The worlds unluckiest police officer

[tonyh]

On watching the clip, like others, I felt there was sufficient time even at the speeds mentioned to change direction and scrub off some speed,take lane 1 as there was the alternative escape route of the hard shoulder.

On a more sinister note, what if the heavy driver deliberately continued to move over and only afterwards pleaded ignorance!

Both drivers are professional and I would have expected the TO to have backed off a bit. Surely the chase to catch the BMW was a bit futile , did the chase justify speeds in excess of 130mph.

Was it a case of 'red mist'?

[Angus]

I think we mostly agree that the officer made an error of judgement with the lorry. The film also stated that he was only using flashing headlights, not blues & twos. I expect the lorry driver just glanced in his mirrors, saw a car with only one headlight some distance away and totally misjudged the car's closing speed - 80+ more than the lorry!

With the spin, is this the same clip as featured (I think) on Police Camera Action?

[TripleS]

On watching the clip, like others, I felt there was sufficient time even at the speeds mentioned to change direction and scrub off some speed,take lane 1 as there was the alternative escape route of the hard shoulder.

On a more sinister note, what if the heavy driver deliberately continued to move over and only afterwards pleaded ignorance!

Both drivers are professional and I would have expected the TO to have backed off a bit. Surely the chase to catch the BMW was a bit futile , did the chase justify speeds in excess of 130mph.

Was it a case of 'red mist'?

PC Langley didn't seem to be agitated or in 'red mist' mode, but was he ever close enough to the BMW to see which way it went at the junction/roundabout, and thus retain a realistic chance of catching him?

In any event, so far as I'm aware it was nothing more than a simple speeding case on an almost deserted road, and I wouldn't have bothered about it - but then I would say that!

It certainly proved to be an expensive initiative on Pat's part.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Roadcraft]

Surely the chase to catch the BMW was a bit futile , did the chase justify speeds in excess of 130mph.

Was it a case of 'red mist'?

I suppose on this bit, I will defend him. It's not red mist to do 130mph to catch a 100mph speeder. It's what has to be done. No other way of catching a vehicle doing 100mph...other that travelling significantly faster than it..

It's not just the speed of that driver. The car could have been stolen, or could have been carrying drugs etc...

As it happens, it could have been both, and still got away..

[TripleS]

Surely the chase to catch the BMW was a bit futile , did the chase justify speeds in excess of 130mph.

Was it a case of 'red mist'?

I suppose on this bit, I will defend him. It's not red mist to do 130mph to catch a 100mph speeder. It's what has to be done. No other way of catching a vehicle doing 100mph...other that travelling significantly faster than it..

It's not just the speed of that driver. The car could have been stolen, or could have been carrying drugs etc...

As it happens, it could have been both, and still got away..

I admit I was taking it to be simply a case of speeding. Was there any other information available to PC Langley to suggest that the car was stolen, or that other (real) crimes were involved?

BTW, have a nice holiday in Scotland, R.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Roadcraft]

Was there any other information available to PC Langley to suggest that the car was stolen, or that other crimes were involved?

I don't believe there was any other information..

But in 95% of incidents, there usually isn't...

it's only when one tries to stop a vehicle, does one know...

[TripleS]

Was there any other information available to PC Langley to suggest that the car was stolen, or that other crimes were involved?

I don't believe there was any other information..

But in 95% of incidents, there usually isn't...

it's only when one tries to stop a vehicle, does one know...

Hmm, that's not quite what I said, but I don't suppose you liked my version.

Best wishes all,
Dave.

[Roadcraft]

Hmm, that's not quite what I said, but I don't suppose you liked my version.
Best wishes all,
Dave.

No it wasn't...but one gets tired of the bollox about 'real' crimes etc...

Like the law is something you can pick and choose your preferences....

There are those people who think litter laws aren't real laws...and therefore drop litter.....

Speeding is a crime. We all do it. Fact. If we're caught, we're caught. You could always have the other 900,000 previous crimes taken into consideration....

Like I always say...if you do it and get away with it - Great. If you do it and get caught - Hard Cheese...

I'm in the same boat as you...

[ChrisR32]

Another point to make on the HGV driver is that with the angle of the bend sweeping around, he probably would have not seen the police car anyway.

Also it's not as if the HGV just swept acorss without any warning, he did it gradually and has his indicator flashing.

Perhaps the PC should have flipped onto "blues and two's" as he approached as well as scrubbing a bit of speed off.

[James]

Thats what I would have done, speed loss first to deal with the hazard and then blues on to up the game... waiting for a reaction...

[Roadcraft]

Thats what I would have done, speed loss first to deal with the hazard and then blues on to up the game... waiting for a reaction...

Nah...you can't lose speed (sufficiently) to deal with a heavy, when you're travelling at nearly 130mph..and the heavy is doing 56mph or less....

You have to make up your decision way in advance and stick to it...

A course of action/direction, is much better than speed loss....in that situation..

Perhaps a little speed loss, but nothing significant in relation to both vehicles...

[kwakba]

I've got to add that we are taught that we must plan and expect anything to happen when on a blue light run, almost to the point that if we are involved in an RTC it is almost without doubt, our fault. I'm sure it is similar for the Police?

The clip has probably been discussed to death, but I could see that indicator flashing a long way off, on a poor quality video clip. The lorry was the only vehicle on the road and not only did the signs warn of the loss of lane 3 but the officer was also aware of this. He also approched the lorry with just wig-wags going, no blues or noise, so he didn't do as much as he could to make himself visible... A catalogue of small errors that made the poor judgement of the lorry driver an easy scape-goat IMHO.

[tonyh]

I do not often ( if ever) drive at 130 mph and so I cannot appreciate the amount of distance needed to reduce the speed or the time needed. I calculate you are doing in excess of a third of a mile a second so it doesn't leave a lot of time to make a decision.
At those speeds , the brain is doing a load of calculations and once you have decided on a course of action you are committed to it, especially with the time frame according to the video clip.
I can only sit in awe of you guys who put your life at risk in high speed chases of this kind.
Perhaps I shouldn't have said red mist so much as being mesmerised into a particular course of action until it is too late to change.[/u][/b]

[waremark]

I calculate you are doing in excess of a third of a mile a second so it doesn't leave a lot of time to make a decision.

It may be quick but it is not that quick - a third of a mile takes 10 seconds at 120 mph.

From 130 mph, slowing at the Highway Code rate of deceleration to the HGV speed of 56 mph requires about 250m including thinking distance.

[tonyh]

HPC driver wrote
It may be quick but it is not that quick - a third of a mile takes 10 seconds at 120 mph.
Your right. I realised my mistake after I posted the comment.! It would take 9secs to travel a third of a mile at 130mph. However, I calculated to lose 74mph would take a distance of 107 mtrs but I have already proved my maths is dodgy!