Advanced / Police Driver Training
Discussion
The thing that strikes in that pdf linked by Von is "The yardstick against which an officer’s driving will be judged is not the standard of a trained police pursuit driver. It is the standard of the careful and competent driver. Did the officer’s driving fall far below the standard of the careful and competent driver?Unfortunately, the careful and competent driver does not engage in pursuits, nor does he contravene traffic signs and speedlimits."
Quite, training, experience and duties need to be taken into account.
Whatever next, military forces accused of murder after they have been engaged by an enemy in a firefight? Oh!
Quite, training, experience and duties need to be taken into account.
Whatever next, military forces accused of murder after they have been engaged by an enemy in a firefight? Oh!
vonhosen said:
waremark said:
So now a police driver who has an accident while travelling on emergency business must have his driving assessed by lay personnel against a standard which takes no account of his additional training. It may be an appropriate interpretation of the law but I consider the outcome regrettable.
http://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit2.pdfhttp://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit1.pdf
How should the law deal with police pursuits?
waremark said:
vonhosen said:
waremark said:
So now a police driver who has an accident while travelling on emergency business must have his driving assessed by lay personnel against a standard which takes no account of his additional training. It may be an appropriate interpretation of the law but I consider the outcome regrettable.
http://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit2.pdfhttp://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit1.pdf
How should the law deal with police pursuits?
I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
vonhosen said:
waremark said:
vonhosen said:
waremark said:
So now a police driver who has an accident while travelling on emergency business must have his driving assessed by lay personnel against a standard which takes no account of his additional training. It may be an appropriate interpretation of the law but I consider the outcome regrettable.
http://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit2.pdfhttp://www.lancashirepolfed.org.uk/pursuit1.pdf
How should the law deal with police pursuits?
I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
Sorry, a bit OT there. I have so little self-restraint.
p1esk said:
Failure to make such a change in the law will continue to leave police officers in a quite intolerable position. I can tell you that if I were in their position it would take me a while longer to complete an emergency response, and pursuits would be pretty much a waste of time.
Just to educate those o this thread regarding this statement, this has already been the case for years - many many operational police drivers do not feel comfortable in using their exemptions to their fullest capacity through fear of prosecution. In addition, many highly trained pursuit officers do not utilise their pursuit skills, they simply will not get involved or if it happens in front of them they will assess the risk as disproprtionate to continue, no matter what the risk really is. It is one thing to pass a driving course but how you implement the training thereafter is down to you.As such you have a section of partially ineffective drivers in the force. And quite a significant section too. Partially as in, they are not using or prepared to use their skills to their full extent through fear of prosecution, meaning call charter times suffer and stolen vehicles / motorcycles involved in crime ( particularly those ), remain unchallenged and at large in the public domain.
Most officers are aware that they have no defence in law and no support from their force if anything was to go wrong, and a such simply withdraw their involvment through self preservation.
vonhosen said:
Well the government have had best part of a decade to do something about it (in relation to the line I provided) but haven't.
I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
It will be changing, and it will be doing so this year. I am unable to offer any more details other than there is draft documentation in the process of being ratified by the government to uncouple the liability on a police service, its officers ans control room staff in the event of incidents arising from a pursuit. The exact details are subject to change and ratification, but a bill is to be passed this year, as quoted late last year by Amber Rudd.I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
Part of that will be some very wide ranging exemptions for police drivers giving them statutory defences to some very serious traffic legislation, as well as minor road traffic laws that they currently hold no exemptions for.
Dizeee said:
vonhosen said:
Well the government have had best part of a decade to do something about it (in relation to the line I provided) but haven't.
I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
It will be changing, and it will be doing so this year. I am unable to offer any more details other than there is draft documentation in the process of being ratified by the government to uncouple the liability on a police service, its officers ans control room staff in the event of incidents arising from a pursuit. The exact details are subject to change and ratification, but a bill is to be passed this year, as quoted late last year by Amber Rudd.I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
Part of that will be some very wide ranging exemptions for police drivers giving them statutory defences to some very serious traffic legislation, as well as minor road traffic laws that they currently hold no exemptions for.
History suggests it's more likely to get bumped this year.
Dizeee said:
vonhosen said:
Well the government have had best part of a decade to do something about it (in relation to the line I provided) but haven't.
I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
It will be changing, and it will be doing so this year. I am unable to offer any more details other than there is draft documentation in the process of being ratified by the government to uncouple the liability on a police service, its officers ans control room staff in the event of incidents arising from a pursuit. The exact details are subject to change and ratification, but a bill is to be passed this year, as quoted late last year by Amber Rudd.I can't see anything changing soon either whilst all the House's time will be spent beating itself up whilst extracting us from the EU.
Part of that will be some very wide ranging exemptions for police drivers giving them statutory defences to some very serious traffic legislation, as well as minor road traffic laws that they currently hold no exemptions for.
Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
Edited by Sgt Bilko on Thursday 4th January 18:07
p1esk said:
I questioned the 'relevance of advanced skills' aspect previously (many years ago) in relation to the Mark Milton case and his 159 mph 'evaluation' of the car he was driving, and I've always been told that this is irrelevant, but it still seems totally illogical to me. The official approach seemed to be that any incident could only be judged in relation to what might be expected of a 'competent and careful' driver - or words to that effect.
Using the Milton cases, the way I would judge them is that in the first instance there were no actual incidents recorded - he was 'just' exceeding the speed limit and therefore his "advanced" training should be considered to counteract the "potential" risk assumption - and the IAM and RoSPA should make no comment as they are supposedly full of "advanced" drivers.In the second case it was different - he crashed. Probably he would not have crashed if he was driving as a 'competent and careful' driver. His advanced training did not prevent him crashing because of his failure to adhere to his training ("The system makes it impossible for anyone to have and accident [crash]" John Miles, 1975). I would prefer it this way because if all police driver involved crashes were judged on their 'advanced' standard there would be a strong case by some road safety exspurts to say that the system of police training fails to prevent crashes, which is fundamentally not true. And the IAM and RoSPA should still keep quiet!
Similar scenarios were discussed when I took part in a New South Wales parliamentary inquiry in police pursuits some time ago. This inquiry was brought about when a judge deemed that if someone was killed whist being pursued then it was a 'death in custody' and those pursuing could be held responsible. This became extremely sensitive when indigenous Australians were involved.
The military also has problems - in 1995 corporal Lee Clegg, serving with the paras in Northern Ireland was charged with murder because the fourth round he fired at a suspect was 'excessive'. And there has been numerous issues in Afghanistan for troops, whether from the UK, Australia or other countries.
Len Woodman said:
Using the Milton cases, the way I would judge them is that in the first instance there were no actual incidents recorded - he was 'just' exceeding the speed limit and therefore his "advanced" training should be considered to counteract the "potential" risk assumption - and the IAM and RoSPA should make no comment as they are supposedly full of "advanced" drivers.
Milton was convicted in the 159mph case, after taking his 'special skills' into account.He was acquitted in the crash case without taking his 'special skills' into account.
Len Woodman said:
"The system makes it impossible for anyone to have and accident [crash]" John Miles, 1975.
It doesn't.It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Sgt Bilko said:
Has this draft this legislation entered the HoC yet for stage review? (Or is it just out for consultation amongst practitioners?)
Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
So in PC Jeffery's case I feel that his advanced skills should be considered as he didn't crash - it was a drunk driver. Ridiculous that Jeffery was even charged. And it happens here. I am going to pass the link on to my police colleagues - I'm sure they will want something done here as well (all Westminster Common Law stuff!)Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
Edited by Sgt Bilko on Thursday 4th January 18:07
vonhosen said:
It doesn't.
It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Good morning,It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Logically the System itself is infallible as is any good instruction manual - but humans are fallible in their decision making, attitude, judgement of speed and distance et al. And this is exasperated by an individual's ability (or inability) to assess their own performance and not to succumb to optimism bias or external attribution. That's what John Miles went on to say in his book. Ends with, "I like to drive fast, but I always consider that there's another day tomorrow".
Len Woodman said:
vonhosen said:
It doesn't.
It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Good morning,It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Logically the System itself is infallible as is any good instruction manual - but humans are fallible in their decision making, attitude, judgement of speed and distance et al. And this is exasperated by an individual's ability (or inability) to assess their own performance and not to succumb to optimism bias or external attribution. That's what John Miles went on to say in his book. Ends with, "I like to drive fast, but I always consider that there's another day tomorrow".
As such the possibility of an accident can never be completely removed even where the driver is driving to the system as per the textbook.
vonhosen said:
Len Woodman said:
vonhosen said:
It doesn't.
It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Good morning,It can help reduce the risks of but it can't completely remove all possibility of one.
Logically the System itself is infallible as is any good instruction manual - but humans are fallible in their decision making, attitude, judgement of speed and distance et al. And this is exasperated by an individual's ability (or inability) to assess their own performance and not to succumb to optimism bias or external attribution. That's what John Miles went on to say in his book. Ends with, "I like to drive fast, but I always consider that there's another day tomorrow".
As such the possibility of an accident can never be completely removed even where the driver is driving to the system as per the textbook.
No matter how diligently we follow procedures and systems, including 'The System', there is always the possibilty that we will make occaisional misjudgements, plus the external factor of what other road users might do; and with the best will in the world that can also catch us out.
If we've got a good approach to what we do, and we concentrate on gathering all the relevant information, and we make good judgements, we should be pretty fireproof - but there's no guarantee of success all the time. I've been very lucky - so far!
Sgt Bilko said:
Has this draft this legislation entered the HoC yet for stage review? (Or is it just out for consultation amongst practitioners?)
Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
I've seen it. If what i have seen gets through it's going to be a huge shift in legal perspective of all police pursuits. It will also give all police drivers some very powerful abilities to do pretty much what they want if justified. Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
Edited by Sgt Bilko on Thursday 4th January 18:07
I am no expert on the history of previous attempts to change legislation in this area other but I know the situation is now critical.
In London moped riders run the streets and the public are being put at risk every day. There are normally around 30 to 60 reported incidents involving them in London every day... by incidents I mean crime or riding dangerous enough for a member of public to call in about them. We are getting daily sprees of around 20 to 50 robberies committed by them and urgent action is required.
Dizeee said:
Sgt Bilko said:
Has this draft this legislation entered the HoC yet for stage review? (Or is it just out for consultation amongst practitioners?)
Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
I've seen it. If what i have seen gets through it's going to be a huge shift in legal perspective of all police pursuits. It will also give all police drivers some very powerful abilities to do pretty much what they want if justified. Edit: found it https://services.parliament.uk/bills/2017-19/emerg...
Sadly not published yet. Does anyone have a draft copy of the text?
Edited by Sgt Bilko on Thursday 4th January 18:07
I am no expert on the history of previous attempts to change legislation in this area other but I know the situation is now critical.
In London moped riders run the streets and the public are being put at risk every day. There are normally around 30 to 60 reported incidents involving them in London every day... by incidents I mean crime or riding dangerous enough for a member of public to call in about them. We are getting daily sprees of around 20 to 50 robberies committed by them and urgent action is required.
Hi everyone, well I have kept quiet and read all the jargon regarding laws legislation and all the other red tape unfortunately endured by our unfortunate crime fighters of today and we have come back to exactly what I said, Law and order is F.....d in the UK. You only have to watch the news and see how incidents like the recent stolen car in the north of England crashed into a tree and killed the five young UNLAWFUL occupants, as you say the serious crime involving mopeds and scooters is escalating ridiculously. Until the inexperienced do Gooders in this ridiculous pussy footing Country wake up and smell the coffee things are only going to get considerably worse. I have every sympathy and support for all Police Officers of today who are attempting the impossible.
p1esk said:
Yes, I agree with that.
No matter how diligently we follow procedures and systems, including 'The System', there is always the possibilty that we will make occaisional misjudgements, plus the external factor of what other road users might do; and with the best will in the world that can also catch us out.
If we've got a good approach to what we do, and we concentrate on gathering all the relevant information, and we make good judgements, we should be pretty fireproof - but there's no guarantee of success all the time. I've been very lucky - so far!
That’s spot on. No matter how diligently we follow procedures and systems, including 'The System', there is always the possibilty that we will make occaisional misjudgements, plus the external factor of what other road users might do; and with the best will in the world that can also catch us out.
If we've got a good approach to what we do, and we concentrate on gathering all the relevant information, and we make good judgements, we should be pretty fireproof - but there's no guarantee of success all the time. I've been very lucky - so far!
In the days that John Miles wrote that comment very little relating to driver behaviour was included in Roadcraft; thankfully that has changed now.
It is the human factor that makes the ‘whole’ system fallible. It’s the weak link.
Roadcraft (infallible) + Driver input (fallible) = System (Fallible but hopefully reduced risk level).
Could also include instructor influence as well as this may affect the behaviour and the interpretation and application of Roadcraft by a trainee during and after training. What effect did the Hendon instructor who caused the fatal crash on the A10 have on his students during the time he instructed? Have any of them gone on to have similar psychological issues?
Same happens in workplace safety – it’s the humans that make the mistakes, rarely the processes required to be followed. Over time processes may change to better accommodate and reduce the effects of human fallibility. Roadcraft, the manual, covers the influence of other road users in areas such as situational awareness. It’s the driver’s weakness if they don’t identify other road users as hazards and threats to their ‘driving plan’ (I'm not looking at fault or not at fault here as that is different to crash avoidance). And a driver's weakness 'level' changes depending on mood, health and other influences. There is a good road safety tool called the Haddon Matrix that helps determine why a crash occurred and helps identify what elements can be changed to prevent a reoccurrence.
Of course there is also vehicle standard - i.e equipment failure or not fit for purpose. But I understand that this is a rarity?
[Got to go now before the traffic to the beach builds up - already 30 deg C and may go to 40! Have a nice day!]
Len
Sydney
Sgt Bilko said:
Does it cover all aspect of police advanced driving or just pursue situations? Can you recall if it amends existing policies or is it a brand new bespoke bill just for the police? I’m wondering if other agencies who also have requirements for advanced driving duties are covered by insurance it.
I have only seen parts of it... but what I have seen relates to police drivers... police control room staff and all involved in a police pursuit. It "uncouples" the liability and blame on the pursuer and transfers it to the one being pursued.There has been talk for a long time about legislating a recognition for police drivers who have had training but this bill is far wider reaching and seeks to remove culpability from police when injuries or crashes result from a pursuit. Whether it not that recognition is included also I don't know as I have only seen part if the text... but as I say... if it gets through it will re write the rules of pursuits.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff