[rustynutz]

Police Commissioner Ian Stewart says ban on high-speed police pursuits saves lives
DECEMBER 28, 2013

STRICT rules limiting police car chases have saved lives, a review has found.

Police Commissioner Ian Stewart is assessing the review but revealed it supported only "minor'' changes to the controversial policy.

"It highlights the fact that the tragedies that have happened in the past as a result of police pursuits have not been evidenced since we've had the restrictive policy in place,'' Mr Stewart told The Courier-Mail.

Police are banned from high-speed chases unless there is an imminent threat to life or the offender has committed a serious crime such as murder and the pursuit can be justified.

The policy was introduced in December 2011 following a coronial inquest into 10 deaths in four years during police pursuits in Queensland.

Read More:

[Ugly Mongrel]

This is great news. The Qld police pursuit policy makes a lot of sense.

[Surferdude]

Yeah.
Just let the bastards go so they can do it again.

[Ugly Mongrel]

Yeah.
Just let the bastards go so they can do it again.

Yeah.
Just let the bastards go so they can't kill an innocent road user. Just saying.

[Surferdude]

We're going over old ground here, Terry.
Claire and I and our kids (well, the two still in Oz) have discussed this and agree that, whilst there is a risk to road users, ourselves included, we're in favour of police chases being conducted.
And if one of us dies as a result of it, we agree the blame lies with the ar*eholes who broke the law in the first place, not the police who are there to uphold the law.

[Ugly Mongrel]

We're going over old ground here, Terry.
Claire and I and our kids (well, the two still in Oz) have discussed this and agree that, whilst there is a risk to road users, ourselves included, we're in favour of police chases being conducted.
And if one of us dies as a result of it, we agree the blame lies with the ar*eholes who broke the law in the first place, not the police who are there to uphold the law.

I couldn't agree more, Trev.

 But what if they didn't chase them and didn't put you and Claire at risk of death? Surely it would be better if you and yours lived and the dumb arse f...wit who had knocked off a service station got away. Surely you can see that.

[Doggie 1]

Old ground indeed.
The problem with that Terry, is the f***wits still drive around in stolen cars like they're possessed whether or not the police are chasing them and they still kill people like Trev and Claire.
I've seen it time and time again.
There is a myth that says that if lowlife aren't chased by police, they won't hurt anyone.
It's garbage.
After many years of careful consideration, I'm definitely with Trev on this one.
Baddies have to be chased.
We can't hand the streets over to them.
And at the time of chasing no one has any idea whether they have committed other major crimes or are "just" driving in a stolen car, with who knows what in their system, looking for people to rob, houses to break into, or any other myriad of offences they might feel like committing.
Stop pursuits and you lose total control.
Driving stolen cars with no licence (which is usually the case) with no insurance and totally flouting all laws is NOT a minor matter that should be ignored.

[Ugly Mongrel]

I'm sorry, I just commented on Rusty's post as to what is happening in Queensland today, 28 December. How is that "old ground"?

Question is....if you chase them and don't catch them will they reoffend? Of course they will. But if you chase them and someone dies, is it worth it just to stop them reoffending? IMHO, the death of an innocent road user is not worth the chase. Just saying.

[asathorny]

Stealing cars in the UK isn't stealing at all, Mrs Thatcher decided that the criminal system was becoming bloated so instead of correcting the deficit she decided to save loads o money (conservative bitch) by changing stealing to 'BORROWING'.  How f****ng good is that for the crims...     You couldn't make this shit up could ya.

So we now have taking without consent, or, borrowing without asking 

I have had two cars 'BORROWED' and had I got my hands on the tw*** who did it they would have walked with a funny limp forever more.

No I agree, stop the chasing and instead do something more permanent.  We could mount laser targeted GPMS (General Purpose Machine guns) in strategic places and take the bastards out 

[Ugly Mongrel]

Stealing cars in the UK isn't stealing at all, Mrs Thatcher decided that the criminal system was becoming bloated so instead of correcting the deficit she decided to save loads o money (conservative bitch) by changing stealing to 'BORROWING'.  How f****ng good is that for the crims...     You couldn't make this shit up could ya.

So we now have taking without consent, or, borrowing without asking 

I have had two cars 'BORROWED' and had I got my hands on the tw*** who did it they would have walked with a funny limp forever more.

No I agree, stop the chasing and instead do something more permanent.  We could mount laser targeted GPMS (General Purpose Machine guns) in strategic places and take the bastards out 

A bit of lateral thinking there, Asa, I like it.

[FatBoy]

There are other methods of tracking the criminals in these car chase scenarios, other than with police cars.  At the moment they could be tracked by helicopter with FLIR (forward looking infra red) cameras, from a distance and height that the offenders don't even know they are being tracked.  Another option is a UAV, with the capability to track and monitor multiple targets.  That way the police cars could "back off" and let the criminals think that they aren't being tracked.

Always let the punishment fit the crime though.  Don't just give them a slap on the wrist, like what seems to happen in today's society, but give them a real punishment.

[Surferdude]

I'm sorry, I just commented on Rusty's post as to what is happening in Queensland today, 28 December. How is that "old ground"?

Question is....if you chase them and don't catch them will they reoffend? Of course they will. But if you chase them and someone dies, is it worth it just to stop them reoffending? IMHO, the death of an innocent road user is not worth the chase. Just saying.

Terry, it's old ground only because we've had this discussion on here before. I don't mind having it again though.
In answer to your question, that can be applied to every crime/ criminal. Murderers, rapists, child molesters. So maybe we can save a heap of money for the government and delete the police force.Sorry if that sounds a bit fecetious, but as Dave says, they'll go on offending until you catch them
THEN, all we need is for the courts to do their job properly.

[beerman]

Before the new Government came into power the Courts had given an average penalty of $300 for evading police. That's some deterrent. Now it is a min $5500, however the prosecution still has to prove who was driving, hence the "I was passed out at a party and I don't know who had my car" or other such defences still apply. It amazes me that if the same vehicle went through a speed camera, the same defence holds no water, and owner onus applies. This would appear to be one area of the laws that needs to be improved.

As for a Helecopter, Queensland has one based on the Gold Coast, said helecopter is funded for 20 hours a week. So even with all the amazing technology,  it is good luck if it is actually in the air. I believe most of the other states share theirs with the Ambulance service and as such they spend most of their time doing patient transfers.

As for those who engage in such behaviour, why not do what they do in the states, and hold them totally responsible for everything that happens as a result of their failure to stop.

There have still been deaths associated with idiotic driving, where police have not pursued, they just get reported as fatal accidents. Much cleaner for the Commissioner of police, but any less tragic for the people involved?

[FatBoy]

The Gold Coast Police Helicopter (operated by Surf Life Saving Australia) is commonly referred to as the "Ghetto Bird" as it spends the majority of it's time above crime hotspots, using FLIR and NVG to identify crimes and criminals.

NSW, WA and Victoria all have separate Police Air Wings to that of EMS operators (patient retrieval, etc).  In the remaining states, there is a separate EMS contract for patient retrieval.  For example, in Tasmania, it is a Police Helicopter, funded by the police, which can be utilised by the Ambulance Service if the Police allow it (and Ambulance pay).  If there is a police contract, then the pilots and crew will have different requirements to enable them to fly for the police (they need to undergo police checks and approval prior to flying for the police).

So the resources are there, if required.

[Lester]

I have great respect for Commish Stewart of QldPol, but I disagree with his policy.

During my 36 year career I had many pursuits, luckily injured nobody else except myself, but my point is... often the traffic offender is just not a traffic offender, often an escapee, armed robber, assailant, etc, etc.  Thus these types have more incentive to evade the police.

The NSW Police currently have helicopters which are utilised in support of pursuits.
Without disclosing too much, in NSW the Duty Operations Inspector at the Police Radio Centre - VKG has the authority to terminate pursuits.  I believe the Australian States and Territories have a similar policy.

Sure we need pursuit protocols and standard operating procedures, but they must be sensible.

[Ugly Mongrel]

I have great respect for Commish Stewart of QldPol, but I disagree with his policy.

During my 36 year career I had many pursuits, luckily injured nobody else except myself, but my point is... often the traffic offender is just not a traffic offender, often an escapee, armed robber, assailant, etc, etc.  Thus these types have more incentive to evade the police.

The NSW Police currently have helicopters which are utilised in support of pursuits.
Without disclosing too much, in NSW the Duty Operations Inspector at the Police Radio Centre - VKG has the authority to terminate pursuits.  I believe the Australian States and Territories have a similar policy.

Sure we need pursuit protocols and standard operating procedures, but they must be sensible.

Great post, Lester.

[beerman]

The Gold Coast Police Helicopter (operated by Surf Life Saving Australia) is commonly referred to as the "Ghetto Bird" as it spends the majority of it's time above crime hotspots, using FLIR and NVG to identify crimes and criminals.

NSW, WA and Victoria all have separate Police Air Wings to that of EMS operators (patient retrieval, etc).  In the remaining states, there is a separate EMS contract for patient retrieval.  For example, in Tasmania, it is a Police Helicopter, funded by the police, which can be utilised by the Ambulance Service if the Police allow it (and Ambulance pay).  If there is a police contract, then the pilots and crew will have different requirements to enable them to fly for the police (they need to undergo police checks and approval prior to flying for the police).

So the resources are there, if required.

There are 168 hours in a week, of which it is on the public record that the Gold Coast helicopter is available 20 meaning it is available approximately 12% of the time. If it is on the ground, even if a crew is available, by the time it would scramble to be in the air, the pursuit would be over. A helicopter is an excellent tool, but like any tool, it can do nothing parked in a shed.

[Ugly Mongrel]

The Gold Coast Police Helicopter (operated by Surf Life Saving Australia) is commonly referred to as the "Ghetto Bird" as it spends the majority of it's time above crime hotspots, using FLIR and NVG to identify crimes and criminals.

NSW, WA and Victoria all have separate Police Air Wings to that of EMS operators (patient retrieval, etc).  In the remaining states, there is a separate EMS contract for patient retrieval.  For example, in Tasmania, it is a Police Helicopter, funded by the police, which can be utilised by the Ambulance Service if the Police allow it (and Ambulance pay).  If there is a police contract, then the pilots and crew will have different requirements to enable them to fly for the police (they need to undergo police checks and approval prior to flying for the police).

So the resources are there, if required.

There are 168 hours in a week, of which it is on the public record that the Gold Coast helicopter is available 20 meaning it is available approximately 12% of the time. If it is on the ground, even if a crew is available, by the time it would scramble to be in the air, the pursuit would be over. A helicopter is an excellent tool, but like any tool, it can do nothing parked in a shed.

Fair call, beerman.

[rustynutz]

but my point is... often the traffic offender is just not a traffic offender, often an escapee, armed robber, assailant, etc, etc.  Thus these types have more incentive to evade the police.

[beerman]

but my point is... often the traffic offender is just not a traffic offender, often an escapee, armed robber, assailant, etc, etc.  Thus these types have more incentive to evade the police.

You can attempt to prove anything with statistics....

I would argue what the traffic offences show is that the driver was driving like a maniac before police attempted to intercept, continued to do so whilst they were doing so. There is no way of knowing if that driver was going to be a fatal traffic accident anyway, so was it the fact that police were attempting to stop the driver that caused the accident, or has it done nothing more than move the statistic from one column to another. Further the quoting of statistics for fatal pursuits only is of limited value as it excludes other more successful pursuits where offenders for serious offences have been caught like for example
Teens charged over Toowoomba triple murder - National - smh.com.au

[rustynutz]

Posted elsewhere but worth posting again:

Police pursuit policy a matter of balance | From the Commissioner's Desk

Also:

In Tasmania, Australia, police chases of this sort are banned. Police in Tasmania say the ban has not stopped them catching criminals.

Assistant Commissioner Donna Adams of the Tasmanian Police, told Metro magazine that the police, who initially opposed the ban on car chases, now strongly supported it.

Ms Adams said that while police could still pursue vehicles for serious crimes in progress, such as robbery or murder,  “They’re very few and far between.”

Ms Adams added that the ban has not impacted on the enforcement of laws. People aren't drink-driving or nicking vehicles with impunity, she says, because they're still getting caught.

[rustynutz]

Speaking of Police pursuits.... 

Two critically hurt in serious crash in Northcote after police pursuit |

[Doggie 1]

The sooner they bring in U.S. style offender-onus legislation to make the baddies responsible for anything that happens after they make the decision to refuse to stop for police, the better.

[rustynutz]

Better for who though? 

Will it end up just being a licence for police to proceed less carefully knowing the blame will fall on the crims?

[Doggie 1]

Better for everyone except the criminals, which is the way it should be.
You seem pre-occupied with the behaviour of the police but you probably should be more concerned about the behaviour of the criminals who the police are trying to catch and protect the public from.
The same protocols and protections will still apply as far as the police actions are concerned, but it will make the criminals responsible for what they cause, which again, is exactly the way it should be.
I think this is one of the biggest problems in this country - some people seem to care more about protecting the criminals than supporting the police, so I guess at the end of the day, we get the society that we probably deserve.

[rustynutz]

Not pre-occupied with the police, Dave....just wouldn't like to see anything that lessens the responsibility police have for taking due care. I'm sure most coppers would do the right thing but there will always be a few that will push just that little bit harder if they know the crims are gonna wear it if things go pear shaped.

And just for the record, I'm not more concerned about protecting the criminals over the police...I'm more concerned about the innocent people that too often get killed or injured in these pursuits.

[beerman]

Rusty,

Firstly the two articles you quoted, one is the second hand reporting of uninformed musings of a car magazine bloke, so adds nothing. The second is the propaganda from someone looking to make his organisation look good. One example of a successful arrest does not negate the fact that the CMC found that only 63% were solved in 2010. Further the report indicates that a large number were charged with a simple evade police offence only (meaning one could conclude that they got away with whatever they were running for), and received a small fine, only 19% lost their licence. This indicates that if you are doing something illegal you are far better off to run and take the small fine later. I would suggest that the 63% were either identified by other means, or were too stupid to manipulate the situation to avoid punishment.

It should be noted that the Commissioner highlights an offender who was in fact committing violent crime  namely 6 x armed robbery and came to police attention 3 times within this time. One wonders what those who later had a gun or knife shoved in their face thought about the inability to catch the grub the first time? Would the avoidance of a potential road fatality be more or less acceptable than the potential murder of a shop assistant, other than then slanted media reporting that makes police responsible for an offenders crime (organisational risk).

Finally to the NZ incident. As the vehicle crashed after the conclusion of the chase and only those within the vehicle were injured (ie no innocent people) I do not know what relevance it has, other than to strengthen my point that idiots drive like idiots before, during and after a pursuit.  Given the motorbikes running interference and the gun and ammo located in the vehicle it would appear that the vehicle was involved in some fairly serious crime.

[rustynutz]

Rusty,

Firstly the two articles you quoted, one is the second hand reporting of uninformed musings of a car magazine bloke, so adds nothing.

Are you saying that quote from Assistant Commissioner Donna Adams is just a figment of that blokes imagination?
Btw, that link was only supplied to show where that quote came from.
 

One wonders what those who later had a gun or knife shoved in their face thought about the inability to catch the grub the first time? Would the avoidance of a potential road fatality be more or less acceptable than the potential murder of a shop assistant, other than then slanted media reporting that makes police responsible for an offenders crime (organisational risk).

For someone that criticised the motoring magazine bloke for his "musings", you're certainly doing your fair share....

Finally to the NZ incident. As the vehicle crashed after the conclusion of the chase and only those within the vehicle were injured (ie no innocent people) I do not know what relevance it has, other than to strengthen my point that idiots drive like idiots before, during and after a pursuit.  Given the motorbikes running interference and the gun and ammo located in the vehicle it would appear that the vehicle was involved in some fairly serious crime.

It was actually in Victoria, not NZ....
As for no "innocent" being injured? What about the driver of the silver Ford the BMW collided with? He ended up in a serious condition with head and chest injuries.
And what makes you think the pursuit had already been called off? 

[Surferdude]

Anyone who thinks that a statement from a Police Commisioner "in support" of his Government's chase policy isn't biased is deluded.
A well writteh and thought out post, beerman.

[beerman]

Probably this.....

"At this time a pursuit has been called," she added.


As for BMW's with guns under escort from a couple of bikes, one of whom stops to collect the driver of the BMW.....If you don't think there's  some serious crime going on there 

As for my question as to what is more acceptable, a person getting killed in an armed robbery or in a pursuit, I think the question stands. I certainly know what is more acceptable to the various Police Commissioners and their executive staff....

As for Donna's quote, her opinion seems to go against the reported statistics in the CMC overview of Queensland. The fact is that they are, if they are getting caught at all, they are getting charged with an offence that attracts a small fine, so the drink drivers she trumpets as being caught are not being caught and the CMC report makes special mention of stolen cars as being one of the reason offenders are not identified....I cannot find an independent review of the Tasmanian policy to support her viewpoint.

I don't know all the answers, I would however suggest the PIT manoeuvre as utalised in America appears to be a handy tool to bring pursuits to an end (and will never be supported due to the cost of training and vehicles), but I do know going knee jerk either way is silly.