“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.

Probably about the same as the Westpac Rescue Helicopter, available nationwide, 24/7.

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?

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?

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?

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.

“[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.

You’re welcome, Liberty. The confluence between your comments and that of the Australian expert was perfect.

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.

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”.