Qld Coroner calls to end chases of drunk drivers

[EDManual]

This guy has a brain! Bit different from nearly everyone else in any public office.....

I like this comment
""Perhaps the only thing more dangerous than a drunk driver on the road is a drunk driver being chased by the police," Mr Barnes said in his report.

And this :
"It is a sad irony that deaths and injuries can occur when well-intentioned constables become so fixated with pursing petty criminals they forgo their first duty to preserve community safety."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1034162

So True! Its like this : A particular drunk doing 60 wont stop(and most likely wouldnt crash (lets face it, what, at a guess 1 in 100,000 drives where theres a drunk actually end in a crash?), so does 200 to get away in a silly attempt at a risk rating of what 90% of crashing, kills himself and others.

[james22]

Surely not, there must be a typo there somewhere. Something in the water maybe.... No I figured it out... He's NOT a politican.

[RG]

Sigh.

[Carby]

More like brain dead!

What do you think the general community would do if they knew that the cops won't chase them anymore if they speed away (drunk) from say a RBT unit or indeed any cop car ? Thats right, you could double, triple the amount of drunks driving on the road - now explain to me how this is better for the community. Most times a drunk is follwed by a cop car because they have been speeding, run a light or crossed to the wrong side of the road ie they have caught the attention of the cop car - are these not in themselves signs that the person should be taken off the road as they are a potential killer?

[Rodp]

How do you know a driver is drunk before you slap the bag on them? How do you know the registered owner is the one driving the vehicle?

Disengage any pursuit if the fleeing driver is weaving all over the road?

[GS608]

Gee that is pathetic. There will be a lot more drink drivers, a lot more running from coppers, driving at excessive speeds/a little bit dangerously just so you can get home free.

Him asking politely for them to change policy won't do anything, the people with half a brain will not change pursuit policy.

How can you tell if someone is a drink driver without first breath testing them? Someones results come back positive, quick boot it get out of there, coppers can't do anything, yet these people know the police know they're drunk and will drive like a dick to get home as quickly as possible

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Rodp

How do you know a driver is drunk before you slap the bag on them? How do you know the registered owner is the one driving the vehicle?

Disengage any pursuit if the fleeing driver is weaving all over the road?

In the case of an intercept.

You have the rego, get him later OR radio ahead.

In the case of RBT, second group down the road.

It always amazes me how worked up the wowsers get over someone getting away with driving at 0.06 or doing 115 in a 100 zone (or spinning the rear wheels slightly at a grand prix).

Strangely it always seems to be the same people who are totally convinced that a wife beater or thief or shop lifter or whatever should just be "counciled" as they must have had a bad childhood or some other reason that it is everyone else's fault but theirs.

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by flappist

In the case of an intercept.

You have the rego, get him later OR radio ahead.

In the case of RBT, second group down the road.

It always amazes me how worked up the wowsers get over someone getting away with driving at 0.06 or doing 115 in a 100 zone (or spinning the rear wheels slightly at a grand prix).

Didn't really answer my concerns.. those being, how do you know the driver is drunk or how drunk before you've pulled them over and how do you know the registered driver is the one driving the vehicle? Guaranteed that there would be a phone call to report a stolen car later that night if the pursuit of the driver is called off because the driver appears to be drunk(?) or someone who doesn't want to be pulled over for nefarious reasons starts swerving in their lane to indicate that they may be drunk, thus let go.

[jpd80]

It's tricky because one rule doesn't fit all situations. I think the coroner is pointing to
several cases where young drivers have failed to stop at RBTs but how that translates
into general surveillance of drivers by police isn't clear.

Surely if there was an easier solution, the police would be all over this and remember,
the police are sworn to uphold the law so they are held to account if they fail to stop
people who are committing illegal acts. I don't know how the "we'll get him later" theory
holds up when the the identity of the driver isn't confirmed.....

I'm actually in the camp of minimum two years gaol if you run from the police,
let that word get out and see how many heros persist if they know the chances
of being caught or getting killed are good.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Rodp

Didn't really answer my concerns.. those being, how do you know the driver is drunk or how drunk before you've pulled them over and how do you know the registered driver is the one driving the vehicle? Guaranteed that there would be a phone call to report a stolen car later that night if the pursuit of the driver is called off because the driver appears to be drunk(?) or someone who doesn't want to be pulled over for nefarious reasons starts swerving in their lane to indicate that they may be drunk, thus let go.

You don't.

The problem is the FIXATION that 0.055 or 5km/h over the limit is a crime somewhere between rape and murder.

How do I know that the clothes you are wearing right now are not stolen?
Do you have a reciept on you?

Stealing is a serious crime so maybe there should be random clothes searches and if you run when a big hairy guy orders you to take of your clothes so he can check you out you will be SHOT.

I am very concerned about the younger generation here. A large percentage of members of this board over the age of about 40, myself included, drove with a BAC above 0.05 several times EVERY week and often over 0.1, 0.15 or even higher.
In the days when long trips were measured in stubbies not hours I and just about everyone I knew would ALWAYS drink stubbies of heavy beer while travelling often on trips many hours long.

This was of course twenty plus years ago before the wowser generation got control of the media and government and worked out how to tax by traffic legislation.

We are all still alive and generally enjoyed life. We did not crash every 10 minutes into a schoolbus full of babies and cute fluffy animals on their way to a climate change benefit concert held by a government funded minority group killing everyone (which is what happens now if you have one light beer shandy EVERY SINGLE TIME I saw it on TV).

Maybe we were all just lucky or maybe just MAYBE we are getting lied too so often that we do not know how to tell the difference anymore and any propaganda pushed by the "cotton wool exponents" is immediatly accepted as axiom.

Like the 100 km/h head on is equal to a 200km/h wall crash idea.

It seems to be logical and makes a lot of sense until you actually look at the problem analytically and realise that it is COMPLETELY WRONG. (although there will always be those who just cannot understand it and will argue until hell freezes over)

[Redrum]

The driver's actions before any police pursuit may create high risk and danger to road users and make the stopping of the driver/vehicle imperative to the safety and well being of road users.

I think some sitting in their ivory towers with the gift of hindsight can make these easy criticisms.

[fox76]

Originally Posted by EDManual

This guy has a brain! Bit different from nearly everyone else in any public office.....

I like this comment
""Perhaps the only thing more dangerous than a drunk driver on the road is a drunk driver being chased by the police," Mr Barnes said in his report.

And this :
"It is a sad irony that deaths and injuries can occur when well-intentioned constables become so fixated with pursing petty criminals they forgo their first duty to preserve community safety."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=1034162

So True! Its like this : A particular drunk doing 60 wont stop(and most likely wouldnt crash (lets face it, what, at a guess 1 in 100,000 drives where theres a drunk actually end in a crash?), so does 200 to get away in a silly attempt at a risk rating of what 90% of crashing, kills himself and others.

This is all good and well until the drunk driver that the police let go takes out some other person/s further into their journey. (The police have an oath to protect life and it cuts both ways). What will the arm chair generals say then? Seriously I ask you what would you say if someone you know was killed or seriously injured in that scenario? The truth is there is no silver bullet for police pursuits and it seems to me that at the moment they are a necessary evil if you want to live in a society with law and order. How can the safety of the community be best served by letting stolen cars or drunk drivers roam free if they refuse to stop?

Until someone invents a ray gun with EMP or something that the cops can point at the fleeing car and disable it pursuits will continue. As tragic as any death related to pursuits is if you put it into perspective in the last 10 years nationally (again figures from Herald re FOI article) is 64. On average between 1994 and 2004 18000 people per year (on average) died in hospital in Australia due to malpractice, in 2008 162 people died at work due to accidents (NSW), in 2008 9129 people died from the flu, NSW had 1800 (or there abouts going from memory from the paper article) pursuits last year and of that very few deaths (I can't get an actual, figure on that) I could go on and on. My point is lets put it into perspective all the aforementioned stats are preventable deaths just as I assume most people would view pursuits.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

Like the 100 km/h head on is equal to a 200km/h wall crash idea.

It does, anyone who plays football will tell you it's a lot easier running into a defender standing still.
When they are running full pelt at you, it flaming hurts.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by jpd80

It does, anyone who plays football will tell you it's a lot easier running into a defender standing still.
When they are running full pelt at you, it flaming hurts.

My point exactly. You are completely wrong but have worked out in you head what you think is a logical answer.

When you run into the person standing still do you knock them back or over?

Is it the same as running into the goal post?

Walls do not move........

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

My point exactly. You are completely wrong but have worked out in you head what you think is a logical answer.

Mine is backed by science but it's obvious we're going have to to agree to disagree......

[flappist]

Originally Posted by jpd80

Mine is backed by science but it's obvious we're going have to to agree to disagree......

No it isn't and you did not even check did you.....

http://www.fordforums.com.au/showthread.php?t=11282496

But thank you for demonstrating the point I was making.

[Jim Goose]

Ok how on earth is having the cars rego number any good?
What if the car is stolen?
Oh wait... a drink driver in a stolen car, THAT NEVER HAPPENS!

What about if the stolen car was taken during a carjacking?
What if it JUST occured and hasnt been called in and the owners kids are in the car???

What if the guy is spaced out on meth?

What if the earth is flat....

Wowzers! Yes that word seems used a lot here, normally a wowzer is used to describe someone who tries and stops peoples "fun" behavour yes?

Imagine being called a wowzer because you actually want the Police to do their job.


Why not get rid of police altogether..... ?
We could have open slather on car theft and drink drivers.... Gimmie ya address's and we will see how much you ******** and moan when i steal your car and no pursuit follows when i do some nice burn outs in front of the cops and weave in and out of traffic all night until i run out of petrol and dump your car in some lake.

[Fireblade]

Easy there tiger, some people are allowed to have different views. Myself, I can see both sides, I don't want anybody killed by drunks on the road but I also don't want anybody killed by drunks being chased by the police. So guess what gives me a catch 22, I'm screwed either way.

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ok how on earth is having the cars rego number any good?
What if the car is stolen?
Oh wait... a drink driver in a stolen car, THAT NEVER HAPPENS!

What about if the stolen car was taken during a carjacking?
What if it JUST occured and hasnt been called in and the owners kids are in the car???

What if the guy is spaced out on meth?

What if the earth is flat....

Wowzers! Yes that word seems used a lot here, normally a wowzer is used to describe someone who tries and stops peoples "fun" behavour yes?

Imagine being called a wowzer because you actually want the Police to do their job.


Why not get rid of police altogether..... ?
We could have open slather on car theft and drink drivers.... Gimmie ya address's and we will see how much you ******** and moan when i steal your car and no pursuit follows when i do some nice burn outs in front of the cops and weave in and out of traffic all night until i run out of petrol and dump your car in some lake.

Thank you for that well considered concise mature unemotional response.

So just getting the car's rego has no point? Really?

So how do speed cameras work again?

In actual fact it is well known that the police policy in QLD is not to pursue and has been so for quite a while.

And as F6 FOON has stated, it is never black and white but always grey.

[GS608]

Originally Posted by F6 FOON

Easy there tiger, some people are allowed to have different views. Myself, I can see both sides, I don't want anybody killed by drunks on the road but I also don't want anybody killed by drunks being chased by the police. So guess what gives me a catch 22, I'm screwed either way.

At least when they are being pursued by police the lights and sirens warn other people of the danger. Without the chase the driver would basically be invisible to them

[Wally]

Originally Posted by flappist

You don't.

I am very concerned about the younger generation here. A large percentage of members of this board over the age of about 40, myself included, drove with a BAC above 0.05 several times EVERY week .......)

True, but more accurately "seven" times a week. Of course back then beer was less dangerous than it is now. _2:

Can't expect citizens with Stockholm syndrome to understand anything, but how to move their lips in synch with what they are being told.

[MO]

@Flappist,thanks for the trip down memory lane mate. Trips measured in stubbies especially in 'The Territory' sitting on 140 + just cruising between water holes.

As to the chase problem I'm all for the cops doing it when needed and I have no problem with their actions in those situations. I've said it before maybe some ppl should walk a mile in a coppers shoes first. Far to much has been taken off the cops,no longer can they give the kids or young adults the #10 up the bum.

Cops used to be respected before their hands were tied by the do gooders its about time their hands were untied!!

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by flappist

Thank you for that well considered concise mature unemotional response.

So just getting the car's rego has no point? Really?

So how do speed cameras work again?

In actual fact it is well known that the police policy in QLD is not to pursue and has been so for quite a while.

And as F6 FOON has stated, it is never black and white but always grey.

Ok.. I'll explain it. Since it seemingly always needs to be:

If the car is stolen, knowning the rego number is pointless.
If the car isn't stolen, how does the Police prove who was driving (especially at night).

What do speed cameras have to do with this "discussion"?

Yes EXACTLY it isnt black and white... but you seem to hold the opinion that pursuits aren't necessary, so to you its all black and white.


Here is another example, car runs through a RBT with out stopping.
This doesnt make the driver a drink driver does it?
How about its a drug dealer with 80000 meth tablet in the boot?
Since now your saying that all "minor" offences shouldnt be chased.

Not stopping at an RBT is a minor offence but why would a driver refuse to stop?

Obviously he is trying to hide something: Unlicenced driver, outstanding warrants, a bag of dope, unregistered car, stolen car... etc etc.

A person with nothing to hide won't run.

But I guess im a wowzer, silly me for asking that crims get taken off the road.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ok.. I'll explain it. Since it seemingly always needs to be:

If the car is stolen, knowning the rego number is pointless.
If the car isn't stolen, how does the Police prove who was driving (especially at night).

What do speed cameras have to do with this "discussion"?

Yes EXACTLY it isnt black and white... but you seem to hold the opinion that pursuits aren't necessary, so to you its all black and white.


Here is another example, car runs through a RBT with out stopping.
This doesnt make the driver a drink driver does it?
How about its a drug dealer with 80000 meth tablet in the boot?
Since now your saying that all "minor" offences shouldnt be chased.

Not stopping at an RBT is a minor offence but why would a driver refuse to stop?

Obviously he is trying to hide something: Unlicenced driver, outstanding warrants, a bag of dope, unregistered car, stolen car... etc etc.

A person with nothing to hide won't run.

But I guess im a wowzer, silly me for asking that crims get taken off the road.

Well said, if some here had their way we would go from a potential "police state" to a lawless state, can't wait.

[04redxr8]

This is the best news I have heard all day. I am going to now remove my number plates, (get me now covert cameras :thebirds: ) and if a police car shows, i will just accelerate to 40 above the limit, and then drive home. If they find me at home and question me, I will reply, "sorry, I was too drunk, I don't remember."

A drunk driver crashed into my car and fence 10 years ago, I got his license plate before he drove off, and I had other witnesses too. His female passenger went to hospital later that night. And when he was questioned by Police that was his response (too drunk to remember). I had no legal rights to pursue this matter any further and the Police couldn't do anything about it.

The recent crash in Canberra that claimed a family, was in no way the fault of the Police. The fool driving the car would have run at the mere sight of the Police, chase or not. He would not have stopped even if the police did. He was in coma 10 months earlier from an accident in a stolen car.

The only ones to blame for that tragedy is the Judicial system that thought it was acceptable for this person to be free.

A change is definately needed. I just don't believe it needs to be at the expenses of removing even more power from Police. They already have very little as it is (except when they are setting cameras). The change needs to be aimed at the justice (I use the word very loosely) system. That families blood is on the judges (Who set this idiot loose on bail) hands IMO. He should serve the manslaughter charge.

Flappist, I'm 36, so I just missed the days of a sixpack for the drive home. (a longneck was ok though). But I remember a time when every tradies lunch box had a few tallies for the day. Now I cant even crack a cold one at a job site until I have packed all my tools and actually walked off site.

Yep, its definately a nanny state we live in alright.

[Jim Goose]

How about we ban ALL types of police chases....

I mean we should outlaw foot chases for the following reasons:

The criminal might trip over and hurt himself.
The criminal may run onto the street and be hit by a car.
The criminal may shoulder charge a little old lady walking on the footpath.
The cop may just have a heart attack from eating too many donuts.....

[flappist]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

Ok.. I'll explain it. Since it seemingly always needs to be:

If the car is stolen, knowning the rego number is pointless.
If the car isn't stolen, how does the Police prove who was driving (especially at night).

What do speed cameras have to do with this "discussion"?

Yes EXACTLY it isnt black and white... but you seem to hold the opinion that pursuits aren't necessary, so to you its all black and white.


Here is another example, car runs through a RBT with out stopping.
This doesnt make the driver a drink driver does it?
How about its a drug dealer with 80000 meth tablet in the boot?
Since now your saying that all "minor" offences shouldnt be chased.

Not stopping at an RBT is a minor offence but why would a driver refuse to stop?

Obviously he is trying to hide something: Unlicenced driver, outstanding warrants, a bag of dope, unregistered car, stolen car... etc etc.

A person with nothing to hide won't run.

But I guess im a wowzer, silly me for asking that crims get taken off the road.

Well that is a bit better.

At what time did I say that pursuits are not necessary?

Lets see the sort of things that you might not want to be pulled over doing?

Rego ran out yesterday and you could not get to the transport office because something else came up but you will pay it monday morning.
No public transport outside the cities.

Your license ran out yesterday in a similar situation.

You have had 3 beers celebrating something important and have just had a phone call from the baby sitter as your child is sick. In 2 hours you will be under but right now you may not be.

All such horrendous crimes that justify endangering the public just so the offender is caught. I am sure there are many other similar situations.

Sometimes people make silly decisions like running a RBT or whatever. As soon as they are chased there is the instinctive impulse to run. This is human nature. All of a sudden they are really in the poo. If they stop they are in a huge amount of trouble. What to do? No time to think. Being chased. What to do? Do I stop? What will happen?

BANG

Yep the innocent people killed are a bit of a shame but at least we stopped that crazy drunk driver. The post mortem showed a BAC of 0.049. OOPS

If the car is stolen it will be insured. Cars can be replaced. Lives can not.
The drug dealer only sells drugs to drug users. RBTs do not do drug searches so why would the drug courier not stop anyway?

But I love this one the most.

A person with nothing to hide won't run.

What planet are you from because here on Earth human beings have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and despite all the social engineering attempts still do EXACTLY the same thing we have done for millenia. We instinctively run when we are chased. Stop chasing and we stop running. That is what HUMAN BEINGS do.

Now the Coroner has found this to be dangerous.
The QLD police have found this to be dangerous and I suspect other state police too.

But you seem to think that the most minor of indiscretions should be pursued regardless of consequences.

I agree with the professionals who see the true results and understand the big picture.

There are times when pursuits are necessary and times when they are not.

But chasing a speeder or RBT dodger is a bit like pointing a handgun at a shop lifter.
While the intention may be good it does not always end well.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

How about we ban ALL types of police chases....

I mean we should outlaw foot chases for the following reasons:

The criminal might trip over and hurt himself.
The criminal may run onto the street and be hit by a car.
The criminal may shoulder charge a little old lady walking on the footpath.
The cop may just have a heart attack from eating too many donuts.....

Jokes aside a very good friend of mine, who was about to retire, was chasing offenders from an ED Com alarm in Geelong and sadly did have a heart attack and passed away in the line of duty.

[Jim Goose]

Rego ran out yesterday and you could not get to the transport office because something else came up but you will pay it monday morning.
No public transport outside the cities.

So? More excuses... silly enough to let a licence lapse or not pay rego, take it like man! You get caught, pull over.. big deal.

You have had 3 beers celebrating something important and have just had a phone call from the baby sitter as your child is sick. In 2 hours you will be under but right now you may not be.

More excuses..... lets get involved in a chase where you can kill someone or yourself, instead about thinking of your family and what may happen due to your stupidity... hmmmm

Yep the innocent people killed are a bit of a shame but at least we stopped that crazy drunk driver. The post mortem showed a BAC of 0.049. OOPS

Again... alcohol is not an excuse. If your too stupid to drink and drive then you have issues.... Again learn to deal with the decisions YOU make, not the Police.

If the car is stolen it will be insured. Cars can be replaced. Lives can not.

So by using this example I can also break into your house and torch it.... because your now saying that breaking the law is of little consequence.

A person with nothing to hide won't run.

What planet are you from because here on Earth human beings have evolved over hundreds of thousands of years and despite all the social engineering attempts still do EXACTLY the same thing we have done for millenia. We instinctively run when we are chased. Stop chasing and we stop running. That is what HUMAN BEINGS do

hahaha what an absolute LOAD OF CRAP..... Seriously... YOU RUN FROM THE POLICE CAUSE ITS AN INSTINCT???? Sorry but everytime I used to get pulled over in my XB which was on a weekly basis, I never got the urged to run.

Could be because I was never doing anything illegal.... and have no guilt.

But you seem to think that the most minor of indiscretions should be pursued regardless of consequences.

I outlined above as to why the need to be pursued.... seeminly yet again it didnt sink in, so i wont repeat myself.

But chasing a speeder or RBT dodger is a bit like pointing a handgun at a shop lifter.
While the intention may be good it does not always end well.

If someone was robbing my shop/ or home.. I wouldnt hesitate to defend myself, so im not sure what your point is there....

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by flappist

No it isn't and you did not even check did you.....

Not all situations are the same, you have to be careful which vehicles you cherry pick...
When the two vehicles are of equal mass then it comes down to absorption an dissipation of crash energy.
So when a car has a head on with a semitrailer, it the same as hitting a moving brick wall...

It's not as simple as you make out...but thanks for playing.