Police drive way too fast, way too often

[TheReluctantPhoenix]

AIBU in thinking that too many police drive dangerously and unjustifiably fast without sufficient reason to do so?

Thread prompted by, in the last 5 days, seeing two cars (in separate incidents) driving down suburban outer London streets with cars parked on both sides, at a speed of at least 50MPH (they have 20 MPH limits). There is no way they could have stopped in time for a child or a dog, or a car which came out of a high street.

Also watching the series ‘Police Interceptors’ I get really angry when they prompt a chase at ridiculous speeds (70-100 mph) in villages. Then they say how they pursued car is being ridiculously irresponsible! And who are the master criminals that they catch? 90% of the time it is kids in battered old cars which are either uninsured or they are ‘drug dealers’ (a few wraps or spliffs).

I never observe the other emergency services taking the risks the police do, although I suspect they have many more life or death call outs.

I don’t care how ‘well trained’ you are (and the reality is an ‘advanced’ driver is 2 months of training), human reaction time is around 0.2 seconds, and that is plenty to kill or maim a child or animal.

So, AIBU in thinking that the police drive way too fast, for what frequently appears to be an adrenaline buzz, and that, these days, there are far more intelligent and less risky ways to keep our streets safe?

YANBU
Most of the time it’s fine but I have seen some terrifying bad driving. London high street on a weekend, the police car was going so fast that the only way the driver could negotiate a bend was driving on the wrong side of the road (even then they were fighting to keep the car on the road). If anyone had been coming in the opposite direction they wouldn’t have had time to avoid them. It was luck not judgement.

You think I based my assumption on one police officer? I've sued the police. And they said to my solicitor 'pursue this and we will dig up dirt on you and drag your name through the mud'

So what did your solicitor do in response to this threat? Who were ‘they’ who made the threat?

*Avenueofcherryblossom
most cops are dick waving dickheads

What do police women wave?
The police (woman) I sued did*

Having sued one officer you feel qualified to say ‘most’ police officers are dickheads? And despite the the fact the officer you sued was female you use male imagery to describe her.

Also you said you sued the police, then you have clarified that it was one woman who you sued so it does still sound very much as if you are making very broad assumptions based on one person.

They need to drive fast to make sure they get back to the police station before the 'in house' barber closes

[quote TheReluctantPhoenix]@lilsquish,

What you are basically saying is that it is ok to chase a car, risking life, because you might discover that someone has committed a serious crime. This does not strike me as sensible risk/reward assessment.

I don’t think my idea of only pursuing (at dangerous speeds) high risk criminals is pie-in-the-sky. In certain cities in the U.S, this is the law and researchers have found no increase in crime because of it.

I am also not criticising individual police officers and believe the vast majority are behaving professionally according to the current rules and prevailing culture.

I am thankful that our police seem so much more professional than in many other countries and their driving skills are awesome. I know that I could not control my car at those sorts of speeds.

However, no amount of training can turn a human being into a robot. Human reaction time will always be about 0.2 seconds (or more). That means at 20m/s, a car will travel 4m or 13ft while nerve impulses are travelling down your neutrons. In addition the stopping distance increases with the square of the speed, so at twice the legal speed it will take 4x as long to stop. And, although marginal gains can be made through technology, your specially kitted out BMW 3 series will take only a little less time to stop than your average ‘shithead’s’ beaten up old jalopy (it is to do with the limiting friction of the car’s tyres on the road. Finally, you cannot change the laws of conservation of momentum or energy. A car travelling twice as fast will do 4x as much damage to a human being.

I am definitely not anti police or critical of those trying to do a tough job under difficult circumstances. I am anti a policy where the idea of taking a wayward teen off the street is worth risking my children’s or any other children’s life for.

This area has been researched abs most of the research is on my side.[/quote]
What do you consider to be "minor" crime for the purpose of deciding not to pursue? And which research are you referring to?

@BoomBoomsCousin,

I think that you are mistaking MN AIBU for a parliamentary select committee.

As for what crimes, I have not thought the exact parameters through, but anything that could be dealt with at magistrate court level might be a good place to draw the line.

And, if you want to accuse me of talking nonsense, come up with a few facts and figures of your own to support that view and then we can have an evidence based debate...if you can be bothered.

I am the only one here who has linked to reasoned articles and supporting evidence. All I see on the other side is how extraordinarily good the police are at driving.

Pretty sure it is because there is an emergency.

This cannot be a real post from a smart person. They drive fast as someone needs their help. What a ridiculous statement.

@ReginaFalange85,

I don’t think personal attacks are in the spirit of MN. (And I am not finding your posts particularly ‘smart’ either).

So, in your opinion, everything that the police do is reasonable as, you know, they are just following their brief to help people and protect society, and citizens should never question policing methods.

Not sure if I am quite that trusting...

YABU

My husband is a response driver, you clearly have no idea how much training they have to do and keep doing. They dont do 2 months of training and then get the ticket forever. They have to continuously repeat that training and earn their renewed ticket.

My husband has many times talked me through the techniques they use in response driving, how to judge overtakes, turns, corners etc. It is not just a case of putting the pedal to the metal.

Of course pursuits dont always end well, but the blame should sit squarely on the criminals shoulders who fail to stop!

Let the professionals do the job they are trained extremely well to do

I don't have a problem with them doing the job they are trained to do, but they aren't trained to kill innocent passers by or other road users and it does happen far too often. There's nothing wrong with questioning police behaviour relating to each of those deaths. There must be lessons to be learned, and changes to be made.

@SpnBaby1967,

Please see my post above relating to the physics and biology of driving.

Whilst acknowledging the police are excellent and well trained drivers, they are taking impossible risks for any human being to deal with.

The statistics of accidents during pursuits are available and not pretty.

@YouBroughtMeDaffodils

Let the professionals do the job they are trained extremely well to do

I don't have a problem with them doing the job they are trained to do, but they aren't trained to kill innocent passers by or other road users and it does happen far too often. There's nothing wrong with questioning police behaviour relating to each of those deaths. There must be lessons to be learned, and changes to be made.

I agree.

Even the best trained/qualified professionals in all walks of life sometimes make avoidable mistakes.

Mistakes shouldn't just be shrugged off as "one of those things" whether it's a police driver, a doctor or solicitor or whatever.

I sometimes think there should be a more open "mistake" reporting system like airline pilots have, where the co pilot is encouraged, no, expected, to challenge and report if they think a pilot makes an error, with no come back. A kind of proper "whistle blowing" system that is all about avoiding mistakes and improvement rather than a witch hunt.

Sometimes innocent people are killed by police vehicles. Highly trained they may be- they still have accidents. They go too fast and it’s not always necessary. It’s incredibly dangerous in built up areas. I’m totally with you OP.

And sometimes innocent people are killed by little shits driving a stolen car. Let's just leave them to it though shall we?

What you are basically saying is that it is ok to chase a car, risking life, because you might discover that someone has committed a serious crime. This does not strike me as sensible risk/reward assessment.

Let's be honest there's a high chance they have committed a serious crime otherwise they'd have stopped for the police like normal people do.

I really hope that if you ever need the police you remember to tell the call handler that the officers mustn't break the speed limit to get to you.

@ReginaFalange85

This cannot be a real post from a smart person. They drive fast as someone needs their help. What a ridiculous statement.

How many people is an acceptable death number? 1000? 10,000?

Most decent, highly trained officers make that risk assessment and will back off from any pursuit ( control room Inspector will make that judgement). The issue comes with too many ordinary middle of the road response officers who enjoy the speed and adrenaline a chase can give.
They can be rogue and dangerous. I was an ordinary response officer and there were a few colleagues I would not have stepped foot into a car with or trust with a pedal cycle never mind a motor vehicle.
The Police attracts speed merchants/ power mad knobheads which the service has difficulty in weeding out.

I didn't accuse you of talking nonsense, I assumed you were talking from a place of knowledge, since you claimed research supported your view and so I asked what that research was. So far you've only provided links that show how many accidents there have been. None of your links support your contention that not pursuing minor crime would cut those deaths without also increasing crime (you haven't even shown that the fatalities you are concerned about in the UK often happen in relation to minor crime).

Are you aware of current police pursuit policy?

The nature of the suspected crime is already taken into account when considering whether to pursue along with a host of other factors. Pursuits should be justified and proportionate. You can see the national guidelines here:
www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/road-policing-2/police-pursuits/#control-communications-room-staff

The idea of thinking of a crime as "minor" when considering proportionality is a bit crude, especially when it comes to traffic. The seriousness of a crime tends to increase with intent to harm, but risk to the public does not necessarily follow that criminal intent. With traffic this is especially notable since most deaths are caused by actions that, if they hadn't resulted in a death, would be considered minor from a criminal perspective. Careless/dangerous driving and drink/drug driving account for a fairly large proportion of road fatalities, yet none are indictable only (i.e. couldn't be tried by magistrates) if they don't happen to end in a fatality. Leaving suspected drunk drivers to continue driving because the crime isn't an automatic Crown court case is not necessarily in the public interest. On the other hand, following a suspected drunk driver the wrong way down a dual carriageway probably isn't proportionate either. It's this balancing of many different competing factors that current policy attempts to achieve.

There was also a consultation a couple of years ago that concluded police officers should be held to a higher standard for careless/dangerous driving when response driving or pursuing offenders see: www.gov.uk/government/consultations/police-pursuits ). That could be a reasonable change that should complement the current pursuit policy and encourage frontline officers to follow it more closely and to demand policy support from control centre and senior staff.

@PinkSparklyPussyCat

Sometimes innocent people are killed by police vehicles. Highly trained they may be- they still have accidents. They go too fast and it’s not always necessary. It’s incredibly dangerous in built up areas. I’m totally with you OP.

And sometimes innocent people are killed by little shits driving a stolen car. Let's just leave them to it though shall we?

Surely we can agree that we shouldn't leave people to it who steal cars and might kill people whilst at the same time think that the number of innocent people killed by police cars is a concern? One doesn't have to exclude the other.

Years ago, a woman was killed at the end of our road by a police car speeding round the corner. She was waiting at traffic lights, the car drove into her and that was the end of her life. They were driving at 100 mph.

I haven’t read the full thread but;

• many forces have a +20 limit for ‘ordinary’ police (I.e not armed or traffic units who have even more additional training then the ordinary officers) so they can only go +20 miles per hour.
• pursuits are rarely authorised and when they are, it is based on the offence, risk to the public and various other conditions

I can’t be bothered to get in a full on debate as I’ve just finished work and I’m exhausted but clearly you have no idea how stringic it actually is. Accidents happen, but the number of times I have seen vehicles pulling out directly in front of the car on blue lights and sirens or pedestrians deciding to run across the road is unbelievable.

Utterly deranged.

Anyway - top tip - if OP or those who agree with her ever have their homes burgled or are being viciously assaulted and fear for their lives, just tell the police to drive nice and slowly. Sure they’ll happily oblige!

@Cheshirewife,

If I was in danger, I would expect them to drive appropriately fast.

If there was only danger to my property, I would not want anyone’s child (or anyone’s) life placed in danger.

My post was about the amount of speeding and how proportionate it was. This is known as a ‘straw man’ argument.

Surely we can agree that we shouldn't leave people to it who steal cars and might kill people whilst at the same time think that the number of innocent people killed by police cars is a concern? One doesn't have to exclude the other.

I didn't say it does. That was directed at posters who think the little shits shouldn't be chased.

In the words of Gene Hunt.....

Fire up the Quattro!!

There was also a consultation a couple of years ago that concluded police officers should be held to a higher standard for careless/dangerous driving when response driving or pursuing offenders see

It should be uncontroversial (but is in England) that when you give public servants extra powers, they should be required to exercise them to a higher standard. The more power anyone has, the more responsibility they need to take for it. Especially when that power involves inherently dangerous activities like driving or weapons handling.

“Any patrol please for a grade 1 violent domestic? Called in by a neighbour, who reports they have heard shouting for the last half an hour. It’s escalated, they can hear banging and the woman screaming “Help me!” Also a child screaming.”

I’m the only patrol free. It’s rush hour. At normal road speed it’ll take me half an hour to get there. Or I can put on my emergency equipment, drive fast and get there in maybe 8 (because I can skip park traffic and lights).

What would you like me to do?

*Not what I do anymore, but I have been in this exact situation, or one very similar, so many times in the past I couldn’t even begin to quantify it.