Aus Capital Territory review says don’t chase em
A bit off my usual kind of post, but in light of the decision of the Police Complaints Authority decision to review the police pursuit policy, this caught my eye. A internal report by the Australian Federal Police has found that the risk to public safety does not justify chasing stolen cars or traffic offences. This came after a string of injuries and fatalities resulting from police car chases. Sounds familiar.
An internal Australian Federal Police report of an independent review, released by the ACT Government today, suggested a number of changes. It recommended changes to the guidelines to state that car theft, or suspicion of it, is not in itself a serious enough offence to put the community at the increased risk caused by a pursuit. It also said the benefit of chasing an offender for traffic or driving offences would hardly ever outweigh the risks.
August 24th, 2007 at 5:53 pm
Oh let them get away with it that makes perfect sense - NOT. What a load of academic bollocks.
August 24th, 2007 at 7:16 pm
Well said Porc
August 24th, 2007 at 11:01 pm
Maybe what they really mean is that traffic enforcement provides such a minimal benefit to road safety that nothing is lost by letting offenders get away.
August 25th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
I agree with porc. and big bro. A new policy of not pursuing car thieves will only encourage more people to have a go when they know that they won’t be pursued by police and any contention that these guys only drive dangerously when pursued by police is either hopeless naivity or outright duplicity.
My brother who is a cop here in Rotorua told me that his area commander was being interview by the local newspaper from the perspective of the police regarding the case of that kid who killed himself after running from the cops subsequent to watching a boy racer meet.
The reporter was told of another unrelated case of a driver being clocked doing 160 km/h in a 50km/hr zone, but needless to say that part of the report wasn’t filed. Must have conflicted with the reporters/newspapers agenda, eh?
August 25th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
Boy racers and GTA games…
The real world doesn’t have a reset button. The cops have to take them down whenever possible but there are limits… the chase in general is supposed to stop when the cop has to drive unsafely to continue the pursue. This is why they use helicopters in the USA. No need to drive unsafely to track the maroons. The cops can’t do that so easily here… not so many helicopters, but on the other hand, there aren’t so many roads either, and a few well positioned intersection cameras would suffice to track the miscreants at less cost.
The problem however, is a subculture that is fixated on a video game that doesn’t provide a good model of reality. You get to start over if you’re killed.
In the real world you’re just dead.
respectfully
BJ
August 25th, 2007 at 2:19 pm
Sleepy,
The tech already exists to immobilize cars by remote control. That would stop the offenders in their tracks. The government wont implement this type of tech because of tobjections from civil libertarians, the very same people who squeal loudest about car chases. Maybe it’s time for the insurance industry to step up to the plate and solve the problem of car theft, or would they be too worried about a drop in revenue if there was a truly effective deterent to car theft.
August 25th, 2007 at 9:45 pm
I think the issue that most people are concerned about is not that the car thieves get killed, but that an innocent third party gets killed or injured because of the high speed chase.
August 25th, 2007 at 11:44 pm
Abolutely samiuela.
If one car doing too many KM/Hr is dangerous, adding another isn’t going to make matters safer.
August 26th, 2007 at 12:31 am
Kevyn
Just what tech is it you are discussing? I have seen a few proposals but they all have some nasty problems associated.
BJ
August 26th, 2007 at 2:17 am
bj, I’ve seen two systems on a Discovery Channel doco but this is the only one I could find on the web.
http://www.designplays.com/Roadtrakker/roadtrakker.com/whatis.htm
August 26th, 2007 at 6:54 am
Yes… those systems are not cheap. Have to have an infrastructure to support them but they do work . I thought you might be talking about the EM Pulse to disable a car’s electronics …
respectfully
BJ
August 26th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
bj,
Frying the electronics seems to be rather a terminal solution. Especially for stolen cars. I’m not sure if an EMP could be targetted onto a specific vehicle.
August 26th, 2007 at 5:22 pm
Problem with all those gadgets they require fitting of some sophisticated (and costly) after market electronics. Cant see the average boy races fitting one of these. Would stop stolen cars but not the jap import favoured by youth intent on having a go.
Frying the electronices is a possiblity but a serious boy racer would simply wrap some strategically placed lead around the electronics to prevent any extrior interference.
No best sugggestion is still pursuit, but only to the point were positive identification of the car and driver has been made through photographic and sworn police statements.
Wait for the offender to front up either at home, work (or winz office), university, etc and escorting them with the photographic and sworn statement proof.
Courts have to enforce the full weight of penalties open to them.
Withdrawing legal aid for the second offence is another possibility. Maybe a three strikes and no more legal aid could be introduced.
August 26th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
Gerrit has the right of it.
That’s why, given our limited set of roads and intersections I would opt for a system of cameras at the intersections and some mobile units with the police being able to activate them when a pursuit begins. The offender will drive through a covered intersection, and so is “caught” on the camera. With the cameras activated ONLY during the pursuits we’d not be wasting a lot of high-res video and effort on empty streets and boring falling leaves.
The result would be similar to being able to put a helicopter on top of them, except that you’d actually get the video of the driver and the license plate quite clearly. Which makes it better than the Helicopter.
No drama. No long high-speed pursuits.
Nobody has ever done it before.
respectfully
BJ
August 27th, 2007 at 1:40 am
bj,
Sounds like a job Mitsubishi Electric’s Auto Incident Recording System.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/04mar/07.htm
August 27th, 2007 at 7:35 am
Yeah - ALMOST…. but those guys are just looking to document crashes while I am looking to catch someone speeding through without crashing… basically to have the cop hit the “record” button and let the escapee run through the traps.
This hasn’t been done anywhere.
respectfully
BJ
August 27th, 2007 at 9:59 am
The real issue here is why are Frog and Co anti police? What is the ideology behind the clique controlling the Green Party?. If you make certain assumptions about how the world functions you will have different approaches to problems than the rest of us but we need to know what those are.
jh
August 27th, 2007 at 11:12 am
JH
I am not sure that I agree that Frog and the rest of us are “anti police”. What causes you to conclude that? Certainly there is no indication of it in this post. The issue alluded to in the post is actually a very difficult one.
On the more general topic of “police” I still don’t think that you have a real point. The Green Party doesn’t like misuse of police powers, but that is not a matter of disliking police themselves, or claiming that they are unneeded. That has to do with bad laws being passed which subsequently require the police to do things that are contrary to green principles.
True, there are a couple of people in the party who are more reflexive than reflective on this topic (and I wouldn’t be averse to having a few words with them about their effect on the party and its electoral chances), but the party as a whole does not (I think), have this mindset.
respectfully
BJ
August 27th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
RFID technology is already capable of tracking cars. But the problem is you will get more sophisticated ways of avoiding pursuit if Police don’t chase - especially with stolen cars.
For example, swapping cars via a car jacking anywhere BUT an intersection.
We can augment the process with technology, which gives Police more options, but Police need the ability to make the call. They are trained to do this now.
The message that the police will ignore crime providing the severity of the crime is increased is a dangerous message.
August 27th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
Zen
The idea as I proposed would leave the police to pursue closely until the vehicle runs a trap. A more relaxed pursuit would then continue. Much as the situations with the helicopters, except quieter and less dramatic.
They’d have to run the trap and THEN carjack someone, giving a new crime in an environment of converging police. Possible to do, but I don’t think they’d have the time… and carjacking requires real violence. Most auto thieves aren’t so inclined and I don’t know about everyone else here but they’d not see the light of day for a lonnnggg time if I were passing sentence.
Now if they were clever they could FAKE a carjacking… setting it up ahead of time.
It is always up to the police to make the call and 20-20 hindsight is not a reasonable standard by which to judge that call.
respectfully
BJ
August 28th, 2007 at 8:05 am
bjchip Says:
August 27th, 2007 at 11:12 am
JH
I am not sure that I agree that Frog and the rest of us are “anti police�?. What causes you to conclude that? Certainly there is no indication of it in this post. The issue alluded to in the post is actually a very difficult one.
==========
By Frog and Co I didn’t mean everybody…… but despite best attempts anyone can see a divide in the Greens. As for anti police:
Anti Taser
Pro Angela Davis
Against shackling prisoners
(and a lot more I can’t think of right now)
Admittedly there is no point in having a knee jerk reaction to law and order issues but the greens seem to be well and truly on the side of civil liberties and (I would say) see the perpetrators of crime as victims of an oppressive society etc, etc.
[I would like to see a system such as Japans where prisoners in the toughest prisons march> Left right, left, right
http://www.documen.tv/asset/Japan_form_inside_film.html
http://www.jameswebb.com/articles/parade/japanprison.htm
jh
August 28th, 2007 at 8:58 am
Mind you there is a method to disable any car whose driver will not stop for police.
A mini gatling gun (like those on the apache attack helicopter) mounted under the front bumper of a patrol car should see an instant stop to any runaway.
One burst and no worries about court cases, fines, reoffending, etc.
Colateral damage may be a problem, but what the heck, one offender less and one car scrapped as well. Solves the world over crowding problem and carbon emmisions from cars.
August 28th, 2007 at 12:17 pm
JH
I agree that other related issues definitely show a bit of a civil-liberties-come-first bias and some “issues” (shall we say) with police .
This one however, has a real serious side to it. Which isn’t reflected in THIS message
Gerrit… you would avoid the lead pollution problem by using depleted uranium slugs… right?
respectfully
BJ