Hit and run

[st13phil]

Taxi driver Paul Roberts clocks Britain's fastest ever speed while riding motorbike with passenger pillion | Metro News

That video and the accompanying text actually raise a few questions, such as:

1. Assuming that the conviction for Dangerous Driving was based upon the acts of overtaking on the left and high speed lane-splitting by Roberts, wasn't PC Hills guilty of the same acts and therefore also engaged in Dangerous Driving? Surely if the standard of driving is dangerous it is a serious offence, regardless of whether the person involved is a civilian or a police officer?
2. Why did PC Hills not just radio ahead to have Roberts stopped - after all he had evidence recorded of the offences subsequently charged after the first occurrence, so why continue the pursuit?
3. My understanding is that Hills was riding an unmarked bike, but that it was fitted with "blues and twos". If that's the case, why did he (apparently) engage in a lengthy covert pursuit, and not use the lights / siren at the first opportunity to alert Roberts to his presence?

As I understand it, there is an exemption for Police Officers to exceed the speed limit if it's necessary to do so in performance of their duties, but I don't recall there being any provision for Police Officers to drive at speeds inappropriate for the conditions, nor to lane-split at high speeds if it unnecessarily endangers them or the public. I also take issue with Sergeant Nick Edwards' comment that 'The levels of harm to which Paul Roberts subjected himself, his pillion passenger, the public and my officer are just beyond comprehension'. Roberts may have subjected the first three to danger, but it was entirely PC Hills' choice to undertake the pursuit and to continue it for as long as he did, in the way that he did.

 

[markjay]

That video and the accompanying text actually raise a few questions, such as:

1. Assuming that the conviction for Dangerous Driving was based upon the acts of overtaking on the left and high speed lane-splitting by Roberts, wasn't PC Hills guilty of the same acts and therefore also engaged in Dangerous Driving? Surely if the standard of driving is dangerous it is a serious offence, regardless of whether the person involved is a civilian or a police officer?
2. Why did PC Hills not just radio ahead to have Roberts stopped - after all he had evidence recorded of the offences subsequently charged after the first occurrence, so why continue the pursuit?
3. My understanding is that Hills was riding an unmarked bike, but that it was fitted with "blues and twos". If that's the case, why did he (apparently) engage in a lengthy covert pursuit, and not use the lights / siren at the first opportunity to alert Roberts to his presence?

As I understand it, there is an exemption for Police Officers to exceed the speed limit if it's necessary to do so in performance of their duties, but I don't recall there being any provision for Police Officers to drive at speeds inappropriate for the conditions, nor to lane-split at high speeds if it unnecessarily endangers them or the public. I also take issue with Sergeant Nick Edwards' comment that 'The levels of harm to which Paul Roberts subjected himself, his pillion passenger, the public and my officer are just beyond comprehension'. Roberts may have subjected the first three to danger, but it was entirely PC Hills' choice to undertake the pursuit and to continue it for as long as he did, in the way that he did.

I don't have answers to all your questions... but regarding your first point:

a. Police drivers (and riders) receive very specific training e.g. response, pursuit, etc, depending on their duties, and they may not exceed their certification, e.g. a driver with 'response' training may drive with blue lights to get quickly to an incident, but may not engage in pursuit and intercept, etc.

b. Certified police drivers driving within their skill level are considered highly trained and safer than members of the public who do not receive such training. They are also better equipped to assess when fast driving is safe and will not engage in pursuit if they think it is not safe to do so.

c. Safety is a relative concept, there is always some risk involved when driving. When a police officer is carrying out his/her duties, taking a certain level of risk is acceptable if it is for the purpose of preventing crime or apprehending an offender. This is also why police officers will be disciplined if they break the law unnecessarily. The idea is that the risk is reduced because of the driver's training, both on track and in correctly assessing road and traffic conditions and risk.



I am not suggesting that the police rider acted as he should - I do not know, all I am trying to point out is that police drivers driving at high speed is not necessarily an issue in itself when done correctly (by a trained driver) and for a good reason (apprehending a suspect).

 

[st13phil]

Playing Devil's advocate, why is there an automatic (and, I'd suggest, unproven) assumption that the rider with the warrant card has a higher skill level than the rider without?

Having ridden many 10's of thousands of miles on two wheels, many at elevated speeds, and many in the company of Class One ticket holders, my assessment based on the video clip is that PC Hills' judgement was clouded by red mist and that his pursuit of Roberts was in many respects inappropriate. Training does not provide super powers, and Joe Public bumbling along at 70-ish MPH in the middle lane will not react differently as a result of Hill having received "training" and Roberts maybe not. That Hill didn't have (or cause) a collision himself was as much a matter of luck as it was for Roberts. Yet one is serving a 15-month driving suspension with 120hrs Community Service, while the other is not. Not Essex Constabulary's finest advertisement, imo.

 

[markjay]

I Can't comment on whether the police rider was right or wrong in this particular instance, I just don't know enough about bike riding to do that.

But again, on a general note, there are several reasons while police drivers are allowed to do things that Joe Public isn't.

Firstly, accreditation and certification do count. You may have vast medical knowledge, but unless you qualify as a doctor you can't treat patients. Similarly, you need to have been trained, tested, and passed, in order to be allowed to drive a police vehicle in this way.

Then, the training a police driver gets comprises of track sessions (and I have seen the police track in Hendon), which provide training and experience that no civilian driver can achieve on public toards. And, even seasoned race drivers, do not train to drive among slow vehicles, lorries, cyclists and pedestrians - these do not exist on a race track. I really don't see how a civilian driver can ever obtain the very specific training that police drivers (and drivers or other emergency vehicles) get in driving fast and safe among ordinary traffic.

To be clear, I do not disagree with you that the police biker may have acted irresponsibly in the circumstances, my only point is that it is not necessarily unreasonably unsafe for police drivers to drive fast on public roads in the right circumstances.