Police Pursuit of Stolen Cars

#1
Today, a woman is dead and several people injured following an incident in which a stolen car crashed into another car.

Woman dies following police chase of 'stolen' car

The dead woman (pronounced dead at the scene) and a seriously injured male were in the car that the stolen car smashed into. The other injuries are amongst the scrotes in the stolen Audi A3. No tears for them whatsoever but... the stolen car was being pursued by the police in a built up / residential area.

The crash and the tragic loss of an innocent life arguably wouldn't have happened had the police not been pursuing the car so who, so to speak is to blame? Are the police allowed to 'hot pursuit' a stolen car simply because it is stolen and regardless of locus and risk? Can the driver of a police car unilaterally initiate a pursuit regardless of locus and risk or does it need the sign off of a more senior officer?

Should stolen cars be pursued in built up areas given that the scrote driving the car is unlikely to be a skilled driver and that a crash to some degree of severity or another is a probable outcome?

Let's assume we all agree that if the scrotes hadn't stolen the car / had stopped when the police appeared etc the crash would never have happened and they deserve everything they get and consider the 'aggravating factor' of police pursuit at any cost.
 
#2
The Police should not have to face prosecution, the individual driving made a choice, a choice between stopping and sorting the whole thing out or trying to make a run for it. They chose the latter therefore all costs etc should be made by the perpetrator including, medical legal and any compesation to other innocent third parties.
 
#3
I don't think the Police in the car self authorise 'hot pursuit' and they are almost certainly advanced driver trained if they do so. I expect the dynamic risk assessment is done elsewhere by Insp+.
 
#4
The Police should not have to face prosecution, the individual driving made a choice, a choice between stopping and sorting the whole thing out or trying to make a run for it. They chose the latter therefore all costs etc should be made by the perpetrator including, medical legal and any compesation to other innocent third parties.
No argument with that - see the last paragraph in my OP. The question was more about the decision to pursue a stolen car, regardless of risk in a residential area.
 
#5
I don't think the Police in the car self authorise 'hot pursuit' and they are almost certainly advanced driver trained if they do so. I expect the dynamic risk assessment is done elsewhere by Insp+.
From my recollection 'blue light runs' have to be authorised. Maybe @wetsmonkey could provide the current DS solution?
 
#6
I don't think the Police in the car self authorise 'hot pursuit' and they are almost certainly advanced driver trained if they do so. I expect the dynamic risk assessment is done elsewhere by Insp+.
Almost certainly they will be possessed of greater driving skill than the average car thief scrote. Are bog standard patrol car drivers (as opposed to traffic cars/ARV) trained for high speed pursuits though?
 
#7
Today, a woman is dead and several people injured following an incident in which a stolen car crashed into another car.

Woman dies following police chase of 'stolen' car

The dead woman (pronounced dead at the scene) and a seriously injured male were in the car that the stolen car smashed into. The other injuries are amongst the scrotes in the stolen Audi A3. No tears for them whatsoever but... the stolen car was being pursued by the police in a built up / residential area.

The crash and the tragic loss of an innocent life arguably wouldn't have happened had the police not been pursuing the car so who, so to speak is to blame? Are the police allowed to 'hot pursuit' a stolen car simply because it is stolen and regardless of locus and risk? Can the driver of a police car unilaterally initiate a pursuit regardless of locus and risk or does it need the sign off of a more senior officer?

Should stolen cars be pursued in built up areas given that the scrote driving the car is unlikely to be a skilled driver and that a crash to some degree of severity or another is a probable outcome?

Let's assume we all agree that if the scrotes hadn't stolen the car / had stopped when the police appeared etc the crash would never have happened and they deserve everything they get and consider the 'aggravating factor' of police pursuit at any cost.
In answer to your question
Conceivably the police driver can initiate the pursuit and frequently do but the management of same is then taken over by the control room supervisor. A series of decisions are then taken by the supervisor on the basis of experience of the police driver and their level of training, time of day, road conditions, manner of driving of the pursued vehicle, occupants age of the pursued vehicle etc. Frequently they are called off. If the police driver isn’t pursuit trained they are almost always called off. Whatever the circumstances of this case the responsibility for death and collision sits squarely with the driver of the stolen vehicle whatever their lawyers and any number of apologists may try to muddy the waters with subsequently.
My sympathies lie with the families of the deceased.
 
#8
Risk assessment done by Control once vehicle and driver qualifications confirmed and Risk assessment completed
If you look at the logical conclusion of OP as a criminal you just drive in a dangerous manner in a stolen car and escape as police won’t be able to pursue. Aviation is great if available but weather, flight restrictions, high rise areas etc all degrade its capabilities. The criminal in the car may be a joy rider (death driver) or someone who has just committed a serious assault, rape, be part of an organised criminal ( drugs, human trafficking) gang or a terrorist. As an Officer in the car you don’t know who or what is in or linked to the stolen vehicle until it has been stopped.
 
#9
Should stolen cars be pursued in built up areas given that the scrote driving the car is unlikely to be a skilled driver and that a crash to some degree of severity or another is a probable outcome?
What's your opinion on this question - should drink drivers be stopped by the Police, or should we wait until they've finished their journey before nicking them, given that the drink drivers skill is impaired and that a crash to some degree or severity is a probable outcome?
 
#10
Today, a woman is dead and several people injured following an incident in which a stolen car crashed into another car.

Woman dies following police chase of 'stolen' car

The dead woman (pronounced dead at the scene) and a seriously injured male were in the car that the stolen car smashed into. The other injuries are amongst the scrotes in the stolen Audi A3. No tears for them whatsoever but... the stolen car was being pursued by the police in a built up / residential area.

The crash and the tragic loss of an innocent life arguably wouldn't have happened had the police not been pursuing the car so who, so to speak is to blame? Are the police allowed to 'hot pursuit' a stolen car simply because it is stolen and regardless of locus and risk? Can the driver of a police car unilaterally initiate a pursuit regardless of locus and risk or does it need the sign off of a more senior officer?

Should stolen cars be pursued in built up areas given that the scrote driving the car is unlikely to be a skilled driver and that a crash to some degree of severity or another is a probable outcome?

Let's assume we all agree that if the scrotes hadn't stolen the car / had stopped when the police appeared etc the crash would never have happened and they deserve everything they get and consider the 'aggravating factor' of police pursuit at any cost.
@HappyNomad,
My understanding is that Police cannot just initiate a pursuit, they have to consider their own level of training, road/weather conditions, number of other road users, location, etc. AIUI, they must also get authority from control room staff. Have a look at http://foi.west-midlands.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/4463_attachment_01.pdf
 
#11
It seems like a damned if you do & damned if you don't scenario. Say the police don't pursue a stolen vehicle & that thief still ploughs it into innocent people. The question would then be: what if the police had pursued & were able to stop the stolen vehicle by doing so?
 
#12
What's your opinion on this question - should drink drivers be stopped by the Police, or should we wait until they've finished their journey before nicking them, given that the drink drivers skill is impaired and that a crash to some degree or severity is a probable outcome?
I think the point you make is a valuable one but....on one hand the drunk driver is not fit to drive, a driver of a stolen car may be fit to drive....

Of course there are numerous exceptions, a drunk driver poodling along at 25mph weaving is perhaps unlikely to kill anyone, but at the show of flashing lights turns into a 70mph drunk driver, highly likely of killing people.

I think the only solution is a Reaper with perhaps an inert Brimstone relying on Kinetic energy to kill the scrotes dead on the spot.
 
#13
What's your opinion on this question - should drink drivers be stopped by the Police, or should we wait until they've finished their journey before nicking them, given that the drink drivers skill is impaired and that a crash to some degree or severity is a probable outcome?
A fair question. My opinion is of course that if the police suspect a driver of being over the legal limit for drink or drugs then they should stop him and go through the process.

I believe that most such stops are made without incident but whether or not a fail to stop should be chased until the inevitable crash happens I am less clear about.

On a quiet road where the only casualty is going to be the drunk driver, go for it but in a busy Saturday night city centre with people and traffic milling about alles uber say, is hot pursuit the right thing? A difficult one perhaps - the risk imposed by a drunk making his way home has to be balanced against the risk imposed by blues and twos, stop at any cost pursuit of that drunk driver.
 
#14
A fair question. My opinion is of course that if the police suspect a driver of being over the legal limit for drink or drugs then they should stop him and go through the process.

I believe that most such stops are made without incident but whether or not a fail to stop should be chased until the inevitable crash happens I am less clear about.

On a quiet road where the only casualty is going to be the drunk driver, go for it but in a busy Saturday night city centre with people and traffic milling about alles uber say, is hot pursuit the right thing? A difficult one perhaps - the risk imposed by a drunk making his way home has to be balanced against the risk imposed by blues and twos, stop at any cost pursuit of that drunk driver.
Okay so you've answered your own question. Run a Risk Assessment on the pursuit and keep running Dynamic Risk Assessments whilst in pursuit about which is the worst (most risky) option - to continue the pursuit or not.

Which is what the Police do.

Next question?
 
#15
A fair question. My opinion is of course that if the police suspect a driver of being over the legal limit for drink or drugs then they should stop him and go through the process.

I believe that most such stops are made without incident but whether or not a fail to stop should be chased until the inevitable crash happens I am less clear about.

On a quiet road where the only casualty is going to be the drunk driver, go for it but in a busy Saturday night city centre with people and traffic milling about alles uber say, is hot pursuit the right thing? A difficult one perhaps - the risk imposed by a drunk making his way home has to be balanced against the risk imposed by blues and twos, stop at any cost pursuit of that drunk driver.


Looked at what happened with scooter-borne crime, once it was decided that pursuing the criminals was too risky - especially when those criminals learned to throw away their helmets.

Apparently an increase of 30x in just five years, to an almost unbelievable 23,000 offences in London alone:

Moped crime up 30 times in five years
 
#16
You’ve only got to watch a couple of episodes of Police! Camera! Action!! - type programmes to get a rough idea of what happens- a pursuit is initiated either as a result of a planned operation, int received or on the initiative of the officer on the ground, he / she then gives a detailed running commentary including; his / her level of training; road conditions; how busy it is- how busy it is where the pursuit seems to be heading; the style of driving of the pursued person and likelihood of harm coming to them as well as the general public.
Obviously it’s on the telly so might be a skewed view or out of date but it must approximate day-to-day reality- albeit the “best” bits.

I’m sure the scrotes watch it too- word soon went around that if you were involved in moped crime and were chased, merely discarding your helmet was sufficient to get the pursuit binned. I think this madness was recently changed and now the attitude is “tough luck”- if you chuck away your skid lid and then come to harm- that’s your choice.

I must admit, I’d quite like to see the police using sterner measures to bring pursuits to an end and in 99.999% of cases short shrift needs to be given to any idea that blame lies with anyone other than the ********* being pursued.
 
#17
Okay so you've answered your own question. Run a Risk Assessment on the pursuit and keep running Dynamic Risk Assessments whilst in pursuit about which is the worst (most risky) option - to continue the pursuit or not.

Which is what the Police do.

Next question?
Forgive me but if a risk assessment was actually made in the Birmingham incident between the sighting and the crashing of the stolen car, it would appear to have been seriously flawed given that an uninvolved woman is dead and the male in the same car is seriously injured.

People going about their business in a built up / residential answer is a given, particularly as it was early evening rather than the dead of night with speeds of up to 80mph being reported. That suggest to me the risk of death or injury would have been somewhat higher than acceptable.

More detail Here

For clarity, I am not trying to vilify the police here, just questioning how the capture of a stolen vehicle driver justifies the risk of death of injury to others who just happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
 
Last edited:
#18
Then what happens if the Stolen Car crashes anyway, (News story:- Police stopped following car) Stolen Car Occupants go on to commit a further crime (News story:- Police stopped following car).

The Police do a job, let them.
 
#19
Risks like a police car pursuit probably have minimum 30 years of input and 30 years of output, its prime territory for a computer to tell you to back off.
 
#20
Forgive me but if a risk assessment was actually made in the Birmingham incident between the sighting and the crashing of the stolen car, it would appear to have been seriously flawed given that an uninvolved woman is dead and the male in the same car is seriously injured.

People going about their business in a built up / residential answer is a given, particularly as it was early evening rather than the dead of night with speeds of up to 80mph being reported which suggest to me the risk of death or injury would have been somewhat higher than acceptable.

More detail Here
You're not understanding Risk.

Simply conducting a RA will not mean there is no Risk at all, and nobody will be injured.

The point in a RA is to reduce the Risk to as low as reasonably practicable. If that means continuing the pursuit and maybe injuring 10 people instead of injuring 100 people then the decision is to continue.

Try another scenario, the old Fighter Jet thats lost an engine - do you eject and let it potentially hit a school (add in all the other variables, time of day, day of week, is it the school holidays etc), or do you sit in the seat and steer it into the farmers field with the 100% certainty the pilot will die.

It's a sliding scale between what is the likelihood of something happening versus the severity of that event happening.

Doing a Risk Assessment doesn't remove the hazard, if it did, we wouldn't run a RA.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top