High-speed pursuits banned in WA

[SteveJH]

Bungara and Big Damo.

Just incase you don't know. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves, so is light just at a different wave length.

As such, radio waves travel at the speed of light, which is considerably faster then either the speed of sound or the speed of a supersonic rifle bullet.

No point running from the police, you could never outrun their most powerful weapon, the radio.

Regards,
Stephen

[flappist]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Bungara and Big Damo.

Just incase you don't know. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves, so is light just at a different wave length.

As such, radio waves travel at the speed of light, which is considerably faster then either the speed of sound or the speed of a supersonic rifle bullet.

No point running from the police, you could never outrun their most powerful weapon, the radio.

Regards,
Stephen

Oh no, you are ruining the rant.

Next thing someone who was clever enough to successfully complete year 8 maths will say that the speed limit must have been 100 for all the values to work.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by SteveJH

Bungara and Big Damo.

Just incase you don't know. Radio waves are electromagnetic waves, so is light just at a different wave length.

As such, radio waves travel at the speed of light, which is considerably faster then either the speed of sound or the speed of a supersonic rifle bullet.

No point running from the police, you could never outrun their most powerful weapon, the radio.

Regards,
Stephen

What? police are going to throw their radios at criminals???

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by Sezzy

The system designed to protect police, is becoming/has become the one that will sting them. Perhaps with these changes, someone will click and realise, and not try to hold police accountable when accidents occur in the line of them 'doing their job'.

Shouldn't have had to come to the point were the police are blamed. I don't understand the culture in oz where the Police are considered the bad guys.

Originally Posted by Jim Goose

What? police are going to throw their radios at criminals???

Might have to if they take their guns away cause they might hurt a criminal.

[jackson105]

[QUOTE=Dave3911]Couple of things.


2. There is no "legal" speed cap that police have to adhere to (in any state that I'm aware of). Some state police force's do impose policy-based maximum's, but these are not law. As a general rule the law allows them to break the limit as long as it is 'reasonable' to the circumstances.




WA is capped at 140km. Thats if it ever goes above that speed they must abort

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

Let me clarify Gecko. Firstly, to give some perspective. I am an emergency Police dispatcher down in Melbourne. I use these systems, in conjunction with a computer-aided dispatch system, on a daily basis.

The first thing to acknowledge is that obviously all these system's accross the different states are totally different, so my opinions are very much skewed by the Victorian system - which I know very well.

I fear you are getting two things confused. You are very correct, the reliability of your AVL data within your CAD environment may very well be subject to inaccuracy. All sorts of factors come into play here, including mobile data reception to your AVL transmitter, the speed at which that data is recieved and computed by your CAD system and the frequency in which your unit is set to "poll" the data. All these things together contribute to be a right royal PITA when we try to use the system for it's intended purpose - locating the most appropriate emergency resource for an event. Corrupted data inbetween the unit and the system can sometimes end up with units polling in unusual places - I recently had the Epping Divisional Van sighted about 4 - 5km offshore from Phillip Island...

However this is it's performance drawbacks when looked at within the whole system - and not when data is interrogated in isolation some weeks after the incident.

I have no idea how your (or WA's for that matter) AVL systems work, but ours also have a GPS data logger within the unit. All this information isn't transmitted back to the CAD system. Our CAD system is only set to "poll" it's units at pre-set times (which I won't go into, it gets a bit complicated) but there is a whole heap more data available after the fact. If the agencys use data that is recorded at the end of the chain, then yes you do have major problems with accuracy, but not if it is recorded at it's source. Regardless of that though, any system worth anything will send a GPS location and timestamp together - so that "end" data may still have relevance for interrogation. Getting back to my original point, all you need for speed is two points on the bitumen and the time difference between them.

The accuracy of the unit itself is much more than 500m. In fact it will be the same accuracy as any other civil GPS unit you or I can buy from an electronics store. Usually down to a few meters. The "500m" your agency tells you is to compensate for deficencys in your whole system in updating poll data on a moving vehicle - not the accuracy of the unit within the vehicle itself.

I have personally seen an investigation into a pursuit down here when this data was used. In that particular case, the GPS data was given a severe handicap to account for a 'margain of error' (As the same arguments of 'not an approved speed device' were being banded about) - and it still showed the member was well under quoting speeds to their controller, in an effort to keep the pursuit going.

It seems, depending on the individual system in use, I may stand corrected. Thank you very much for the information as I find it very interesting.

Having said that, based on the amount of times my vehicle has "dropped off the radar", I find it difficult to believe our system has the required absolute certainty of accuracy to bring any disciplinary action or charges against an operator of one of our vehicles. It seems our service feels the same as the 1 officer that was charged for exceeding the speed limit by a unreasonable amount had no AVL data entered into the court case. Perhaps it was because it was not needed but perhaps it was because the accuracy and reliability of the data is not up to legal standards. Interesting thought though.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

As for the example of the kid you saved by getting there on time, great. But how many people did you endanger getting there? Kids walking onto the road without looking? Kids chasing balls onto the street? Kids on pushbikes without full control? That is the fear campaign used to stop us from exceeding nominal posted limits. So why would it be any different for a vehicle with flashing lights?

Honestly, absolutely none. If those sort of hazards are either present or potential, I slow down to a speed that is safe. As I have said before, a safe speed is often under the speed limit. For example during the heavy rain prior to the flood I had a number of occasions where I was traveling code 1 in heavy rain at a safe speed for the conditions and my vehicle, but nut jobs in cars were passing me.

Emergency services drivers here do not undergo high speed training.

We do here, not at speeds of up to 160 km/h as in the example you gave, but we do handling at speeds that would in suburban areas be over the speed limit and we have to negotiate obstacles on a wet surface (all on a closed training area). Certainly at speeds that would be considered high speed for the simulated conditions. We also have 6 months of formal assessment prior to us being qualified to drive service vehicles in all conditions unsupervised.

The Ambo I was observing in was being driven by a (very competent) ex-HWP police officer. Police here undergo "pursuit training", but not high speed driving.

Was it by any chance this idiot?

That being if you believe speeding kills, then ANYONE exceeding it is putting lives in danger. I have been in ambulances doing 160km/h to get to patients

I do not know of an ambulance service in australia that would condone such behavior and not leave this cowboy to defend his actions in the courts as his state road law dictates, all by himself. Ours certainly would, in fact any more than 30 km/h over and you receive disciplinary action within the service, more than 40 km/h over and they leave you to the police. The courts here do not take lightly to it, there is a precedence in QLD from a number of years ago.

While i was doing my posting to the ambulance service I asked about crash rates - turns out that very few ambulances are involved in collisions, despite the speeds at which they are driven. This in turn is why I argue that it is not speeding per-se that causes crashes, but rather the lack of attention and riving within ones' capabilities.

I have spent considerable time dealing with accident reports within the service as a station officer, 95% of reports result from bumps at car park speeds and the number of reports in total is not very high. Certainly a lot lower than my non emergency services acquaintances. Your comment above seems to support my stance that some road users can exceed the speed limit safely.

I will leave it at this. In your experience you say that "speed kills" and this applies to all vehicles, even emergency vehicles with highly trained operators, well serviced and maintained vehicles and all the emergency gear. That is your right to have that opinion. My opinion based on my experience within the emergency services is in the right circumstances, exceeding the speed limit in safe conditions can be as safe but often safer than the average driver traveling at the speed limit. This is my opinion based on 1000's of code 1 drives in all weather and traffic conditions.

If the government were to take your view and ban the use of higher speeds in emergency vehicles in appropriate conditions, I would not want to live here, the body count would stack up. I had two cases today where 1-2 minutes more in response time would have carried significant risk to their life. Fortunately I am allowed to do 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, shave off that 1-2 minutes and they are alive tonight.

XA coupe 9.422sec @ 142mph
BA GT-P for the shed
BF XR6T 12.68@113mph
Landrover disco 18.8

@112km/h

It seems from your signature that you have on a number of occasions survived speeding in the right conditions, once at 227 km/h (more than twice the open road limit).

[FG XR]

This ban has being lifted as of today. Was on the news

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Nitro XR6

This ban has being lifted as of today. Was on the news

Common sense prevails!

[GTP owner]

Originally Posted by geckoGT

Honestly, absolutely none. If those sort of hazards are either present or potential, I slow down to a speed that is safe. As I have said before, a safe speed is often under the speed limit. For example during the heavy rain prior to the flood I had a number of occasions where I was traveling code 1 in heavy rain at a safe speed for the conditions and my vehicle, but nut jobs in cars were passing me.

We do here, not at speeds of up to 160 km/h as in the example you gave, but we do handling at speeds that would in suburban areas be over the speed limit and we have to negotiate obstacles on a wet surface (all on a closed training area). Certainly at speeds that would be considered high speed for the simulated conditions. We also have 6 months of formal assessment prior to us being qualified to drive service vehicles in all conditions unsupervised.

Was it by any chance this idiot?

I do not know of an ambulance service in australia that would condone such behavior and not leave this cowboy to defend his actions in the courts as his state road law dictates, all by himself. Ours certainly would, in fact any more than 30 km/h over and you receive disciplinary action within the service, more than 40 km/h over and they leave you to the police. The courts here do not take lightly to it, there is a precedence in QLD from a number of years ago.

I have spent considerable time dealing with accident reports within the service as a station officer, 95% of reports result from bumps at car park speeds and the number of reports in total is not very high. Certainly a lot lower than my non emergency services acquaintances. Your comment above seems to support my stance that some road users can exceed the speed limit safely.

I will leave it at this. In your experience you say that "speed kills" and this applies to all vehicles, even emergency vehicles with highly trained operators, well serviced and maintained vehicles and all the emergency gear. That is your right to have that opinion. My opinion based on my experience within the emergency services is in the right circumstances, exceeding the speed limit in safe conditions can be as safe but often safer than the average driver traveling at the speed limit. This is my opinion based on 1000's of code 1 drives in all weather and traffic conditions.

If the government were to take your view and ban the use of higher speeds in emergency vehicles in appropriate conditions, I would not want to live here, the body count would stack up. I had two cases today where 1-2 minutes more in response time would have carried significant risk to their life. Fortunately I am allowed to do 120 km/h in a 100 km/h zone, shave off that 1-2 minutes and they are alive tonight.

@112km/h

It seems from your signature that you have on a number of occasions survived speeding in the right conditions, once at 227 km/h (more than twice the open road limit).

Yes I was in the ambulance doing 160 in the ambulance down the Southern Outlet here in Hobart with the ex-HWP officer driving. Few cars, open road, looked safe from my experience. The irony is that it was to a patient with chronic renal failure who had failed to attend her dialysis sessions for the week and was therefore suffering electrolyte imbalance - no need to hurry at all!

As for my stance on speeding - don't actually believe the "speed kills" mantra. I am highly sceptical about the whole "wipe off five" phenomenon and revenue raising associated with enforcement. My comments relate to the thought process involved with those who actually believe that rubbish. If you believe the mantra, then you would have to support limiting all vehicles, such as police and ambulances. Yes i have gone over the limit (by some considerable margin on back roads in rural areas and I survived! I fully agree that it depends upon the conditions, and experience and skill allow us to work out what is safe and when.

[SEZ213]

Originally Posted by GTP owner

Yes I was in the ambulance doing 160 in the ambulance down the Southern Outlet here in Hobart with the ex-HWP officer driving. Few cars, open road, looked safe from my experience. The irony is that it was to a patient with chronic renal failure who had failed to attend her dialysis sessions for the week and was therefore suffering electrolyte imbalance - no need to hurry at all!

As for my stance on speeding - don't actually believe the "speed kills" mantra. I am highly sceptical about the whole "wipe off five" phenomenon and revenue raising associated with enforcement. My comments relate to the thought process involved with those who actually believe that rubbish. If you believe the mantra, then you would have to support limiting all vehicles, such as police and ambulances. Yes i have gone over the limit (by some considerable margin on back roads in rural areas and I survived! I fully agree that it depends upon the conditions, and experience and skill allow us to work out what is safe and when.

Not dialysing for a week? An electrolyte imbalance would have been the least of her problems...

To be honest, in that case, I wouldn't have been rushing at all - if she doesn't give a crap about her health...why should anyone else?

But that's beside the point - good to hear that the ban has in fact been lifted and common sense seems to have prevailed in this instance.

[shedcoupe]

No idea what this was about - just FYI :

"A 21-year-old Perth police officer has been found guilty of driving dangerously during a pursuit."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2....htm?site=news

[aussie muscle]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

I recently had the Epping Divisional Van sighted about 4 - 5km offshore from Phillip Island...

Cool, water police use divvy vans.

[xwgasaxe]

I feel sorry for the bloke who had his nice looking Falcon stolen which he will never get back, and the bloke who's fence was demolished.

[Ducati888]

Think about this. Any emergency services vehicle, in a documented emergency situation may exceed the speed limit under lights and sirens. The driver is 100% responsible for ensuring that it's safe to proceed through red lights, intersections, rail crossings, etc.

If, under lights and sirens, you go through a red light and get hit by someone driving along oblivious to you (wearing iPod headphones for example), you hit & hurt or kill them, then you as the emergency vehicle driver are 100% culpable & responsible.

Don't think for one minute in a civil case that the service will back you up. They won't. You'll be sued by the family and possibly lose everything.

That's how the Police Union are backing their members. It's not worth apprehending a stolen car if you stand to lose your house in to the bargain by hurting an innocent bystander.

As an SES member with EVA status, I have to think about this every time I put the lights & sirens on. So does an Ambo driver, CFA, MFB, or Police officer. Would you take that risk?

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

If, under lights and sirens, you go through a red light and get hit by someone driving along oblivious to you (wearing iPod headphones for example), you hit & hurt or kill them, then you as the emergency vehicle driver are 100% culpable & responsible.

That situation is not that simple. If the emergency vehicle (under lights and/or siren) came to a complete stop before the line, ensured all traffic at the intersection has stopped and then proceeds through the intersection at a reduced speed and with appropriate caution, they have fulfilled their obligation of "due care and attention".
If someone, not paying attention comes through a clear lane after all that and is involved in a crash with the emergency vehicle, that vehicle is at fault. This is because despite the green light they still have a legal responsibility to drive with due care and attention. They also have a legal responsibility to yield right if way to an emergency vehicle under lights and siren.

We have had a number of vehicle involved in a crash in those circumstances and none of the drivers had any case to answer and the service did support their actions.

[Jim Goose]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

If, under lights and sirens, you go through a red light and get hit by someone driving along oblivious to you (wearing iPod headphones for example), you hit & hurt or kill them, then you as the emergency vehicle driver are 100% culpable & responsible.

Um under lights and siren traffic MUST give way to them....

[Ducati888]

Jim, read what I said again. I said "driver oblivious''.

How can they give way if they have their head up their butt & don't notice?

Also, it is not written in to the road rules as far as I know that a driver MUST give way to an emergency vehicle. It was explained to me very clearly by the copper that trained me for EVS that in many countries they don't, we have a country full of people from different cultures that don't as a rule give way to ambulances or fire truck, and beware of people in Mercs & BMWs as they are the worst offenders for not giving way. Police don't enforce this, and they travel under EVS more often than most.

A firey was reamed when he stopped at the lights, checked that the intersection was clear, but a car came tearing through from behind a tram that he didn't/couldn't see. Even though he was not speeding through the intersection the driver of the car got hit & died.

It's not open and shut. the civil case takes a year or two, your life is on hold for that time and you don't know whether you will win or lose (your house). In this case the firey lost, because the coroner found that his truck was over weight (full of that foam stuff), he didn't know, but as it was over weight it was found that he couldn't stop in time.

Civil cases only require 20% guilt, unlike criminal that require 80% or more.

I ask again - would you take that risk?

[Jim Goose]

You also cant plead ignorance when it comes to the law.... if a driver is oblivious to his surroundings who is at fault? The driver? or the person he runs into?

And yes quite a lot of drivers out there are in laa laa land and dont have one clue as to what is happening 2 meters past their bumpers. Are we again to make more allowances for people who are.... umm.... too dumb to drive?

[93EB_SXR6]

I'd say the person who is driving a vehicle but not taking stock of their surroundings would be at fault.
How hard is it to simply "pay attention" whilst driving!?

[Ducati888]

It's not criminal law we are talking about. It's Civil. Different kettle of fish. You go out under light & sirens, kill some kid who wasn't paying attention (but was crossing through on a green light, you on a red). His/her family sues you, you are screwed.

You went through a red. You are finished, regardless of EVS status.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just how it is. Hell, even if you are found not guilty, imagine what the lawyers would cost you anyway.

How hard is it to 'pay attention' while driving? Not very hard, but that doesn't mean people do it. Even good drivers let their guard down occasionally.

[geckoGT]

What a load of rubbish, who cares what the road laws of other countries are, in Australia all road users have a legal obligation to give way to emergency vehicles and a legal obligation to drive with due care and attention.

Having been directly involved with a few emergency vehicle crash investigations, I know for a fact your information is greatly flawed and you are misinforming other members here.

By the way, cops do not travel under emergency conditions much at all, in fact so rarely that all the cops I work with still get a bit excited about it because it us so rare. They would not travel under lights and sirens 10% of what we do.

[Redrum]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

It's not criminal law we are talking about. It's Civil. Different kettle of fish. You go out under light & sirens, kill some kid who wasn't paying attention (but was crossing through on a green light, you on a red). His/her family sues you, you are screwed.

You went through a red. You are finished, regardless of EVS status.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just how it is. Hell, even if you are found not guilty, imagine what the lawyers would cost you anyway.

How hard is it to 'pay attention' while driving? Not very hard, but that doesn't mean people do it. Even good drivers let their guard down occasionally.

If a member of an emergency service was acting in good faith in performing their urgent duty driving and the family chose to pursue civil action for negligence against the driver they would have to prove that. Obviously the burden of proof is not as high but as long as the member was acting in good faith and showing due care one would think their employer would cover them, if not, their union.

[geckoGT]

A member acting within the policies and procedures of their service can not be held financially responsible for the consequences of the conduct of their duty, that is the concept of vicarious liability, the service is responsible, not the employee.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

It's not criminal law we are talking about. It's Civil. Different kettle of fish. You go out under light & sirens, kill some kid who wasn't paying attention (but was crossing through on a green light, you on a red). His/her family sues you, you are screwed.

The kid scenario is different to your previous one, change the game?

A competent operator of an emergency vehicle will approach the red light at a speed they can respond to hazards, slow and stop before the intersection to ensure it is clear before proceeding through. Therefore your kid scenario will not happen as long as they use due care and attention, if they don't they should find a new job as we don't need cowboys in the emergency services.

[Spudz27]

@ GTP Owner

160kph in an ambulance? That would be so dangerous no matter what conditions. I would have reported and refused to work with that person again. 120 in the ambo can be a hairy ride, especially on a windy day. We have been told never exceed 140 as the tyres are not rated above that, plus it is just down right dangerous and reckless. Even in a 110 zone I have only driven 125-130.

[Aranciafalcon]

Two words.....
PITT MANEUVER !

I would gladly take my stolen car back with some bullet holes or damaged if it meant the criminal was caught.
Mmmmm... missiles in police choppers, not a bad idea.

It's about time the criminals were actually afraid of the consequences of doing something wrong.
If I even thought of stealing a car when I was young, my old man would have beaten me with a steel rod for giving the family a bad name.
Actions should have appropriate punishment

[Dave3911]

Ducati888, i'm going to have to echo the comments of GeckoGT here. You are severly misinformed and spreading a whole heap of misinformation.

I too was a volunteer emergency responder (for 7 years, with the fireys in a south eastern metropolitian suburb) & I have driven 14+ tonne fire trucks under emergency conditions more times than I can remember. I was also with a brigade that was involved in an incident where our truck proceeded through a red light, was t-boned by another vehicle and rolled. Thankfully nobody was seriously hurt, but it did result in a rather lengthy and drawn out civil case over damages. It was nothing like you describe. At all.

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Don't think for one minute in a civil case that the service will back you up. They won't. You'll be sued by the family and possibly lose everything

You couldn't be more wrong about this. If you were acting in good faith you will be provided legal representation and whilst I can only speak from knowledge on the fire brigade, generally there is a legal indemnity provided in the respective services act for personal liability if acting in good faith - there certainly is in the CFA act. I may be wrong, but I believe when the SES became a statutory authority in Victoria the same indemnity was provided to them - I remember it being quite a big thing at the time.

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Also, it is not written in to the road rules as far as I know that a driver MUST give way to an emergency vehicle.

I'm really not sure what type of EVS course the SES run but I am seriously astounded that they have accredited you to drive and you don't know this. Even now, three years out of my volunteering I can still recite the relevant road rules. Road rule 78 and 79 deal with giving way and keeping clear of Police and Emergency vehicles. 306 and 307 are the 'general' exemption provisions. I'd honestly go visit the vicroads website if I were you.

I'm not trying to have a go at you, but if your location details are accurate and you live in Parkdale - i'm going to assume your either a member of Chelsea or Moorabbin unit, possibly Springvale. None of those units are RCR accredited and the amount of times each of them get an EVS job a year would probably struggle to get into double figures. How much EVS experience do you have?

Originally Posted by geckoGt

By the way, cops do not travel under emergency conditions much at all, in fact so rarely that all the cops I work with still get a bit excited about it because it us so rare. They would not travel under lights and sirens 10% of what we do.

Gecko, just FYI - things are certainly a different kettle of fish in Victoria to what you are used to with police in Queensland. Unlike QLD, things down here are not controlled to anywhere near the level they are up there. In QLD all lights and sirens jobs need to be authorised by their control centre, down here no such authorisation is required. In fact, the control centre isnt even notified if they go under "urgent duty driving" conditions. Each unit, on getting each job makes a decision themselves on how they respond. Some coppers, usually the ones who have been burnt, will very rarely turn the blues and twos on, others will shove 'em on for anything and everything.

Coincidentally a very good friend of mine who was a copper in QLD has just moved back to Vic with his young family. He managed to get a lateral entry transfer. I had a beer with him the other day and he was saying how he'd done more urgent duty driving in two weeks down here than he had in the last 18 months in QLD!

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Dave3911

Gecko, just FYI - things are certainly a different kettle of fish in Victoria to what you are used to with police in Queensland. Unlike QLD, things down here are not controlled to anywhere near the level they are up there. In QLD all lights and sirens jobs need to be authorised by their control centre, down here no such authorisation is required. In fact, the control centre isnt even notified if they go under "urgent duty driving" conditions. Each unit, on getting each job makes a decision themselves on how they respond. Some coppers, usually the ones who have been burnt, will very rarely turn the blues and twos on, others will shove 'em on for anything and everything.

That may be the case, different states operate in different ways. Having said that, out of 6 cases so far tonight, 4 of them have been lights and sirens responses. I still doubt Vic police would have a similar volume of emergency drives.

[geckoGT]

Originally Posted by Ducati888

Civil cases only require 20% guilt, unlike criminal that require 80% or more.

I ask again - would you take that risk?

Sorry mate, you are wrong again.

Criminal law requires a proof of guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Judgement on a civil tort such as negligence requires proof on the "balance of probability", that is obviously more than 20%.