and I will justify that suspicion if necessary.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I don't understand what you mean about double standards unless you are refering to the Police Officers you relate to performing this manouvre whilst off duty in their own vehicles.
If you are talking about double standards by preaching a message that Non police officers should drive to a different standard than Police officers, then perhaps you are right.
However, Police officers receive extra training to do it and they are exempt in law from certain offences whilst they are using the vehilce for that purpose. That purpose would be generally under the use of warning equipment and answering a call for help from the public.
I cannot comment on the suggetion that you consider it to be dangerous and a double standard when other experts would not. It is very subjective and the crunch comes to literally that.
If an officer performing such a manouvre is considered to be dangerous and an RTA occurs, he will have to explain why to a court. Perhaps the training he/she has had made sure that whilst you thought it was a dangerous thing to do, it in fact was not in their eyes and also would not necessarily be so in front of a court.
Smoking cannabis is dangerous, many people think it is not!
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 22 April 00:30
Depends whether you grow your own or not. Street grass is often sprayed with solutions of horse tranquillisers and other shit so it gives a bigger hit to ignorant youngsters who can't distinguish the real hit from a bag of glue hit. As for hash... google for "Smoke Soap Smoke Poison"... some horrendous crap gets mixed in with that.
Still less dangerous than drinking alcohol though, especially when the effects on other people are taken into account.
Still less dangerous than drinking alcohol though, especially when the effects on other people are taken into account.
Mr2Mike said:
gone said:
Smoking cannabis is dangerous, many people think it is not!
But no more dangerous than smoking a normal cigarette unless you know something I don't?
I do some work in a rehabilitation hostel for alcoholics and drug addicts. I know some cannabis users who have been addicted to the substance although there is common thought that the drug is not addictive by its nature to the same extent of class A stuff.
Some people are addicted to PH and that can be very dangerous
I can tell you that people that are heavy users of cannabis suffer long term and irreversable psychological problems due to the effects of the drug on their brains. This is based around paranoia.
Mild use does not cause serious damage but is still harmful.
The combination of tobacco and cannabis is also not a good health option.
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 22 April 16:29
Many thanks 'gone' for your reply to my question about the speed differential subject. I very much want to discuss this with you properly, but right now I need a few ZZZZZZ after a long day and another 550 miles.
I have the Lothian and Borders incident on a VHS tape and I would like you to see it if we can arrange that.
As for my trip to Glasgow today I was involved in an unpleasant incident on the A1 this morning, courtesy of an HGV driver. Fortunately no practical harm was done, but in my opinion it was outrageous behaviour on his part, and I shall be taking the matter up with his employer. Details will be posted later.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I have the Lothian and Borders incident on a VHS tape and I would like you to see it if we can arrange that.
As for my trip to Glasgow today I was involved in an unpleasant incident on the A1 this morning, courtesy of an HGV driver. Fortunately no practical harm was done, but in my opinion it was outrageous behaviour on his part, and I shall be taking the matter up with his employer. Details will be posted later.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
gone said:
When you have a little time to spare 'gone' please could you explain how the Lothian and Borders Traffic Car driver really managed to maintain safety in the instance I described above.
I would love to but I am unable to because.
a) I was not there at the time.
b) I have not seen the particular footage you refer to.
TripleS said:
At the moment I am inclined to feel that double standards are being applied here, and I will justify that suspicion if necessary.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
I don't understand what you mean about double standards unless you are refering to the Police Officers you relate to performing this manouvre whilst off duty in their own vehicles.
If you are talking about double standards by preaching a message that Non police officers should drive to a different standard than Police officers, then perhaps you are right.
However, Police officers receive extra training to do it and they are exempt in law from certain offences whilst they are using the vehilce for that purpose. That purpose would be generally under the use of warning equipment and answering a call for help from the public.
I cannot comment on the suggetion that you consider it to be dangerous and a double standard when other experts would not. It is very subjective and the crunch comes to literally that.
If an officer performing such a manouvre is considered to be dangerous and an RTA occurs, he will have to explain why to a court. Perhaps the training he/she has had made sure that whilst you thought it was a dangerous thing to do, it in fact was not in their eyes and also would not necessarily be so in front of a court.
Smoking cannabis is dangerous, many people think it is not!
>> Edited by gone on Thursday 22 April 00:30
OK now, may we try to finish this one off, and my apologies for taking so long to get back to it.
Gone - I would like you to see the VHS tape I have, but I need some way of getting it to you, and I am badly short of information to enable me to do that. Given your obvious wish for anonimity (it appears I can not even send you an e-mail directly) can you identify someone who lives near you or works with you to receive the tape for you?
My reference to double standards does not relate to anything that police officers might do while off duty in their own vehicles. I refer primarily to:-
a) Pronoucements made by police officers relating to dangerous driving, and associated statements made in the book 'Roadcraft'.
b) Things I have seen on TV programmes featuring the work of Traffic Officers.
c) Things I have seen for myself when out driving.
I acknowledge that advanced police drivers can safely do - thanks to their very specialised training - many things that the rest of us could not do, and that they have certain legal exemptions while carrying out their duties. This seems to include exceeding speed limits and ignoring traffic lights etc., but if you then have a shunt it will be time to pad your trousers seat!
What concerns me more is the apparent double standards that seem to apply in the following type of situation:-
Imagine a residential area, straight road with a perfectly sensible 30 mph speed limit, daylight, dry conditions, houses on both sides of the road, narrow grass verge next to the kerb, narrow pavement then the front boundary of the properties, set back perhaps 8 feet from the kerb. The property front boundaries are in the form of a fence or a hedge that we can not see over, or through, as we drive along this road. There are driveways to each house, and most of the gates are left open.
Now if I were to drive down that road at much over 30 mph and were to be caught doing so there would be howls of condemnation, and all sorts of references to the dangers created by my behaviour, and perhaps rightly so. I would probably not seek to dispute that.
On the other hand, in the course of an emergency response or a pursuit, a police driver would almost certainly go down that same road in the same conditions at a very much higher speed than I would, but suggestions that he was driving dangerously would probably be brushed aside. Now then:
'Roadcraft' says that police drivers must not resort to dangerous driving in any circumstances - nothing justifies that - but how can it be dangerous when I do it, but not dangerous when a police driver does it?
Now I entirely accept that Traffic Officers are highly trained and have very advanced skills, but even so I think there are questions to answer.
We can all note the hazard presented by the driveways, from which a child, or adult pedestrian, or a vehicle might suddenly emerge. The question then is what action is needed from us as drivers in order to deal properly and safely with that hazard.
What happens if, as we approach a certain driveway, a youngster runs out through the gateway and straight across the road to see if his young friend is coming out to play? My proposition is that the risk of a tragedy is pretty much the same whether the driver is me or a police officer. I am perfectly willing to accept that there are some differences, so let us try to consider these. Comparing the two situation it is probable that:
The police driver might have a quicker reaction time, though not necessarily, and not by much.
The braking capacity of the police car may be superior, but again not necessarily, and not by much.
The police driver should have superior car handling skill, but whether that would be sufficient to avoid hitting the child is by no means certain.
Please understand my position 'gone', and anyone else who is still with us. I truly can not see (at the moment) how the police driver's behaviour is appreciably less dangerous than mine. It is all very well talking about observation and hazard awareness, but surely it doesn't end there. You could have the most perfect observation and hazard awareness skills, but if the correct action can not be produced it all comes to nought.
While it is clear that the police driver would be driving the way he was for a particular purpose, and I would have no such justification for the way I drove down that road, it very much looks as if the rule book is at least partially thrown away for police purposes. That is how it looks to me, hence my concern about double standards.
For the sake of my enlightenment I do wish you could explain this apparent double standards business.
Please understand 'gone' it is in no way my purpose to have a go at you or any police driver. I like to think we are basically on the same side as driving enthusiasts and genuine thinkers on the subject of road safety. For my own purposes there is only this little difficulty about the NSL, but there you go.
As for your example about drugs, I do not profess to understand that situation, but I would want to have nothing to do with them.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
TripleS said:
OK now, may we try to finish this one off, and my apologies for taking so long to get back to it.
Gone - I would like you to see the VHS tape I have, but I need some way of getting it to you, and I am badly short of information to enable me to do that. Given your obvious wish for anonimity (it appears I can not even send you an e-mail directly) can you identify someone who lives near you or works with you to receive the tape for you?
I am sure that you will understand my reasons for anonymity!
I used to post under a different profile name and this became abused so I had a time away from PH for rest and reflection.
I am sure if you contact 'Mungo' he will accept delivery of the tape and would be in a postion to get it to me. That is the best way of dealing with it.
triples said:
My reference to double standards does not relate to anything that police officers might do while off duty in their own vehicles. I refer primarily to:-
a) Pronoucements made by police officers relating to dangerous driving, and associated statements made in the book 'Roadcraft'.
b) Things I have seen on TV programmes featuring the work of Traffic Officers.
c) Things I have seen for myself when out driving.
Pronouncements made by Police Officers in relation to dangerous driving are very often the result of years of practical experience in dealing with situations where driving practice let people down and there were tragic results as a consequence.
Unless you can quote me some, I am unable to associate their relationship to anything Roadcraft may advise.
tripleS said:
I acknowledge that advanced police drivers can safely do - thanks to their very specialised training - many things that the rest of us could not do, and that they have certain legal exemptions while carrying out their duties. This seems to include exceeding speed limits and ignoring traffic lights etc., but if you then have a shunt it will be time to pad your trousers seat!
With that statement, you have basically answered the query you have written to me about this post.
TripleS said:
What concerns me more is the apparent double standards that seem to apply in the following type of situation:-
Imagine a residential area, straight road with a perfectly sensible 30 mph speed limit, daylight, dry conditions, houses on both sides of the road, narrow grass verge next to the kerb, narrow pavement then the front boundary of the properties, set back perhaps 8 feet from the kerb. The property front boundaries are in the form of a fence or a hedge that we can not see over, or through, as we drive along this road. There are driveways to each house, and most of the gates are left open.
Now if I were to drive down that road at much over 30 mph and were to be caught doing so there would be howls of condemnation, and all sorts of references to the dangers created by my behaviour, and perhaps rightly so. I would probably not seek to dispute that.
On the other hand, in the course of an emergency response or a pursuit, a police driver would almost certainly go down that same road in the same conditions at a very much higher speed than I would, but suggestions that he was driving dangerously would probably be brushed aside. Now then:
'Roadcraft' says that police drivers must not resort to dangerous driving in any circumstances - nothing justifies that - but how can it be dangerous when I do it, but not dangerous when a police driver does it?
Now I entirely accept that Traffic Officers are highly trained and have very advanced skills, but even so I think there are questions to answer.
We can all note the hazard presented by the driveways, from which a child, or adult pedestrian, or a vehicle might suddenly emerge. The question then is what action is needed from us as drivers in order to deal properly and safely with that hazard.
What happens if, as we approach a certain driveway, a youngster runs out through the gateway and straight across the road to see if his young friend is coming out to play? My proposition is that the risk of a tragedy is pretty much the same whether the driver is me or a police officer. I am perfectly willing to accept that there are some differences, so let us try to consider these. Comparing the two situation it is probable that:
The police driver might have a quicker reaction time, though not necessarily, and not by much.
The braking capacity of the police car may be superior, but again not necessarily, and not by much.
The police driver should have superior car handling skill, but whether that would be sufficient to avoid hitting the child is by no means certain.
In relation to this example, it is a requirement that whilst exceeding the limit or traversing junctiions caontrooled at red ATS signals, the Police driver whether on pursuit type operations or responding to a general emergency call will usually and if he/she is sensible always have their warning equipment sounding and flashing.
Most pursuit and response driving is done in highly visibly liveried vehicles. The unmarked ones are equipped with the latest warning equipment to make them visible when they are travelling at speeds on these type of operations.
This is the essential difference between what the Police can do and what you cannot do
TripleS said:
Please understand my position 'gone', and anyone else who is still with us. I truly can not see (at the moment) how the police driver's behaviour is appreciably less dangerous than mine. It is all very well talking about observation and hazard awareness, but surely it doesn't end there. You could have the most perfect observation and hazard awareness skills, but if the correct action can not be produced it all comes to nought.
But you do not have the necessary equipment to help you warn those in the driveways that you are approaching at high speed!
TripleS said:
While it is clear that the police driver would be driving the way he was for a particular purpose, and I would have no such justification for the way I drove down that road, it very much looks as if the rule book is at least partially thrown away for police purposes. That is how it looks to me, hence my concern about double standards.
The law quite catagorically states that there is no exemption from the duty of care for emergency drivers responding to incidents. They must have that degree of care and courts will judge individual circumstances about that. That is why they have lights and sirens fitted and if they want the best possible defence to a charge of Section 1, Section 2 or Section 3, RTA 1988, they would be stupid not to have them operating.
There has to be a 'double standard' as you put it because if there were not such relaxing of the rules in relation to speed and red lights, emergencey response would not be that. It would just be response!
TripleS said:
For the sake of my enlightenment I do wish you could explain this apparent double standards business.
I can't see where the arguement is that it is in fact a double standard when 'the public' expect a fast response to a call for help. 'The Public' cannot have it both ways unfortunately.
>> Edited by gone on Saturday 8th May 19:24
I watched a tv program about two months ago about police operations.
There was footage of an unmarked police car with a male driver and female trainee passenger operating the radio.
They were looking for a group of lads in a BMW. Eventually they spotted them and gave pursuit. I was horrified as the police driver sped along a small road through a housing estate which had cars parked along both sides. He must have been doing 50/60 through the 9/10 feet wide gap between the cars. I dont think he had a siren going but cant recall definately.
Granted, they caught the BMW, but in my opinion it was only luck that stopped them killing a cat/dog/person through the housing estate.
Most drivers with speeding offences were driving safely at the time, this police officer was not.
Slight double standards.
There was footage of an unmarked police car with a male driver and female trainee passenger operating the radio.
They were looking for a group of lads in a BMW. Eventually they spotted them and gave pursuit. I was horrified as the police driver sped along a small road through a housing estate which had cars parked along both sides. He must have been doing 50/60 through the 9/10 feet wide gap between the cars. I dont think he had a siren going but cant recall definately.
Granted, they caught the BMW, but in my opinion it was only luck that stopped them killing a cat/dog/person through the housing estate.
Most drivers with speeding offences were driving safely at the time, this police officer was not.
Slight double standards.
deeps said:
I watched a tv program about two months ago about police operations.
There was footage of an unmarked police car with a male driver and female trainee passenger operating the radio.
They were looking for a group of lads in a BMW. Eventually they spotted them and gave pursuit. I was horrified as the police driver sped along a small road through a housing estate which had cars parked along both sides. He must have been doing 50/60 through the 9/10 feet wide gap between the cars. I dont think he had a siren going but cant recall definately.
Granted, they caught the BMW, but in my opinion it was only luck that stopped them killing a cat/dog/person through the housing estate.
Most drivers with speeding offences were driving safely at the time, this police officer was not.
Slight double standards.
You say they caught the BMW.
The alternative is to drive within the expected tolerances of someone who has not done the same amount of training and does not understand what is actually happening!
Like I said before, Police are trained to do a difficult and dangerous job with risks. The risks are not only to those around them but to themselves. The training helps to take some of those elements of risk out of the equation.
If you do not like the fact that Police have to traverse the roads in that fashion to catch the people that you so desperately want caught (burglars/car theives etc), then canvas your MPs and get the laws changed.
If and when you do get that done, you cannot expect any Police Officer to try and do what you so desperately want = Catching criminals is what you want and attendance quickly when you call.
If those officers were driving in that fashion in their own vehicles to get to the chip shop before it shut, I would accept your call of 'double standards'.
Until that happens, catching dangerous and persistent offenders will continue to have those risks.
You should be grateful that there are some people who are willing to take them on your behalf!!! When it goes wrong for them, everyone stands back amongst sharp intakes of breath and wagging fingers whilst the unfortunate Police Officer is hung out to dry!
ledfoot said:
[quote=Muncher]As a hypothetical question, what would you do if you were banned from driving?
1. Sell my legal vehicles and acquire a very large motorcycle (Hyabusa or Blackbird), modify it to the t*ts and make sure that it can outrun any patrol car, chopper etc..
2. Take some specialist training in road racing or advanced riding techniques.
3. Modify the back of my garage to incorporate a separate hidden shelter (a la 'Batcave').
or
Sell up entirely and move to a country that doesn't base it's laws purely on revenue generation.
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.
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?
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. With the best will in the world the most expert of police drivers are not immune to the laws of physics.
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?
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.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
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?
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. With the best will in the world the most expert of police drivers are not immune to the laws of physics.
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?
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.
Best wishes all,
Dave.
A couple of years or so ago, on the A10 between Royston & Cambridge, a Met Police training vehicle (a big Rover) was engaged in pursuit training at high speed. Rounding a long left hander just before the village of Harston, but still in the NSL 60 limit, and at an estimated speed of c.100 mph, it found a long line of stationary traffic and was unable to stop. The young lady in the rearmost car, a nurse going home from her morning shift, was killed in the resulting impact.
What was the police officer trainee found guilty of? NOTHING!! Double standards - you'd better believe it. Those others of us who are not police officers would have got 5 to 8 years for Causing Death by Dangerous, which is exactly what this was.
Is anyone going to have the nerve to say this death was justified?
What was the police officer trainee found guilty of? NOTHING!! Double standards - you'd better believe it. Those others of us who are not police officers would have got 5 to 8 years for Causing Death by Dangerous, which is exactly what this was.
Is anyone going to have the nerve to say this death was justified?
Cooperman1, I recall the incident you were talking about. Just about any death is a tragedy, this one included. I don't know the exact details of the case, so can't really comment on the sentence (or lack of).
However, I'd be very surprised to see ANYONE get 5-8 years for causing death by dangerous driving.
Unfortunately, we (BiB) do have to train and drive outside the "normal" rules, on occasion. As TripleS has correctly pointed out, if it goes wrong, we are called to account. I know this because I was recently involved in a collision during a pursuit. Fortunately, the only casualty was the rather lack lustre (but fully liveried, with EVERYTHING going) Ford Mondeo I had the misfortune to be driving.
Accidents or collisions will never be completely removed from our roads; we have to do the best we can under often difficult circumstances, relying on our taining, judement and expertise, but we are not immune from error - we just try to reduce that danger as much as possible.
You may be interested to know that the pursuit policy in my area has been changed fairly recently, and many more pursuits are abandoned very early on to attempt to reduce instances such as you quoted (I appreciate that was training, but I'm sure you get my drift). Additionally, in a short while, only advanced drivers who are specifically pursuit trained will be allowed to pursue.
At the end of the day, we all have to make judgement calls in our relative fields. It would be great if hindsight was foresight.
>> Edited by WMHV70 on Monday 10th May 22:51
However, I'd be very surprised to see ANYONE get 5-8 years for causing death by dangerous driving.
Unfortunately, we (BiB) do have to train and drive outside the "normal" rules, on occasion. As TripleS has correctly pointed out, if it goes wrong, we are called to account. I know this because I was recently involved in a collision during a pursuit. Fortunately, the only casualty was the rather lack lustre (but fully liveried, with EVERYTHING going) Ford Mondeo I had the misfortune to be driving.
Accidents or collisions will never be completely removed from our roads; we have to do the best we can under often difficult circumstances, relying on our taining, judement and expertise, but we are not immune from error - we just try to reduce that danger as much as possible.
You may be interested to know that the pursuit policy in my area has been changed fairly recently, and many more pursuits are abandoned very early on to attempt to reduce instances such as you quoted (I appreciate that was training, but I'm sure you get my drift). Additionally, in a short while, only advanced drivers who are specifically pursuit trained will be allowed to pursue.
At the end of the day, we all have to make judgement calls in our relative fields. It would be great if hindsight was foresight.
>> Edited by WMHV70 on Monday 10th May 22:51
WMHV70, I can appreciate what you are saying. I don't know how any fatality to a member of the public can be justified when it's a training issue not an operational one. After all, this is just training to enable the trainee to do a paid job of work.
However, to drive on an open public main road during the daylight hours and to crash into a line of static traffic whilst trying to stop from over 100 mph is clearly not acceptable to anyone. Surely this type of training could be confined to private tracks, like the old DERA one at Chobham which replicates public roads, or done between 1-00 and 5-00 on Sunday mornings when the roads are deserted.
I am a former semi-professional rally driver, now an enthusiastic amateur, but training to do that paid job on public roads during peak times was and is not acceptable. We may well use deserted minor roads for short bits of training, but for serious training we used private roads, for which we had to pay. We were, I suppose, 'specially trained' for high speed driving and the car control and situational awareness of the top drivers would be something the average trained police driver could only dream about. But serious practice on public roads - oh, no.
I also happen to be an ex-pilot, and we never practiced our eme
rgency procedures in crowded airspace.
In my opinion, the A10 crash was an absolute disgrace for which no one was found accountable so, yes, there is discrimination and unfairness in this matter.
It is good to hear that your operational instructions have changed. I guess you are in a situation of 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' when it comes to pursuit cases. However, if a member of the public is killed or injured by an emergency vehicle 'on a shout' with blues & twoes on that is very unfortunate, but not unacceptable in the overall scheme of things. During training or practice though, not really on, is it?
However, to drive on an open public main road during the daylight hours and to crash into a line of static traffic whilst trying to stop from over 100 mph is clearly not acceptable to anyone. Surely this type of training could be confined to private tracks, like the old DERA one at Chobham which replicates public roads, or done between 1-00 and 5-00 on Sunday mornings when the roads are deserted.
I am a former semi-professional rally driver, now an enthusiastic amateur, but training to do that paid job on public roads during peak times was and is not acceptable. We may well use deserted minor roads for short bits of training, but for serious training we used private roads, for which we had to pay. We were, I suppose, 'specially trained' for high speed driving and the car control and situational awareness of the top drivers would be something the average trained police driver could only dream about. But serious practice on public roads - oh, no.
I also happen to be an ex-pilot, and we never practiced our eme
rgency procedures in crowded airspace.
In my opinion, the A10 crash was an absolute disgrace for which no one was found accountable so, yes, there is discrimination and unfairness in this matter.
It is good to hear that your operational instructions have changed. I guess you are in a situation of 'damned if I do, damned if I don't' when it comes to pursuit cases. However, if a member of the public is killed or injured by an emergency vehicle 'on a shout' with blues & twoes on that is very unfortunate, but not unacceptable in the overall scheme of things. During training or practice though, not really on, is it?
Not on at all Cooperman. (Sorry for the delay replying, been at work getting driving permit reinstated!)
I appreciate your comments about training on "live" roads, but we have to "train for reality", and be ready and able to deal with "normal" road users and what they'll do in these situations...
We are lucky in our area that the trainers are all top notch - they know when you're even THINKING about a sneaky under the arm glance at the gearstick just to check what gear you're actually in... They keep us out of trouble, and use local knowledge to try and avoid collisions like the one you mention.
Unfortunately, while we are still required to pursue, we are still required to train. I suppose it's finding a balance between acceptable and unacceptable risk, but no death is acceptable. However, there will always be that risk. My own view is that Police officers when prosecuted, often face stiffer penalties (even for a first offence), than "Joe Public" would receive.
I'm sure you're aware the highway code tells drivers if they see an emergency vehicle displaying auxiliary equipment approaching from the rear, to move to the nearside (if safe to do so) to let the emergency vehicle through (please accept that I have obviously paraphrased that). If I had a quid for every idiot in front of me in lane two who (eventually) puts in a mirror check and sees me, then STAMPS on the brakes, I'd have been able to retire a long time ago! Fortunately, you quickly come to expect this, so always leave plenty of stopping distance!
Unfortunately, as with many of the other threads on the forum, driver training (or lack of it) is an issue. Some drivers passed their test many years ago when there was less traffic, less powerful vehicles etc, and haven't had any training since - sometimes for over 50 years!
>> Edited by WMHV70 on Tuesday 11th May 18:05
I appreciate your comments about training on "live" roads, but we have to "train for reality", and be ready and able to deal with "normal" road users and what they'll do in these situations...
We are lucky in our area that the trainers are all top notch - they know when you're even THINKING about a sneaky under the arm glance at the gearstick just to check what gear you're actually in... They keep us out of trouble, and use local knowledge to try and avoid collisions like the one you mention.
Unfortunately, while we are still required to pursue, we are still required to train. I suppose it's finding a balance between acceptable and unacceptable risk, but no death is acceptable. However, there will always be that risk. My own view is that Police officers when prosecuted, often face stiffer penalties (even for a first offence), than "Joe Public" would receive.
I'm sure you're aware the highway code tells drivers if they see an emergency vehicle displaying auxiliary equipment approaching from the rear, to move to the nearside (if safe to do so) to let the emergency vehicle through (please accept that I have obviously paraphrased that). If I had a quid for every idiot in front of me in lane two who (eventually) puts in a mirror check and sees me, then STAMPS on the brakes, I'd have been able to retire a long time ago! Fortunately, you quickly come to expect this, so always leave plenty of stopping distance!
Unfortunately, as with many of the other threads on the forum, driver training (or lack of it) is an issue. Some drivers passed their test many years ago when there was less traffic, less powerful vehicles etc, and haven't had any training since - sometimes for over 50 years!
>> Edited by WMHV70 on Tuesday 11th May 18:05
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff