This one's going down - Page 31

Peter_ · 26-12-2009, 22:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

well concidering he had just drove down the road turned round then drove back i think he was in a good position to see that the road was deserted

Quite impossible to say who is going to appear in that timeframe and no excuse to accelerate to that speed.

The video shows him coming out of a side road and turning left then going a couple of hundred yards then turning into a side road to turn back then accelerating on one stretch of road and not turning right to go back on his original route.

He obviously thought by turning left that the driver had obviously gone right and thought I know lets hurry up as that naughty tax disc evader or similar may get away so decided to increase his speed beyond what that road is set to and designed for and come unstuck when he rounded a bend.

26-12-2009, 22:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

Quite impossible to say who is going to appear in that timeframe and no excuse to accelerate to that speed.

The video shows him coming out of a side road and turning left then going a couple of hundred yards then turning into a side road to turn back then accelerating on one stretch of road and not turning right to go back on his original route.

He obviously thought by turning left that the driver had obviously gone right and thought I know lets hurry up as that naughty tax disc evader or similar may get away so decided to increase his speed beyond what that road is set to and designed for and come unstuck when he rounded a bend.

like i have said repeatedly his descision turned out to be wrong on this occasion ,nevertheless that descision had to be made and only hind sight can prove it right or wrong
if the driver of the other car had turned out to be a mass murderer and pulled over because of a out of date task disc or similar offence following the same pursuit with the same result i.e public member killed what would the reaction be ?

Flyboy · 26-12-2009, 22:09

No, that decision did not not have to be made. The decision he should have made was to have slowed down as he approached a blind bend. Clearly a jury and judge agreed.

Peter_ · 26-12-2009, 22:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

like i have said repeatedly his descision turned out to be wrong on this occasion ,nevertheless that descision had to be made and only hind sight can prove it right or wrong
if the driver of the other car had turned out to be a mass murderer and pulled over because of a out of date task disc or similar offence following the same pursuit with the same result i.e public member killed what would the reaction be ?

Given the type of road it happened on a slower speed may have saved a life and the car that was pinged would still have been stopped and no one would be dead and and a man would not be in jail.

26-12-2009, 22:16

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

Given the type of road it happened on a slower speed may have saved a life and the car that was pinged would still have been stopped and no one would be dead and and a man would not be in jail.

i understand what your saying Moldova but they are all ifs and don't forget the police driver was very familiar with the street and i feel i have to mention that the road looks a lot worse through the video camera than in real life there are no blind bends the road is relatively smooth and quite wide .you would understand my point if you could drive down it

Peter_ · 26-12-2009, 22:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

i understand what your saying Moldova but they are all ifs and don't forget the police driver was very familiar with the street and i feel i have to mention that the road looks a lot worse through the video camera than in real life there are no blind bends the road is relatively smooth and quite wide .you would understand my point if you could drive down it

You only have to be unsighted for a split second at that speed and it is a single carraigeway with pedestrian crossings and she was by some house when she crossed, the wider ones do tend to have crossings to give pedestrians time to cross, so the road is similar to many others nationwide.

If he had been going even half the terminal speed he would probably have missed her and even caught the driver, but we will never know.

26-12-2009, 22:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

You only have to be unsighted for a split second at that speed and it is a single carraigeway with pedestrian crossings and she was by some house when she crossed, the wider ones do tend to have crossings to give pedestrians time to cross, so the road is similar to many others nationwide.

If he had been going even half the terminal speed he would probably have missed her and even caught the driver, but we will never know.

hence my earlier point about there having to be 2 police in the car before high speed pursuits can take place .There is potential for high speed chases every time a car goes out on patrol so imo there should always be 2 officers in the cars one to drive and one to operate the radio and watch for pedestrians

Gary L · 27-12-2009, 10:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

there should always be 2 officers in the cars one to drive and one to operate the radio and watch for pedestrians

If you need another one to watch for pedestrians. what's the driver doing?

Peter_ · 27-12-2009, 10:11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

If you need another one to watch for pedestrians. what's the driver doing?

Speeding.

Gary L · 27-12-2009, 10:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Moldova

Speeding.

So we have a speeding car with no lights or siren, and no co-pilot to do the job of watching out for people crossing the road.

27-12-2009, 10:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

So we have a speeding car with no lights or siren, and no co-pilot to do the job of watching out for people crossing the road.

that's correct that is why i think that the driver is not 100% to blame here ,police procedure is wrong and should be changed so the force should imo shoulder some blame

Gary L · 27-12-2009, 10:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

that's correct that is why i think that the driver is not 100% to blame here ,police procedure is wrong and should be changed so the force should imo shoulder some blame

In law, when you are in charge of a motor vehicle, you are responsible for looking where you're going. spotting pedestrians, spotting hazards, and even spotting what colour the traffic lights are on.

to suggest that the police need a mate to be able to do all this for him while he's concentrating on the rear end of a car he's chasing is silly.

that's why he's a superior driver. he can do it all for himself. he only needed a co-pilot when he <expletive> up

27-12-2009, 10:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

In law, when you are in charge of a motor vehicle, you are responsible for looking where you're going. spotting pedestrians, spotting hazards, and even spotting what colour the traffic lights are on.

to suggest that the police need a mate to be able to do all this for him while he's concentrating on the rear end of a car he's chasing is silly.

that's why he's a superior driver. he can do it all for himself. he only needed a co-pilot when he <expletive> up

come on Gary common sense should tell you that at the speeds some of these drivers have to go it's impossible to see everything ,as Moldova pointed out 1 second of looking the other way means you miss something elsewere

Gary L · 27-12-2009, 10:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by martyh

come on Gary common sense should tell you that at the speeds some of these drivers have to go it's impossible to see everything ,as Moldova pointed out 1 second of looking the other way means you miss something elsewere

So take it all into account. it's dark, you won't put your lights and sirens on. you don't have a pedestrian spotter sitting in the passenger seat.

computer says risk assessment is very high. possible fatality. action required.

27-12-2009, 10:52

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary L

So take it all into account. it's dark, you won't put your lights and sirens on. you don't have a pedestrian spotter sitting in the passenger seat.

computer says risk assessment is very high. possible fatality. action required.

without taking risks the police would never catch criminals ,in this case the judge agreed that the officer took an unacceptible risk because someone had died as a result but also given the length of the sentance felt the officer had some justification hence the small jail term unlike the officer in the other case quoted in this thread who got 6 years (and got of lightly imo)