ADUK Archive

http://news.aol.co.uk/officer-convicted ... 3389377423

Dougal, a qualified advanced driver,

Response or traffic

ROG wrote:
Response or traffic

Does that matter ?

I raised this when it first came to light and saw the outcome yesterday but didnt post as I didnt want to start a police advanced bashing thread.

Yes he drove at 94mph in built up area unmarked car not emergency equipment, a police driving standards expert stated he could nto think of any sitaution where he could drive at 90mph without equipment on. Another expert wintess stated at that speed he was just a passenger in his own car and at the mercy of physics.

He got it wrong and allowed the pursuit to become more important than safety, he is human and we all make mistakes.

ROG wrote:Response or traffic

vonhosen wrote:Does that matter ?

Curiosity as well as public perception of police drivers that chase other drivers.

From what I could accertain from various police car crashes, it was non-traffic cars that were involved. Most of the public that I have talked to on this subject have said "why aren't police traffic drivers trained to a better standard?" - when I've pointed out that the vehicle involved is not the 'usual' cars that traffic use, they change their question to "Why did that police driver who is not fully trained in pursuit do it then?" - I don't have the answer to that.

ROG wrote:http://news.aol.co.uk/officer-convicted ... 3389377423

Dougal, a qualified advanced driver,

Response or traffic

Magic Roundabout

This was the case we started to debate at the time it first came to light.

http://www.advanced-driving.co.uk/bb/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2149

I think his Chief Constable sums up the situation pretty well:

“Northumbria Police fully accepts responsibility for the death of Hayley Adamson and I would like to sincerely apologise to Hayley’s family. We all share in their sadness at this terrible loss of a young life.

“The public place their trust in police officers to make judgements and act in a way that does not put them at risk and on this occasion we failed.

“Police officers undertake a difficult job that requires them to make decisions in often difficult circumstances. I acknowledge that the actions of PC Dougal who was driving the police car were not intentional, but they were a serious error of judgement which have now been properly dealt with by the court. I acknowledge that many lives have been affected by this tragedy.

ROG wrote:

ROG wrote:Response or traffic

vonhosen wrote:Does that matter ?

to "Why did that police driver who is not fully trained in pursuit do it then?" - I don't have the answer to that.

He was traffic, and it was not a 'pursuit' (ie not a fail to stop) he was trying to catch a vehicle that had passed him travelling in opposite direction and ping'd on ANPR. He said, quite reasonably he did not want to alert the driver to his presence.

Clearly the evidence has been presented (including from the so-called 'experts') and the jury have come to a verdict.
Hopefully the sentence will reflect the facts (although note he has already been denied bail and told to expect a custodial).

Looking at the video he clearly made a mistake. It was a built-up area, there were pedestrians about. He crests the hill doing over 90mph. He will pay a huge price. Another error of judgement which did not go in his favour was the fact that he was 'moonlighting' as an electrician and had been working earlier the same day (between 9am and 11.30am).

Clearly her behaviour does not matter as such and does not excuse his driving but neither was she 'blameless', it was 11.20pm, the day before she was due to sit a GCSE exam and she had been drinking. The group became extremely violent toward police at the accident scene. Members of her family and friends (who call themselves the 'SMD Crew' - "Scotchy Mad Dogs") have lead a very vocal campaign seeking 'justice', they shouted "yes" and "get in" at the verdict from the public gallery..

I feel it dissapaointed that he went to court saying he was driving safely when clearly he made a serious error which I can accept as human. I would prefer he showed that with hind-site he can 90mph was too fast with or without emergency equipment. I wonderwhether he that was a self protection thing or whther he is so deluded or aragant that he believes he did nothing wrong. Whilst I understand there is a need on ocassion not to use emergency equipment and approach steathly its the speed that was main error here. There two sad factors is a young life was taken and the ANPR data was out of date and the car her set off after was being driven legally.

On the subject of traffic he was listed as advanced and so should be suitably skilled regardless of he operational function.

AnalogueAndy wrote: Clearly her behaviour does not matter as such and does not excuse his driving but neither was she 'blameless', it was 11.20pm, the day before she was due to sit a GCSE exam and she had been drinking.

Is that at all relevant?

From what I saw of the video, if it was her crossing the road just as the TV people froze the image, then she'd made the decision to cross when the road was clear.

AnalogueAndy wrote: they shouted "yes" and "get in" at the verdict from the public gallery..

I'll take your word for it, indeed have no reason to doubt it.

In much the same way that I have no reason to doubt that police officers 'celebrate' after a good win in court.



Question: Why didn't he swerve to avoid her?

Horse wrote, Question: Why didn't he swerve to avoid her?

Self preservation?

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

ROG wrote:

ROG wrote:Response or traffic

vonhosen wrote:Does that matter ?

Curiosity as well as public perception of police drivers that chase other drivers.

From what I could accertain from various police car crashes, it was non-traffic cars that were involved. Most of the public that I have talked to on this subject have said "why aren't police traffic drivers trained to a better standard?" - when I've pointed out that the vehicle involved is not the 'usual' cars that traffic use, they change their question to "Why did that police driver who is not fully trained in pursuit do it then?" - I don't have the answer to that.

There are more non traffic cars than traffic. There are more non traffic pursuit trained drivers than traffic.
Why would traffic officers need to be trained to a higher standard than other pursuit drivers ?

The difference between traffic officers & other uniformed officers is what their primary roles are.
There is some overlap in those & pursuit is one of those areas, but the trafpol aren't better at that aspect because they are in traffic.

Horse wrote:

AnalogueAndy wrote: Clearly her behaviour does not matter as such and does not excuse his driving but neither was she 'blameless', it was 11.20pm, the day before she was due to sit a GCSE exam and she had been drinking.

Is that at all relevant?

From what I saw of the video, if it was her crossing the road just as the TV people froze the image, then she'd made the decision to cross when the road was clear.

The point was discussed in court and it was agreed that her judgement would have been affected but that, as you say she made the decision to cross when she thought it was clear. She had no chance whether drunk or not.

Clearly, as I said, the other facts are not directly relevant, and they take nothing away from the fact someone so young has been tragically killed, but they are still clearly indirectly relevant. Getting into hypotheticals, if she had been at home 'revising' as one might reasonably expect a 16 year old girl to be the night before an exam she would never have been killed.

AnalogueAndy wrote: they shouted "yes" and "get in" at the verdict from the public gallery..

I'll take your word for it, indeed have no reason to doubt it.

In much the same way that I have no reason to doubt that police officers 'celebrate' after a good win in court.

[/quote]

The reaction of her friends and family has been reported publically. And no I could never imagine any group of police officers 'celebrating' in such a distasteful manner in a public court.

fungus wrote:Horse wrote, Question: Why didn't he swerve to avoid her?

Self preservation?

Nigel ADI
IAM trainee observer

Self preservation? When he was in a late-model (presumably) car, with impact-absorbing crumble zones, passenger-protection 'cage', belted, and airbagged?

If he had enough time to make that sort of choice, then he had time to do something more positive . . . And, I would have thought, was trained to make those sort of decisions and take those actions.

I've only ever done a half-day skid pan course, but a large part of what we did was avoidance action, with DIY (no ABS) brake-steer-repeat.

AnalogueAndy wrote:

Horse wrote:

AnalogueAndy wrote: Clearly her behaviour does not matter as such and does not excuse his driving but neither was she 'blameless', it was 11.20pm, the day before she was due to sit a GCSE exam and she had been drinking.

Is that at all relevant?

AnalogueAndy wrote: Clearly, as I said, the other facts are not directly relevant but they are still clearly indirectly relevant.

So are you saying she takes some of the blame, or not?

Please clarify how 'relevant, but not', because you have me confused.

AnalogueAndy wrote: no I could never imagine any group of police officers 'celebrating' in such a distasteful manner in a public court.

I posted:

I have no reason to doubt that police officers 'celebrate' after a good win in court

Including the word 'after', not 'during'.

I'm presuming that the occasional alcoholic drink is taken, in a group situation?

In-car video of the driving just prior to collision is here

I am no expert but cannot understand why he accelerated to 90 mph towards a crest of a hill he could not see over or towards a group of pedestrians he could see.

He's pretty much caught the car up at 70mph.