if this was you or me would we get the same treatment ?
Comments
-
Tom BB wrote:electric_blue wrote:It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
:shock: Stop talking rubbish!
Stop talking "Daily Mail", more like!
0 -
ooermissus wrote:shouldbeinbed wrote:ooermissus wrote:
They'd have thrown the book at me if it had been the other way round though. :?
and him if he'd not been going to an emergency with lights on and undoubtedly tasked to do so by comms.
There is no excuse for overtaking on a corner. Even the police officer investigating described his colleague's driving as 'idiotic'.
wouldn't disagree with that but not illegal, which is were the flying book would have occurred for either of you & I bet if the public quote is 'idiotic' then he'll have had far worse in private and will have been sanctioned extremely heavily behind the scenes.
I see idiotic driving every day. every left hook has the chance of doing the same thing to us on bikes, that happens to me a few times a week.
idiocy and criminality are different things.
as to the accident 'stats'. The difference is that:
a) police cars are far more numerous than the others
b) police cars are more often out on patrol for their entire shift, responding to emergencies whilst already out and about. As opposed to the others which are much more a response service and far more likely to be parked up when not on a 999.
c) (especially in daylight hours) police cars are little white vehicles surrounded by noise and other distractions. the others are far bigger and have far more distinctive colour and liveries from the background environment their sirens and lights are invariably above the height other vehicles and therefore more easily spotted at distance than a police car.
Does your stat source provide details of the time of day or urban/rural area they occurred?0 -
ooermissus wrote:There is no excuse for overtaking on a corner.shouldbeinbed wrote:wouldn't disagree with that but not illegal
You're kidding, right? Fairly obvious case of dangerous driving.
CPS factsheet: "A person drives dangerously when the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are... overtaking dangerously."
As for the cop being 'sanctioned heavily' behind the scenes, I worked with someone whose husband worked in the same police station. He was back on the road within 48 hours - no disciplinary action taken.
The police - like most organisations - often rally together to protect their own. It's naive to pretend otherwise.0 -
ooermissus wrote:ooermissus wrote:There is no excuse for overtaking on a corner.shouldbeinbed wrote:wouldn't disagree with that but not illegal
You're kidding, right? Fairly obvious case of dangerous driving.
CPS factsheet: "A person drives dangerously when the way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are... overtaking dangerously."
As for the cop being 'sanctioned heavily' behind the scenes, I worked with someone whose husband worked in the same police station. He was back on the road within 48 hours - no disciplinary action taken.
The police - like most organisations - often rally together to protect their own. It's naive to pretend otherwise.
Overtaking on a corner is not in itself llegal. Indeed, if it's a right hand bend then your view past the vehicle youre overtaking may well be better than on a straight stretch of road and an overtake can be carried out perfectly safely.
As for the police protecting their own, the investigation into the case referred to in the OP was managed by the IPCC, which in their words means "an IPCC investigator has direction and control over the organisation and an IPCC Commissioner has oversight of it." A similar incident in Newcastle recently was wholly investigated by the IPCC - a consequence of which was that the police officer was jailed for death by dangerous.
You appear to be complaining that no disciplinary action was taken, but at the same time say you didn't want him prosecuting him as he was only doing his job. You could have raised a formal complaint, which would have given rise to a disciplinary investigation, or you could have co-operated with a prosecution. You appear to have done neither yet seem disappointed that no action was taken?Rules are for fools.0 -
Oh ffs, I simply recounted my own personal experience of having a collision with a police car.
... then defended the view that a driver who overtakes on a bend, can't see who is coming round it, and ends up having a head on crash is driving illegally - whether or not he feels the need to rush to another car accident 8 or so miles away.
... then explained that - contrary to the assumptions of those for whom the police can do no wrong - my understanding was that the driver was not dealt with harshly behind the scenes.
... and I certainly did not refuse to cooperate with a prosecution. Rather the police came round for a matey chat in which I agreed not to pursue the matter further.
If you think I feel ambivalent about it, that's because I did and do. Mostly, though, I felt lucky to be alive and with injuries that only took a fortnight or so to heal.0 -
Apologies, ooer - I was sounding like a right prick there wasn't I?
I worked for the IPCC for several years, and oddly enough then went to work for the police for a couple of years too. I am neither pro- nor anti-police, and having worked on both sides of the fence it's frustrating to see people throw around truisms and made-up facts about what they think has happened or should have done when they know little of the facts.
When the police get it wrong, there are organisations and processes to hold them to account. The ability of the police to close ranks and protect their own has been hugely eroded in the past few years; the general public also have a huge role to play if we want our police service to be transparent and accountable.Rules are for fools.0 -
ooermissus wrote:
The police - like most organisations - often rally together to protect their own. It's naive to pretend otherwise.
IPCC the I stands for INDEPENDENT, if they've/ the Police rallied to protect him why hang him out to dry and label him 'idiotic' in public. there is a lot of manpower and time spent by the police investigating their own and lots of more serious stuff goes to the IPCC. The checks and balances (hoops?) people are made to jump through to stay out of trouble are far greater than you would think. every complaint etc made goes on an officers record regardless of the outcome
Life on Mars may well have been true(ish) of its time but it's not now.
it's your unfortunate/jaundiced experience and possibly a paranoid ACAB mentality (who knows) to think that in the age of investigative journalism, hidden cameras, Wikileaks and the internet that the Police could get away with such actions and this case being public and the police criticising 'their own' clearly shows that they don't and haven't tried to.
It is also worth mentioning that it is the CPS( totally independent of police control and with the whip hand in decisions and requirements) that decide on prosecutions not the Police themselves.
edit - posting this at same time as Waddlie - +1 to your post0 -
Hey Waddlie no problem! As you know, the IPCC published a report on police RTAs in 2007 - with a section on emergency response that concluded that there wasn't really enough research on non-pursuit accidents.
Not sure whether much has been done on this issue since then. I hope it has though.
shouldbeinbed - stop trolling. (and learn to read)0 -
NapoleonD wrote:electric_blue wrote:It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
WTF?
Where's the stats to back that up?
KSI's per KM driven?
Police are 1st on the scene at most accidents, that's fo' sho'.
There was a big fuss in the media about this in 2002. as far as I know nothing has changed since - the issue continues to be ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/27/ukcrime
http://video.sky.com/home/related/4106/ ... eaths/true
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 481479.ece
There's loads more if you search on google. why the incredulity Mr Plod? Don;t you read the papers?Hello! I've been here over a month now.0 -
2002? 8 years ago? And as far as you know nothing has happened since? What research have you done in the last 8 years?
Tell us about developments in police driver training. Briefly summarise the changes in police driver licensing if you know anything at all about the subject.
Either that or go back to relying on the half truths and speculation that journalists choose to pump out daily for the education of those without the wit to do their own research.
Oops, I responded to the troll - my bad.Summer: Kuota Kebel
Winter: GT Series30 -
Apart from slagging others off Lucan, do you have any evidence to lay on the table?0
-
I take it you don't then?Summer: Kuota Kebel
Winter: GT Series30 -
Lucan wrote:I take it you don't then?
I told my story. Threw in a few stats too. You?0 -
electric_blue wrote:NapoleonD wrote:electric_blue wrote:It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
WTF?
Where's the stats to back that up?
KSI's per KM driven?
Police are 1st on the scene at most accidents, that's fo' sho'.
There was a big fuss in the media about this in 2002. as far as I know nothing has changed since - the issue continues to be ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/27/ukcrime
http://video.sky.com/home/related/4106/ ... eaths/true
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 481479.ece
There's loads more if you search on google. why the incredulity Mr Plod? Don;t you read the papers?
Your reading comprehension is woeful, even when it comes to your own posts. I'll quote it again for the hard of thinking:
It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
This is what NapD and I were disputing. Nothing you have subsequently linked to says anything at all about the comparison between police and other emergency services. You have failed to demonstrate that the police statistically kill or injure more people than other emergency services.
Also, the issue of police incidents does not "continue to be ignored." Here's a link to the IPCC's research, completed in September 2007 - more than 5 years after the Guardian article you linked to.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/rti_report_11_9_07_new.pdf
The clue phone is ringing; it's time you picked it up.Rules are for fools.0 -
You'd expect the police to kill more people than the other emergency services - they are much more likely to have to take greater risks when driving (pursuits etc.)0
-
ooermissus wrote:You'd expect the police to kill more people than the other emergency services - they are much more likely to have to take greater risks when driving (pursuits etc.)
Perhaps.
I'd suggest the total number of people KSI'd by police vehicles is likely to be greater than the other emergency services because the police are called to a wider range of emergency incidents than ambo's or fire and rescue. I don't know if any research has been carried out which looks at "KSI rates per km driven responding to an emergency" for each service; the results of such research would certainly be very interesting and would be the only legitimate way of proving the point that electric_blue seems to be trying to make.
In the meantime, let's not pretend people aren't frequently KSI'd by the other emergency services. Google ambulance killed and you'll find plenty of evidence.
It's also worth remembering that in the case referred to in the OP, the police drver was not pursuing anyone but responding to an emergency call.Rules are for fools.0 -
Waddlie wrote:It's also worth remembering that in the case referred to in the OP, the police drver was not pursuing anyone but responding to an emergency call.
Yes - but even police emergency calls are likely to be more complex than those of the other services. The driver in the OP's example probably only killed the boy because he didn't have his siren on, but he had made that judgement because he was hoping to apprehend a suspect. These are tough choices made on the fly...0 -
Lucan wrote:2002? 8 years ago? And as far as you know nothing has happened since? What research have you done in the last 8 years?
Tell us about developments in police driver training. Briefly summarise the changes in police driver licensing if you know anything at all about the subject.
Either that or go back to relying on the half truths and speculation that journalists choose to pump out daily for the education of those without the wit to do their own research.
Oops, I responded to the troll - my bad.
Calling someone who holds an opposing point of view a troll means that you are clearly not open to reasoned debate.
you haven't read all my links - only one was from 2002.
If anyone can show me the improvements since 2002 I will be happy to take that on board. Oh no - a troll willing to take things on board!!
8 years ago is only a long time to someone who is about 12.
slight aside - It's funny that rabid right wing knee jerkers like you choose to dismiss the press when it suits them and then jam Daily Mail/Express/ Torygraph articles down our throat when they take the line you agree with.Hello! I've been here over a month now.0 -
Waddlie wrote:electric_blue wrote:NapoleonD wrote:electric_blue wrote:It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
WTF?
Where's the stats to back that up?
KSI's per KM driven?
Police are 1st on the scene at most accidents, that's fo' sho'.
There was a big fuss in the media about this in 2002. as far as I know nothing has changed since - the issue continues to be ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/27/ukcrime
http://video.sky.com/home/related/4106/ ... eaths/true
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 481479.ece
There's loads more if you search on google. why the incredulity Mr Plod? Don;t you read the papers?
Your reading comprehension is woeful, even when it comes to your own posts. I'll quote it again for the hard of thinking:
It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
This is what NapD and I were disputing. Nothing you have subsequently linked to says anything at all about the comparison between police and other emergency services. You have failed to demonstrate that the police statistically kill or injure more people than other emergency services.
Also, the issue of police incidents does not "continue to be ignored." Here's a link to the IPCC's research, completed in September 2007 - more than 5 years after the Guardian article you linked to.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/rti_report_11_9_07_new.pdf
The clue phone is ringing; it's time you picked it up.
Ineresting - seems that the police have been found wanting - not following their own procedures and killing someone - wouldn't be tolerated on the railways.
this link by the way - if anyone has bothered looking at my links - is from 2009 - after that report was produced. - so what has changed since 2002?
http://video.sky.com/home/related/4106/ ... eaths/true
I'm of the old fashioned school that even one unnecesary death is too many - but apparently 30 - 50 odd a year is acceptable to you lot - colateral damage anyone? - or their own stupid fault and they clearly deserved to die.
Oh dear.Hello! I've been here over a month now.0 -
ooermissus wrote:
shouldbeinbed - stop trolling. (and learn to read)
would you care to elaborate on the trolling jibe? You're putting up anti police rhetoric backed up by nothing substantial and personal bias, I'm simply taking an alternative stance to what you say, cos' it's remarkably simplistic and limited. I dont know you and the more you typed the more knee jerk anti police you began to sound.
(and leave the petty insults out of it eh, it says more about your indequacies than anything else if 'learn to read' is the best you can do & obviously factually incorrect on an internet forum without pictures if nothing else)0 -
electric_blue wrote:Waddlie wrote:electric_blue wrote:NapoleonD wrote:electric_blue wrote:It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
WTF?
Where's the stats to back that up?
KSI's per KM driven?
Police are 1st on the scene at most accidents, that's fo' sho'.
There was a big fuss in the media about this in 2002. as far as I know nothing has changed since - the issue continues to be ignored.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2002/jun/27/ukcrime
http://video.sky.com/home/related/4106/ ... eaths/true
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 481479.ece
There's loads more if you search on google. why the incredulity Mr Plod? Don;t you read the papers?
Your reading comprehension is woeful, even when it comes to your own posts. I'll quote it again for the hard of thinking:
It alsways strikes me as odd that the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to.
strange isn't it? Wonder why that is?
This is what NapD and I were disputing. Nothing you have subsequently linked to says anything at all about the comparison between police and other emergency services. You have failed to demonstrate that the police statistically kill or injure more people than other emergency services.
Also, the issue of police incidents does not "continue to be ignored." Here's a link to the IPCC's research, completed in September 2007 - more than 5 years after the Guardian article you linked to.
http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/rti_report_11_9_07_new.pdf
The clue phone is ringing; it's time you picked it up.
Ineresting - seems that the police have been found wanting - not following their own procedures and killing someone - wouldn't be tolerated on the railways.
this link by the way - if anyone has bothered looking at my links - is from 2009 - after that report was produced. - so what has changed since 2002?
http://video.sky.com/home/related/4106/ ... eaths/true
I'm of the old fashioned school that even one unnecesary death is too many - but apparently 30 - 50 odd a year is acceptable to you lot - colateral damage anyone? - or their own stupid fault and they clearly deserved to die.
Oh dear.
Oh FFS.
It's not tolerated by the police either. Look:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/8028666.stm
The sad reality is, in the OP the poor lad that got killed was responsible for his own death. He stepped out onto a pedestrian crossing despite being shown a red man. He either didn't look, or was obstructed from seeing the police car. If he didn't have a clear view down the road, he should have waited for the green man.
Noone here has said there hasn't been an increase in police RTC deaths. I'm still waiting for you to back up your statement that "the police manage to kill so many people on emergency runs while fire and ambulance services manage not to." It's time you stopped moving the goalposts.
Of course "every unnecessary death is one too many" - do you have an A-level in tautology? And you're setting up a straw-man argument with the "deserved to die" bulls**t too.Rules are for fools.0 -
shouldbeinbed wrote:ooermissus wrote:
shouldbeinbed - stop trolling. (and learn to read)
would you care to elaborate on the trolling jibe? You're putting up anti police rhetoric backed up by nothing substantial and personal bias, I'm simply taking an alternative stance to what you say, cos' it's remarkably simplistic and limited. I dont know you and the more you typed the more knee jerk anti police you began to sound.
(and leave the petty insults out of it eh, it says more about your indequacies than anything else if 'learn to read' is the best you can do & obviously factually incorrect on an internet forum without pictures if nothing else)
But where was my anti-police rhetoric? Or in your earlier post, my victim mentality?
All I did was RECOUNT MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE of this issue - at which point you told me something different must have happened; conflated my story with the OP's link; and accused me of having a vendetta against the police.
It's as crazy as claiming that I hated modern medicine if I told you I'd once got a superbug in hospital.0 -
Warming up nicely. Where's the op? Can't just open a can of worms like this and then go dark.0
