Prev: Road Casualties Q1 2010
Next: Nexen tyres
From: Ophelia on 6 Aug 2010 10:56 "Mike Ross" <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote in message news:8q6o5611tl7ejd8lesudp8gdhqbu8l6u57(a)4ax.com... > I'm having a lot of trouble swallowing that frog myself. There's more to > this > than meets the eye I think; if you have police car with lights & sirens > behind > you, you bloody well PULL OVER. They may want you to stop, they may just > want to > get past in a hurry, but you PULL OVER. I can't swallow the 'escort' story > and I > frankly don't know what the guy was thinking. > > Having said that, the guy DID stop immediately when an officer in front of > him > indicated he should stop, and at no time was he speeding or driving in a > dangerous manner; this was in no sense a pursuit of a fugitive or a > serious > attempt to escape. > > And, they KNEW they were dealing with a very elderly chap. Now there are > some > elderly chaps who are complete bastards, can be very aggressive, sure. > Some were > serious hard cases in their younger days, no doubt. But still, he was 70, > they > knew this, and I haven't heard anything to suggest he was aggresive. > > With this in mind I'd say the actions of the arresting officers were OTT. > Was it > REALLY vital to public safety to stop the vehicle so permanently and > aggressively, right there and then? I'd especially question the 'jump on > the > bonnet and kick the windscreen' tactic; that seems to me to be just > begging to > end in an officer seriously injured or killed. I wonder if they would dare > do > that with a REAL hardcore TWOCer, who is liable to ram a police car or > knock > over an officer without compunction? Their response is liable to be 'Filth > on my > bonnet? Let's try to knock it off...'. In this case it looked more like > wanton > vandalism - criminal damage. I wouldn't be surprised to see that get > charged. I wouldn't bet money on it but they damned well ought to be! -- -- https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
From: GT on 6 Aug 2010 10:58 "Mike Ross" <mike(a)corestore.org> wrote in message news:8q6o5611tl7ejd8lesudp8gdhqbu8l6u57(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 10:31:29 +0100, "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote: > >>"Brimstone" <brimstone520-ng08(a)yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >>news:YdadnYh8R_bwkMbRnZ2dnUVZ8uidnZ2d(a)bt.com... >>>I can't remember the last time I saw such an over the top reaction. It's >>>a >>>wonderful example of how some public servants think they're the masters >>>and >>>we are to do their bidding. >>> >>> There is a video on the website. >>> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1300608/Policemen-suspended-smash-grab-raid-disabled-mans-Range-Rover.html >> >>Aww bless - even though he ran over 1 policeman, they still gave him a 17 >>mile blues-n-twos escort home. That is service for you. > > I'm having a lot of trouble swallowing that frog myself. There's more to > this > than meets the eye I think; if you have police car with lights & sirens > behind > you, you bloody well PULL OVER. They may want you to stop, they may just > want to > get past in a hurry, but you PULL OVER. I can't swallow the 'escort' story > and I > frankly don't know what the guy was thinking. > > Having said that, the guy DID stop immediately when an officer in front of > him > indicated he should stop, and at no time was he speeding or driving in a > dangerous manner; this was in no sense a pursuit of a fugitive or a > serious > attempt to escape. The video certainly looks more like an escort than a police pursuit - the police car is nowhere near the back of the range rover at any point and the commentry is calm and natural - not hurried and serious sounding as you might expect during a pursuit! > And, they KNEW they were dealing with a very elderly chap. Now there are > some > elderly chaps who are complete bastards, can be very aggressive, sure. > Some were > serious hard cases in their younger days, no doubt. But still, he was 70, > they > knew this, and I haven't heard anything to suggest he was aggresive. From the police's point of view, knocking down a policeman with your car, then driving away and not stopping for 17 miles is pretty aggressive! > With this in mind I'd say the actions of the arresting officers were OTT. > Was it > REALLY vital to public safety to stop the vehicle so permanently and > aggressively, right there and then? I'd especially question the 'jump on > the > bonnet and kick the windscreen' tactic; that seems to me to be just > begging to > end in an officer seriously injured or killed. I wonder if they would dare > do > that with a REAL hardcore TWOCer, who is liable to ram a police car or > knock > over an officer without compunction? Their response is liable to be 'Filth > on my > bonnet? Let's try to knock it off...'. In this case it looked more like > wanton > vandalism - criminal damage. I wouldn't be surprised to see that get > charged. > > Mike > -- > http://www.corestore.org > 'As I walk along these shores > I am the history within'
From: GT on 6 Aug 2010 10:59 "Ophelia" <Ophelia(a)Elsinore.me.uk> wrote in message news:8c2lv1FcgfU2(a)mid.individual.net... > > > "Chelsea Tractor Man" <mr.c.tractor(a)hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message > news:1hi2k76lym7cv$.toxrw7wki0lj$.dlg(a)40tude.net... >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:38:46 +0100, GT wrote: >> >>>>> But, in the UK, most people don't normally manually lock their doors >>>>> when driving. >>>> >>>> Land Rovers lock automatically at about 5mph. >>> >>> But don't they also unlock when you stop again (like in Rovers) >> >> only if an impact is detected. My last two BMWs were the same. The doors >> unlock if you open the drivers door from inside or press the unlock >> button. >> This is because car jackings, kinappings and theft of valuables happen >> when >> the car is stationary. >> The last two cars also only unlocked the drivers door unless you press >> twice, although in the case of the BMW you told the dealer how you wanted >> the keys set. Both doors or just one. > > We just drive plain ole Mitsubishies but always lock the doors as we set > off:) > I suppose some old folk need the auto lock <g> ....and some people with kids in the back - not everyone has the child locks turned on.
From: Ophelia on 6 Aug 2010 11:01 "Francis Burton" <fburton(a)nyx.net> wrote in message news:1281106655.124359(a)irys.nyx.net... > In article <8c1n8mFktbU1(a)mid.individual.net>, smurf <smurf(a)smurf.com> > wrote: >>he didnt exceed the 40mph speed limit on a road obviously designed for >>60mph. > > Point taken, but... > > I wouldn't have driven at 60mph along that road, even if the > speed limit was that high - country road, all those bends and > openings. Would you? I reckon 40mph is a sensible upper limit > for normal driving in this case. ... especially with cops giving twos and blues right behind you. -- -- https://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/
From: Mike Ross on 6 Aug 2010 11:04
On 6 Aug 2010 14:58:06 GMT, Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Mike Ross <mike(a)corestore.org> gurgled happily, sounding much like they >were saying: > >> And, they KNEW they were dealing with a very elderly chap. Now there are >> some elderly chaps who are complete bastards, can be very aggressive, >> sure. Some were serious hard cases in their younger days, no doubt. But >> still, he was 70, they knew this, and I haven't heard anything to >> suggest he was aggresive. > >Apart from the fact that 70 is a long way from "very elderly", do you >think that the acceptable standard of driving for the "very elderly" >should be somehow lowered far enough to include such massive lapses of >observation and judgement? No. And don't put words in my mouth; I never suggested such a thing. In fact I said I didn't know what the guy was thinking when he didn't stop. 70 is getting on, and my comments were about how the police dealt with him when he DID stop! Mike -- http://www.corestore.org 'As I walk along these shores I am the history within' |