Here is a dilemma for the State, the police and the community:



Should police pursue criminals and cause them to do something which they did not intend to do?
The above article from the respected (?) Sydney Morning Herald puts things in perspective; obviously in these cases the police have a choice, to chase armed robbers or not. I really think that they should not do so, who can fortell the ramifications of their actions, had they not started the chase one man would not be in hospital and another would not be in tears over what had inadvertently been done.

I mean, here's two guys just allegedly trying to make a slightly dishonest living by terrorising and robbing people and the unthinking and uncaring police chase them; after all what do the police think that they are about? Is it their job to chase blokes who are only trying to provide for their families? Probably these unfortunates can't get steady jobs because society has picked on them and caused them to have criminal records, had the police left them alone in the past then they wouldn't now have criminal records; obvious is it not?

The Commissioner of Police ought to stop all police pursuits of criminals in cars both for the good of the criminals and society in general ; a move which I am sure would be appaluded by the SMH.

Once criminals know police are not allowed to chase them they will exploit it to the hilt.
An increased number of robbers would try their luck to.
By the way what is the SMH?

SMH+Possibly the Sidney Morning Herald?

A police officer sees a car run a stop sign and attempts to stop the car. The driver decides to run. The officer chases. Sometimes, someone dies. Police officers say, "Ah, but we don't know why he's running. Perhaps he's a wanted murderer. Perhaps he's just robbed a liquor store." That's true but the fact remains that most wehicle chases are simply what they seem to be.

Assume a police officer responds to a call at a bar. As he pulls up three people say, "Leon Wiggins just beat that guy up and robbed him and there he goes now." A car is pulling out. The officer sees the license number, the car takes off, the chase is on.

A sad fact is that police officers are like cats. If something runs they chase. It's genetic.

Each step has to be considered. If the police are chasing a traffic offender and he's heading towards a large park where there are probably a lot of children playing, perhaps it's best to back off. If you know who's running, why not quit chasing and go pick him up at home an hour later? The severity of the original incident is a factor, too. More risks should be taken if pursuing someone who's just shot five strangers than someone who is speeding.

ChristineO: "Once criminals know police are not allowed to chase them they will exploit it to the hilt. An increased number of robbers would try their luck to."

That wasn't my experience. Both of the men in this case had lengthy records. They get caught a lot. If they were as bright as a turnip they would have quit by now. Look at this case. The two nitwits robbed a store, perhaps two, and were being chased by two police cars and a helicopter. Not good odds. They hit the Subaru and killed a child and then one runs around the highway and gets hit by a passing car while they were trying to get into another car so the two police squad cars and the helicopter could continue chasing them. Smarter crooks dump the car, run and hide, report the car stolen, and have an attorney on hand.

In the department where I worked the decision was first the officer's and then his supervisor's, if one's available. We had a written policy that stated reasons for discontinuing a chase and the factors to be considered. Officers were told in writing that the decision was theirs and the responsibility was theirs.

One more thought. We reviewed our policy because we noticed that over 80% of our chases were being initiated by two officers. Amazing coincidence? I don't think so. As a young officer, one of the old veterans taught me how to start chases if I wanted some fun on a long night shift.

This is another example that decisions made emotionally are more often than not bad decisions.

We certainly do have an abundance of criminals of low intelligence and also young police that enjoy a chase as my son's cop friend told him recently.

This brings me back to a point raised in a previous thread about road fatalities.
Why do we need cars that go so fast? Fast cars cause the carnage and we humans can't be trusted to keep speed limits or obey traffic rules voluntarily even when not evading the police.
A speed capacity maximun of 60 kms per hour will probably never happen because of the large and influential industry involved.

What was that about money being the root of all evil?

An even better question to ask is: 'Why do we need speed limits?'

Well speed limits make money to, when combined with speed traps.

ChristineO: "A speed capacity maximun of 60 kms per hour will probably never happen because of the large and influential industry involved."

It is a pesky problem when people don't want what the elites decide is good for them. Frequently the elites partner with businesses. The light bulb business is definitely delighted with the mandatory use of compact flourescent bulbs. But, does the money trump the joy some get from forcing people to do what they want? I don't think so.

When you drive the lonely, straight stretches of four-lane divided highways across Kansas, Wyoming, Utah, Nevada, a speed limit of 60Kph would be torture. Just the kind of thing to bring joy to the heart of those who want to make you miserable for your own good. Someone could decide that variable speed limits make sense with higher speeds on straight, level, highways with no intersecting roadways and lower on winding, mountainous roadways with entry from numberous points. Nah! Let's make everyone always do what we want. It so more rewarding, personally, you know, to feel the power.

Absolutely the most fun is when you get to pass a silly rule that everyone has to follow, except you. Wow, that's really a rush. All buidings have to have total handicapped access except the Congressional buildings where they passed the law. Great! So, cars won't go over 50Kph. Of course, in the U.S. the government-run car company would make money by being the only company allowed to make cars that will go 250kph to be used by police departments, politicians, their really good friends, and, of course, drug dealers.

Back to the original topic. Police chases obviously should be totally at the discretion of the officer initiating the chase nor should they be banned. Of course, that brings us to the concept of all or nothing. If we don't have total power we have absolutely no power. Not one child left behind or we have failed children. Not a single poor unemployed person or we failed the poor. Employed people made poor by taxes is okay, though. They deserve it.

Aaargh!

No not torture Patrick I don't think so.
Now we are used to having fast cars, we think we need them but before they came along I don't think anyone complained of going slow. When entering a 60 zone after going at 110 it seems like slow motion, that's the problem.
My son has shown me some items on utube, where the camera is fixed on speedometers exceeding the speed limit by a great margin on our public roads as young men try to outdo each other playing dare devils in turbo charged cars and obviously getting a huge adrenelin rush.
Why are such powerful machines are in the hands of these immature people who don't forsee the possibility of random hazards, kangaroos, burst tyres etc?
I drive over the speed limit myself, everyone does, just go the same speed as the rest of the traffic.
It would be fine if there was another place fast car enthusiasts can enjoy speed away from public roads.

ChrstineO: "Now we are used to having fast cars, we think we need them but before they came along I don't think anyone complained of going slow. When entering a 60 zone after going at 110 it seems like slow motion, that's the problem."

Oh, my grandmother complained about crossing plains and deserts at 10-15 miles a day. My mother had a lot to say about a five-hour ride in a wagon to get a cousin who had been bitten by a rattlesnake to a doctor. Nothing is difficult for the person who doesn't have to do it.

I used to drive from my home to Salt Lake City Utah to visit some dear friends. My wife, my children, and I would leave early in the morning and drive 500 miles, with 400 of those miles across deserts and plains with no curves or significnt hills. We would take frequent breaks and arrive 8.5 to 9 hours later. In your new cars, the trip would take approximately 16 hours.

And then there's the route man or travelling salesman who would have to work twice as long to cover the same territory. No problem for those who don't have to do it.

And then there's the difference between doing something you want to do versus being forced to do things. The first is considered a pleasure and the second isn't.

Police chases are problematic, as Christine has pointed out, and probably on the whole unnecessary, especially if a helicopter is following from above.

Judging by both Patrickt and Chrstine's commetns, more stringent regulation is needed.

Let's remember that the accident happened on a highway where one would assume that there would be little danger in a chase, let's also remember that the alleged criminals had threatened peoples lives and were fleeing from lawful pursuit. They and they alone were responsible for the death of the child. One would hope that they will be charged appropriately.

Yes, they are guilty and I hope they get appropriate punishment. But, reponsibility is a different matter. For example, if we learned that the police knew the identity of these robbers, should they have been chasing them at high speeds? Maybe not. That would not in any way change the guilt of the men for the accident but it might have a little to say about responsibility.

There were some studies done years ago on victim precipitated crimes where the victim had a significant role in the crime happening. The research was dropped for political reasons.

Its a real shame we become so jaded with familiar sourroundings. A newcomer to your country would no doubt have seen great beauty in the land you wanted to hurtle through as quickly as possible.
In fact I'm pretty sure some landscape photographers come to the US just for the purpose of capturing the wonderful open skies and light on the rocks and desert in Utah.
I've done my share of long distance unairconditioned drives in East Africa and across the Australian Nullabor but I would much prefer those to any long distance economy class flight, that is true torture.
T.S.Elliot said " The journey not the arrival matters" and there is a lesson there for us all I think.

I understand, Christine. Since you think I should dawdle through a desert I've seen dozens of times when my purpose for crossing it is to visit dear friends, then clearly, I should be allowed to travel faster than 32mph. The cost of my trip would double and with limited time off work my visit with my friends would be short but none of that matters. What really matters is what you think I should be doing. What are your plans for television?

Two nitwits commit a robbery. Two police cars and a helicopter are chasing them and they collide with another car and kill an innocent person. And, your suggestio is to not allow cars to be built that can exceed 32mph.

I'm not saying what anyone should be doing just pointing out how a different way of looking at things could be beneficial. Faster is not always better.
I don't mind TV but I hate most fast foods, and there is a fairly new developement which is slow food, so I am not alone.

Christine and patrickt you might be interested to know that technology is being developed in the UK that uses satellite technology to control the speed a person's vehicle can go at. This technology is being trialled in Australia too I believe. Governments may soon be considering the possibility of making it mandatory for all new vehicles.

There is probably being developed some counter technology.

What happens when someone trys to accelerate out of a dangerous situation and his car doesn't respond because the Government limited the attainable speed and he is injured/killed?

Yes but if you compare the number of times that happens with the number of times speed is a contributing factor to an accident you would probably find the latter is more of a problem.

Lack of speed can be a factor in accidents. There are any number of parts of the New England Highway where I can safely travel at speeds well over the 100kph limit, thus cutting at least an hour off the journey to Sydney, one hour less in which to get tired/bored and lose concentration. Most of our speed limits are unrealistic and are designed to raise revenue, as is the siting of speed cameras. If the Government was really concerned about speed on our roads then there would be many more police patrol cars driving along and keeping traffic speeds down. But revenue would drop along with the number of accidents and we couldn't afford a cut in revenue, so it's much more profitable to encourage speed and collect fines.

People need to learn to take responsibility; you speed, you pay the price. I'd like to see ten times the current amount of speed cameras on our roads. Or, this alternative technology that actually stops people from speeding. If government were only interested in revenue raising, why would they be looking into this new technology?