Greens seek to end police pursuits [With poll]

Calamity said :

I can absolutely see both sides of this, however it breaks my heart to think that innocent people can so easily be taken out by high-speed vehicle screaming through a red light to escape police.

If somebody has made the choice to run from police, they are obviously dedicated to getting away and will not slow down, will not check at intersections, will not pay heed to red lights, etc – and anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time is simply done for.

I don’t think it’s worth it, personally.

But haven’t you understood the argument that those innocent lives are worth sacrificing if it results ub fining people who didn’t follow traffic rules?

Sorry, I am merely being sarcastic about the responses that you will get. I totally agree with you. Unfortunately there are quite a lot of machiavellian RAers.

It looks like the majority of RiotACT commenters are against the idea of reducing high speed police pursuits for less serious crimes, and fear this will only give an advantage to criminals, petty and hard.

The discussion paper also raises the idea of increasing the penalty for trying to evade police pursuit, up to around $5K with a 12 month licence loss. This higher penalty should make some petty hoodlums realise trying to speed away from the police is not worth a penalty higher than their original crime.

I can absolutely see both sides of this, however it breaks my heart to think that innocent people can so easily be taken out by high-speed vehicle screaming through a red light to escape police.

If somebody has made the choice to run from police, they are obviously dedicated to getting away and will not slow down, will not check at intersections, will not pay heed to red lights, etc – and anyone in the wrong place at the wrong time is simply done for.

I don’t think it’s worth it, personally.

The guy who owned the white WRX in that pic is a total nob.

Here are some videos of him demonstrating his mad driving skillz before the accident. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Aznvious?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/10/4vmTojjW-lU

http://www.youtube.com/user/Aznvious?blend=1&ob=5#p/u/8/4EmP6aUza3Y

I don’t have too much of a problem with the way things are now, but I can see a good reason why such protocols should be opened up for public discussion from time to time. Indeed, Roman Quaedvlieg should be doing that (the Police Minister actually should, but being Corbell, it is way beyond his intellectual resources to do so).

What bothers me about this discussion is the way some Rioters (such as Gillespie et al, including the usual pro-right wing lobby) turns it into an anti-Green rant. Surely it is good public policy development to put issues out for debate and discussion, and this will then guide future law-making. Where is Zed Instead on all this? Being Abbott-style Mr Negative, of course.

But the real problem, as alluded to in some posts, is the intense secrecy of ACT Policing in not putting facts and figures out into the public domain. Then the public would have the data it needs to be able to understand (or not, as the case may be) why the Police wish for the status quo.

Tool said :

Let the police do their job I say.

+1, the police regularly refine the pursuit engagement rules, and they dont need a bunch of uninformed greenies spreading their opinion

Just adding some research to the debate (USA – a lot more experience in the area)

First, the majority of police pursuits involve a stop for a traffic violation.

A traffic infraction is the most common event leading to a pursuit, followed by a suspect driving a stolen vehicle (Alpert 1997; Minnesota Department of Public Safety 2001; Nichols 2005). The most common reason for a pursuit termination is a suspect stopping voluntarily. A suspect crashing is the second most common cause of a pursuit termination, and this generally occurs before the sixth minute of a pursuit (NLECTC 1998).

Most pursuits are for minor offenses, and whether those fleeing suspects have committed a serious crime is pure speculation.7

Innocent third parties who just happened to be in the way constitute 42 percent of persons killed or injured in police pursuits.

On average, from 1994 through 1998, one law enforcement officer was killed every 11 weeks in a pursuit, and 1 percent of all U.S. law enforcement officers who died in the line of duty lost their lives in vehicle pursuits.

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/march-2010/evidence-based-decisions-on-police-pursuits

http://what-when-how.com/police-science/police-pursuits/

Engaging in a pursuit is a choice made by a person, nobody knows what this choice is at the time of the pursuit, but it is a choice.

If a person chooses to write themselves off on drugs or alcohol which results in a pursuit, it is their choice,

If a person chooses to drive a stolen motor vehicle, it is their choice;

If a person is trying to get away from Police, it is their choice;

These idealist Greens are yet again wasting oxygen and tax payers money on this rubbish. If the ACT had a culture entrenched in poor judgement from our Police relating to pursuits I would support a review, but it does not.

Those involved in pursuits are cowards plain and simple, boo hoo, life sucks get over it and move on, its about time we conformed with the majority not the minority bottom dwellers.

Let the police do their job I say.

TR said :

In 2007, the Coroner handed down her findings in relation to the Clea Rose incident, and found a police pursuit did not contribute to the death of Clea Rose. The pursuit commenced after Clea was struck by the Commodore.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-19/police-pursuit-did-not-contribute-to-clea-roses/992966

and

http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/Magistrates/s_Findings_death_of_Clea__Rose.pdf

The review that the Greens keep on banging out also has some key conclusions which the Greens failed to bring up. Head to http://www.justice.act.gov and do a research for the 2007 review paper.

I would of thought that the Greens and The Canberra Times would of research such a controversial topic a little more carefully.

You mean the summary of the review? I read the whole thing and I don’t really see how they get to that conclusion. The consensus should be that there isn’t much evidence to support either strategy because there are too few jurisdictions with a restrictive pursuit policy to be able to compare the crime stats.

vg said :

How many pursuits have y’all been personally involved in?

Thought so

I’d rather not say, as they didn’t catch me.

fgzk said :

How many dead police does it take to change procedure?

How many dead kids does it take?

Well, what’s the answer? I suspect it’s greater than ten but less than a hundred.

Postalgeek said :

Deckard said :

johnboy said :

dvaey said :

Simply attach a tracker to the vehicle

Simply eh?

With one of those suction cup guns? Like Batman…

Arh geez you guys are idiots. It’s obvious dvaey’s talking about the ones with the little spider legs. You know, the ones where you throw them on the ground and they scuttle after the car and climb into some recess and a little red light goes boop boop boop…

Yep – I’ve seen that one used and it works really well.

I was listening to the ACT Police (Roman Q) this morning on ABC (just before Gungahlin Al which will be another thread) and he stated the following:

1. Within 5 to 10 years ACT Police may be using ‘drones’ or unmanned aircraft to monitor police chases or use them to in fact monitor and track the vehicle of interest.

2. The Tasmanian Paper on the pursuit trial that the Greeens are banging on about in fact cannot be correlated to the Greens proposal in the ACT (I think we knew that anyway).

3. The Greens have said that they can’t see or meet Roman Q without the Police Minister being present – Roman denied this was the case at all.

4. The Greens didn’t consult the AFP before they started bleating about this issue – if they had, according to Roman Q, the Police could have injected some things like………………..hmmmmmmm, facts and accurate statistics.

As I said at the start, yep, go the Greens.

vg said :

How many pursuits have y’all been personally involved in?

Thought so

Ive owned two cars that where used in armed hold ups and chased. One was chased down by a helicopter (so I’m told) and the other returned covered in black powder. So personally I would guess that there are other ways of tracking thieves.

vg said :

How many pursuits have y’all been personally involved in?

Thought so

I saw one on a movie once. I figured the guy with huge muscles driving the cop car dropping cliches was you.

How many dead police does it take to change procedure?

How many dead kids does it take?

How many pursuits have y’all been personally involved in?

Thought so

Deckard said :

johnboy said :

dvaey said :

Simply attach a tracker to the vehicle

Simply eh?

With one of those suction cup guns? Like Batman…

Arh geez you guys are idiots. It’s obvious dvaey’s talking about the ones with the little spider legs. You know, the ones where you throw them on the ground and they scuttle after the car and climb into some recess and a little red light goes boop boop boop…

johnboy said :

dvaey said :

Simply attach a tracker to the vehicle

Simply eh?

First, they’d have to pursue the vehicle to get close enough to attack the tracker, which for stolen cars would either lead police to an abandoned car, or sometimes detached by the crims and used to lead police on a merry chase. Imagine where you could put them!

TR said :

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

In 2007, the Coroner handed down her findings in relation to the Clea Rose incident, and found a police pursuit did not contribute to the death of Clea Rose. The pursuit commenced after Clea was struck by the Commodore.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-19/police-pursuit-did-not-contribute-to-clea-roses/992966

and

http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/Magistrates/s_Findings_death_of_Clea__Rose.pdf

The review that the Greens keep on banging out also has some key conclusions which the Greens failed to bring up. Head to http://www.justice.act.gov and do a research for the 2007 review paper.

I would of thought that the Greens and The Canberra Times would of research such a controversial topic a little more carefully.

Tooks said :

Firstly, police pursuits will never be banned; they are a necessary evil and the rules relating to police pursuits are already strict. To ban pursuits would give crooks the green light to flee crime scenes, RBTs, speed traps etc.

“Police car chases are the deadliest part of police operations. We think they should be used cautiously and only for serious violent crimes where public safety demands the offender be immediately apprehended.” Shane Rattenbury said.

Firstly, they are used cautiously. Secondly, when an offender refuses to stop, police don’t know if he has been involved in a serious crime or not. They don’t know if he is simply unlicenced, drunk, whether he has just robbed a bank, or whether there’s a kid bound and gagged in the boot. To suggest they should only engage in a pursuit when they are 100% sure the offender has been involved in a serious violent crime, is a poor suggestion, in my opinion.

“The ACT has seen seven people die since 2004 on our roads in connection with police car chases, most of them related to stolen cars. That’s an average of one person per year which makes it a serious issue that warrants discussion.

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

A more useful and realistic strategy would be to educate the public on theft-proofing their vehicles and also look at implementing anti-theft technology to as many vehicles as possible (GPS trackers, alarms, immobilisers etc). To reduce police pursuits, let’s reduce the number of vehicle thefts. The only way to steal my car is to come into my house and take the keys. Unfortunately, that scenario is far too common in Canberra.

Tooks said :

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

In 2007, the Coroner handed down her findings in relation to the Clea Rose incident, and found a police pursuit did not contribute to the death of Clea Rose. The pursuit commenced after Clea was struck by the Commodore.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2007-12-19/police-pursuit-did-not-contribute-to-clea-roses/992966

and

http://cdn.justice.act.gov.au/resources/uploads/Magistrates/s_Findings_death_of_Clea__Rose.pdf

The review that the Greens keep on banging out also has some key conclusions which the Greens failed to bring up. Head to http://www.justice.act.gov and do a research for the 2007 review paper.

I would of thought that the Greens and The Canberra Times would of research such a controversial topic a little more carefully.

Tooks said :

Watson said :

Tooks said :

Firstly, police pursuits will never be banned; they are a necessary evil and the rules relating to police pursuits are already strict. To ban pursuits would give crooks the green light to flee crime scenes, RBTs, speed traps etc.

“Police car chases are the deadliest part of police operations. We think they should be used cautiously and only for serious violent crimes where public safety demands the offender be immediately apprehended.” Shane Rattenbury said.

Firstly, they are used cautiously. Secondly, when an offender refuses to stop, police don’t know if he has been involved in a serious crime or not. They don’t know if he is simply unlicenced, drunk, whether he has just robbed a bank, or whether there’s a kid bound and gagged in the boot. To suggest they should only engage in a pursuit when they are 100% sure the offender has been involved in a serious violent crime, is a poor suggestion, in my opinion.

“The ACT has seen seven people die since 2004 on our roads in connection with police car chases, most of them related to stolen cars. That’s an average of one person per year which makes it a serious issue that warrants discussion.

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

A more useful and realistic strategy would be to educate the public on theft-proofing their vehicles and also look at implementing anti-theft technology to as many vehicles as possible (GPS trackers, alarms, immobilisers etc). To reduce police pursuits, let’s reduce the number of vehicle thefts. The only way to steal my car is to come into my house and take the keys. Unfortunately, that scenario is far too common in Canberra.

19% of car pursuits are in relation to stolen vehicles.
Most of them (too lazy to go find the number now) are related to traffic infringements.

The review that is referred to in that paper also states that the perception by the police that if a vehicle flees the scene they must have been involved in a serious crime has been proven consistently wrong. Not one apprehended driver in the research that the report refers to was involved in a violent crime.

And it may seem totally logical to you, but again, it is merely an assumption that if police pursuits for minor offences would be dissalowed that these types of crimes would increase. And there is at least one known case that contradicts that assumption.

Not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to see the source for your stats. I would think stolen vehicles would account for a higher percentage? I’ve only had a quick look, but in NSW, 78% pursuits relate to traffic offences and SMVs (but I can’t find the breakdown of traffic/SMV).

Again, police don’t usually know why a vehicle hasn’t stopped. They may attempt to pull the car over for a minor traffic offence, but that doesn’t mean it’s the reason for the car failing to stop. For example, a crook may break a minor road rule then refuse to stop because their car is loaded with stolen gear from the burg they just committed. In this scenario, the stats would say the pursuit was initiated due to a minor traffic offence.

perception by the police that if a vehicle flees the scene they must have been involved in a serious crime has been proven consistently wrong.

I haven’t read the review, but did it actually state that? How many police did they interview to come up with that?

I seem to be one of the few commenters who actually read the discussion paper and the reports it references (is that actually a verb??). The stats may not be based on a huge sample, but at least it’s based on more than mere assumptions. Or “the vibe”.

They should do it like in America. 20 cop cars all ramming the offender, explosions, leaning out the window with dual pistols, uzis and launch ramps everywhere. That’d rule. Greens are so boring.

KeenGolfer said :

dvaey said :

One of the problems that did come out of the mully incident, was that the police keep their pursuit policies tightly under wraps, even to the point that the police actively sought to protect having to disclose their pursuit policies in open court. If we as the community dont even know what rules the police are following, how are we meant to have an informed opinion on the matter?

You’re referring to NSW police,not the AFP. The AFP pursuit policy is freely available on the ACT policing website if you care to look.

Exactly. No need for tin foil hats or conspiracy theories. It’s there for anyone to read (including crooks, if they’re that way inclined).

johnboy said :

dvaey said :

Simply attach a tracker to the vehicle

Simply eh?

With one of those suction cup guns? Like Batman…

Might as well let the vermin off scot-free to start with, and save our Magistrates having to let the vermin off scot-free…

dvaey said :

One of the problems that did come out of the mully incident, was that the police keep their pursuit policies tightly under wraps, even to the point that the police actively sought to protect having to disclose their pursuit policies in open court. If we as the community dont even know what rules the police are following, how are we meant to have an informed opinion on the matter?

You’re referring to NSW police,not the AFP. The AFP pursuit policy is freely available on the ACT policing website if you care to look.

dvaey said :

Simply attach a tracker to the vehicle

Simply eh?

Tooks said :

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

I think you hit the nail on the head, the statistics are only telling part of the story. Of those 370 chases, it would be useful to know how many resulted in what outcomes. How many of those 370 did the offender pull over, escape or crash? Those who were apprehended, what were they apprehended for, and was the end goal worth the chase?

Tooks said :

Not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to see the source for your stats. I would think stolen vehicles would account for a higher percentage? I’ve only had a quick look, but in NSW, 78% pursuits relate to traffic offences and SMVs (but I can’t find the breakdown of traffic/SMV).

For stolen motor vehicles, the GPS tracker idea would be beneficial. Simply attach a tracker to the vehicle, then when the thief dumps it 10min later, you recover the vehicle and examine it for forensic evidence to find who stole it.

More people have died in and out of the car as a result of drugs and alcohol, lets outlaw them, oh thats right, that would be a breach of a person’s human rights!! FFS these guys have some idiotic ideas, we are not a jurisdiction that has a police chase problem, spend MY tax money on something a bit more productive please………

Watson said :

Tooks said :

Firstly, police pursuits will never be banned; they are a necessary evil and the rules relating to police pursuits are already strict. To ban pursuits would give crooks the green light to flee crime scenes, RBTs, speed traps etc.

“Police car chases are the deadliest part of police operations. We think they should be used cautiously and only for serious violent crimes where public safety demands the offender be immediately apprehended.” Shane Rattenbury said.

Firstly, they are used cautiously. Secondly, when an offender refuses to stop, police don’t know if he has been involved in a serious crime or not. They don’t know if he is simply unlicenced, drunk, whether he has just robbed a bank, or whether there’s a kid bound and gagged in the boot. To suggest they should only engage in a pursuit when they are 100% sure the offender has been involved in a serious violent crime, is a poor suggestion, in my opinion.

“The ACT has seen seven people die since 2004 on our roads in connection with police car chases, most of them related to stolen cars. That’s an average of one person per year which makes it a serious issue that warrants discussion.

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

A more useful and realistic strategy would be to educate the public on theft-proofing their vehicles and also look at implementing anti-theft technology to as many vehicles as possible (GPS trackers, alarms, immobilisers etc). To reduce police pursuits, let’s reduce the number of vehicle thefts. The only way to steal my car is to come into my house and take the keys. Unfortunately, that scenario is far too common in Canberra.

19% of car pursuits are in relation to stolen vehicles.
Most of them (too lazy to go find the number now) are related to traffic infringements.

The review that is referred to in that paper also states that the perception by the police that if a vehicle flees the scene they must have been involved in a serious crime has been proven consistently wrong. Not one apprehended driver in the research that the report refers to was involved in a violent crime.

And it may seem totally logical to you, but again, it is merely an assumption that if police pursuits for minor offences would be dissalowed that these types of crimes would increase. And there is at least one known case that contradicts that assumption.

Not saying you’re wrong, but I’d like to see the source for your stats. I would think stolen vehicles would account for a higher percentage? I’ve only had a quick look, but in NSW, 78% pursuits relate to traffic offences and SMVs (but I can’t find the breakdown of traffic/SMV).

Again, police don’t usually know why a vehicle hasn’t stopped. They may attempt to pull the car over for a minor traffic offence, but that doesn’t mean it’s the reason for the car failing to stop. For example, a crook may break a minor road rule then refuse to stop because their car is loaded with stolen gear from the burg they just committed. In this scenario, the stats would say the pursuit was initiated due to a minor traffic offence.

perception by the police that if a vehicle flees the scene they must have been involved in a serious crime has been proven consistently wrong.

I haven’t read the review, but did it actually state that? How many police did they interview to come up with that?

Tooks said :

Firstly, police pursuits will never be banned; they are a necessary evil and the rules relating to police pursuits are already strict. To ban pursuits would give crooks the green light to flee crime scenes, RBTs, speed traps etc.

“Police car chases are the deadliest part of police operations. We think they should be used cautiously and only for serious violent crimes where public safety demands the offender be immediately apprehended.” Shane Rattenbury said.

Firstly, they are used cautiously. Secondly, when an offender refuses to stop, police don’t know if he has been involved in a serious crime or not. They don’t know if he is simply unlicenced, drunk, whether he has just robbed a bank, or whether there’s a kid bound and gagged in the boot. To suggest they should only engage in a pursuit when they are 100% sure the offender has been involved in a serious violent crime, is a poor suggestion, in my opinion.

“The ACT has seen seven people die since 2004 on our roads in connection with police car chases, most of them related to stolen cars. That’s an average of one person per year which makes it a serious issue that warrants discussion.

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

A more useful and realistic strategy would be to educate the public on theft-proofing their vehicles and also look at implementing anti-theft technology to as many vehicles as possible (GPS trackers, alarms, immobilisers etc). To reduce police pursuits, let’s reduce the number of vehicle thefts. The only way to steal my car is to come into my house and take the keys. Unfortunately, that scenario is far too common in Canberra.

19% of car pursuits are in relation to stolen vehicles.
Most of them (too lazy to go find the number now) are related to traffic infringements.

The review that is referred to in that paper also states that the perception by the police that if a vehicle flees the scene they must have been involved in a serious crime has been proven consistently wrong. Not one apprehended driver in the research that the report refers to was involved in a violent crime.

And it may seem totally logical to you, but again, it is merely an assumption that if police pursuits for minor offences would be dissalowed that these types of crimes would increase. And there is at least one known case that contradicts that assumption.

TAD said :

I think the Greens are thinking too small scale.

I think we could save a lot of money by scrapping the police altogether and outsourcing the recording of crime to a call centre. Bam!!! Overnight a 100% decrease in police pursuits and police shootings and the courts will run efficiently without all those criminals clogging up the criminal justice system.

I don’t know about the others but we know Rattenbury doesn’t believe in the rule of law when it comes to criminal damage

fernandof said :

The way I see it, even if do lose more lives by chasing criminals, it’s still worth it because in the long run you’re, hopefully, creating a community with less crime and so overall a better place to live for the majority of the typical residents.

The major problem with such an attitude is that you are basing your whole theory on an assumption: that car chases help reduce crime and not chasing will increase crime. This is pure speculation – unless you can come up with some proof. Again, bit insulting to the victims and co to allow a practice that might kill innocent people for the sake of a merely assumed benefit to the community.

Firstly, police pursuits will never be banned; they are a necessary evil and the rules relating to police pursuits are already strict. To ban pursuits would give crooks the green light to flee crime scenes, RBTs, speed traps etc.

“Police car chases are the deadliest part of police operations. We think they should be used cautiously and only for serious violent crimes where public safety demands the offender be immediately apprehended.” Shane Rattenbury said.

Firstly, they are used cautiously. Secondly, when an offender refuses to stop, police don’t know if he has been involved in a serious crime or not. They don’t know if he is simply unlicenced, drunk, whether he has just robbed a bank, or whether there’s a kid bound and gagged in the boot. To suggest they should only engage in a pursuit when they are 100% sure the offender has been involved in a serious violent crime, is a poor suggestion, in my opinion.

“The ACT has seen seven people die since 2004 on our roads in connection with police car chases, most of them related to stolen cars. That’s an average of one person per year which makes it a serious issue that warrants discussion.

Since the beginning of 2004 there have been approximately 370 police pursuits conducted by ACT police (about one a week – and yes, I’m happy to be corrected). From memory, 2 of these have resulted in fatal crashes (Clea Rose and the Woden crash), which is less than 1%. Yes, any death is one too many, but I think the stats quoted above are misleading, because they only tell part of the story.

A more useful and realistic strategy would be to educate the public on theft-proofing their vehicles and also look at implementing anti-theft technology to as many vehicles as possible (GPS trackers, alarms, immobilisers etc). To reduce police pursuits, let’s reduce the number of vehicle thefts. The only way to steal my car is to come into my house and take the keys. Unfortunately, that scenario is far too common in Canberra.

zippyzippy said :

Take a look at the paper. Plenty of evidence in there that police chases are both ineffective and very dangerous tom the community. Why would you want dangerous high speed chases screaming though our neighborhoods? People die.

Really? Where’s this evidence?

Thoroughly Smashed said :

A few of you seem to be struggling with the concept of democracy.

I beg your pardon? What’s that got to do with anything?

Watson said :

fernandof said :

Watson said :

And most here – as usual – seem to feel obliged to completely trample on the mere suggestion that a debate about this might be useful, only because it was the Greens who brought it up. Pretty childish…

Sorry, but no, you are quite mistaken here. Let’s just stick to the facts, shall we?

A fact is that this thread is full of posts that criticise the Greens whilst lacking any arguments related to the topic.

Or maybe the fact is that the Greens are introducing awful policies… ?

Watson said :

Probability and impact, that’s the terms I was looking for!/quote]
Glad I could help. 🙂

Watson said :

But you haven’t answered the question: do we save more lives than we lose by continuing to allow high speed car chases?

I kinda did, implicitly. Look, the brutal honesty is that I do not know those numbers, and I doubt anyone can collect them. What I tried to explain is that those numbers are irrelevant. The way I see it, even if do lose more lives by chasing criminals, it’s still worth it because in the long run you’re, hopefully, creating a community with less crime and so overall a better place to live for the majority of the typical residents.

Let’s review some examples of other insulting policies and let’s see how the relate to this topic. Starting with the obvious “we do not negotiate with terrorist”: for the poor souls who got trapped & killed, that’s an awful policy, but maybe by having this policy we might reduce the risk for other people. Same concept apply with cops chasing criminals.

Next, “the level of your health care is decided by your monetary means”, I can assure you that many unfortunate people dying, quite literally, because they can’t afford Australia’s higher quality & hence private and more expensive health services are outrageous about this policy. In Australia, we have an implied principle that financial growth and stability is, to some extend, more important than human lives (or otherwise we would have socialise all health services no matter the cost). Same principle applies here: I think, to a certain degree with extremely low probability, that having a community with less criminals is more important than ensuring all life is saved at all costs.

You get the idea, right? I assume there’s no reason for me to explain the 3rd example.

So the point is that even if we do introduce some risk to the well being of people by chasing criminals, I think it’s a risk worth taking because not chasing them would create an even worse place to live in.

zippyzippy said :

Watson said :

And most here – as usual – seem to feel obliged to completely trample on the mere suggestion that a debate about this might be useful, only because it was the Greens who brought it up. Pretty childish…

I’d like to hear people’s response to some of the evidence presented in the greens’ paper. It says that other jurisdictions have implemented a policy that reduced police chases and there was a corresponding decrease in deaths and injuries, but no increase in crime. Why wouldn’t we want to at least trial that here? Police in those other jurisdictions have been supportive too.

The death and injury of innocents is worth a lot – at least worth giving some consideration to the proposal without just descending into hyperbole about how crazy the greens are.

I noticed the discussion paper also said it wanted to start a sensible public discussion about this topic. I reckon the greens might be feeling a bit glum if they read this forum.

I just read the paper and what a waste of time that was.
Their evidence seems to be based on the fact that Tasmania had less stolen cars after they installed a more restrictive chase policy, with less crashes.
They don’t provide any evidence as to why there were less stolen cars other than to mention better car immobiliser technology is part of the reason.
They imply that because there were less stolen cars, that the policy worked.

They also say that the people usually being chased are young males (often drunk, drugged, unlicensed) who are more dangerous in every day driving anyway.

I think the idea to use the GPS tracking launcher is a good one, as well as car immobilisers.
How much they cost though is not mentioned.
The idea to increase the penalty for failing to stop is also a good one.

The police chase procedure is already fairly restrictive and I think they shouldn’t make it more restrictive unless they make other changes (such as the GPS launcher).
Removing the ability of the police to chase suspects simply gives people an easy way to avoid being caught.

A few of you seem to be struggling with the concept of democracy.

Watson said :

fernandof said :

Watson said :

Decisions should not all be based merely on risk assessment. Sometimes the gravity of the consequences should be taken into consideration – even if the risk seems small. Your suggestion that a small amount of collateral human damage should be allowed for the good of the cause is so incredibly insulting to the family and friends of the 6 innocent bystanders who died in crashes over the past years.

I agree to what you’re saying in principle. But in this instance, I’m inclined to agree with troll-sniffer. You see, risk assessment is not only about probability, it’s also about impact. In this case, the probability of any single person being affected by a cop chase is extremely low, but the impact is quite severe: i.e., maiming or even death. However, I agree with troll-sniffer because if we opt to not pursue criminals then the result situation, in my opinion, is even worse.

Now as for the part that the suggestion is insulting to those unfortunate few, yes, it is offending and highly insensitive, but that’s the reality of things. When you create policies dealing with communities you’ll always end up having a few individuals who will suffer. I’m not happy with this situation, but because I don’t think there’s a solution that will create a positive outcome to all, you have to balance your options for the most beneficial (let’s not use the term greater good as it has some negative connotations).

So yes, you’re right, people that have lost dear ones will find troll-sniffer’s comment bloody insulting, but unfortunately that’s the price for living in a community consisting of a diverse groups of people.

Other examples of extremely insulting policies are “we do not negotiate with terrorist”, “the level of your health care is decided by your monetary means”, and even “your job opportunities in life are mainly dictated by the region in which you live”. The point I’m trying to make here is that there will always be a conflict of interest between the individual and the community, and we have to balance those conflicts if we want to have good lives.

Probability and impact, that’s the terms I was looking for!

But you haven’t answered the question: do we save more lives than we lose by continuing to allow high speed car chases?

It’s probably impossible to tell.

fernandof said :

Watson said :

And most here – as usual – seem to feel obliged to completely trample on the mere suggestion that a debate about this might be useful, only because it was the Greens who brought it up. Pretty childish…

Sorry, but no, you are quite mistaken here. Let’s just stick to the facts, shall we?

A fact is that this thread is full of posts that criticise the Greens whilst lacking any arguments related to the topic.

fernandof said :

Watson said :

Decisions should not all be based merely on risk assessment. Sometimes the gravity of the consequences should be taken into consideration – even if the risk seems small. Your suggestion that a small amount of collateral human damage should be allowed for the good of the cause is so incredibly insulting to the family and friends of the 6 innocent bystanders who died in crashes over the past years.

I agree to what you’re saying in principle. But in this instance, I’m inclined to agree with troll-sniffer. You see, risk assessment is not only about probability, it’s also about impact. In this case, the probability of any single person being affected by a cop chase is extremely low, but the impact is quite severe: i.e., maiming or even death. However, I agree with troll-sniffer because if we opt to not pursue criminals then the result situation, in my opinion, is even worse.

Now as for the part that the suggestion is insulting to those unfortunate few, yes, it is offending and highly insensitive, but that’s the reality of things. When you create policies dealing with communities you’ll always end up having a few individuals who will suffer. I’m not happy with this situation, but because I don’t think there’s a solution that will create a positive outcome to all, you have to balance your options for the most beneficial (let’s not use the term greater good as it has some negative connotations).

So yes, you’re right, people that have lost dear ones will find troll-sniffer’s comment bloody insulting, but unfortunately that’s the price for living in a community consisting of a diverse groups of people.

Other examples of extremely insulting policies are “we do not negotiate with terrorist”, “the level of your health care is decided by your monetary means”, and even “your job opportunities in life are mainly dictated by the region in which you live”. The point I’m trying to make here is that there will always be a conflict of interest between the individual and the community, and we have to balance those conflicts if we want to have good lives.

Probability and impact, that’s the terms I was looking for!

But you haven’t answered the question: do we save more lives than we lose by continuing to allow high speed car chases?

Swaggie said :

Greens – slowly withering on the vine and well past any ‘best by’ date. How about demanding that people stop when requested instead of hurtling off at speed. Ah but that would be too difficult for the Greens so lets just cripple the police response instead.

That about sums it up.

Greens – slowly withering on the vine and well past any ‘best by’ date. How about demanding that people stop when requested instead of hurtling off at speed. Ah but that would be too difficult for the Greens so lets just cripple the police response instead.

Watson said :

Decisions should not all be based merely on risk assessment. Sometimes the gravity of the consequences should be taken into consideration – even if the risk seems small. Your suggestion that a small amount of collateral human damage should be allowed for the good of the cause is so incredibly insulting to the family and friends of the 6 innocent bystanders who died in crashes over the past years.

I agree to what you’re saying in principle. But in this instance, I’m inclined to agree with troll-sniffer. You see, risk assessment is not only about probability, it’s also about impact. In this case, the probability of any single person being affected by a cop chase is extremely low, but the impact is quite severe: i.e., maiming or even death. However, I agree with troll-sniffer because if we opt to not pursue criminals then the result situation, in my opinion, is even worse.

Now as for the part that the suggestion is insulting to those unfortunate few, yes, it is offending and highly insensitive, but that’s the reality of things. When you create policies dealing with communities you’ll always end up having a few individuals who will suffer. I’m not happy with this situation, but because I don’t think there’s a solution that will create a positive outcome to all, you have to balance your options for the most beneficial (let’s not use the term greater good as it has some negative connotations).

So yes, you’re right, people that have lost dear ones will find troll-sniffer’s comment bloody insulting, but unfortunately that’s the price for living in a community consisting of a diverse groups of people.

Other examples of extremely insulting policies are “we do not negotiate with terrorist”, “the level of your health care is decided by your monetary means”, and even “your job opportunities in life are mainly dictated by the region in which you live”. The point I’m trying to make here is that there will always be a conflict of interest between the individual and the community, and we have to balance those conflicts if we want to have good lives.

Watson said :

And most here – as usual – seem to feel obliged to completely trample on the mere suggestion that a debate about this might be useful, only because it was the Greens who brought it up. Pretty childish…

Sorry, but no, you are quite mistaken here. Let’s just stick to the facts, shall we?

Watson said :

And most here – as usual – seem to feel obliged to completely trample on the mere suggestion that a debate about this might be useful, only because it was the Greens who brought it up. Pretty childish…

I’d like to hear people’s response to some of the evidence presented in the greens’ paper. It says that other jurisdictions have implemented a policy that reduced police chases and there was a corresponding decrease in deaths and injuries, but no increase in crime. Why wouldn’t we want to at least trial that here? Police in those other jurisdictions have been supportive too.

The death and injury of innocents is worth a lot – at least worth giving some consideration to the proposal without just descending into hyperbole about how crazy the greens are.

I noticed the discussion paper also said it wanted to start a sensible public discussion about this topic. I reckon the greens might be feeling a bit glum if they read this forum.

I think the Greens are thinking too small scale.

I think we could save a lot of money by scrapping the police altogether and outsourcing the recording of crime to a call centre. Bam!!! Overnight a 100% decrease in police pursuits and police shootings and the courts will run efficiently without all those criminals clogging up the criminal justice system.

troll-sniffer said :

As humans in the physical reality of this world, we all face risks, some fatal. Spread across the entire population the risks an individual faces from the pursuit policy is absolutely miniscule. Society also has a responsibility to ensure action is taken to bring miscreants to justice in the most effective manner. Weighing up the relative risks, I am all for pursuing toerags in order to ensure they are dealt with even though I and everyone else faces a 0.0000000000001% higher chance of being killeded or maimeded in a cop chase.

Decisions should not all be based merely on risk assessment. Sometimes the gravity of the consequences should be taken into consideration – even if the risk seems small. Your suggestion that a small amount of collateral human damage should be allowed for the good of the cause is so incredibly insulting to the family and friends of the 6 innocent bystanders who died in crashes over the past years.

Unless you can at least show that sacrificing these innocent people’s lives has saved even more lives, your argument is just total drivel.

And most here – as usual – seem to feel obliged to completely trample on the mere suggestion that a debate about this might be useful, only because it was the Greens who brought it up. Pretty childish…

Watson said :

Mr Gillespie said :

I am SICK AND TIRED of the Greenie brigade. What do they want? Don’t they know what the police are for? The police are there to CATCH CRIMINALS! and they want them to stop chasing criminals???

Well we all know that you think driving at high speeds in suburban areas is not a problem.

What I would like to know is how many of those police chases every end in them catching up with the offenders? My recollection from reports on such car chases is that most of the time they lose the car anyway (or stop chasing them because the risk of a collision with innocent road users is too high) and they end up catching them after they’ve pulled over somewhere.

So, you’re blaming the criminal? or the police trying to catch the criminal? for speeding through suburban streets??

troll-sniffer said :

Chestnut roasting on the open fire of diverse opinions if ever there was one.

Unfortunately for the blinkered ‘everyone benefits from a life saved’ proponents, reality isn’t so black and white. We are a species composed of an overwhelming majority of beings who are socially responsible and honest, but with a sufficient proportion of misfits who for one reason or another choose to live contrary to accepted norms. These are the people who are not accounted for in policies such as this latest proposal from the simplistic side of the Greens.

As humans in the physical reality of this world, we all face risks, some fatal. Spread across the entire population the risks an individual faces from the pursuit policy is absolutely miniscule. Society also has a responsibility to ensure action is taken to bring miscreants to justice in the most effective manner. Weighing up the relative risks, I am all for pursuing toerags in order to ensure they are dealt with even though I and everyone else faces a 0.0000000000001% higher chance of being killeded or maimeded in a cop chase.

Perhaps the Greens need to be presented with some graphs, diagrams etc so their little blinkered brains can see the bigegr picture as it applies right across society.

Perhaps the Greens should be just shown the door – “and don’t let it hit you on the arse on the way out!”

Chestnut roasting on the open fire of diverse opinions if ever there was one.

Unfortunately for the blinkered ‘everyone benefits from a life saved’ proponents, reality isn’t so black and white. We are a species composed of an overwhelming majority of beings who are socially responsible and honest, but with a sufficient proportion of misfits who for one reason or another choose to live contrary to accepted norms. These are the people who are not accounted for in policies such as this latest proposal from the simplistic side of the Greens.

As humans in the physical reality of this world, we all face risks, some fatal. Spread across the entire population the risks an individual faces from the pursuit policy is absolutely miniscule. Society also has a responsibility to ensure action is taken to bring miscreants to justice in the most effective manner. Weighing up the relative risks, I am all for pursuing toerags in order to ensure they are dealt with even though I and everyone else faces a 0.0000000000001% higher chance of being killeded or maimeded in a cop chase.

Perhaps the Greens need to be presented with some graphs, diagrams etc so their little blinkered brains can see the bigegr picture as it applies right across society.

We cannot stop all police pursuits, as it would open a can of worms. I can see it now. Don’t have time to be RBT’d? Just drive straight past! They can’t do anything anyway…

Want to drive dangerously fast everywhere? Just invest in a number plate masking device of some sort. Speed cameras wont be able to get you, and police won’t legally be able to stop you either.

Attempting to evade police via a motor vehicle is a very serious and potentially deadly offence, and needs to be considered as such by the law and by the community.

IMHO: At a minimum, anybody who is caught and legally proven in a court to have been attempting to evade police in a motor vehicle by manner of dangerous driving, should immediately receive 10 year licence ban.

Second offence in a life time, lifetime driving ban.

Third offence in a life time, life imprisonment.

Deliberately driving a 1-2 tonne machine in a dangerous manner, in a public place, is just as dangerous as randomly firing a gun in a public place.

p1 said :

The police should not have to chase, they should just call in an airstrike, and the cobra gunships with eliminate the problem with laser guided missiles.

Now there’s an idea!

Mr Gillespie said :

I am SICK AND TIRED of the Greenie brigade. What do they want? Don’t they know what the police are for? The police are there to CATCH CRIMINALS! and they want them to stop chasing criminals???

Well we all know that you think driving at high speeds in suburban areas is not a problem.

What I would like to know is how many of those police chases every end in them catching up with the offenders? My recollection from reports on such car chases is that most of the time they lose the car anyway (or stop chasing them because the risk of a collision with innocent road users is too high) and they end up catching them after they’ve pulled over somewhere.

qbngeek said :

So the figure of seven people in seven years that have died in connection to police pursuits, does that include the four that died in Mullypocalypse. I would much rather see how many fatal accidents there were in that period due to police pursuits as opposed to how many died. That would mean Mullypocalypse counts as one and we are already down to four in seven years.

We do need the numbers to make an informed opinion on this matter. How many pursuits were there, how many ended in a) driver pulling over, b) driver getting away or c) driver having an accident. Unless you can achieve a higher percentage of (a), youre fighting a losing battle. While 7 fatal high speed pursuits might sound high or low to some people, that depends on the context.. were there 10 pursuits in that time or 1000? Of those 10 or 1000, if 7 were fatal, what was the outcome of the others? Would changing the laws help change any outcomes.

One of the problems that did come out of the mully incident, was that the police keep their pursuit policies tightly under wraps, even to the point that the police actively sought to protect having to disclose their pursuit policies in open court. If we as the community dont even know what rules the police are following, how are we meant to have an informed opinion on the matter?

The Mullypocalypse clearly skews the numbers. But all this is meaningless without the stats on police chases that *don’t* end in fatalities.

Captain RAAF said :

The Frots said :

Go the Greens……………………………………..finger on the pulse as always!

They won’t be around for much longer, let em’ go out with a bang I say!

Happiness is a warm gun, brother!

The Greens’ proposal raises a few questions for me:

• Are they proposing that their policy also be adopted in NSW so there couldn’t be any cross border pursuits from say Queanbeyan and along Canberra Ave before coming to a sudden stop?
• Would offenders from NSW simply have to drive into the ACT to escape their crimes?
• Couldn’t someone driving erratically and a speed be a sign that they are fleeing from a major crime that is yet to be reported? I would’ve thought that it would be better for the police to try and stop the offender then rather than just hopefully tracking them down after the event.

The police should not have to chase, they should just call in an airstrike, and the cobra gunships with eliminate the problem with laser guided missiles.

Can we put an end to the greens….. pleeeeeeease. Anyway there won’t be any car chases according to the greens, because none of us will have cars if they have their way, we will all be riding our treddlies from tuggeranong to civic or gungers to civic to work – with a drop off at school for the kiddies first. Oh wait no, can’t have treddlies either because – treddlie chases – have ban them too.

qbngeek said :

So the figure of seven people in seven years that have died in connection to police pursuits, does that include the four that died in Mullypocalypse. I would much rather see how many fatal accidents there were in that period due to police pursuits as opposed to how many died. That would mean Mullypocalypse counts as one and we are already down to four in seven years.

Also, Shane, how many of those that died were the offender?? I am not so upset if a toolbag that runs from the cops then dies in an accident wthout taking out anyone else. I only get upset when they take out innocent people.

qbngeek said :

So the figure of seven people in seven years that have died in connection to police pursuits, does that include the four that died in Mullypocalypse. I would much rather see how many fatal accidents there were in that period due to police pursuits as opposed to how many died. That would mean Mullypocalypse counts as one and we are already down to four in seven years.

Also, Shane, how many of those that died were the offender?? I am not so upset if a toolbag that runs from the cops then dies in an accident wthout taking out anyone else. I only get upset when they take out innocent people.

Looking at the paper, it seems that 1 of the 7 was Justin williams. Other 6 were innocent bystanders.

dvaey said :

2.0 said :

Awesome, so now I just need to remove my rear plate, and when Mr Plod tries to pull me over I can just accelerate away. Winning!!

Which would be great, if Mr Plod didnt have a radio and could call on a dozen other cars in the area to possibly block your way.

I think the point is that youre probably going to accelerate away at a stupid speed anyway (obviously not the brightest of sparks if you run from police in first place). At least if the police terminate the chase, the idiot drivers will only be rushing to get away for a few seconds (instead of potentially half an hour) at excess speed.

Once the police then find the vehicle (some interesting ideas were suggested after mullypocalypse, such as some sort of adhesive GPS tracker that can be fired at the vehicle being chased), with modern technology and forensics, it should be easy enough to identify the offenders.

While I agree with you in thoery, in practice I don’t think the police have the capability on the ground in Canberra to achieve this. There just aren’t enough police cars. Even if they scrambled three cars as soon as a potential chase started, it can still take 10 minutes or more to converge on the area (even under lights at high speed), at which point the suspect is long gone.

Announcing that police chases will never happen simply alerts car thieves and other idiots that they can get away by pressing the loud pedal.

I am SICK AND TIRED of the Greenie brigade. What do they want? Don’t they know what the police are for? The police are there to CATCH CRIMINALS! and they want them to stop chasing criminals???

So the figure of seven people in seven years that have died in connection to police pursuits, does that include the four that died in Mullypocalypse. I would much rather see how many fatal accidents there were in that period due to police pursuits as opposed to how many died. That would mean Mullypocalypse counts as one and we are already down to four in seven years.

Also, Shane, how many of those that died were the offender?? I am not so upset if a toolbag that runs from the cops then dies in an accident wthout taking out anyone else. I only get upset when they take out innocent people.

Take a look at the paper. Plenty of evidence in there that police chases are both ineffective and very dangerous tom the community. Why would you want dangerous high speed chases screaming though our neighborhoods? People die.

2.0 said :

Awesome, so now I just need to remove my rear plate, and when Mr Plod tries to pull me over I can just accelerate away. Winning!!

Which would be great, if Mr Plod didnt have a radio and could call on a dozen other cars in the area to possibly block your way.

I think the point is that youre probably going to accelerate away at a stupid speed anyway (obviously not the brightest of sparks if you run from police in first place). At least if the police terminate the chase, the idiot drivers will only be rushing to get away for a few seconds (instead of potentially half an hour) at excess speed.

Once the police then find the vehicle (some interesting ideas were suggested after mullypocalypse, such as some sort of adhesive GPS tracker that can be fired at the vehicle being chased), with modern technology and forensics, it should be easy enough to identify the offenders.

The Frots said :

Go the Greens……………………………………..finger on the pulse as always!

They won’t be around for much longer, let em’ go out with a bang I say!

Awesome, so now I just need to remove my rear plate, and when Mr Plod tries to pull me over I can just accelerate away. Winning!!

Go the Greens……………………………………..finger on the pulse as always!