The IPCA (who are facing funding issues) have once again criticised Police chase policy. The Police say, ‘there is no alternative’, the politicians know NZers think the dead and disabled from police chases are the fleeing drivers fault and while no one does anything meaningful, more members of the public die.
Let’s be honest about why it is so difficult for us as a nation to seriously review police policy.
It’s a cultural political issue.
NZers, fed on a diet of ratings driven crime porn masquerading as news, have become so manipulated they believe it’s the fleeing teens fault if they die or get terribly injured. They refuse to accept that young people’s brains haven’t developed fully, that they aren’t making rational decisions while fleeing police meaning voters are so warped into wanting petty vengeance and suffering as justice they collectively cry, ‘serves them right’ rather than demand an examination of public policy that is seeing dozens dead and hurt.
Politicians play to this by promising harsher penalties rather than investigation so the issue of actually examining police chase policy never enters the debate.
The fall back position police apologists take when confronted by the biological science that young people are hard wired to flee rather than think through the ramifications is ‘there is no alternative’.
Nonsense.
Many countries around the world have changed their chase policy because it kills too many members of the public and can we seriously accept that there is no alternative to the current practices? In a May 2013 chase in Tauranga that ended in serious injury, the Independent Police Complaints Authority chairman Sir David Carruthers said…
“Police tail-gating the offender’s car at almost twice the 50km/h speed limit on the wrong side of the road, just two to three car lengths behind, may have placed the fleeing driver under further pressure, leading him to take greater risks with his driving”.
..now I’m no Einstein, but tailgating a fleeing driver at twice the speed limit on the wrong side of the road suggests you need a new bloody police chase policy because that type of behaviour is simply asking for public deaths.
We need to urgently review this policy and the Police need to explain why there is no alternative to the dozens of deaths and injuries even if the wider public have become too warped with anger to see reason.
A prisoner kills or injures himself while trying to escape from police custody. A boy racer’s car is slowly munched up to a metal pancake after a government laughs and pulls a lever. A house where P is manufactured explodes, killing or seriously injuring those inside, including children. A driver kills himself and a passenger trying to escape from police. A person who falls asleep with a lit cigarette causes a fire which kills him/her. A prisoner is brutally assaulted in Paremoremo.
All of these have happened many times before in New Zealand and will doubtless happen again.
Do you see a pattern here?
These are all injuries and deaths that are deemed by a large proportion of New Zealanders to be “deserved”.
It is the black side of NZ Society, the “serve ’em right” side of NZ society, the side that wishes capital punishment to be brought back. The side that believes in medieval answers to modern problems.
Nurtured by the political right, this side of NZ society is represented best by hate merchants Cameron Slater and Paul Henry who use other people’s misfortune for their personal gains.
Their inspiration is the morally bankrupt National government of John Key.
What a grotesque parody of a egalitarian democracy this country has become.
I hope there is a special place in hell reserved for the above mentioned.
Several questions for you Mr Bradbury.
When a cop goes to pull a car over which subsequently fails to stop how are they to know who/age is driving it?
What if the driver has a Warrant for their arrest and is a danger to the public?
What if they have kidnapped someone and if the cops give up that victim will never be rescued?
Not every pursuit involves foolish young teenagers – even for them it is still no excuse to let them run riot as usually they have no/limited licence and are still a danger to other members of the public.
I know this for certain, no one flees the Police unless they have a reason to do so – usually it involves law breaking of some sort.
I would suggest dealing with the social issues that contribute to lawlessness is a better way to reduce the number of these unfortunate incidents.
“I know this for certain, no one flees the Police unless they have a reason to do so – usually it involves law breaking of some sort.”
That’s an awfully long bow to draw………
You may want to think again, think again. I put it to you that in some cases the “offender”, although likely speeding may well not be aware that they are being chased by the police, BECAUSE they are speeding.
Has it ever occurred to you that the tactics used by the police to stop people is a major part of the problem, by invoking a natural fear response, (imagine “jumping out of your skin”, while driving), causing at least some of these accidents/deaths. We know we shouldn’t speed because it’s dangerous and it can kill, but far more often it doesn’t because who amongst us hasn’t had a speeding ticket.
Time after time we hear how these “accidents” occur, conveniently, seconds after police decide to abandon pursuit for public safety, (eye roll, you know why). They know allot of us know that’s bullshit, that’s what so sick about it. To believe that you would have to believe all police have psychic ability. How else would you explain their ability to predict within a couple of seconds, sometimes split seconds, that an accident is about to occur with such consistent accuracy.
Should people who have made a mistake pay with their lives? Are the New Zealand Police 007 now, with a license to kill with impunity because they believe someone didn’t RESPECT THEIR AUTHORITA!!!!!!?
Is that what a fellow human’s life is worth? Are these news articles, and I use the term loosely, being spun by design to instill fear into people so they are afraid not to do as they are told by the state? Think about it, think again.
This was one Radio NZ this morning, and backs up your comments very nicely, Libery4NZ; http://www.radionz.co.nz/audio/player/201788985 (alt. link: http://podcast.radionz.co.nz/mnr/mnr-20160212-0814-expert_says_curbs_on_police_chases_will_save_nz_lives-048.mp3 )
Every person who supports police chases should have a listen, and consider the points raised by this gentleman.
This link absolutely hit the nail on the head, thank you Frank.
You’re welcome, Liberty. The confluence between your comments and that of the Australian expert was perfect.
Has it ever occurred to you that the tactics used by the police to stop people is a major part of the problem, by invoking a natural fear response, (imagine “jumping out of your skin”, while driving), causing at least some of these accidents/deaths.
I’ve been stopped by a cop who noticed me driving at 120 kph. It was not a terrifying experience, just an expensive one. If you can be induced to smash your car into a tree because a cop switched his lights and siren on behind you, best not to drive a car in the first place.
Time after time we hear how these “accidents” occur, conveniently, seconds after police decide to abandon pursuit for public safety, (eye roll, you know why).
Seconds sometimes. Minutes, half an hour or whatever other times. Waster driving stupidly hitting a heavy object at high speed isn’t an event that necessitates a search for factors that could possibly have caused it – “waster driving stupidly” covers it. What any cops were doing at the time is irrelevant, unless they actually ran Waster off the road, which no-one is suggesting.
Is that what a fellow human’s life is worth?
Well, it looks like it. But it’s a question best directed at the wasters who killed their friends or random strangers with their dangerous driving, isn’t it?
Psycho Milt the difference is what you described is the actions of Police when they have asked you to stop for a traffic offense and you did.
What I am talking about is the actions of Police when someone has failed to stop when asked, or, Police BELIEVE they have been ignored by the driver they want to pull over. It is pretty clear to a thinking person that protocol in that scenario results in “offenders” often being run off the road. Many witnesses have observed and reported hazardous driving behavior by the police under these circumstances, in their estimation as bad or worse than the driver being pursued! Like the David Bowie song goes “It’s like putting out a fire with gasoline”.
Take it from me when the police chase you it is obvious whatever speed you are doing, flashing red & blue lights (smaller in a mufti car) & sometimes a siren are not something easy to ignore. Some would say it is survival of the fittest although I would blame the poor economic opportunities for young people along with failings in their education could explain much of this driver behaviour. In an ideal world there would be a remotely operated immobilizer in cars (not that I would want one in my car) as a means to stop offenders. Maybe with the increase of electric powered internet connected vehicles a backdoor way of achieving this is planned?
…NZers think the dead and disabled from police chases are the fleeing drivers fault…
Er, yes. That’s because it is. Most people realise that when a dangerous driver kills or injures people, it’s the dangerous driver’s fault. Attempting to convince them it’s someone else’s fault is doomed to failure due to the claim being obviously false.
They refuse to accept that young people’s brains haven’t developed fully, that they aren’t making rational decisions while fleeing police…
We accept that fine, we just don’t accept that it constitutes an excuse for dangerous offending, any more than men’s brains being affected by testosterone constitutes an excuse for rape or assault.
Neurobiology doesn’t make you do anything. As you point out above, this dangerous driving phenomenon is a cultural issue, as evidenced by the fact that, when I started driving nearly 40 years ago, trying to out-drive the Police was a very rare occurrence. Human biology hasn’t changed much in the intervening period, but culture certainly has.
We need to urgently review this policy and the Police need to explain why there is no alternative to the dozens of deaths and injuries…
We should review the policy of letting people away with dangerous driving if they’re just willing to put the public at a high enough risk, certainly. The only thing that will reduce the instances of wasters killing and injuring people is certainty that they’ll be stopped one way or another. If you have a policy proposal for achieving that, I’m sure the cops would love to hear from you.
This piece, like so many on this site, is about having a crack at the government or agents of the state, not about finding solutions.this particular issue is one which police the world over have been seeking to solve,but there is no perfect answer, as the author knows.
God forbid that I would show any sympathy for the constabulary… a profession not overburdened with brains as a whole…but I can see a future where police don’t pursue, kids in car crash and the parents/caregivers say “why didn’t you stop them?!”
Or kids in car crash into innocent bystanders….
The only real solution here is for parents/caregivers to exercise some discretion and authority and curtail the youngsters’ freedom until brain maturity is evident.
There’s a self-righteously punitive drive that seems to dominate in issues such as this. Rather than a focus on protecting citizens, the perceived role of the police appears to be to catch the bad guys. The major thrust appears to be “We can’t let them get away with this!”, and of course, this has its echo (or is it genesis?) in the hard-line policies and priorities of right-wing governments such as the one we currently suffer. What if the police had an oath such as ‘First, do no harm’? Would they then be exacerbating the risk of speeding vehicles by chasing them and, thus, making them go even faster?
The, once progressive, drive towards personal responsibility has, it seems, become an unthinking, Mannichean justification for punitive and stereotyping world-views. I was appalled at the attitudes of my work colleagues when the two Australian drug-smugglers were executed. Despite their clear rehabilitation, the hard-liners insisted that the two knew the risks, and should therefore be made examples of. In keeping with this binary thinking, any hint of compassion for offenders is viewed as disrespect or even contempt for those against whom they have offended. We’re living in a bad cowboy movie.
Rather than a focus on protecting citizens, the perceived role of the police appears to be to catch the bad guys.
In this case, catching the bad guys is protecting citizens. Somebody driving at suicidal speeds in a built-up area isn’t a misunderstood yoof who needs to be given a bit of room to express themselves, they’re a dangerous offender posing a serious risk to the public. Whatever policy the cops implement, it has to have ending that risk to the public as its first priority, and whether the dangerous offender survives that process in good health or not is a very distant second – Bradbury’s preferred approach of leaving dangerous offenders to their work is the exact opposite of a sensible policy.
It rather looks, from the feedback, as if “most Nyo Zullundahs would, et tha end of thuh day” agree with you.
What constitutes a “bad guy” though , Psycho Milt? and, having tidily and clinically separated out the wrongdoers from “the public”, what lengths would you not sanction , given that you make it clear that these people, having offended dangerously, have forfeited their rights to being treated equally? Is not this the sort of thinking that has lead to the huge number of deaths at the hands of armed police in the U.S.A? You will, I suspect, accuse me of straying from the topic, but your argument that “whether the dangerous offender survives that process…or not” is secondary seems to me entirely consistent with the views of those who advocate “shoot first” policies.
You appear to assume that having police chase an offender will result in an outcome closer to your stated ideal of “ending that risk to the public”, but the evidence does not support this, and may in fact support the opposite.
I made no comment about fleeing drivers being “misunderstood yoof” (your attempt at deriding them with the deliberate mis-spelling is pretty transparent) and your charge that Bradbury would leav(e) dangerous offenders to their work” is simply calumny and has you begging the question, as defenders of your hard-line views seem bound to do. There are other options open to the police, which are being used effectively elsewhere. Your attempt at simplifying the argument into a binary one – your “sensible” defence of the status quo, versus some imaginary advocacy for a get-out-of-jail-free card- merely proves my point.
What constitutes a “bad guy” though , Psycho Milt?
A great many things, but the list includes people driving at suicidal speeds in a built-up area, because those people are putting other people’s lives at serious risk for no reason. They kill and injure people, they try to flee the scene, they try to pretend someone else was driving, and when they’re finally stood up in court they make out it was some kind of accident. They are bad people in every sense of the word.
…what lengths would you not sanction…
Dunno. I guess gunfire, rocket launchers etc are out, but the waster’s already demonstrated a willingness to kill himself, his passengers and anyone who gets in the way, so you have to give the cops a pretty broad remit when it comes to stopping him.
…your argument that “whether the dangerous offender survives that process…or not” is secondary seems to me entirely consistent with the views of those who advocate “shoot first” policies.
Well, it isn’t, and your attempt to conflate those two unrelated things is basically a smear attempt. We have an Armed Offenders Squad in this country, they’re allowed to shoot people, and the people they’re allowed to shoot are armed offenders – the relevance to this issue approximates to zero.
You appear to assume that having police chase an offender will result in an outcome closer to your stated ideal of “ending that risk to the public”, but the evidence does not support this, and may in fact support the opposite.
I assume that having Police stop an offender will end the risk that offender poses to the public. I’m agnostic on how they stop these fucks, but keeping them in sight seems like a good first step. If the evidence suggests that not stopping wasters from driving at suicidal speeds improves public safety, I’d want to see that evidence subject to pretty thorough review because what sounds too good to be true generally is.
“Fucks”, “Wasters”. My alleged “smear attempt” would appear redundant. Your attitude is clear.
My aim was to point out the similarity in ATTITUDE between your remarks and those who support brutal and final interventions against offenders. I’m not conflating the two at all, but drawing a link between them. You are constantly begging the question, using invalid premises and/ or leaping to conclusions that your premises do not support. Chasing isn’t catching. This is pretty apparent, yet you choose to gloss over this inconvenient fact. Further, you deliberately underestimate the lack of insight these drivers have. Your argument rests on the assumption that these drivers understand the risk. I would suggest that they don’t, that they think they are great at driving, or, perhaps more likely,once the red mist descends, they don’t think at all.
Yes, it’s stupid. Yes, It’s potentially lethal. Ignorance is no defense, and NO-ONE is suggesting we just “leave them to their work” Your deliberately one-dimensional argument is clearly secondary to your prejudice.
Thank you Roger some real compassion amongst the dross. I am appalled that the cops can simply say they have a good policy that they will remain with. We now live in a punitive society where it is all the fault of the young people who do stupid things. Apparently none of the cops nor many others have ever done anything stupid as a teenager.
Does anyone have the statistics of numbers involved to be specific about the “dozens of deaths and injuries”?
So young people’s brains are not developed enough to make rational decisions but we should lower the voting age? Genius.
Difference being, ICD, that the worst case scenario for an immature, undeveloped young brain is to vote ACT or National. That, in itself probably won’t kill anyone…
Well, not directly, maybe. National/ACT cuts to the health budget and people dying on waiting lists – that’s another matter. But then again, there are plenty of supposedly mature, developed brains who vote for National/ACT… and then wonder why they’re stuck on a hospital waiting list, paralysed from a dysfunctional hip.
Bar coding is the answer.
Get the research teams researching! Everyone has to have a barcode. It is on the body. It changes to match the state of the body and mind of the person it is on. It would necessarily be ever-changing.
When an incident occurs suggesting a chase may be needed, a scanner reads whether the miscreant’s brain is fully developed. If it is not, no chase starts.
There you go, problem sorted.
And so it continues
http://www.newshub.co.nz/nznews/baby-injured-after-kumeu-police-chase-2016021111#axzz3zoqgk5wz
Too bad about the seriously injured baby.
Indeed it does continue. Munter who’s “breaching his bail, is on a number of active charges and is a forbidden driver” drives anyway, attracts the attention of the cops with his dangerous driving, floors it despite having an unsecured baby in the car and crashes, injuring all three in the car. Those damn cops!
And what is the alternative?
The penalty for failing to stop for Police is only a fine.
The penalty for the owner for refusing to identify who was driving the car is only a fine.
So you could be a drunk and disqualified driver who is driving a stolen car and you will essentially be immune on the road if the police can’t pursue you.
Banning pursuits also motivates the driver to flee in the first place, which generally involves high speeds and dangerous driving
So it’s a complete catch 22.
The only alternative policy that is not yet available is remote ability to shut a car down. It is distinctly possible with most modern cars but as of yet no actual means of doing so but I don’t think it’s too hard.
The alternative to the current policy is to let those who break traffic laws cooperate and stop when police want them to or for those who won’t stop, carry on and do what they like. For me, having drivers doing what feels good to then knowing no one is going to do anything about it will endanger far more than the current policy.
If indeed it is a medical “fact” that young brains are not developed enough to make sound decisions while driving, perhaps the answer is to raise the driving age to the age that they become developed enough. What would that be – 25? Would be a shame for the majority of teens/young adults that actually obey the law and pull over when requested by police, but if they really are at the mercy of their undeveloped brains, we probably should not be letting them get behind the wheel. Just a thought.
For once I disagree totally with Martyn. I am not a fan of our sometimes over zealous police force but there is no easy answer. If the police just totally give up on chasing offenders I am certain these young idiots will see it as an open invitation to steal and speed. I have had my car stolen and written off not while being chased and the person responsible thought it was just a great joke.Perhaps some decent sentences instead of a slap on the wrist may deter them.
The answer i think is in technology. Telcos can turn off your cell phone if you dont pay the bill. Imagine if a fleeing driver could have his car turned off remotely.This is an issue for automakers,laws in respective countries and so on, nor an area that police could influence, but governments perhaps could. We have seen mandated safety and emission standards become law so it is possible. With the aging vehicle fleet in NZ, it would take a long time to come on stream, and would rely on someone not developing workable bypass.a wof item perhaps?
Comments are closed.