Looked like an illegal, non Pace Roadblock to me. Trying to remember from my years on Traffic what rules for a solid roadblock were.
But yes I have to agree he was a lucky chap. I think a few bobbies in my division should watch this, it proves the Bluelight Forcefield is not as effective as they think it is.
Contrats to him for getting his Perp ! And Tasering him.
If you think nobody cares about you, try missing a couple of mortgage payments.
I was at a Police driving school this morning, and they said that blocking roads with a car is a big no no, so the Volvo should not have been there in the first place. Their words not mine. But saying that, a large to the officer for rolling, getting up and chasing the idiot. My respect for TrafPol remains as high as ever, except the small minority that I have to deal with from a certain county.
The DRA King wrote:Looked like an illegal, non Pace Roadblock to me. Trying to remember from my years on Traffic what rules for a solid roadblock were.
mondeoman wrote:I was at a Police driving school this morning, and they said that blocking roads with a car is a big no no, so the Volvo should not have been there in the first place. Their words not mine.
Interesting response you got Mondeoman! Police motorway manual says roadblocks "Should be regarded as a last resort option" so it is allowed. Also, it goes on to state "roadblocks can only be carried out on the authorisation of an officer of Inspector rank or above". Clearly they had permission to do what they did.
We shouldn't be getting bogged down in technicalities though? A cretin was stopped and no MOP's were injured. The officer risked his life.
Just the other week a few of you were having a fit about an M6 pursuit. Would you rather this incident was a pursuit instead? You can't have it both ways...
The DRA King wrote:Looked like an illegal, non Pace Roadblock to me. Trying to remember from my years on Traffic what rules for a solid roadblock were.
What does PACE have to do with pursuit management?
TO31, my view, as a non Police officer and tax payer, is stop these idiots as soon as possible by what ever means without putting officers or MOPs at risk. The idiot in the stolen car doesn't matter, he can stop when he wants. If that means blocking the road with a police car, then do it, then charge the idiot for any damaged caused when he hits it.
The DRA King wrote:Typical " Cos we can attitude " of a lot of the younger troops these days. Can't say its my preffered way of ending pursuits or follows.
I'm surprised you stayed awake to see all of it grandad!?
You'd prefer a pursuit with a stolen car going the wrong way down a one way street and dual carriageway at twice the speed limit?
The quicker they are stopped the better, because they won't surrender. Although deploying the stinger might have been more effective?
The DRA King wrote:Typical " Cos we can attitude " of a lot of the younger troops these days. Can't say its my preffered way of ending pursuits or follows.
kipper wrote:About time they adopted the `Pitman manoever' to stop vehicles tbh,
would save the cost and damage/ repairs of 3 or 4 cars for the place of 1 ...
as a tax payer blah blah moan whinge ........blah .....lol
.
.tin hat fitted
We like to call it "tactical contact" instead of the PIT manuever. I hate americanisms!!
You raise some interesting points, but using tactical contact is frowned upon and can only be "justified where there is a real possibility of imminent danger of life if the pursued vehicle is allowed to continue". It's a last resort but does get used when appropriate.
You strike a car going at 70-80mph and it'll probably spin and roll the vehicle, maybe killing the pursued driver as well as maybe striking innocent MOP's/buildings/vehicles etc.
Not to mention the amount of paperwork involved...