I see that PCA is back in it's finest patronising fashion! The latest "buzzword" is "Monster Motorist", which covers everthing from ten year old video clips to items with a middle but no start or end (and usually shot in the US).

What possible relevance is there with Alastair Stewart sitting in a "crusher 4*4", an executive jet and a cable-car - compared to the subject matter.

Why is it that someone can steal a caravan, nearly total it and several Police cars, break speed limits and traffic regulations, evade arrest, endanger lives - and yet receive a community service and have to pay "compensation" to the owner?

How come a Police dog handler in his van, who almost certainly isn't a "highly trained traffic officer", can t-bone a "suspected stolen" Metro, endangering not only the driver's live, but others around?

And how could the Police in Scotland get an accurate speed of the mad-man driving in the rain - the VASCAR marks were totally obscured by the spray.

I am sure that this program is tring to make a point, but exactly which one - does anybody know?

mb

p.s. I only watch it because i hate it!

 

Boomer,
I've just been watching,and agree with all you're comments.
I could'nt beleive the dog handler in his van ramming into the metro,there was no messing with that guy! I reckon he has been watching too many films.The speed he hit that metro could have launched it onto a pavement or anywhere, fine in the right place, but not in a town centre.

 

...and what about the guy on the bike that failed to stop ? They checked the bike wasn't stolen, and then knocked him off anyway !!!!!! How's that for community policing ? Is that in 'Roadcraft' ?

 

...and what about the guy in the green Rover overtaking in the the appalling conditions - what absolutely attrocious driving...and the 'Police were forced to follow' thereby compounding the danger 100 fold!

So many instances where the driver was not obeying the highway code 100% but I was surprised to see that the police were able to follow them in absolute safety eg the guy overtaking on the inside lanes of the motorway - tut! tut! - and then what do we see but the police car obviously doing exactly the same thing! Drivers on British motorways do not expect to be undertaken, by police or anybody

Mick

 

In the instance of the stolen metro, the guy became aware that he was being followed by the chopper, and instantly upped the game. If the technology is that good (and it is) then why couldn't they stand off from a reasonable distance and follow him to where he was going, nice and discreetly, and only precipitate action when safe/required? They might even have found more stolen goods...

In instances like the Rover, mentioned above, you have the PNC and clear image of the licence plate to find if a vehicle is stolen, so what possible advantage is garnered by the police driving in the same way?

I think the aim of the program is to point out to the motorist that no matter how infallible you are, how well trained, and how safe your car, you are always going to be less safe than the person doing 20mph faster to catch you up, because they are shooting the footage and are beyond reproach.

EDIT:
I have just read this back, and feel that I ought to quantify some of the above. The last paragraph was of course being sarcastic.
I don't resent the work that the traffic officers do, and I certainly respect them deeply for some of the horrible work that they have to do. I feel that as with all jobs (for that is what it is), there are people that do it well and those that do it badly. I am sure that the scene with the dog handler crashing into the metro would make the Hendon instructors weep, but it is an indication of that faliability that I was trying to convey.
<Extracts foot from mouth>

[This message has been edited by KF (edited 03-07-2000).]

 

I liked it when the helicoptor, called for *I think* a supervisor, I rekon the dog handler got a bit of a telling off

I can't wait for the PCA drink drive special, funny how Alistair never mentions that he was convicted a few years ago for drink drive

Always funny to send ITV an email about that, apparantly they have "noted my comments"

 

Is the polices job to uphold the law or just to let us break as many as possible before stopping you ? Why did they sit there watching the kids playing football across the main road, why did they follow the green rover and not stop it ?
cheers

ANdy

 

Isn't is galling how ITV still let Alistair Stewart present this program. He's so patronising and he is, as stated above, a convicted drunk driver... how's that for being a "monster driver"... :Very angry smiley type thing:

I just find that AS's patronising, holier than thou attitude ruins any otherwise useful message that this program should, by rights, be giving viewers. Why do the police and production company put up with it?

Mind you, I logged on to post a thread on the program, apart from AS, the major point was going to be about the police deliberately, and with malice a forethought, ramming the metro... and then doing the same to a bloody motorbike! Both instances being supported by Alistair Stewarts patronising sermons. Very bad stuff. You could almost forgive the metro incident, one lone copper making a bad decision... but the motorbike was run down by a video equipped unmarked/traffic car. :Another really angry icon:

Does anyone have any idea of how to contact the program makers? I want to write to them and give them a viewer's opinion.

Moray

 

Why did they sit a car in the wrong lane for so much of the caravan pursuit, assuming oncoming traffic will stop for their blue lights and sirens... the "target" was towing a caravan... what did they think it was going to do, suddenly start performing like a scooby? Why didn't they just sit back and follow safely, the guys in the caravan would eventually realise they were not going to lose the police... instead, the police decided on a course of action that simply increased the danger to everyone involved, general public included. Now that's what I call "monster driving".

...And to top it off... (sorry, still in rant mode)... bl**dy Alistair Stewart is there preaching about how dangerous the thieves driving is and praising the police driver's (the one on wrong side of the road) "advanced training and quick reactions" for avoiding being hit by the caravan... personally, I would suggest that that driver had a great deal of luck to thank for not meeting something coming the other way.

The programme keeps going on about how you can't escape the police helicopter's hi-tec arsenal of sensors... funny how they didn't have a helicopter available to follow the caravan.

[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 04-07-2000).]

 

I think you should all consider yourselves very lucky indeed that Mr.Stewart has made the effort to climb down from his cross and address the steerage.

I throw myself procumbent on the carpet for his propitation and good favour as soon as he appears on my television.





[This message has been edited by blubs (edited 04-07-2000).]

 

I think with hindsight it's easy to make the right decision, co-ordinate everthing perfectly....

What I want is an area/traffic car equipped with a scud missile that can lock on to my tracker in case the car is stolen (smiley thing).

PCA is just entertainment it doesn't contribute to road safety at all . Perhaps the opposite.

[This message has been edited by JasonHook (edited 04-07-2000).]

 

Moray,

The address and phone no are listed here:

 

I've seen AS on PCA admitting that he'd been done for drink driving, though the way he said it, you'd think he'd only ever once been a bad boy and that was theone time he'd been caught. Hmm, don't believe it somehow.

And only this week there was a statement from (I believe) the Chief Superintendent's Association which said that "too many police officers grow horns when they get behind the wheel of a pursuit car."

PCA is just entertainment, lowest common denominator television of the worst kind. Which is why I've watched it once or twice, but now no longer bother.

 

Thanks KF! I will try contacting them soon.

 

Alastair Stewart did admit to hid drink driving conviction in an earlier series - he was actually very humble and not (quite rightly) proud of it.

 

Sensationalist crap.

Over emphasis on speed. The script was just total and complete rubbish. Factually Misleading to the extent of being ..... Well just pure lies really.


Dog man ramming car?

Not wrong, we don't have the full facts, there may have been a Salvation Army parade taking place just down that road? It worked.

Supervisor is routinely called for whenever a Police car has been involved in any RTA.

I must be getting old, used to find this stuff funny, now just find it deeply annoying!

Mike. <I>Going to fetch his slippers)</I>.

 

Remove Alistair Stewart from the programme, replace with Jeremy Clarkson.

JOB DONE.

(It is, afterall only base entertainment, nothing more...)

 

KF,

regarding your last paragraph -

I think the aim of the program is to point out to the motorist that no matter how infallible you are, how well trained, and how safe your car, you are always going to be less safe than the person doing 20mph faster to catch you up, because they are shooting the footage and are beyond reproach.

- I didn't take as being ironic, and was surprised when you said it was! It's not just twocys that kill innocents. Inappropriate use of speed, tell me the footage doesn't display that from time to time.

I feel the program is on one level voyeuristic, which makes Alistair Stweart (IMHO) a pornographer.
On another level it's propaganda. They are there telling you, that the coppers are the hardest firm in town, put a foot wrong and they'll bust your ***.

 

Aero,
I am not sure what you are saying. In the context of my initial message, the last paragraph was intended to point out that the officers appear to have a different priority other than road safety in mind.

A hypothetical situation: you are driving a Impreza down a deserted Scottish highroad at 120mph (as depicted on the show - and coincidentally I DON'T condone) when you drive past a patrol. You may be a professional driver of equal or greater car control skill of the police drivers you have just passed (although your observation skills are obviously questionable). You are then persued by a car that is initially loosing 2 miles per minute while the officers take up the chase and attempt to catch and stop you (as depicted in the show). Which is likely to be the safest car? The officers have your licence number on film, but give chase anyway. Why? I can't think of another area of policing which requires the officers to break the law which they are trying to enforce.
KF.


[This message has been edited by KF (edited 04-07-2000).]

 

I normally watch the show, although I missed this week's one (much to my annoyance) so I can't comment on any individual footage.

I guess I'll have to stick my neck out and say that I really enjoy watching PCA! I know it's sensationalist, but so what? It's trying to appeal to the general masses, not the car-gnoscenti that frequent this board. AS may be patronising, but he is a news reader after all. As for his drink-driving (& speeding I believe!) offences, well, who better to explain the pointlessness of breaking the law than someone who has been caught?

As for all this talk about the safety of pursuing a speeding vehicle, ummmm, what exactly do you expect the police to do? "Sorry sir, I know he just ran over your entire family, but he was doing nearly 50, and that's far too fast for us to chase". How about they don't arrest criminals who carry guns in case there is a shoot-out? Or ones who shout a lot and use bad language in case someone gets offended?

The whole point is that the police must give chase every time otherwise the message to the criminals is drive really quickly so as to avoid arrest. Helicopters are great, but they are expensive and few in numbers, so patrol cars are always going be the first line in pursuits. As for taking license numbers, they don't mean a thing, the car can be stolen or simply be on false plates. The days of Dixon of Dock Green wandering up to your house, saying "you're nicked" and being met with a chorus of "it's a fair cop, guv" are long gone.

Sadly it does seem that police standards of driving are going down as the number of fatal accidents involving police cars is steadily climbing, but that is a reason to improve the quality of the driving and spend more on pursuit training, not give up on it altogether.

 

DavidRB,
Your relpy raises a few interesting points.

"The whole point is that the police must give chase every time" is difficult to rationalise in the current climate of grey boxes taking over the day to day policing of the roads. This view is therefore obviously not shared by the police.

"Sadly it does seem that police standards of driving are going down", well, I have no direct experience. If you were to say to me that the police need more training, I think that you are tackling a symptom, rather than the disease. Train the public, show them the dangers of bad driving, then there will be less need for police chases.

Using a sensationalist program such as PCA does little to educate, in the same way that You've Been Framed does little to eductate people about the dangers of standing on tables etc. Compare and contrast the BBC / ITV solutions, So You Think... as opposed to PCA. The differences speak for them selves, and then look at the viewing figures, and discover the public aren't (as) interested in being educated.
KF.

 

KF, I think we're discussing different points. I'm addressing the problem with (real ) criminals evading capture by the police, you're talking about speeding motorists.

Yes, Gatsos et al. do a good job of sending NIPs to speeding motorists, they don't do much to stop armed-robbers in a stolen getaway car. How does a Gatso help in this situation? At no point have I ever seen an article where the police point to Gatsos as helping cut non-speeding related crimes.

My experience of police driving standards is based on accident reports. Over the last couple of years, the number of fatal crashes involving police cars has increased. This coincides with a reduction in the amount of training that the pursuit drivers receive. Trained pursuit drivers will always be required when criminals attempt to evade capture. Their ability to chase speeding motorists is secondary.

What if someone is driving recklessly at 120mph? Do you believe that everyone who drives at nearly twice the speed limit is a highly trained semi-professional in a well-maintained supercar with extensive circuit experience and a keen interest in maintaining their driving skills to the highest level? Or are the odds of it being some lunatic with his first XR3i about zero??? Sure, the XR3i owner might get a speeding ticket in the post, but they might have to dig him & his passengers up to deliver it.

I'm curious why you don't make the distinction between speeding and "regular" criminals. Having thought about the differences between PCA and So You Think..., they are targeting slightly different audiences. So You Think... exists to show law-abiding citizens that they can improve their driving skills. PCA exists to show criminals (and bad drivers) that their efforts to evade capture are in vain.

 

DavidRW,

The police do not have to give chase every time... Many of the pursuits screened on Alistair "I'm worse than a Roman Catholic Convert in a religeous debate" Stewart presented propoganda, sorry, I meant programme, become dangerous simply because the police choose to persue the "target"s in such an aggressive manner.

"Sorry sir, your entire family has been run down by the guy who only started driving at such inappropriate speeds because we let the red-mist cloud our better judgement... but don't worry, Alistair Stewart will praise me for my amazing reactions and advanced training, so that's ok then."

BTW: I do believe that a motorist driving at a seriously inappropriate speed through a crowded town center is indeed commiting a dangerous, criminal act.

Moray
(PS: No offence intended to any RCConverts reading. I was expecting to burn in hell anyway! )

[This message has been edited by MorayMackenzie (edited 05-07-2000).]

 

David,
"I think we're discussing different points. I'm addressing the problem with criminals evading capture by the police, you're talking about speeding motorists"

For sure. I am aware that you missed the program so I will point out that for the most part the program (this week) depicted motorists doing silly things.

My point is that in all instances, the police have a civic responsibility to weigh the risks of pursuit against the advantages of arrest, at all times during it. On evidence presented in the program, in my opinion, some of the judgement was suspect.

If the point of the program were to eductate criminals about the dangers of evading capture, then it is worse than I thought. Criminals will do all they can to evade capture because the penalties for the motoring offences are so inconsequential to them.

To answer your direct question (assuming it wasn't rhetorical).

Most drivers who travel at 120mph will have done it more than the once that the police spot them - and will have driven excessively fast on the road before. This shows a persistant mindset and not a little lack of understanding of the dangers. Either you can take the toys away for a couple of months (and assume that he doesn't drive whilst disqualified) or take the money that he would pay in fines, and educate him. Tackle the cause (bad driving and antisocial attitude). Put him in a police car. Take him to some fatal RTA's. Make him watch some accident footage. Force him to take the IAM test. This is going to have more effect than a £400 fine and some points on a probably non existant license.
KF.

 

KF,

Force him to take the IAM test! Have you no heart, you are truley mercyless!

Moray

 

Moray
- Off topic, but please don't just expect to burn in Hell. It saddens me to see people take it so lightly. There is a way to avoid it! I'm sure you have seen the quote - 'John 3.16'

BTW - I do appreciate your input to this bbs.

Cheers

Mick

 

Especially for the infidels:
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life."
KF.

[This message has been edited by KF (edited 05-07-2000).]

 

On the subject of speed, how about this then...

Essex County Council have just approved £4,500,000 expenditure on static and mobile speed camera's in the county. Why? Because... "it has been calculated that this policy will reduce the number of casulties by 78, each costing £61,000." ie a saving of £4,758,000.

Who the hell worked that out???????

There is even a radio ad campaign telling us that these "safety cameras" are for our own benefit... which we are also paying for.

I stopped watching Alistair Stewart some time ago. The programme is annoying to the serious motorist and an "action hero" production for the persistant joyriders.

 

Why is it that a bunch of witless Yanks (apologies to American readers, but it always seems to be in the USA) seem to think it a sign of intelligence to hold up an idiot placard with 'John 3.16' written on it at every major sodding sports event?

Nick

 

NickF,
What confuses me, is why they would think that the rest of us who don't believe i.e. those that the placard is directed at, would give 2 hoots anyway. Confusion reigns...
Mr Croney. Amen to that.
KF.