High-speed pursuits banned in WA

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That may be the case, different states operate in different ways. Having said that, out of 6 cases so far tonight, 4 of them have been lights and sirens responses. I still doubt Vic police would have a similar volume of emergency drives.

Just as a slight aside Gecko....of the 4 that were lights and sirens, how many were true emergencies that really did require you to rush to them? Please don't think I am looking to criticise, but in my experiences I have had with ambulance placements there really was very little need for the rush in 9/10 instances. This was highlighted by the fact that when the patient arrived at the DEM they all waited well beyond half an hour (the longest was 3 hours), making all tyhe sirens and rushing a useless waste of energy.

PS looks like you had the night shift last night!

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by Redrum

If a member of an emergency service was acting in good faith in performing their urgent duty driving and the family chose to pursue civil action for negligence against the driver they would have to prove that. Obviously the burden of proof is not as high but as long as the member was acting in good faith and showing due care one would think their employer would cover them, if not, their union.

One would think that, wouldn't one? The SES & the CFA, which are made up of predominantly volunteers (100% of SES operational members are volunteers), then if you broke the law or procedure, or went through a red on lights & sirens & hit someone, they won't back you.

Might be different for those who are employed & have unions, like the police, MFB & Ambos, but as a volunteer - I ask once again - would you take that risk?

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

What a load of rubbish, who cares what the road laws of other countries are, in Australia all road users have a legal obligation to give way to emergency vehicles and a legal obligation to drive with due care and attention.

Having been directly involved with a few emergency vehicle crash investigations, I know for a fact your information is greatly flawed and you are misinforming other members here.

By the way, cops do not travel under emergency conditions much at all, in fact so rarely that all the cops I work with still get a bit excited about it because it us so rare. They would not travel under lights and sirens 10% of what we do.

I didn't say anything about road laws in other countries, I only stated what has been passed to me by a Snr Sergeant of Vicpol who gave me the training. It's what is practiced by road users, not what the law is, where the risk lies. I don't want to put my life on hold for a year to two years waiting for a civil case to find me innocent or guilty. I have no doubt of your credentials here, nor of your experience GeckoGT, and have read many of your well informed posts. I'm only passing on what I've been told, and of what I have been asked to consider as a risk in accepting EVS status as a driver with the SES.

The context is different for volunteers who have no organisation or union behind them and paid employees who do, especially for the OP topic of police.

So, as a volunteer, I will ask for a fourth time - would you take that risk?

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

The kid scenario is different to your previous one, change the game?

A competent operator of an emergency vehicle will approach the red light at a speed they can respond to hazards, slow and stop before the intersection to ensure it is clear before proceeding through. Therefore your kid scenario will not happen as long as they use due care and attention, if they don't they should find a new job as we don't need cowboys in the emergency services.

But it did happen.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Just as a slight aside Gecko....of the 4 that were lights and sirens, how many were true emergencies that really did require you to rush to them? Please don't think I am looking to criticise, but in my experiences I have had with ambulance placements there really was very little need for the rush in 9/10 instances. This was highlighted by the fact that when the patient arrived at the DEM they all waited well beyond half an hour (the longest was 3 hours), making all tyhe sirens and rushing a useless waste of energy.

PS looks like you had the night shift last night!

Yes a bit OT but anyway.

Your observation is pretty accurate, many code 1 cases are not true code 1 but there is no way to avoid that. The cases are coded according to information gven to the call taker by non medical people, what is serious to them is not serious to us or the hospital. The flip side of that is I have also been to cases that were deemed not serious by the call taker based on the information taken and it has turned out serious. The best example of this was a male patient that was complaining of mild dizziness and nausea. I got there to find him with a very low blood pressure. We were gearing up to load him, getting stuff ready to carry him down the stairs as he was not in a condition to walk when he went into cardiac arrest. We tried to resuscitate him for an hour but never got him back. The coding on that case was a 2a, the highest of the non lights and siren cases (still dispatched immediately) and based on what the call taker was told it was coded correctly. We all have many cases like that in our experience.

As for last night 2 cases were true code 1 cases, 2 were not.

You also need to realize that our code 1 is because there is suspicion that they need either transport to hospital ASAP or they need treatment from us. Most of the time the treatment from us improves their condition to a suitable point that we do not have to rush to hospital an they can be delayed at the hospital until the active chest pain or multiple road trauma that comes in at the same time can be dealt with. That is why out of the 1000's of code 1 responses to a case I have done, less than 50 have gone code 1 to hospital.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

I didn't say anything about road laws in other countries, I only stated what has been passed to me by a Snr Sergeant of Vicpol who gave me the training. It's what is practiced by road users, not what the law is, where the risk lies. I don't want to put my life on hold for a year to two years waiting for a civil case to find me innocent or guilty. I have no doubt of your credentials here, nor of your experience GeckoGT, and have read many of your well informed posts. I'm only passing on what I've been told, and of what I have been asked to consider as a risk in accepting EVS status as a driver with the SES.

The context is different for volunteers who have no organisation or union behind them and paid employees who do, especially for the OP topic of police.

So, as a volunteer, I will ask for a fourth time - would you take that risk?

Firstly, the topic is about police, full time employees not volunteers.

Secondly, volunteer operators that are suitably qualified and operating under the policies and procedures of their duly authorised organisation are still covered under the vicarious liability of that organisation. In fact volunteers are given greater concession in the courts due to the nature of their service, the courts openly expect higher standards from professional service personnell.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

I'm really not sure what type of EVS course the SES run but I am seriously astounded that they have accredited you to drive and you don't know this. Even now, three years out of my volunteering I can still recite the relevant road rules. Road rule 78 and 79 deal with giving way and keeping clear of Police and Emergency vehicles. 306 and 307 are the 'general' exemption provisions. I'd honestly go visit the vicroads website if I were you.

I'm not trying to have a go at you, but if your location details are accurate and you live in Parkdale - i'm going to assume your either a member of Chelsea or Moorabbin unit, possibly Springvale. None of those units are RCR accredited and the amount of times each of them get an EVS job a year would probably struggle to get into double figures. How much EVS experience do you have?

Coincidentally a very good friend of mine who was a copper in QLD has just moved back to Vic with his young family. He managed to get a lateral entry transfer. I had a beer with him the other day and he was saying how he'd done more urgent duty driving in two weeks down here than he had in the last 18 months in QLD!

Thanks for your comments Dave 3911. Your assumptions are correct. The training for EVS status at SES is clearly poor. It consisted of a two hour lecture from a local copper, and then selection for EVS status by the unit controller. There is no driving competency, high speed training, etc, required other than being a responsible and trustworthy member of the unit.

From yours and GeckoGT's comments, I can see that the SES should have a far more rigorous training programme in place. My thoughts are that if we go EVS only a few times per year (as you correctly state), then refresher training is of critical importance, and so are facts, as it turns out, from the people who train us.

My comments so far in this thread, as already stated, are based on the anecdotes given to me during training from the unit I'm a member of, and the copper who trained us, these include the incident described around civil law suits and CFA. It has also been stated to me clearly that if I'm at fault and hurt someone, the SES won't be there to back me up.

This may not be in fact that case, given what you have said. I will certainly do a lot more research in the coming days and find out for sure.

Thanks for the food for thought.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

But it did happen.

Any operator of an emergency vehicle that has struck a child crossing the road at any point was not driving to the conditions and potential hazards and should be held accountable.

As I said before, I often drive under the speed limit if my assessment of potential hazards deems that necessary, all our staff are taught the same way.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Firstly, the topic is about police, full time employees not volunteers.

Secondly, volunteer operators that are suitably qualified and operating under the policies and procedures of their duly authorised organisation are still covered under the vicarious liability of that organisation. In fact volunteers are given greater concession in the courts due to the nature of their service, the courts openly expect higher standards from professional service personnell.

Glad to read that. As I said, thank-you for your enlightening input. I've got some research to do.

Might have to quiz the senior police officer who did the training too about some of the stuff he told us.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Any operator of an emergency vehicle that has struck a child crossing the road at any point was not driving to the conditions and potential hazards and should be held accountable.

As I said before, I often drive under the speed limit if my assessment of potential hazards deems that necessary, all our staff are taught the same way.

Wasn't a child - it was a teenage girl driving a car who appeared from behind a tram at an intersection (so I was told).

[geckoGT]

Couple more things seem to be evident Ducati888.

Firstly, primarily due to the lack of training and infrequent use of the training (therefore the lack of real experience), the cop was probably giving you some scare tactics to make you take it easy. I bet he teaches police staff differently because they are doing much more than a 2 hour course, as we do. He has not taught the finer points of the relevant laws or processes that we get taught due to lack of time, it takes weeks of study and training to learn even a base working knowledge.

Also, please do not misunderstand. If the crash is your fault because you were not driving with due care and attention within all the road regulations and service policies, the service will not protect you.

[Ducati888]

Yes, agreed GeckoGT. It is evident that a two hour course is far from adequate when the risks are the same for all emergency services personnel. It is, however, no surprise to me, given my lengthy experience at the SES so far.

You've given me plenty to think about and to research, and now the incentive to do so to chase up the facts. I'm glad we had this conversation.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Wasn't a child - it was a teenage girl driving a car who appeared from behind a tram at an intersection (so I was told).

I thought you were referring to the child scenario, that is a bit different.

It depends on state road law and department policy. In our state if the emergency vehicle has stopped at the red light with both lights on and siren sounding, waited for all visible traffic to stop and then proceeded at a cautious speed checking for new unseen traffic, they have done the right thing and are not at fault. If they omit any elements of that procedure, they may be found to be at fault.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Yes, agreed GeckoGT. It is evident that a two hour course is far from adequate when the risks are the same for all emergency services personnel. It is, however, no surprise to me, given my lengthy experience at the SES so far.

You've given me plenty to think about and to research, and now the incentive to do so to chase up the facts. I'm glad we had this conversation.

Glad to help.

If you have any direct questions regarding this, send me a pm as I have done a lot of study regarding the issues of liability, vicarious responsibilities etc. I also have pretty good idea where to find the relevant legislation.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

I thought you were referring to the child scenario, that is a bit different.

It depends on state road law and department policy. In our state if the emergency vehicle has stopped at the red light with both lights on and siren sounding, waited for all visible traffic to stop and then proceeded at a cautious speed checking for new unseen traffic, they have done the right thing and are not at fault. If they omit any elements of that procedure, they may be found to be at fault.

I was told that even though the driver did apply this caution, the truck was found to be overweight, and the coroner therefore found against the driver, and this was the decider of negligence in the civil suit, because when he saw the car, he didn't stop in time.

It was found, that as a driver of an emergency vehicle, he should have known whether it was overloaded or loaded beyond capacity. In reality, he would've just got in the truck when summoned and expected it to be right. Again - this is what I was told, so it's anecdotal.

This scenario is highly unlikely in other services I suspect, because fireys carry a lot of water & foam. Our truck are under weight fully stocked, as no doubt is a police car or ambulance.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

I was told that even though the driver did apply this caution, the truck was found to be overweight, and the coroner therefore found against the driver, and this was the decider of negligence in the civil suit, because when he saw the car, he didn't stop in time.

It was found, that as a driver of an emergency vehicle, he should have known whether it was overloaded or loaded beyond capacity. In reality, he would've just got in the truck when summoned and expected it to be right. Again - this is what I was told, so it's anecdotal.

This scenario is highly unlikely in other services I suspect, because fireys carry a lot of water & foam. Our truck are under weight fully stocked, as no doubt is a police car or ambulance.

Ok that is quite a tricky one.

I am going to assume by the determination in the courts that the vehicle was loaded with extra water, foam or equipment above what was outlined in department policy for that vehicle. For example, department policy may stipulate that the water tank is to be filled to 3/4 capacity and only 250L of foam is to carried. If the crew have decided to fill the tank and carry 500L of foam, exceeding policy guidelines, they have knowingly exceeded the recommended load. In this instance the driver of the vehicle is responsible as the driver of any vehicle emergency or not, is responsible for any load.

If the vehicle is loaded according to department guidelines, then responsibility falls on the vicarious liability of the department. The operator of a vehicle operating under department policy has to be able to do so in good faith that the department has not set policy that leads to a dangerous situation, if the department has then they are at fault, not the driver. This is particularly important for an emergency service as the driver does not have time to run the truck over a weigh bridge or individually weigh equipment prior to responding to an emergency case. That is why all emergency services have some form of policy covering what the vehicle equipment and load is to include.

We had a similar situation in WAFB (volunteer Fire and Rescue), because our Medium Pump was fitted with hydraulic road accident rescue equipment, we were only allowed to 3/4 fill the tank to keep the vehicle under its weight limit. Without the road accident rescue equipment on board we could fill the tank.

[Ducati888]

Yep, so you are putting your faith in the crew that had the vehicle out before you to have reloaded it to spec when they got back.

Doesn't seem fair, does it.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Yep, so you are putting your faith in the crew that had the vehicle out before you to have reloaded it to spec when they got back.

Doesn't seem fair, does it.

That is the way it is and it is up to your station officer to ensure that is done. As a station officer I on a few occasions had to read out the riot act to the troops because equipment was not being stowed correctly according to policy.

I have to ask, was the driver someone you knew or do you have contact with the brigade involved? It does sound like there is an element of urban myth to it.

[Flaming Mo]

Not to throw a spanner in the works, but in defence of Ducatti888, there is no blanket legislation protecting all ‘emergency services’ personnel from civil litigation. The provisions will be provided in the relevant administration act for that particular department or volunteer service. I have no doubt that ambulance officers have long been protected by vicarious liability due to the nature of their jobs, but not so for police. State Legislators have only acted fairly recently in introducing ‘good faith’ legislation to protect some police officers from civil litigation. Below is a link re: Victorian Govt introducing legislation in 2008. NSW I think was in about 2003 – not sure about the others.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/po...0910-4djj.html

What is no surprise of course is that Qld is last and still has no protective ‘good faith’ legislation in place to protect officers from personally being sued. Just like they were last to get phone tapping powers, still the last that don’t have a helicopter, the Qld Govt appear to be dragging their heels in preventing police from being personally sued for ‘doing their jobs’. Below is a link from a news article just this year on the issue. The matter is still not resolved.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/quee...210-1aogs.html

Back in the late 90’s, I knew of a QLD officer that blew out an offender’s knee while wrestling him to the ground during an arrest. Out of the 100k odd awarded to the offender, a judgement of 10k was awarded personally against the officer. The service wouldn’t cover him and the best he was offered was an interest free loan from the union.

As for police pursuits, given the scenario in the OP where there is evidence of speeds in excess of department policy, and a link in another post where an officer was convicted of dangerous driving, those particular cases would well be subject to civil litigation if a member of the public was injured.

As for other police pursuits, the terms of ‘good faith’ and whether the police officer followed policy and procedure would be subject of much legal argument and judicial opinion as with all actions he takes during such pursuit. It does not mean proceedings would not be instigated or unsuccessful.

As for Ducatti888 posts relating to volunteer services, - with it being the case the one of our states police services (Qld)still having no legal ‘good faith’ protection, it would not be beyond the realms of possibility and perhaps even likely that some of our smaller volunteer organisations are in the same boat. (Ducatti888 - I would suggest you check the relevant administration act covering your organisation).

Cheers.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That is the way it is and it is up to your station officer to ensure that is done. As a station officer I on a few occasions had to read out the riot act to the troops because equipment was not being stowed correctly according to policy.

I have to ask, was the driver someone you knew or do you have contact with the brigade involved? It does sound like there is an element of urban myth to it.

No - and it may be urban myth to scare us, as you earlier stated.

It was told to me by the copper who gave us the EVS lecture.

Could well be BS.

[Dave3911]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

That may be the case, different states operate in different ways. Having said that, out of 6 cases so far tonight, 4 of them have been lights and sirens responses. I still doubt Vic police would have a similar volume of emergency drives.

Sorry gecko, probably wasn't clear enough. Certainly I'd agree with your general statement. Out of all emergency services, Ambos certainly get the most frequency. Also from my observation they also get the longest drives on a single job too - because we don't have enough of you guys! Metropolitan firey's would get the most percentage of lights and sirens responses down here (It's really a joke, someone reports a fart and they turn them on).... but given their job volume is negligible in comparison they don't really rate either.

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Thanks for your comments Dave 3911. Your assumptions are correct. The training for EVS status at SES is clearly poor. It consisted of a two hour lecture from a local copper, and then selection for EVS status by the unit controller. There is no driving competency, high speed training, etc, required other than being a responsible and trustworthy member of the unit.

From yours and GeckoGT's comments, I can see that the SES should have a far more rigorous training programme in place. My thoughts are that if we go EVS only a few times per year (as you correctly state), then refresher training is of critical importance, and so are facts, as it turns out, from the people who train us.

Just to clear something up here, don't think for one minute that the CFA in Victoria is any better in regards to training standards. Whilst they do have the courses available - there are huge differences in training standards for the same course depending where you do it. In some area's it'll be a two hour session, in others it will be a couple of months worth of weekends. Regardless of all that anyway, there actually isn't any requirement to do any training. All that is required is a "sign off" by the brigade Captain. Unfortunately, in a lot of area's everyone is automatically signed off - or sign off results when you've downed your first pot at the pub after your first training session.

I came from a brigade that took it a lot more seriously.

Originally Posted by Ducatti888

My comments so far in this thread, as already stated, are based on the anecdotes given to me during training from the unit I'm a member of, and the copper who trained us, these include the incident described around civil law suits and CFA. It has also been stated to me clearly that if I'm at fault and hurt someone, the SES won't be there to back me up.

Honestly, your anecdote sounds to me like either Chinese whispers, with possibly some note of truth somewhere, or outright urban myth. You say it's a CFA story, but the story deals with a tram? No tram tracks anywhere within CFA area, except Bendigo - and I find it very unlikely it occured there. I suppose it could've occurred within the MFB area with a CFA unit on mutual aid or a specialist response passing through.... but again I find that unlikely.

Also your anecdote mentions a civil case, then talks about the coroner. So which was it, a coroner's finding or a civil suit?

Any idea on when this was said to occur? Was it recent? Due to my employment I am still heavily involved in CFA circles and I can't recall anything like what you describe over the last 10 - 12 years.

[Ducati888]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

Honestly, your anecdote sounds to me like either Chinese whispers, with possibly some note of truth somewhere, or outright urban myth. You say it's a CFA story, but the story deals with a tram? No tram tracks anywhere within CFA area, except Bendigo - and I find it very unlikely it occured there. I suppose it could've occurred within the MFB area with a CFA unit on mutual aid or a specialist response passing through.... but again I find that unlikely.

Also your anecdote mentions a civil case, then talks about the coroner. So which was it, a coroner's finding or a civil suit?

Any idea on when this was said to occur? Was it recent? Due to my employment I am still heavily involved in CFA circles and I can't recall anything like what you describe over the last 10 - 12 years.

Yes that had occurred to me too. When I was told the story the person was referred to as a 'firey', not CFA or MFB, so I should not have specified a service.

A coroner was referred to in the story. Criminal liability would surely have been an issue, and would have needed to be examined by the coroner before the family got involved with the civil case. That's how things work, don't they? Coroner's findings could be used in a civil case couldn't they?

[Dave3911]

I took the time to look up your immunity provision for you. It's application is far from clear cut in this scenario, but just to show you it exists.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/v...05330/s42.html

Victoria State Emergency Service Act 2005 - SECT 42

Immunity of Service members

42. Immunity of Service members



(1) This section applies to a Service member or a volunteer emergency worker.

(2) A Service member or a volunteer emergency worker is not personally liable
for any thing done or omitted to be done in good faith-

(a) in the exercise of a power or the discharge of a duty under this Act
or the regulations; or

(b) in the reasonable belief that the act or omission was in the exercise
of a power or the discharge of a duty under this Act or the
regulations.

(3) Any liability resulting from an act or omission that would but for
subsection (2) attach to a Service member or a volunteer emergency worker
attaches to the Authority.

[Ducati888]

Thank-you both Dave3911 & GeckoGT.

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Yes a bit OT but anyway.

Your observation is pretty accurate, many code 1 cases are not true code 1 but there is no way to avoid that. The cases are coded according to information gven to the call taker by non medical people, what is serious to them is not serious to us or the hospital. The flip side of that is I have also been to cases that were deemed not serious by the call taker based on the information taken and it has turned out serious. The best example of this was a male patient that was complaining of mild dizziness and nausea. I got there to find him with a very low blood pressure. We were gearing up to load him, getting stuff ready to carry him down the stairs as he was not in a condition to walk when he went into cardiac arrest. We tried to resuscitate him for an hour but never got him back. The coding on that case was a 2a, the highest of the non lights and siren cases (still dispatched immediately) and based on what the call taker was told it was coded correctly. We all have many cases like that in our experience.

As for last night 2 cases were true code 1 cases, 2 were not.

You also need to realize that our code 1 is because there is suspicion that they need either transport to hospital ASAP or they need treatment from us. Most of the time the treatment from us improves their condition to a suitable point that we do not have to rush to hospital an they can be delayed at the hospital until the active chest pain or multiple road trauma that comes in at the same time can be dealt with. That is why out of the 1000's of code 1 responses to a case I have done, less than 50 have gone code 1 to hospital.

Thanks for the comment. Fair call too.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

I took the time to look up your immunity provision for you. It's application is far from clear cut in this scenario, but just to show you it exists.

It is a little clearer than it seems and this act is very similar to what covers us. In a nutshell the act states you are not personally liable, the service is liable for any act or ommision that the service member has done in the belief that they were performing the duties of the service.

So like I said before, if you are doing the duty of the service as you were trained to the best of your abilities and according to procedure and policy, you are covered.

Vicarious liability is the imposition of liability on one person for the negligence of another to whom the former has entrusted (or 'delegated') the performance of some task on their behalf.

As you can see in this definition, vicarious liability is the responsibility that an employer has for the actions of their employees in the conduct of their duties, this applies to volunteers as well as paid employees of an organisation.

A basic negligence claim consists of proof of
a duty owed,
a breach of that duty,
the breach was the cause in fact of the plaintiff's injury (actual cause)
the breach proximately caused the plaintiff's injury.
and the plaintiff suffered actual quantifiable injury (damages).

Above is the burden of proof for a liability claim, these are elements the plaintiff will have to prove exist before liability can be appointed. If any one of these elements can not be proved on the "balance of probability", no liability exists.

The key areas in respect to any emergency service claims and the more difficult to prove are the duty of care and the breach of that duty sections.

The operator of a fire truck in such a claim would provide peer witnesses with the intent of demonstrating that it is unreasonable to expect the driver to weigh the vehicle prior to departure on an emergency case. He would also prove that the service carries an expectation that the previous crew leaves the vehicle in a state that is fit to respond to any case within its design capability and subsequent users have right to good will assumptions under service policy and procedures that this is in fact its current state. These peer witnesses would also prove that the vehicle was operated within its design capabilities according to the accepted good will assumption on behalf of the operator and also according to service guidelines regarding the operation of the vehicle in emergency conditions.

Now, digging into my memory from my law subject as part of my education, the peer witnesses must be a person of similar training, similar experience and not directly known by the defendant.

I am going to go out on a limb and say that the concept that the driver of a fire truck that was found to be over its load limit as a result of a crash investigation, was found personally liable for damages caused, is urban myth. I would say the element of truth was that the vehicle may have been over its weight limit, but the driver had no reasonable to method to check this nor suspect this is the case. Therefore the liability for this would fall squarely on the service for problems arising from the operation of their vehicles. I have no doubt that a stack of peer witnesses would have no problem proving that a driver does not have a means to check vehicle masses nor the means to calculate it during a response to a call out. I also think it is safe to assume that no court would be eager to appoint blame to a volunteer worker in an emergency service who is providing a volunteer service to the best of his abilities. The first body the court is likely to appoint blame on is the service itself and bring question to the support, guidelines and governance the service provides to its volunteers.

Basically, if the situation occurred (which it probably did), the driver would not have been personally liable at all, the service would have. I also think that if the driver had been held personally liable and it occurred more than 6 years ago, I would have been taught about it because this would give legal precedence applicable to our training and operations. If it was less than 6 years ago, we would have still heard about it because situations such as that spread through the emergency services community very quickly.

Perhaps the service is just using some scare tactics to scare you all into doing your job well and with a high level of caution. The best way to slow down a cowboy is make him truly scared ithat he will lose everything if it all goes wrong.

[AndrewR_AUII]

Comes downs to Risk vs Benefit, competency and accountability.

- Does the benefit of the high speed outweigh the risks involved (compare situation of a traffic fine vs a person held hostage for example)
- Are all concerned able to make such an assessment, and are they capable of driving the vehicles with a reasonable margin of safety
- Needs to be clear procedures/guidelines to ensure that this is the case, and that it can be proven

It's certainly not Black and White.
Also: Look up Volunteer Protection act in some States

[steve.zissou]

Originally Posted by AndrewR_AUII

Comes downs to Risk vs Benefit, competency and accountability.

- Does the benefit of the high speed outweigh the risks involved (compare situation of a traffic fine vs a person held hostage for example)
- Are all concerned able to make such an assessment, and are they capable of driving the vehicles with a reasonable margin of safety
- Needs to be clear procedures/guidelines to ensure that this is the case, and that it can be proven

It's certainly not Black and White.
Also: Look up Volunteer Protection act in some States

I'd like to think this is the case.
In the same way police can’t just go blasting at a bank robber (even if he is firing at them) if there are innocent people in the line of fire or background.
Police response should be reasonable. 200kmph on a deserted fenced divided fwy is probably acceptable (i have seen it a few times).

it’s the grey areas that make it hard. doing 160kmph down the great wester hwy responding to a kidnapping could be considered reasonable to some, but not others. A cop has to make a split decision. If it turns out they made a mistake they shouldn’t get dragged over the coals (seems to be a hobby for some media outlets these days).
Negligence is another matter. 160 in a school zone chasing a speeder is probably considered negligent and if you kill a kid doing it you’re going to pay the price.

Its when seperate issues impact an outcome - police trying to apease a segment of the community or managment using it as an excuse to push some one out of the force that the process is corupted.

Police have a damn tough job - they are being to soft until they are branded as being to heavy handed - and they have to make a decission in a split second.

[billy302]

Well the people they were chasing are dead because they drove a vehicle they were not used to at high speed lost control and hit a tree on the wrong side of the road. This happened not because they were being followed but because they saw a police car turn around to follow them. They sped off before an actual chase was conducted.
I am not sorry they are dead. I'm sorry for their families and friends.
The high speed chase thing is because the Gps unit fitted in the cars give false readings. On more than 1 occasion police cars have been reported as half way to India. Another car reached mach 1 while stationary.
I have no trouble with police and high speed pursuits.
If I am in trouble I want them to get to me as soon as possible. I don't want to hear that someone died because they couldn't go above some predetermined speed limit.