Police Causing Casualties increased
06-24-2005, 01:43 PM
#1
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 713 
Police Causing Casualties increased
taken from topgear.com
I think 29 people killed in street racing related collisions since 2001 ?
well...... elaborate:
I think 29 people killed in street racing related collisions since 2001 ?
well...... elaborate:
Huge rise in police collision casualties
[24 June 2005]
Home Office figures have revealed a 60% increase in people killed or injured in collisions involving police cars.
The news comes just a few weeks after a police officer was let off for doing 159mph on the M54 while practising his driving skills and testing a new vehicle.
There were more than 2,000 casualties as a result of police car crashes in the year to April 2004, compared with less than 1,300 in the previous period.
The figures are likely to add to many drivers' growing feeling of cynicism towards the police.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said some risks were inevitable, but that police drivers had to be trained to assess them.
"We all accept that in emergencies, police officers have to speed and go through red lights," chairman Nick Hardwick told BBC News. "But they must not take unacceptable risks, either for themselves or the public."
[24 June 2005]
Home Office figures have revealed a 60% increase in people killed or injured in collisions involving police cars.
The news comes just a few weeks after a police officer was let off for doing 159mph on the M54 while practising his driving skills and testing a new vehicle.
There were more than 2,000 casualties as a result of police car crashes in the year to April 2004, compared with less than 1,300 in the previous period.
The figures are likely to add to many drivers' growing feeling of cynicism towards the police.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission said some risks were inevitable, but that police drivers had to be trained to assess them.
"We all accept that in emergencies, police officers have to speed and go through red lights," chairman Nick Hardwick told BBC News. "But they must not take unacceptable risks, either for themselves or the public."
Last edited by ivperformance; 06-24-2005 at 02:52 PM.
06-24-2005, 04:57 PM
#3
Experienced GTcars Poster
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Mississauga
Posts: 1,518
Rep Power: 731
Who keeps the records of all accidents that happen in the GTA? The government, right? Do you think the government would ever release information about the frequency and amplitude of accidents involving and caused by police vehicles to the public? no!
06-28-2005, 12:02 PM
#8
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 713
believe me the numbers for the US and Canada are not smaller.... the matter of fact is police officers cause crashes all the time, in fact they probably killed more people this year(with their fault) than street racers did in the past 5. how come no officers replying to this thread ?
06-28-2005, 01:30 PM
#9
Junior GTcars Poster
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Richmond Hill
Posts: 282
Rep Power: 695
its true, just last week i was on black creek just about to hit 400 N. and everyone comes to a dead stop. As we all creep up to the accident, you can hear ppl laughing in their cars cause a cop totally rear-ended a mini van... and from the looks of it i betcha he wrote off the cop car...
REAR ENDED!!! Which as we all know is 98% of the time cause by the driver in the back and nothing to do with the driver in the front.
REAR ENDED!!! Which as we all know is 98% of the time cause by the driver in the back and nothing to do with the driver in the front.
06-28-2005, 02:57 PM
#10
GTcars - Post God !
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Kitchener
Posts: 4,367
Rep Power: 783
Originally Posted by Bullet
its true, just last week i was on black creek just about to hit 400 N. and everyone comes to a dead stop. As we all creep up to the accident, you can hear ppl laughing in their cars cause a cop totally rear-ended a mini van... and from the looks of it i betcha he wrote off the cop car...
REAR ENDED!!! Which as we all know is 98% of the time cause by the driver in the back and nothing to do with the driver in the front.
REAR ENDED!!! Which as we all know is 98% of the time cause by the driver in the back and nothing to do with the driver in the front.
06-28-2005, 04:21 PM
#11
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Burlington
Posts: 67
Rep Power: 692
It pisses me right off to see a cop flick the lights on to go through a red light, then turn them off about 1/2km down the road, or pull into a Timmies. Apparently I'm a higher risk because of the way my car looks.....
06-29-2005, 11:30 AM
#13
~~ Hardcore Newb ~~
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 86
Rep Power: 702
98% at fault for a rear end??
That should be 100% at fault for rear ending someone.
Clearly at fault: That officer should be charged with careless driving OR maybe at a minimum "following too close". Police go through driver training at the academy and mass majority is defensive driving at varying speeds, thus predicting when a vehicle in front is going to slow down, stop etc. I'm sure the supervisor of that officer has charged the officer, b/c it would go up the food chain and a superior officer would be asking questions as well, especially when cruiser damage is involved.
**********
You do not know why the roof lights were on and then turned off. Many reasons. Was the cruiser responding to an alarm and got cancelled? Was the cruiser enroute to an officer needing assistance and then cancelled as another unit arrived and then their was no need for a 3rd, 4th, 5th cruiser. Just so many reasons to state. You could call the police division and ask why the cruiser had it's lights on and turned them off, sure you would get an answer.
That should be 100% at fault for rear ending someone.
Clearly at fault: That officer should be charged with careless driving OR maybe at a minimum "following too close". Police go through driver training at the academy and mass majority is defensive driving at varying speeds, thus predicting when a vehicle in front is going to slow down, stop etc. I'm sure the supervisor of that officer has charged the officer, b/c it would go up the food chain and a superior officer would be asking questions as well, especially when cruiser damage is involved.
**********
You do not know why the roof lights were on and then turned off. Many reasons. Was the cruiser responding to an alarm and got cancelled? Was the cruiser enroute to an officer needing assistance and then cancelled as another unit arrived and then their was no need for a 3rd, 4th, 5th cruiser. Just so many reasons to state. You could call the police division and ask why the cruiser had it's lights on and turned them off, sure you would get an answer.
06-29-2005, 11:44 AM
#14
Average GTcars Poster
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 607
Rep Power: 713
Originally Posted by Moosexing
**********
You do not know why the roof lights were on and then turned off. Many reasons. Was the cruiser responding to an alarm and got cancelled? Was the cruiser enroute to an officer needing assistance and then cancelled as another unit arrived and then their was no need for a 3rd, 4th, 5th cruiser. Just so many reasons to state. You could call the police division and ask why the cruiser had it's lights on and turned them off, sure you would get an answer.
You do not know why the roof lights were on and then turned off. Many reasons. Was the cruiser responding to an alarm and got cancelled? Was the cruiser enroute to an officer needing assistance and then cancelled as another unit arrived and then their was no need for a 3rd, 4th, 5th cruiser. Just so many reasons to state. You could call the police division and ask why the cruiser had it's lights on and turned them off, sure you would get an answer.
power currupts absolutley.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
yaroslav_zilov@yahoo.com
Hyundai Mailing List
0
05-25-2007 09:20 AM
yaroslav_zilov@yahoo.com
Honda Mailing List
0
05-25-2007 04:03 AM
yaroslav_zilov@yahoo.com
Honda Mailing List
0
05-25-2007 04:03 AM
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)