High-speed pursuits banned in WA

[jpd80]

LINK to Ninemsn

Western Australia's 5800 police officers have been issued with a union directive banning high speed pursuits.

The Sunday Times says the union took action in frustration at disciplinary action taken against officers, who have been accused of driving too fast in pursuits.

The paper says the union is particularly irate about the use of automatic vehicle locators (AVLs) in police cars to build a case against the officers. The union argues the locators are inaccurate at recording speed.

Police Commissioner Karl O'Callaghan called the union action irresponsible and urged officers to do their jobs. He's called an urgent meeting with the union for Monday to discuss the issue.

"I don't think this action is satisfactory at all and I think potentially it could lead to some level of anarchy if it becomes a common approach to high-speed pursuits," he said.

Union president Russell Armstrong said the directive had been issued because "inaccurate information" from AVLs in police cars had led to disciplinary action against several police officers. AVLs are not certified speed detectors.

In WA, every police car is fitted with an AVL, a device operated by a global-positioning system, which provides information about the car's location and speed to the Police Operations Centre.

Interesting development, when officers starts being disciplined for inappropriate chases
then there's no wondering why the union doesn't want members being exposed to further action.
Maybe WA police should start following their own rules and using use proper speed detectors.

[GTP owner]

If you believe the mantra that speed kills, then this is a logical conclusion. Not only will the crim be putting lives at risk, but so will the coppers doing the chasing. If they "wiped off five" how many lives will be saved???? So I think that while they believe their own rubbish about the irresponsisbility and outright danger associated with exceeding the speed limit, then they must not exceed it themselves. (ps. this also applies to all emergency service vehicles).

[chevypower]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

If you believe the mantra that speed kills, then this is a logical conclusion. Not only will the crim be putting lives at risk, but so will the coppers doing the chasing. If they "wiped off five" how many lives will be saved???? So I think that while they believe their own rubbish about the irresponsisbility and outright danger associated with exceeding the speed limit, then they must not exceed it themselves. (ps. this also applies to all emergency service vehicles).

I don't have a problem with emergency vehicles going above the speed limit, though a few years ago, here in the winter, I saw an ambulance with sirens and lights on, overtook me at night, on very slick ice, then continued way too fast for the conditions. I just knew he was going to slide off the road. That was confirmed when I caught up to him after he slid off the embankment. He had to wait there for a capable tow truck, and who knows what happened to the patients. Usually I don't care if they go a little over the limit, if the conditions are right, and they exercise caution.

[Haxor]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

If you believe the mantra that speed kills, then this is a logical conclusion. Not only will the crim be putting lives at risk, but so will the coppers doing the chasing. If they "wiped off five" how many lives will be saved???? So I think that while they believe their own rubbish about the irresponsisbility and outright danger associated with exceeding the speed limit, then they must not exceed it themselves. (ps. this also applies to all emergency service vehicles).

So take this situation. Someone has just stabbed your mother in front of you and jumped into a car. You luckily see the cops and flag them down, you point out the vehicle and they take off in pursuit.

The crook is speeding away, and the police obey the speed limit, and the crook gets away.

While this is happening the ambulance is plodding along at the speed limit, taking however long it would take to get there... She dies.

The alternative - Police and emergency service vehicle drivers are trained to drive to the conditions at the time, and are given the power to break the road rules therefore the police catch the crook and the ambulance gets there in time to save her life.

Don't you think it's a bit better that way?

The amount of lives saved by Police and emergency vehicles speeding, as opposed to the minuscule amount of lives lost is astounding. It's usually the crook smashing into someone else - which in many cases they would have been doing regardless of if they were being pursued or not. There are pursuit controllers for police pursuits and as soon as ANYTHING becomes less than controlled it's called off.

You sound like a whining 18 year old who has been given a ticket or two.

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Haxor

So take this situation. Someone has just stabbed your mother in front of you and jumped into a car. You luckily see the cops and flag them down, you point out the vehicle and they take off in pursuit.

The crook is speeding away, and the police obey the speed limit, and the crook gets away.

While this is happening the ambulance is plodding along at the speed limit, taking however long it would take to get there... She dies.

The alternative - Police and emergency service vehicle drivers are trained to drive to the conditions at the time, and are given the power to break the road rules therefore the police catch the crook and the ambulance gets there in time to save her life.

Don't you think it's a bit better that way?

The amount of lives saved by Police and emergency vehicles speeding, as opposed to the minuscule amount of lives lost is astounding. It's usually the crook smashing into someone else - which in many cases they would have been doing regardless of if they were being pursued or not. There are pursuit controllers for police pursuits and as soon as ANYTHING becomes less than controlled it's called off.

You sound like a whining 18 year old who has been given a ticket or two.

Pretty sure the ambulance isn't allowed to exceed the speed limit with a patient now (actually I think it was 80kph).

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Pretty sure the ambulance isn't allowed to exceed the speed limit with a patient now (actually I think it was 80kph).

Incorrect on two counts.

In the scenario it is not the patient loaded time and travel to the hospital that requires the most urgency, it is the ambulance arriving on scene that does. Once on scene we have many procedures for many patient situations that can negate the need for a lights and sirens transport to hospital. In fact, of all the 1000's of lights and sirens responses I have done, I have gone lights and sirens to hospital less than 50 times.

Also with the patient loaded their is no ruling under state road law or our own code of conduct in regard to what speed we can do under lights and sirens (except our normal limit of no more than 30 over that applies to all code 1 drives). We may exceed the speed limit if appropriate in the current conditions but we are responsible for the safety for all on board and an accident resulting from excess speed for the conditions will result in criminal charges on the driver. This is a situation that may even occur under the speed limit.

[Spudz27]

Originally Posted by vztrt

Pretty sure the ambulance isn't allowed to exceed the speed limit with a patient now (actually I think it was 80kph).

Not true, at least here in W.A. I have driven probably 4 cases back to Hospital on priority 1. In all cases except one (CPR on the move) I would easily have driven 15-20kph faster than the limit. two of the jobs were heart attacks and one a child with non stop seizures. If in a very built up area speed was about 5kph faster. So long as all the boxes are ticked when you evaluate how safe it is to the people on board and the public it is o.k. If you can't tick all those boxes then you should not exceed the limit. At the end of the day if I am the driver at the time and I am in an accident and I can't prove it was safe, or I was acting in a safe manner I will be charged and I don't want that.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by Haxor

So take this situation. Someone has just stabbed your mother in front of you and jumped into a car. You luckily see the cops and flag them down, you point out the vehicle and they take off in pursuit.

The crook is speeding away, and the police obey the speed limit, and the crook gets away.

While this is happening the ambulance is plodding along at the speed limit, taking however long it would take to get there... She dies.

The alternative - Police and emergency service vehicle drivers are trained to drive to the conditions at the time, and are given the power to break the road rules therefore the police catch the crook and the ambulance gets there in time to save her life.

Don't you think it's a bit better that way?

The amount of lives saved by Police and emergency vehicles speeding, as opposed to the minuscule amount of lives lost is astounding. It's usually the crook smashing into someone else - which in many cases they would have been doing regardless of if they were being pursued or not. There are pursuit controllers for police pursuits and as soon as ANYTHING becomes less than controlled it's called off.

You sound like a whining 18 year old who has been given a ticket or two.

Personal attack aside, you missed my point. That being if you believe speeding kills, then ANYONE exceeding it is putting lives in danger. I have been in ambulances doing 160km/h to get to patients (does that start to give you the idea that I am not 18?), and I have close friends who are police traffic officers. They tend to agree that them being allowed to speed does debunk the idea that any speeding is bad,and that speed cameras save lives.

Pretty pathetic story though - but it would be perfect for Alan Jones on his radio program. Nothing beats a hyped up scare campaign eh?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Personal attack aside, you missed my point. That being if you believe speeding kills, then ANYONE exceeding it is putting lives in danger. I have been in ambulances doing 160km/h to get to patients (does that start to give you the idea that I am not 18?), and I have close friends who are police traffic officers. They tend to agree that them being allowed to speed does debunk the idea that any speeding is bad,and that speed cameras save lives.

Pretty pathetic story though - but it would be perfect for Alan Jones on his radio program. Nothing beats a hyped up scare campaign eh?

No offence intended but I think some elements of your comment over simplify things. A emergency vehicle is fitted with bright and distinctly coloured flashing lights as well as multiple tone sirens. Also the operator of the vehicle has a much greater level in training for low risk driving in both urgent and non urgent vehicle operation. All those elements do go a long way to ensure that an emergency vehicle can operate at higher speeds with equal to or less risk than your average private vehicle operated by a competent driver.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

No offence intended but I think some elements of your comment over simplify things. A emergency vehicle is fitted with bright and distinctly coloured flashing lights as well as multiple tone sirens. Also the operator of the vehicle has a much greater level in training for low risk driving in both urgent and non urgent vehicle operation. All those elements do go a long way to ensure that an emergency vehicle can operate at higher speeds with equal to or less risk than your average private vehicle operated by a competent driver.

Emergency services drivers here do not undergo high speed training. The Ambo I was observing in was being driven by a (very competent) ex-HWP police officer. Police here undergo "pursuit training", but not high speed driving. While i was doing my posting to the ambulance service I asked about crash rates - turns out that very few ambulances are involved in collisions, despite the speeds at which they are driven. This in turn is why I argue that it is not speeding per-se that causes crashes, but rather the lack of attention and riving within ones' capabilities.

Yes I agree with the lights and sirens making the vehicles noticeable,but my point is still that if we agree that speed above the posted limit puts lives in danger, everyone should obey them, no exceptions.

As for the example of the kid you saved by getting there on time, great. But how many people did you endanger getting there? Kids walking onto the road without looking? Kids chasing balls onto the street? Kids on pushbikes without full control? That is the fear campaign used to stop us from exceeding nominal posted limits. So why would it be any different for a vehicle with flashing lights?


But back to the topic more specifically, the issue is with the discrepancy between stated speeds being used in pursuits and measured speeds, via possibly faulty equipment. Faulty equipment never stopped Victorian Police from issuing speeding infringement notices. I think that is Karma

[bungarra]

Chalk one up for the bad guys!! But like GTP Owner said, goes along with the safety mantra.

[2011G6E]

Who on earth could support such a rediculous idea?!

For christs sake, what do people think will happen to the crime rates and car theft if a crook knows all they have to do is drive fast and the police have to let them go?
If a bad guy drives the other way even just doing the speed limit, how are police supposed to catch him? If you can't go fast to catch up, how can you set up roadblocks ahead...or are they dangerous as well to the poor gentle little criminals?

In this case they're talking about police getting into trouble for going fast chasing criminals...isn't that what they're supposed to damn well do? There have been suggestions before that police shouldn't chase criminals because they shouldn't pay with thier life for stealing a car if they crash. Why do we have to do things to make it safer for criminals? It's like the stupid requests to take guns away from armoured car guards. Who'd take a job where you drive a huge truck full of cash and you have no way of defending yourself? Trucks would be knocked over once or twice a week.

[shedcoupe]

Don't wanna be a hijacker but, OT - you can drink and drive in WA, get sprung, and still have a license ! Repeatedly !!!
When I came over here I noticed utes with an 'E' plate like a 'P' plate and thought they were carrying explosives or something, but no, 'E' is for 'extraordinary license' which is given to you to drive to and from work so that the kiddies don't starve to death.
And you can mess up again and get another one. That's just wrong.
Strange ways in the west - like a watered-down NT.

[fpv_gt]

Originally Posted by shedcoupe

Don't wanna be a hijacker but, OT - you can drink and drive in WA, get sprung, and still have a license ! Repeatedly !!!
When I came over here I noticed utes with an 'E' plate like a 'P' plate and thought they were carrying explosives or something, but no, 'E' is for 'extraordinary license' which is given to you to drive to and from work so that the kiddies don't starve to death.
And you can mess up again and get another one. That's just wrong.
Strange ways in the west - like a watered-down NT.

Very true. It is bizare.

Goody 2 shoes worried about poor johnny dieing in car crash. Coppers getting blamed everytime.

[phillyc]

The Police Union is sticking up for their workers and so they should.

Banning the chases is an unfortunate course of action. As much as anything I just think it is an ambit / bargaining strategy to stop the use of AVL to persecute WA Officers.

Most likely, the 'original stated intention' by the bureaucrats that got the AVL's in the cars was to have it for determining police resource locations for emergencies. Not some punitive procedural adherance device.

Good on the cops for taking a stand. It will be the general public that cops (no pun intended) this mandatory satelite tracking next if the do-gooders get their way.

This is one for the memory banks then. The Police Union say this satelite technology is innacurate at tracking vehicle speed in certain circumstances.

[Dave3911]

Whilst I am normally pretty pro-police, I disagree with the WA Police Union's position here whole heartedly. AVL is not inaccurate at all, it can give an accurate location at any given time. Record that data. Compare distance over time. You get speed. It's pretty simple, and as with most things simple - they are usually some of the most accurate. At the end of the day, all 'speed' is is a measure of distance over a unit of time. If you can accurately record both, you accurately get speed. Time is easy to record. AVL gives an accurate location. Get more than one location, you have distance. Easy.

Trying to argue that the speed ascertained from AVL data is inaccurate because it's not a "certified speed detector" is just legal spin. Certified or not, it's accurate. Police disciplinary hearings (just as any other job where you get in trouble) are not courts of law... as such some of the ridiculous rules of evidence that have lead to some ridiculous outcomes from the courts don't apply.

Coppers love to have their cake and eat it too. When a crook get's off a charge on a technicality - it's a miscarriage of Justice and an example of the "System" failing. When a copper gets off on a technicality - he's innocent. No questions asked.

This is just another example of this ridiculous mindset. Some coppers have gotten in trouble for inaccurately reporting their speed & have been caught out after the fact. Now the police union get's all shirty that they have been caught out and tells everyone else not to chase because some of their colleagues are throbs who don't do the right thing so their supervising Sgt doesn't abandon the pursuit? Great logic there.

They should be standing up and making sure their members are doing the right thing in the first place - not trying to cover up for them.

[jpd80]

The whole premise of the ban is because officers are apparently going too fast according to
some GPS tracker that may or may not be accurate, this cat fight shouldn't be done in public.

At the very least, any decisions on pursuits and regulations should remain confidential,
what's the point of telling potential criminals how far the police will go before breaking off pursuit.

Get a helicopter after someone fleeing and pepper the thing with bullets, send a message...
shoot a few of these little scoobies dead and let the rest think about fleeing then...

[Paull]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

Whilst I am normally pretty pro-police, I disagree with the WA Police Union's position here whole heartedly. AVL is not inaccurate at all, it can give an accurate location at any given time. Record that data. Compare distance over time. You get speed. It's pretty simple, and as with most things simple - they are usually some of the most accurate. At the end of the day, all 'speed' is is a measure of distance over a unit of time. If you can accurately record both, you accurately get speed. Time is easy to record. AVL gives an accurate location. Get more than one location, you have distance. Easy.

Trying to argue that the speed ascertained from AVL data is inaccurate because it's not a "certified speed detector" is just legal spin. Certified or not, it's accurate. Police disciplinary hearings (just as any other job where you get in trouble) are not courts of law... as such some of the ridiculous rules of evidence that have lead to some ridiculous outcomes from the courts don't apply.

Coppers love to have their cake and eat it too. When a crook get's off a charge on a technicality - it's a miscarriage of Justice and an example of the "System" failing. When a copper gets off on a technicality - he's innocent. No questions asked.

This is just another example of this ridiculous mindset. Some coppers have gotten in trouble for inaccurately reporting their speed & have been caught out after the fact. Now the police union get's all shirty that they have been caught out and tells everyone else not to chase because some of their colleagues are throbs who don't do the right thing so their supervising Sgt doesn't abandon the pursuit? Great logic there.

They should be standing up and making sure their members are doing the right thing in the first place - not trying to cover up for them.

From what I have seen first hand, this most accurately represents the situation here, IMHO, that is.

Put more simply;
- an AVL no longer allows for false reporting of pursuit vehicle speed
- The police union should be ensuring that their members do the right thing so as to keep them out of trouble.

Well said Dave3911

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

Whilst I am normally pretty pro-police, I disagree with the WA Police Union's position here whole heartedly. AVL is not inaccurate at all, it can give an accurate location at any given time. Record that data. Compare distance over time. You get speed. It's pretty simple, and as with most things simple - they are usually some of the most accurate. At the end of the day, all 'speed' is is a measure of distance over a unit of time. If you can accurately record both, you accurately get speed. Time is easy to record. AVL gives an accurate location. Get more than one location, you have distance. Easy.

Sorry but you are very wrong on this one.

We have AVL's on our vehicles, just like the cops they are a part of a Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system. The aided part should be a hint here in how accurate these things are. The guarantee of accuracy in good reception conditions is only 500m, many areas get little to no reception at all.

The area in which I live is a system black hole, our vehicles frequently drop the signal and according to the comms centre we have been in one place for hours when in actual fact we are across the other side of town.

I have had many occasions where the CAD had selected me for a lights and sirens response as the closest available unit, but the dispatcher has had to reassign the case to another vehicle because my vehicle is not tracking properly.

They are not accurate, not to any level that could prove an offence.

[The G6ET Spot]

Originally Posted by phillyc

This is one for the memory banks then. The Police Union say this satelite technology is innacurate at tracking vehicle speed in certain circumstances.

yet they have no qualms about using radar that a lot of the time they don't use to the manufacturers specifications.

They get no sympathy from me.

[2011G6E]

Originally Posted by fpv_gt

Very true. It is bizare.

Goody 2 shoes worried about poor johnny dieing in car crash. Coppers getting blamed everytime.

Really? A special plate for repeat drink drivers over there? Never heard that before...amazing!
As for thieves dying in a high speed pursuit, I have one word: "good".

There is an old cliche about "we can't let the criminals know they've won"...but if you ban chases...for whatever reason...then they have won, and I would bet my lefty that high speed getaways in whatever hot car they could steal will become the norm, if they know police can't chase them.

Radio waves are just a part of the light spectrum, and do travel at the speed of light.

[bigsta]

agree toatally with chevy

speed is relative to the conditions at hand, the vehicle and the experience of the driver.

Speed does not kill inexperience and fatigue do!

[bungarra]

It all stems from a couple of indigenous Australians getting clocked by WAPOL doing 30km/h over the speed limit. The officers turned their car around and went into pursuit mode. The officers stopped at a red light and the stolen car continued on eventually crashing a killing one person in the stolen vehicle.

The mother of the deceased claimed "he was a good boy who got mixed up with the wrong people and I don't blame the Police, but they should have used an unmarked car to follow them"

1. He was not a good boy, he was a thief, his choice no one elses
2. You shouldn't blame the Police, they were acting within the law.
3. How much more panicked would they become if they were being followed by an unmarked commodore or falcon? A guy got of a speeding charge because of being followed by an unmarked car for too long.

Time certain peopl in the community accept responsibility.

[shedcoupe]

My concern with the 'gloves-off' 'gently-gently' PC approach is that if times get much tougher in terms of criminal behaviour, then society will jump to support fascist / draconian controls, whereas if a more realistic approach to law enforcement had been adopted much earlier, then it wouldn't be necessary to swing too far the other way.
Yes, it is awful when some poor innocent person(s) get T-boned in a chase, but the alternative is worse imho.

[Ben73]

So when a cop stops chasing a criminal, does the criminal immediately slow down to the speed limit and obey all laws?
I doubt it.

They will still be shitting themselves and continue driving at a high rate of speed to get as far from the cops as possible.

So whats better. A Criminal alone doing 150 down the road towards a red light.

Or the same criminal still doing 150 towards the red light but with a cop behind them with the siren blaring and flashing lights everywhere.
At least if the cop is there, the other drivers at the intersection will be more aware earlier there is a situation.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Ben73

So when a cop stops chasing a criminal, does the criminal immediately slow down to the speed limit and obey all laws?
I doubt it.

They will still be shitting themselves and continue driving at a high rate of speed to get as far from the cops as possible.

So whats better. A Criminal alone doing 150 down the road towards a red light.

Or the same criminal still doing 150 towards the red light but with a cop behind them with the siren blaring and flashing lights everywhere.
At least if the cop is there, the other drivers at the intersection will be more aware earlier there is a situation.

Well Ben, actually the most common situation is that the person being chased DOES slow down again.

It is interesting that you use the "sudszyesqe" mentality that the person being chased must be a CRIMINAL.

A rather large percentage of those being chased have no idea that they are actually being chased at all. (and I do have many first hand examples of this)

e.g.

Driving at 120 out in woop woop.
Unmarked car going other way, puts on lights too late.
It is hilly double lines so he cannot do a U turn safely for about 1 or 2 km.
He does his U turn and takes off, by this time is at least 5 km behind.

Scenario 1)
Copper does 140km/h, the maximum legal speed he can do.
It will take him at least 15 minutes to catch up (5km @ 20km/hr) by which time they are at least 30km down the road. So this chase car has been doing this "extremely dangerous" speed for all this time for what......a $300 ticket.

Scenario 1a) The chasee spotted the copper and winds up to 130. Now it takes 30 minutes to catch up and it is over 50km down the road.

Scenario 2)
Copper goes full tilt, 200km/h.
It still takes him about 4 minutes and he covers about 10km at this, as we are told by EVERY expert, suicidal speed endangering every other road user for what....oh thats right a $300 speeding ticket.

Scenario 2a) chasee winds up and all those numbers are extended.

Win at all costs is a VERY dangerous mindset.

If Osama bin Laden was cornered in a school full of kids would it be ok to gas the school knowing that maybe, just maybe a couple of kids would be killed?

The end does not always justify the means and NOTHING goes faster than a radio......

[Ben73]

Originally Posted by flappist

Well Ben, actually the most common situation is that the person being chased DOES slow down again.

It is interesting that you use the "sudszyesqe" mentality that the person being chased must be a CRIMINAL.

A rather large percentage of those being chased have no idea that they are actually being chased at all. (and I do have many first hand examples of this)

e.g.

Driving at 120 out in woop woop.
Unmarked car going other way, puts on lights too late.
It is hilly double lines so he cannot do a U turn safely for about 1 or 2 km.
He does his U turn and takes off, by this time is at least 5 km behind.

Scenario 1)
Copper does 140km/h, the maximum legal speed he can do.
It will take him at least 15 minutes to catch up (5km @ 20km/hr) by which time they are at least 30km down the road. So this chase car has been doing this "extremely dangerous" speed for all this time for what......a $300 ticket.

Scenario 1a) The chasee spotted the copper and winds up to 130. Now it takes 30 minutes to catch up and it is over 50km down the road.

Scenario 2)
Copper goes full tilt, 200km/h.
It still takes him about 4 minutes and he covers about 10km at this, as we are told by EVERY expert, suicidal speed endangering every other road user for what....oh thats right a $300 speeding ticket.

Scenario 2a) chasee winds up and all those numbers are extended.

Win at all costs is a VERY dangerous mindset.

If Osama bin Laden was cornered in a school full of kids would it be ok to gas the school knowing that maybe, just maybe a couple of kids would be killed?

The end does not always justify the means and NOTHING goes faster than a radio......

Well that is all well and good. But I was referring to an actual criminal in a stolen car that just robbed a store at gun point while carrying drugs in their pocket and has the cops on their tail. If the cop stops chasing them they probably will get away with the crime.

Not someone who is breaking the speed limit by 10-20kmh

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Well that is all well and good. But I was referring to an actual criminal in a stolen car that just robbed a store at gun point while carrying drugs in their pocket and has the cops on their tail. If the cop stops chasing them they probably will get away with the crime.

Not someone who is breaking the speed limit by 10-20kmh

That is the mantra that everyone bleats about, but Flappy has it right. Most high speed incidents are for reasons other than chasing the crims. It's often the chasing down speedsters doing 120km/h - in order to catch them they need to be doing 200km/h if they were going in the opposite direction. I find it incredibly hypocritical that in order to slow someone down doing 120, they need to go 200! If speed kills, then they have endangered lives in that pursuit. If you don't accept that, then you have a flaw in your logic box.

Also, when they are chasing the crims, the gloves do not come off - they have to radio back to base to get approval for a high speed pursuit. They are also given an indication of appropriate speeds. When they are exceeding those speeds they are instructed to pull back and slow down.

The most important bit that most people forget is that it is very hard to outrun the radio

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

That is the mantra that everyone bleats about, but Flappy has it right. Most high speed incidents are for reasons other than chasing the crims. It's often the chasing down speedsters doing 120km/h - in order to catch them they need to be doing 200km/h if they were going in the opposite direction. I find it incredibly hypocritical that in order to slow someone down doing 120, they need to go 200! If speed kills, then they have endangered lives in that pursuit. If you don't accept that, then you have a flaw in your logic box.

Also, when they are chasing the crims, the gloves do not come off - they have to radio back to base to get approval for a high speed pursuit. They are also given an indication of appropriate speeds. When they are exceeding those speeds they are instructed to pull back and slow down.

The most important bit that most people forget is that it is very hard to outrun the radio

Cops do not do chases at speeds of 200 kph, that speed is deemed unsafe for any conditions, no matter what the reason.

I think some people around here need to try and understand the level of scrutiny and the amount of clearance required for any emergency vehicle to exceed the speed limit, it is mind numbing.

By the way, if you truly believe that no emergency vehicle should exceed the speed limit by any margin for any reason, try holding your breath for 5 minutes, your time starts now.

I am sure in 5 minutes time you will have other ideas.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Ben73

Well that is all well and good. But I was referring to an actual criminal in a stolen car that just robbed a store at gun point while carrying drugs in their pocket and has the cops on their tail. If the cop stops chasing them they probably will get away with the crime.

Not someone who is breaking the speed limit by 10-20kmh

Yes and that is a whole different situation.

It is unlikely that the coppers would stop and would actually use other resources such as air etc.

The trick is realising that the world is not black and white and TV and movies are fiction.
Any crim with half a brain would not speed away from a crime as it would draw attention. (and the clever crims are the ones who do not get caught).