Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

The perticular bit about the cop in the T5 on an empty motorway doing 130mph to try and catch a BMW that we never saw then got hit by a lorry? and the cop hiding in the bushes using vascar to trap lorry drivers, also the bike doin 170mph why did they even bother to go after it, surely them doing 130 mph in order to catch a car doing 90 is far mor dangerous than the car doing 90 in the first place. Also the CBR that stopped wneh the copper told hime to and he said I believe you were doing 60! yeah right prove it when were your eyes last calibrated?

Scooby Doh!

The copper who had the crash shouldn't be allowed on the road. Notice how he was in the middle lane on an empty motorway - 5 mins later another copper said his pet hate was middle lane hoggers. As regards the lorry moving into the right hand lane (referred to all the way through the programme as the "fast" lane) ok, he shouldn't have been there but he was indicating - surely that would alert any decent driver to the potential for trouble. The biker who got done for 128mph ave was told "speed in itself is not dangerous" oh yeah, thats not the message in the speed kills advert. Also, were they parked up on the hard shoulder of the slip road when they saw him? Bloody hypocrites - i followed a police car the other evening who went past me doing approx 55mph in a 40. Didn't indicate when changing lanes and went through a light as it changed from amder to red - what do you think he would have done if he'd seen me do any of those.

Huxley

Any of the Five-O lot on there



Anyway they should show the carnage after the accident that might slow some people down a bit,if they see what could happen to you in a crash, I have seen loads of TAI pictures and some of them can put you off your dinner and it makes you THINK I'm sure the shock tactic would work but no we have to have Road saftey adverts that are as tame as the Teletubbies.

Just my thoughts.

Huxley

StiShrek

Those coppers a bit too sanctimonoius about speeding for their own good.

I worked with an M4 traffic cop who drove at 110mph whilst texting and eating a sarnie all at the same time.

Get of your high horse ffs.

That bike is meant to do 170mph!

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

Quote,

"The copper who had the crash shouldn't be allowed on the road. Notice how he was in the middle lane on an empty motorway"

They are trained to do that !, on an empty Motorway you go to the middle lane if you are tanking on, if there is debris or some other problem you have more options, go left or go right, stands to reason really doesent it.

That guy on the bike was a tw*t in my opinion, gets nicked at 128 mph having been drinking, only 1 Bud Granted but I dont think I would entertain having any alcohol in my system if I was going to max out a Fireblade on a fairly busy M1, why not wait till 5 in the morning, he said he had been doing 170, I hope that guy isnt going to learn the hard way.

StiShrek, er yes a Blade is meant to do 170mph but not on a busy M1 with a retarded halfwit on board.

StiShrek

that stretch he was caning it on as he went past the coppers looked empty

AndiThompson

That lorry driver was a moron, the police driver didn't do anything wrong, maybe in perspective he should have had his blue lights on, but the lorry shouldn't of been there in the first place, and when stopped, he had no idea he wasnt allowed in lane 3!!

And course they were going to go after the bike, what do you want them to do, watch him shoot past at 130?!!? The bikes built to go that fast on a track, where there's proper supervision, with proper safety equipment and your slightly less likely to fly over the central reservation into oncoming traffic if you have an accident.

You lot amaze me sometimes, they aren't doing it for the crack, their doing it for YOUR safety, you'd be quite pissed off if someone crashed into you doing 170.

Hoppy

Some of those traffic cops did the police absolutely no favors at all with reckless and, as it transpired, ACTUALLY dangerous driving. Endangering themselves and other roads users by ACTUALLY crashing for no good reason. They're supposed to set a good example.

Passing a weaving artic at 130mph (yes, 130mph) then blaming the lorry driver I think they should both have got their licenses endorsed and plod a long tour on the beat.

Then another police car is tanking along at a similar speed, in the wet on a heavily trafficed road, gets a blow-out and was very lucky not to roll it. Then he claims he spun it to avoid hitting other cars! Yeah, sure he did.

I think having the TV cameras in the police cars went to their heads. That's the best excuse I can think of. Very poor show for plod.

Richard.

AndiThompson

When your plane crashes, I'm sure you'll want them to pootle along the motorway at 30mph

imlach

the policeman that spun the car after the tyre burst was the same one that passed the artic and smashed into it....

Just annoyed me when he said "I controlled the car as best I could" when he had the blowout....errr..no, the car did what it was going to do, and there wasn't much you could do.

I know a traffic cop, and the stories of what they do when "training" is pretty scary. 150mph+ down the A1 and struggling to stop when coming across an obstruction on the road.

I know they have to train, but you don't see airline pilots training by using real aircraft and real people do you - that's what simulators are for!!!! You don't see police marksmen using real public situations to train themselves on using guns do you!!!

So why oh why are traffic cops allowed to train on the public highway where they can (and do) cause the injuries & deaths of innocent drivers?

imlach

PS I'd love to know what happened to the panda car driver that "undertook" (to gasps of disbelief and tut-tut-ing from same traffic cops) when in pursuit of the drugged up runaway driver.

Err....excuse me, but when multiple traffic cars are involved in a pursuit, they don't seem to obey the Highway Code either and commit every known road offence known to man.

Oh yeah, I forgot, the traffic cops are "trained" and therefore Mr Panda Car Driver couldn't possibly be of such a skillset to be able to do the same.

Power corrupts. I sometimes feel the arrogance of some (and yes, some, as I know not every cop is same) is beyond belief. As it is drummed into you in EVERY profession/job/life-situation, the moment you think you know it all is the moment you have failed.

[Edited by imlach - 3/14/2003 1:11:56 AM]

Felix.

Imlach, Do you seriously expect police to follow the highway code in a pusruit. 'I'm sorry sarge..we were right behind him but the lights turned to red so we all had to stop and so we lost him!' 'We were going to purue the drugged up burglar/murderer/rapist but we were in a 30 zone'

If your travelling with blues and 2's you pick the lane of less resistance, if this means undertaking, then so be it. Other drivers should be using their mirrors and should move toward the near side curb although some panic and just stop in the middle of the road. The best lane to travel down on blues & 2's is along the centre white lines; this tells oncoming cars what you are doing, makes you visible and forces them to pull to their curb side of the road

Police need to be aware of what other drivers do on the road. Often we can't use blues and 2's (close to a crime scene and don't want to alert the suspect of our presence (blue lights do reflect off things at night), lights and sirrens are knackered on the car, told not to use them by control) so we may overtake you on a restricted road or go through red lights, at the end of the day if the public complain (which they do) the driver must justify his actions.

imlach

Felix,

You missed my point - I fully understand that the police can disobey the highway code in pursuit, but it was the arrogance of the *traffic* cops who expressed surprise at the "cheek" of the panda car to be (oh so self-righteous) undertaking them!!

ie, it was almost as if the traffic cops were implying that they, and only they, were allowed to break the rules of the road, and seemed offended by a lowly panda car butting in to their cosy club.

In the end, it was the panda car that seemed to end the pursuit - as a taxpayer, I'd rather see a cheap Astra taken out than a fully specced up Volvo V70.....

imlach

...and one final point Felix - you quote that sometimes you don't want to use the "blues and twos" so as not to alert the suspect of your prescence.

It seems to me that what makes joyriders/assailants/bad drivers zoom off into the distance is the sudden prescence of "blues and twos".

If a suspect does not think he is being chased, then surely he will not be trying to endanger his life by driving at 100+mph???

If the "helicopter" being called in makes the suspect "know" that he cannot escape, then why is the car pursuit not called off there & then?


[Edited by imlach - 3/14/2003 2:23:50 AM]

Felix.

Only the traffic cars/drivers are trained for pursuits and T-pack (which was more or less what happened in this case). The panda should be know where near the pursit at this point unless its getting used to block a road , which was maybe why the traffic lad was surprised when it passed him. The driver of the panda would be in serious **** to explain why his car was damaged and more so the fact that he was still pursuing the car outside of his area.

However we don't know the full story - it could be that the panda driver is from traffic (no other traffic cars available) and may have been given authority to ram the car. If this is the case and he has seen an opportunity he may have decided to undertake the traffic car and take his chance. This sort of work is never an exact science.

imlach

Felix,

Can you perhaps explain in more detail the training you went on for "T-pack". I'd be interested to know how one is taught how to SAFELY and PREDICTABLY control Newton's law of physics with the use of a steering wheel whilst ensuring one does not cause injury to innocent 3rd parties.

Are these courses ISO9001 accredited? Does it adhere to safety at work standards as set down by the Health & Safety Executive?


[Edited by imlach - 3/14/2003 2:19:01 AM]

Felix.

Sorry missed your final point.

Joy riders will drive fast whether they are being chased or not. They won't steal a car and drive at 30mph everywhere. Air support can only follow the vehicle from a distance, you still need police near by incase he runs for it. If he runs into a crowded area its difficult for the helicopter to see where he has gone, its also difficult to spot any evidence he has dropped from the air. Air support can also be called away at any point if a more serious incident develops or if it runs out of its fuel range. They are pricey to run and often 3-4 forces share one helicopter/plane.

imlach

Felix,

I do admire your honest & open replies. Having had a shandy or two, I am perhaps in a provocative mood, and will probably cringe at my posts in the morning!

Easy to take a pot-shot at the public services, as my fiance knows only too well what with working in senior position in the NHS.

Please do not take it personally. I am representing the "drunk" public viewpoint! I like to think I ask the questions that a lot of people would ask after watching programs like the one shown on BBC1 tonight.

[Edited by imlach - 3/14/2003 2:23:19 AM]

GaryK

Totally agree, nearly fell off my chair when he said that, the car did a 720 degree spin and he reckons he controlled it, did he black out or something??? muppet!

Why is it some coppers have to give a lecture before they book you?

CarpetCleaner

If i get nicked I don't want a lecture

book me
fine me
endorse me

now **** OFF

Reffro

I am happy to say I had very few problems with what I saw, and the comments made on the programme last night. I am however disappointed to see you criticising someone actions without paying attention to what was said.

In relation to the truck moving across and hitting the police car, there was absolutely no excuse for the truck to move into lane 3, none what so ever. I know that particular bit of road intimately, and not withstanding artics being banned from lane three, lane three closes and filters into lane two 400 yards further up the road as it approaches a roundabout, so you have to be in lane two to turn right at the up coming junction anyway. What the truck driver did was completely without reason aswell as illegal, and the officer was right to be agrieved with what happened. There should be no blame attached to the traffic officer because he did nothing wrong.

Secondly the blow-out. The car whilst spinning 720 degrees and bouncing off the central barrier was out of control but what else was the man to do. You could see two cars in front of him in lanes 1&2, that he could have hit should he have tried to get on to the hard shoulder. At the time of the blowout he was doing in excess of 120mph according to the video tape, and if he had hit the cars in front it would have been the same impact as a car travelling at 50mph hitting a stationary vehicle. The consequences are too nasty to contemplate to be honest, you saw what happened later in the programme whent he red Toyota got bashed, that would have been close to a 50mph impact's damage, not pretty. There is no question he did the right thing again. Trying to avoid any possible collision he lost control though, but then he's not like us mere superheros who can prevent a car on three tyres doing 120mph from spinning out of control when trying to switch lanes, with one hand tied behind our backs and blindfolded no doubt.

The beered up biked doing 128.51 mph average, well nothing to say there except, complete knobber...

The biker who had his collar felt by the officer who had stopped the truck, had a result. Lets assume that officer have been replaced by a speed camera, three points and £60 quid fine would have been winging its way to him as we speak. But because it was a traffic officer he got a warning and off he went. There is no doubt he was speeding beacuse the biker even admitted it, he said he was doing 70mph when asked how fast he was going..........

There is obviously a whole lot more you can try to pick fault with in the film, but, and this is a big one, I want to see traffic patrols on our roads. I don't want their numbers run down anymore, with them being replaced by speed cameras. They are the ones who can spot dangerous driving and can clamp down on it. Its something we all know, driving standards are falling, at the same time the numbers of traffic cars is also falling, I doubt that is mere coincidence. At the end of the day, I will probably get nicked for speeding at some point in the future, I'd rather try and plead my case to a Traffic officer than get a NIP landing on my mat after getting doen by a camera.

[Edited by Reffro - 3/14/2003 10:09:59 AM]

Wurzel

iTrader: (1)

When the copper pulled the bike over he told him if he had undertaken anyone that would be classed as dangerous driving and had a custodial sentence, but when the 2 cop cars wer parked side by side on the slip road and then both took off together still side by side the shot over the solid white cross hatchings at the bottom staright into the fast lane was this also not dangerous driving? how about the copper who did a U turn on the dangerous rouad that had 2 solid white lines down the middle and then proceeded to tell the camera that they were tought to treat these double lines as a solid wall, then proceeded to queue hop up the road crossing said white lines to catch a bloke that had not really done anything wrong. It was safe for him to do what he did so what is the big deal? if he did it into oncoming traffic then I could understand the cops attitude.

Tiggs

u see this is why speed cameras will never go and why ppl who are anti the "speed kills" tatics used by the gov will never win......the posts on here are unbelivable...cop breaks highway code in pursuit, cop is "wrong" to drive into a truck in a lane he's not allowed to use and when the cop says he controlled the skid as best he could he gets flamed...if it had been a SN'er there would have been a 10 page thread on how his slip angle deformed in a tangent to his compresed lateral suspension while he tried his hardest.

T

Felix.

Imlach.

I've never had training in T-Pack, these are set aside for advanced drivers only. It is only used once in blue moon where it is felt that the offender is driving too dangerous and may cause a serious accident and all other courses of action have failed (such as stingers etc). I don't think it will fall into any safety category although there will be a risk assesment drawn up somewhere for it. It is a very dangerous tactic and can only really be done on open roads with the use of many police cars and the authority from someone very high up.

I hope this helps. From watching the film I do think that the traffic lads do come across too authoritarian. The case where the lorry pulled over and clipped the car - OK technically it was his fault but I would have viewed it as 'one of those things'. I think the stern talking to he got wasn't necessary and didn't really help. Staying on a calm level works wonders

'Do you realise you've clipped my car back there?....No, well you pulled out into lane 3 and clipped my front....nevermined....no real harm done but there is a procedure I now need to follow' 'Are you OK...do you want 5 mins to get your breath'.

The lorry driver seemed a decent chap and will probably admit liability if he is not being brow beaten. Usually works for me

imlach

Felix,

I agree with your assessment. The police driver did seem quite hard on the lorry driver. I'm not a perfect driver either, but when I see a HGV (or ANY vehicle for that matter) indicating and moving lanes, I always ease off until sure what is happenning. Not trying to be sanctimonius, but given advanced driving teaches you to assume the unexpected, thought the policeman was a bit too eager to press on regardless.

Felix.

I agree, he should have waited until he knew the way was clear before pressing on, it would have only cost him a second - if that. Enjoyed that chat M8.

I did enjoy the git getting bitten by the dog. I hope he was gum deep.

RB170

The entire thing wound me up.

The bit where that **** cop was hiding so that he could catch people using vascar was complete toss. If wanted to stop people speeding why didn't he park where they could see him an so act as a deterant and he was a complete tosser.

Also on one hand you have a copper saying "Speed in itself isn't dangerous" and on the othet hand they spent the entire programme going on about speeding.

What a load of sh1te

CarpetCleaner

a gatso near my way got torched the other night, its still there all burnt, whod do such a thing as that

APJ

I was disappointed by the attitude of some of the officers on the programme - some seemed to really gleeful when getting into a chase.

As someone else mentioned earlier, advanced driving teaches you to be observant - the lorry was indicating right, moved into lane 2, still indicating and then into lane 3 - surely the copper should have spotted it and taken a different approach? To assume that the lorry would not move into lane 3 based on the argument that "HGVs are not allowed in lane 3" seems to be poor observation.

Travelling at 130mph, shouldnt he have had his blue lights on the warn other drivers, such as the poor lorry driver?

To cap it all, he was rude and offensive to the lorry driver, quickly laying blame, before the incident had been investigated by a supervisor.

Pretty disgraceful IMHO.