Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: Pursuit Policy Criticised

  1. #1
    Join Date
    21st December 2002 - 11:00
    Bike
    Manx TT by Sega
    Location
    Welly
    Posts
    2,718

    Pursuit Policy Criticised

    More young drivers will attempt to escape police following the introduction of tough new guidelines for police officers involved in high speed pursuits, the police officers' union says.




    The new policy, which follows a spate of fatal crashes including the death of a speeding motorcyclist and an innocent teenage driver last year, takes effect today.

    The policy puts safety before "immediate" capture of dangerous drivers, establishes clear lines of command in pursuits and says police must slow down and turn off their lights and sirens as soon as they are told to abandon pursuit.

    However Police Association president Greg O'Connor said today although the policy was aimed at protecting innocent motorists it could have the opposite effect.

    Mr O'Connor said the policy could actually have the effect of creating more police chases.

    "Young offenders in fast cars know they only have to plant boot to get away. That might mean you will get more people trying it on," he said.

    He said there were some indications that was already happening.

    "Officers are telling me that in some areas that is already the case."

    He said while there were inherent risks in high speed chases there were also risks in not chasing dangerous drivers.

    "Safety is what this business is about, but is it safer to let someone who has come to your attention because of their dangerous driving to continue driving dangerously? Or is it safer to pursue them and hopefully stop them."

    Mr O'Connor said the argument that police pursuing a vehicle could merely take the registration number of a dangerous driver then apprehend them the next day was flawed.

    "It then becomes a resource issue. You need people to then follow up the next day and rather than a straight apprehension you have to mount an investigation."

    He said resources would have to be used in locating the car owner, then it would be difficult to prove who was actually driving the car.

    While all this was achievable if the resources were available, no new resources were being promised to back up the new policy.

    He said the policy was partly a knee-jerk reaction to high profile police chases that had ended in death either for the person trying to escape police, or innocent drivers.

    However he said every year dozens of other people died as a result of unapprehended dangerous drivers, but those cases did not grab the same headlines.

    "You could potentially have the situation where there will be more deaths as a result of dangerous drivers, because they are not being apprehended."

    Under the policy police chases will be controlled by a supervisor in a police communications centre.

    Mr O'Connor said while that established clear lines of control there would be strong incentives for the controller to call off the chase.

    "They have everything to lose and very little to gain from a chase like this."

    However the Automobile Association (AA) today welcomed the new policy saying that overall it would protect innocent motorists.

    Public affairs director George Fairbairn said the AA recognised there were cases where pursuits were required, but in many cases there were other options available.

    "In many of these chases in the past they've gone on for longer than they probably should of because of that ability for a more individual decision to be made on the part of an officer on where and when it should stop," he said.

    Mr Fairbairn said some people would undoubtedly try and flout the law as a result of the new policy, but overall the new procedures would ensure the safety of innocent motorists.

    "The overriding concern has to be 'is a pursuit really necessary?' and are there other means to stop that person doing what they are doing and apprehending them.

    "At the end of the day We have to limit the occasions where innocent people can be unnecessarily killed as a result of a pursuit."

  2. #2
    Join Date
    27th November 2003 - 12:00
    Bike
    None any more
    Location
    Ngaio, Wellington
    Posts
    13,111
    I suspect this policy will only result in "Claytons" pursuits... (following offenders in "close proximity" rather than "chasing" them)
    "Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]

  3. #3
    Join Date
    12th September 2003 - 12:00
    Bike
    Katana 750, VOR 450 Enduro
    Location
    Wallaceville, Upper Hutt
    Posts
    5,521
    Blog Entries
    26
    Quote Originally Posted by Hitcher
    I suspect this policy will only result in "Claytons" pursuits... (following offenders in "close proximity" rather than "chasing" them)
    Maybe, maybe not.

    My interpretation of the coroners report on the Whangarei crash was that the Police officer had "abandoned" the chase, and had turned off the siren; however, they still had their lights on and were following the bike in close proximity - this had the effect of misleading the motorcyclist into thinking that they were still chasing him - and in effect, was a major factor in the cause of the crash.

    Maye the police will take this message and think about it.
    And I to my motorcycle parked like the soul of the junkyard. Restored, a bicycle fleshed with power, and tore off. Up Highway 106 continually drunk on the wind in my mouth. Wringing the handlebar for speed, wild to be wreckage forever.

    - James Dickey, Cherrylog Road.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    25th October 2002 - 12:00
    Bike
    Old Blue, Little blue
    Location
    31.29.57.11, 116.22.22.22
    Posts
    4,864
    Mr O'Connor said the argument that police pursuing a vehicle could merely take the registration number of a dangerous driver then apprehend them the next day was flawed.

    "It then becomes a resource issue. You need people to then follow up the next day and rather than a straight apprehension you have to mount an investigation."

    He said resources would have to be used in locating the car owner, then it would be difficult to prove who was actually driving the car.


    So?
    Just seize the f**kin vehicle! - if the owner wasn't driving, it should soon flush out the driver.!
    “- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”

  5. #5
    Join Date
    10th December 2003 - 13:00
    Bike
    Shanksters Pony
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    2,647
    Quote Originally Posted by SPman
    [/color][/size][/font]

    So?
    Just seize the f**kin vehicle! - if the owner wasn't driving, it should soon flush out the driver.!
    Great idea, but;

    Under what law would the cops be able to do that??

    You'd have the PC brigade and civil libitarians jumping up & down in no time!

  6. #6
    Join Date
    10th December 2003 - 13:00
    Bike
    Shanksters Pony
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    2,647
    The moral of the story is, "if you are a crim make sure you get a fast get-away car for the next armed robbery".

  7. #7
    Join Date
    25th October 2002 - 12:00
    Bike
    Old Blue, Little blue
    Location
    31.29.57.11, 116.22.22.22
    Posts
    4,864
    Quote Originally Posted by spudchucka
    Great idea, but;

    Under what law would the cops be able to do that??

    You'd have the PC brigade and civil libitarians jumping up & down in no time!
    Ummm Im sure theyd think of something - if the vehicle has been linked to a serious offence, it could at least be held as "evidence" to further their inquiries.
    “- He felt that his whole life was some kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.”

  8. #8
    Join Date
    20th August 2003 - 10:00
    Bike
    'o6 Spewzooki Banned it.
    Location
    Costa del Nord
    Posts
    6,553
    Gregg O'Connor is not the nost balanced individual. The cops probably love him dearly, but he doesn't seem to have much credibility with the public since the Wallace shooting. This policy will be a good move, if they apply it. But, as I have seen done, 180km/h chases will be reported as 140 km/h chases over the RT. We used to do it when our bosses got twitchy over pursuits.
    Lou

  9. #9
    Join Date
    9th October 2003 - 11:00
    Bike
    2022 BMW RnineT Pure
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    14,591
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by spudchucka
    Great idea, but;

    Under what law would the cops be able to do that??

    You'd have the PC brigade and civil libitarians jumping up & down in no time!
    Probably the same law that (in contravention with numerous international human rights conventions and "laws") allows cops to set up blockades and stop people irrespective of a total lack of suspicion of criminal activity or criminal intent. They call them drink driving checkpoints.

    The "PC brigade and civil libitarians(sic)" did leap up and down, but the average Kiwi can't differentiate righteous opinion and hyperbole from a fundamental abrogation of personal freedom.
    If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?



  10. #10
    Join Date
    9th October 2003 - 11:00
    Bike
    2022 BMW RnineT Pure
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    14,591
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by spudchucka
    The moral of the story is, "if you are a crim make sure you get a fast get-away car for the next armed robbery".
    Shouldn't "get" be "steal"?
    If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?



  11. #11
    Join Date
    12th February 2004 - 12:00
    Bike
    08 ZX-6R Race Bike, FXR150
    Location
    Auckland
    Posts
    4,913
    Another thing that could solve it, would to have high performance police cars, for instance a Subaru WRX (Cheap but very quick). The threat of being chased by a fast car mean that the person being chased will either not try it or give up very quickly. Its like having a big stick (Or in the USA's case the most nuclear weapons), they have the power to hit hard,but generally don't have to hit hard because of the threat.

    The less chases and the quicker chases end means that the Innocent people will be safer overall. If you start saying "The police can go see them later on..." that means that there is more time wasting. Also if you dont cease the chase who knows how long that individual will go on speeding and driving dangerously? The chances of someone doing something minor and then thinking "Shit i better make a runner for it because i don't have the dollars to pay for it" will increase, Those two things indanger innocent peoples lives far more than the current policy.

    Therefore im saying keep the current policy and work on getting high performace car (the big stick)

    BTW i knew Erin Burgess and i dont hold the Police responsible for her death, i hold the tosser on the motorbike responsible.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    27th February 2004 - 11:00
    Bike
    2011 Yamaha xvs1100
    Location
    Mt Putauaki
    Posts
    952
    Quote Originally Posted by Two Smoker
    Another thing that could solve it, would to have high performance police cars, for instance a Subaru WRX (Cheap but very quick). The threat of being chased by a fast car mean that the person being chased will either not try it or give up very quickly. Its like having a big stick (Or in the USA's case the most nuclear weapons), they have the power to hit hard,but generally don't have to hit hard because of the threat.

    The less chases and the quicker chases end means that the Innocent people will be safer overall. If you start saying "The police can go see them later on..." that means that there is more time wasting. Also if you dont cease the chase who knows how long that individual will go on speeding and driving dangerously? The chances of someone doing something minor and then thinking "Shit i better make a runner for it because i don't have the dollars to pay for it" will increase, Those two things indanger innocent peoples lives far more than the current policy.

    Therefore im saying keep the current policy and work on getting high performace car (the big stick)

    BTW i knew Erin Burgess and i dont hold the Police responsible for her death, i hold the tosser on the motorbike responsible.

    Well said Two Smoker

  13. #13
    Join Date
    21st December 2002 - 11:00
    Bike
    Manx TT by Sega
    Location
    Welly
    Posts
    2,718
    Yes - that and the fact having faster cars mean cars run faster......States tried this with hotted up 'stangs....all it meant was they became more daring when being chased.

    If someone is going to run.....they are going to run......the idea is to limit the chase situations and I don't think that Nuclear Threat is an equivalent comparision to doing a runner from a cop.

    Surely you would be better having bikes by that assumption as you are sure as hell less likely to outrun a bike than a car?

    Even having choppers in the states doesn't deter people from running.

    Remember this - the person running is hardly RATIONAL - that is why they are running. Given this they are hardly likely to rationalise the type of car following them is likely to catch them.

    This just promotes more problems that it solves....

  14. #14
    Join Date
    10th December 2003 - 13:00
    Bike
    Shanksters Pony
    Location
    NZ
    Posts
    2,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Jim2
    Probably the same law that (in contravention with numerous international human rights conventions and "laws") allows cops to set up blockades and stop people irrespective of a total lack of suspicion of criminal activity or criminal intent. They call them drink driving checkpoints.

    The "PC brigade and civil libitarians(sic)" did leap up and down, but the average Kiwi can't differentiate righteous opinion and hyperbole from a fundamental abrogation of personal freedom.
    What a load of shite, why don't you justify what you say by quoting the "international human rights conventions" that are being breached by alcohol checkpoints in NZ. The fact that vehicle stops are covered under the Land Transport Act and the seizure of vehicles as evidence is covered under another Act entirely demonstrates your lack of any knowledge on the subject.

    the average Kiwi can't differentiate righteous opinion and hyperbole from a fundamental abrogation of personal freedom
    You sound like a victim of your own words.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    9th October 2003 - 11:00
    Bike
    2022 BMW RnineT Pure
    Location
    yes
    Posts
    14,591
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by spudchucka
    What a load of shite, why don't you justify what you say by quoting the "international human rights conventions" that are being breached by alcohol checkpoints in NZ. The fact that vehicle stops are covered under the Land Transport Act and the seizure of vehicles as evidence is covered under another Act entirely demonstrates your lack of any knowledge on the subject.



    You sound like a victim of your own words.
    I get the feeling you're a cop, right?

    I present a point of view and you attack?

    Feeling a bit like the finger is being pointed?

    I was trying to make the point that the Land Transport Act was amended to make the checkpoints legal, and that the politicians, NOT policeman will change whatever act or create whatever law they wish to "fix" the current public outcry, or percieved law enforcement problem. Irrespective of the morals of the law or whether or not they create a law that allows a uniformed state organisation to stop and interrogate citizens going about there business in the hopes of catching a couple of recidivist drunk drivers. Who will just get back on the road drunk the next day anyway. In a different car.

    If you are a cop then try to understand that SOME of us are clued up enough to know that you do the job under the auspices of law created by politicians.

    Instead of putting on the badass internet tough guy act try educating instead smashing it down my throat. I probably won't accept your argument, but I will listen.

    My beliefs may be a pile of shit to you, but I will defend your right to hold a pile of shit opposite view with my life.

    And while we're at it exactly whose freedom did I personally restrict? I'm not quite sure I understand your last crack.

    LAte Edit: UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 13 is the specific article.

    Article 13.
    (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state. (which we no longer do)

    (2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country
    If a man is alone in the woods and there isn't a woke Hollywood around to call him racist, is he still white?



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •