Let’s be honest about why it’s so ‘difficult’ to get a new Police chase policy



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.

TDB Recommends NewzEngine.com

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’.


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.



  1. 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.

    • You are barking up the wrong tree here Martyn (and Marcus), do you honestly believe that the public will be happy with your version of police apprehending hoons in stolen vehicles or boy/girl racers in their own vehicles as the police chase them (at the speed limit and well back from the fleeing car) then quickly say…’better give this up someone could get injured’, ignoring the fact it’s the driver they are chasing that is speeding and making illegal maneuvers! I know you love the crims on the left but you are backing a loser if your trying to garner sympathy for criminals that flee from the police that it’s not their fault, it’s the police fault as they made them speed (and in some cases steal the car they are speeding in)

      • Like most right-wingers you read a few words and imagined the rest. At no time did I defend the actions of any criminals.
        My point is that attitudes to police car chases won’t change because of the attitude that you should always hang the bastards from the highest tree and applaud when they get their just desserts. You appear to agree with this, obviously.
        My other point is that there are a lot of unsavoury characters in New Zealand who applaud misery and misfortune that happens to others. You appear to be one of them.
        Remember Mr I’m (Always) Right – consequences always go a lot further than the immediate offender; there are always innocents, families, families of innocents, traumatised witnesses and many more who are affected by such actions and such attitudes.
        Wipe the smug grin off your puss and open your mind.

        • Perhaps Mr Smug (I’m Always) Right should ask himself if he’s ever broken the speed limit, and if so, whose fault it was.
          Was it that nasty policeman on a revenue gathering exercise – because Mr Smug (I’m Always) Right’s driving skills are so exceptional, nothing would, OR could ever be his fault.
          I’m no Countryboy, but I admit I wouldn’t shed a tear too much if cnuts like Mr Right meet with a tragic fall – I’ve far better specimens to expend my emotional energy on.
          Btw Mr (I’m Always) RIght – I think you’re just simply gorgeous, and I only wish I had your machismo; your competitive ‘sprit’; your self-assuredness and ego; your empathy; your ability to discern the worthy from the unworthy. I’ve always been in awe and I only wish to Christ I had a mirror like the one you look at daily (probably hourly)

  2. 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.

      • 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?

  3. …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.

  4. 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.

  5. The police don’t even apparently know if they are reviewing the policy, or not. Two contradictory statements made today on Morning Report.
    That aside, are we supposed to believe that in the 21st century technological age, the police can do no better to stop fleeing drivers from causing carnage than to do a 70s Dirty Harry style car chase?
    The police must either be horrendously under resourced or else bereft of ideas if that is the best they can do.
    If the Loony Right are so concerned about public safety, why don’t they stand up and demand the police are properly equipped with the latest effective technological devices?
    Don’t usually hear a peep from them, except they tend to get a little excited when anyone mentions guns or tasers.

    • So, Mike, what are those “latest effective technological devices” you speak of?

      Some kind of electronic disabling device perhaps, built into each vehicle? Given the cops access to *that* would result in even more complaints about big brother, police state etc.

      If you could point the readers/commenters into the right direction, I’m sure most of us would like to find out more.

      • Pursuit by air, i.e helicopter with police following at a safe distance is the solution. It would cover a much larger area, faster. Seems a real no-brainer to me. Of course that would cost – allot, but a hell of allot less than a flag referendum. How much is your life worth, or the life of your spouse, child, relative, friend? Innocent by-standers are getting killed as well. Arguing about who is the most culpable won’t bring them back.

        • Maintaining a Police helicopter force throughout the country ready for immediate scramble 24/7 would cost less than the flag referendum? Are you thinking, like, in its first year of operation, or what?

    • Are you retarded Mike.”latest effective technological devices” -like what? a laser that shuts down the motor that hasnt been invented yet, a time machine to stop the chase before it starts. If you are are representative of a lefty then the left have already lost.

      • Well! I have hit a few nerves here, haven’t I?
        The latest available technological advances are not time machines, laser weapons or any of the other fantasies that you right wing loons care to fantasise about,
        They consist more of things like simulators for training, computer networks so that information can be better shared between law enforcement authorities, cameras and mobility sensors so that offenders’ cars can be tracked better. Pretty basic stuff actually.
        You were so busy dreaming up rubbish that you forgot the basics.
        I hope you never get a job supplying the police force with equipment because anything better than handcuffs and billy clubs will overtax your little brains.
        If you are representative of the political right then we should all pray to God you never get into a position of power.

        • Update. Crusher Collins thinks that deaths and injuries can be avoided by crushing the cars of fleeing drivers. Did it actually occur to The Crusher that a fleeing driver becomes a fleeing driver only while he/she is fleeing, not before. So unless the Crusher or Police have some sort of crystal ball that can tell them that some driver is going to flee from them BEFORE they do it, then crushing the car isn’t actually going to save anyone is it.
          Oh yes, you can do it afterwards but it hasn’t actually saved anybody then, has it?
          Wonder if it would have saved the infant that was killed recently after another car chase.
          Right wing loons have all the answers, pity they aren’t the right ones.

        • “[C]omputer networks so that information can be better shared between law enforcement authorities, cameras and mobility sensors so that offenders’ cars can be tracked better. Pretty basic stuff actually”.

          Sorry Mike, networking authorities? Tracking cameras and tracking sensors? That’s pretty much “big brother” isn’t it and generally decried as some kind of human rights abuse or other!?

          Oh, and how do you track a feral in a stolen car? Embed a tracker at birth?

          I can hear the howls of outrage already.

          Sorry buddy, but it is you who needs to try harder.

  6. 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.

  7. My personal opinion is simply this, and weirdly, it ties in to the greater human condition and that is that we’re for the most part, mostly human.
    Cops are odd fuckers. I give you that. Ever been to a party where E and pot’s going around, the music’s pumping and there’s that guy over there with the women who you know’s a cop? Yep, she could handcuff you to your bed and taser your balls and you’d not have to pay her. Cops are un unusual breed of human. They’re the meat and bones of our status quo and as such, they ‘ feel’ different to me. And in a stoush ? Who will always win the argument whether you’re right or wrong. Yes, the cops do. That’s why we pay them to do a job no one else would do.

    When dopy kids steal a car, cops are going to chase them. What else can the cops do? Are they going to let the kids howl off to perhaps kill innocent others, as often happens? I hate to say this but if you’re a kid and you try to out run the cops and you die in the process? Dumb shit, serves you right. Here’s some flowers, a few tears, was a nice kid, very sad etc.
    I’m sorry, but it’s a perfectly natural way to go given the circumstances. It’s as natural as dying free rock climbing, base jumping, running with bulls, having unprotected sex, running with scissors, eating a week old pie etc.
    It’s also my view that we , living in what might be argued is still a society , have become so coddled with fluff, fear, insurers telling us constantly that we’re definitely going to get our shit fucked up… so give us more money and fluro vests and traffic cones upon traffic cones that we’re losing our perspective on what life’s about. In short, we’re losing our minds and are succumbing to a mental illness. A safety insanity.
    Been to Cambodia, Bali, Vietnam? Yes ? There ya go then. I’ve seen guys 60 meters up placing reinforcing rebar while in jandles and sarongs. Sure, the odd one falls to their death but OMG ! Their society is bliss compared to our anal retentive, miserable, colourless, humourless, bleak, sterile, madly over-regulated advertising-opportunity country. We’re dying out in a fizzle, we’re heading into a bland heaven full of like-minded Harvey Norman shoppers. Our spirit’s so weak kneed from generations of tut tutting that I doubt the Devil would care much if we all just fucked off into Gods good grace because, hey? Who wants to live in eternity with the sinful yet terminally boring?

    My advice to young people, with your under developed brains and your sloshing about hormones. ( Ahhh, I remember those days.. )

    Do what you like, but when the cops chase you? Stop. Face the music. It’s a brave, proud and honourable thing to do. Trying to run for it? Well, good luck with that dummies.

    William S Burroughs

    Words of Advice for Young People


    • I rarely tick…up or down…but this got an uptick from moi.

      I’d add (maybe a bit less cryptically) that perhaps cops and teenagers have similar brains.

      Put the two together…

  8. 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.

  9. The question is alternatives to pursuit; I’m not a law & order hardliner myself, but fleeing the cops at high speed is an action where you stand to harm innocent bystanders if it goes wrong. While I think there’s some substance to the point that teen brains probably improvise recklessly in a high stress situation and tend to pursue immediacy and self-gratification in the decision making process, I think the policy question has to revolve around suitable consequences. Left wing political thought is all about causality and observable reality. So it must be in this question of pursuit policy.

    Would it deter people from putting someone else’s life at risk if you made the penalty for failure to stop extremely harsh? I don’t personally know; medieval society punished all kinds of petty crime with death and dismemberment, along with public shaming, but desperate people still chose stolen bread over legally compliant starvation when they needed to feed their kids. On the other hand, stealing a car for fun has nothing to do with being hungry or in economic need as such. But poverty is still a factor, and teen though processes are still relevant.

    I was irked by a cop interviewed on NewsHub the other night who was talking about the recent upsurge in youth crime (particularly burglary and car theft). Video link below, if you can put up with his nauseating 5 seconds or so of Murdochist shit dribbling. His name is Inspector Dave Glossop. He claimed that this crime spree is fuelled by what he called ‘asset envy’ and that they commit these kinds of property crimes because they don’t have their own assets, and therefore feel ‘entitled’ to go and take it. It’s downright disturbing that our law enforcement community are unable to apprehend the mentality of other people without the use of Rupert Murdoch talking points to define their frame of reference. I’m going to guess he’s a born and raised Eastside pussy, partially because he reminds me of Colin Craig, and partially because you can tell he became a cop because he hates poor people and enjoys not getting the point.

    Had this officer reflected a little more deeply on the matter, he might have considered that it is not ‘asset envy’ which drives this, but asset unawareness. These kids have often grown up in households which have no assets, despite the adults around them often working long hours in service industry jobs, on casual contracts with little reliable income, or simply on unemployment benefits, having long since given up trying to secure meaningful work. It isn’t at all a sense of ‘entitlement’, but a sense of unreality brought about by the real effect of structural inequality.

    Bourgeois property rights are founded on the idea that you own things you buy with money you work for, and feel pride in that accomplishment (however empty it may really be). But when you grow up watching people around you work their asses off for nothing, or give up and live a defeated life as part of the missing million, those causalities aren’t there. Murdochist shit dribbling about ‘envy’ and ‘entitlement’ is the kind of mental effluent which fertilises nothing, and pollutes everything.

    Inspector Dave Glossop’s Eastside douchebag entitlement whine at approx. 50 seconds in; I suggest keeping a copy of the Daily Mail or NZ Herald at hand to puke into.


    ^I’ve become slightly fascinated by it. Having numpties like this on the force makes me realise how doomed we really are.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

    • 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!

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.