Volt-Schwibe

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/s...re/4559173.stm

after the court heard that the constable had extensive training with high speed driving, and the road was deserted, and driving conditions were good at the time, the constable was aqquited.

also, the two witnesses, also officers, could not say that the constable had been driving dangerously.

2ply

Still though, a highway isn't the place to be 'farmiliarizing' yourself with a vehical. That is dangorous driving, 159 MPH on a public highway? No matter if it was deserted, it's the principle of the matter. What if it wasn't deserted farther up the road, around a blind corner and he ***rammed another car and killed himself and possibly the occupants of the other car?

It's about safety here, it doesn't matter if he has advanced driving training, no matter how good you are, there's always other people.

ReeKorl

Exactly. What happens if he trains on an abandoned airstrip with no traffic, then needs to drive that fast in traffic? He crashes. With cars being publicly available which can reach this speed, the police need to be able to keep up.

I'm assuming that he's been trained well enough to know that a blind corner is dangerous and you should slow down for them. Not to mention the fact that a blind corner probably means a tight corner, and if you don't slow down you'll crash, traffic or no traffic.

yustr

The speed of sound at sea level is ~340 m/s (761 mph). You can't out run the radio.

Rarely does the crime justify putting innocent people or the officers at risk. But, it's much more a macho thing to chase them.

Then again out run this one:

Attached Images

0503_lambo_04_445.jpg (17.4 KB, 8 views)

ReeKorl

The point is, he wasn't. Deserted roads, his instructor didn't class it as dangerous, where was the risk to anyone?

Using the previous example, I feel sure that if he did take a blind corner at that speed, it would be classed as dangerous, because that's what it would be. It wasn't though.

He's been trained to drive at this speed. Normal police officers are trained to drive, and trained in firearms usage (in the US anyway) and it just happens that this guy had been trained in advanced, high speed driving. Would you say police are being wreckless by carrying firearms (which are dangerous to everyone) or are driving normally (also dangerous to everyone) even though they'd been trained in their use?

Personally, I think every cop with the ability to drive at this speed should be trained to do it. It means they're less likely to stack it when driving at high-speed because they've had the training to do it.

On a side note, a guy recently got off a speeding ticket on a motorway over here because he outran the police - they clocked him going at about 180mph, but only had him in the view of the camera for a minute and a half - 30 seconds less than the required recording time for a conviction.

yustr

No disagreement here: if you're going to be involved in a high speed chase you should be trained at speed. (A special training area might have been a better choice but if they deemed it safe who am I to say otherwise?)

My point was only that these type chases should be avoided whenever possible.

Same with a gun. Trained before using it and use it only when absolutely necessary. I'm sure all officers are trained that it's better to let a crook go then shoot into a crowd.

RavenMind

As for the officer going 159mph, I don't really believe he had any reason to go that fast. The idea that it could be training is hard for me to swallow. The only places you can get a car up that fast is on a long straight highway. In which case your standard pursuit training is more than sufficient. You don't try to keep up with them & blow out the engine on your cruiser. There's not really anywhere to go on a highway, so it's a good bet if you loose sight of him, he's gonna keep going straight. You radio to units ahead of you, block the off ramps & set up some sort of intervention from ahead of him, spikes being my preferred method. There's no need to keep up with him in that situation, and another vehicle going that fast doubles the risk that somebody will get killed. So give the guy a repremand or ticket & tell him not to do it again. Same as every other citizen.

About pursuits...
Surface street pursuits are another matter. I don't see how pursuits can be likened to shooting into a crowd. Most departments have policies on when they will chase, what kind of road & weather conditions are acceptable etc. For instance many will not chase a motorcycle, because they -always- end up in an injury crash. Many will not chase in the rain because of the lack of traction, or in medium or heavy traffic. Some won't chase if they go into a residential area.

And then you have the people that think they should ban chases altogether. I have 2 cities in my county that will not chase at all. The number of people that have fled from their officers has more than tripled in the last year. The other departments respect those city's policies, so they will not chase if the suspect goes inside their city limits (though they can still pursue by state law). Most career criminals know which cities won't chase them, so they commit their crimes there & just flee. Also they will commit crimes in other cities & run to these 'safe' cities. If you know the cops can't chase you then why stick around & be arrested?

So if you want to take aware our ability to pursue then don't whine when you have to live with the consequences!!!