Numerous discussions on past episodes of this TV programme, but did anyone see last nights?
Right at the start of the programme one of the officers (Bob, I think his name was) was seen chasing a 'dizzy' (disqualified driver) driving an Astra.
Did anyone else spot the officer wasn't wearing his seat belt during the pursuit, as well as loads of one handed driving because of having to operate his 2 way radio?
Obviously driving one handed is commonplace as has been discussed before, but why no seatbelt?
|
Burning the midnight oil DD? eh? Oh.
I've got a real soft spot for these shows - favourite is "motorway patrol" based in New Zealand. The pleasant attitude of both the police and drivers is refreshing and a stark contrast to the battle-worn wearyness of our police and the aggressive, pathetic attitude of most of the people they pull over.
I'd agree it's a bit odd not having a seatbelt on (are they exempt?) but seeing as it's really only himself that would suffer should the worst happen, then it's hard to argue it; especially as he's keeping the roads a safer place for us all.
Good luck to him!!
-- Lee .. A festivus for the rest of us.
|
>>I've got a real soft spot for these shows<<
Me too. Remember when the original 'Police Stop' came out? That Metro being chased where the occupants hung a pit bull out of the window to try to scare the officers... the Range Rover which rammed that rusty old transit off the road on the M25
Very occasionally you will see some good chases come out of Sheriff John Bunnell's program. I've got an excellent one where a 15 year old in an M3 completely out-drives Kentucky's finest in a Camaro... the officers nearly end up driving into one another.... great stuff.
|
|
Grand Designs revisited was much more intersting.
|
|
|
|
>>Burning the midnight oil DD? eh? Oh.>>
It started at 9pm..:-)
The biggest surprise, for me at least, was that Cheshire Constabulary uses a small aeroplane rather than a helicopter for aerial observation.
I would have thought this would be less effective than a helicopter but there did seem to be some advantages.
Biggest laugh was the sergeant who had his trousers ripped off by a woman dog handler's German Shepherd because he stepped backwards and too close to it whilst arresting the driver of a stolen vehicle after a maize field chase.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
What\'s for you won\'t pass you by
|
uses a small aeroplane rather than a helicopter for aerial observation.
I think the reasons they gave was that it's cheaper and the overall view is better.
|
|
|
|
|
I noticed that too. I also couldn't believe you would need to operate a radio on your lapel - surely they have more sophisticated kit than that?
I liked the biker caught doing 130mph+ (with a pillion passenger) & when stopped, explained that it had just been serviced (new brakes, rear tyre etc) so it was safe for him to ride at that speed & it had "6 pot" brakes so he could stop really easily.
Still only got a fine & 6 points!
MM
|
But that same biker gave the "biker argument" that he was safer than a car at that speed, could stop quicker and could manoeuvre quicker.
But I know who would come out worse between a car and him when they hit!
Also, what was he actually charged with? Exceeding the maximum speed limit or was there an actual speed he was accused of doing? Copper reached 130+ trying to catch him but he only got 6 points. Did copper not get a chance to get close enough to actually log him doing a certain speed?
Finally, if I am bombing down the motorway I always slow down at slip roads and check mirrors to see if waiting police car sitting there as it is a favourite for them. Biker was obviously such a good rider and so careful that he didn't need to do that!
Most of the time, I am a firm believer that if you get caught speeding by a hi-vis battenburged police patrol car then you really deserve it! Of course, that is until I get caught by one then I will change my mind!
|
Yup BobbyG, my same old argument. He wasnt safe at that speed because he didnt see the copper that nabbed him.
|
Yup BobbyG, my same old argument. He wasnt safe at that speed because he didnt see the copper that nabbed him.
But give him his due, the biker did spot the other plod in the inside lane doing 50 mph, and slowed accordingly. Had he not bothered slowing, then I don't think the first plod would have had a chance in hell of catching him.
|
I would imagine it's so they can make a quick leap out of the car when the chasee (sp)? makes a run for it and ditches their car.
For what it's worth, my Dad was in a Police car chasing someone, it was obvious they were going to dump the car imminently, he takes his belt off, but something happened and he went through the windscreen.
Him telling us to put our belts on just doesn't have the same weighting it did before.
|
To be fair, I would have decamped from the bike and done a runner. The copper was a bit of a porker, he wouldnt have caught me!
|
|
What speed did the pursuit car have to reach to catch him enough for pacing? He was doing 130 and the car started from a standstill uphill. The fully liveried Police cars aren't so fully liveried from the front, it's the side and rear that get all the stickers (voice of experience I'm afraid).
|
Why should speed have a bearing on how visible it is? Regardless of how quick a car's going, if it's almost on top of you, you don't pull out in front of it.
|
Here's a question that will maybe open up a debate......
In that particular incident, which copper was the most effective in dealing with the issue of motorway speeding?
Copper 1 - sitting in his Discovery (I think) in lane 1 and every car and motorbike slowing down to pass it.
OR
Copper 2 - sitting hidden on a slip road, probably munching away, and then chasing after a speeding motorbike reaching speeds of over 130 mph in the process?
Would it not be far more effective (albeit frustrating for drivers) if both these police cars (and as many others as possible) were actually on the roads and maintained a speed of 70-75mph? Would this not have curtailed speeding drivers more?
|
Both policing techniques are good. The chase was warranted given the excessive speed of the biker. You cannot seem him doing 70 a second longer than he has to once passed the lane one police vehicle...
130mph is pretty arrogant in a 70 and cannot be ignored.
All it would take is a last minute decision by a car to pull out into his path and he would have nowhere to go (however new his brakes were - in fact maybe they were not bedded in yet).
He slowed to 70, so he knew what speed he should be doing. Fine etc. thoroughly deserved :-)
|
Brings to mind the old public information film about looking out for bikes when you turn or pull out (and I guess to overtake). "Now you see him, now you see him"
Well, if some berk is racing up at 130 on a motorway, there's not a lot of chance that he'll be seen by anyone pulling out. Mirror, signal, manoeuvre - could be clear at the mirror point but he may well be in the wrong place at the manoeuvre.
Can't say I'd have much sympathy with someone accidentially pulled out on who was doing 130. The police did him a favour stopping him and hopefully making him think twice.
--Lee .. SERENITY NOW
|
|
The Volvo chased and caught the biker. This implies that either the rider saw the Volvo and slowed down(too late?) or the Volvo reached a higher speed than the bike, to catch it.
Thinking about it, if something had gone "amiss", which vehicle would have caused more mayhem, damage to innocent road users? A bike weighing about 4/5 cwt, carrying 2/3 gallons of fuel and relatively small or a loaded Volvo estate, weighing about 2 tons, carrying 10/15 gallons of fuel and large enough to be a real "presence" on the road?
I am not condoning the biker, he broke the law and the police officer's job is law enforcement.
Did he have his seat belt on?
|
The Volvo chased and caught the biker. This implies that either the rider saw the Volvo and slowed down(too late?) or the Volvo reached a higher speed than the bike, to catch it. Thinking about it, if something had gone "amiss", which vehicle would have caused more mayhem, damage to innocent road users? A bike weighing about 4/5 cwt, carrying 2/3 gallons of fuel and relatively small or a loaded Volvo estate, weighing about 2 tons, carrying 10/15 gallons of fuel and large enough to be a real "presence" on the road? I am not condoning the biker, he broke the law and the police officer's job is law enforcement. Did he have his seat belt on?
The bike slowed because he came up to another police car.
He also had a child as a pillion passenger - who could be described as an 'innocent road user'.
The motorway was pretty busy and IMO to ride at that speed warranted something more than a smallish fine and points.
|
The one thing I would raise about the motorcyclist is his brakes may be top notch, but forces on the body if he did perform a emergancey brake would send him straight off the bike possibly into oncoming traffic, inside a car with your belt on you would stay put but have some terrible brusing. Also what thinking distance do you have at 130mph ?
To be honest though the first chase (the dizzy) they knew where he lived and before the chase he was driving correctly, all the copper had to do was follow him without blues and twos, it was in my eyes an easy catch, they knew his MO, once evidance of him driving was taken they could pick him up from home.
|
|
|
|
In reply to RF:-
i spotted that.......i was thinking how come some of the traffic police are porkers.........one of them shown on that program would have had serious problems if the guy he arrested had made a run for it. Very very funny!
|
|
|
|
|
