road spikes

Yep, on the Holden website. http://tinyurl.com/j6vq6

Strangely enough, when I got my VZ Commodore a couple of years ago, it
was an option, but I'm in the process of placing an order for a VE and
when I double checked just now it no longer appears to be an option on
the SS, so maybe demand for it was low so they've removed it from the
option list for the non-luxury models.. from memory it was about $2000
fitted on a new car, plus there was an ongoing annual charge.

Nev..
'04 CBR1100XX

 

leave me out of this will you!

 

Thanks for that useful and helpful summary of your non position.

Of course your reading between the lines as to what Nev may have meant
compared to what Nev actually said is less than helpful. As is your lack of
actual solution to this acknowledged problem, aside from criticising those
who do a difficult and demanding job, where their own lives are at much at
risk (if not more) than the person they chase and the citizens they mostly
seek to protect.

1) I don't agree that the net effect is the same. It is my OPINION (for
Gerry) that not chasing any runners would result in a worse overall social
situation. That is because of lack of respect for authority and property,
insignificant reduction in the accident rate in stolen cars/drunk
drivers/unlicensed or underage drivers etc etc.

2) I don't believe that the number of deaths as a result of 'Police chases'
as a proportion of the number of deaths as a result of 'offender drivers'
(stolen cars, drunk drivers, unlicensed drivers etc etc) is as much a
proportion as the media would have us believe, feel free to provide evidence
to prove me wrong.

<invoke appropriate deity>, you're <cast appropriate epithet> yourself
<insert cheeky grin>.

P

 

Oh I see, it's "assistance" - I was searching on "big brother is
watching your every move", silly me

JL
(thanks, I knew the yanks had it on the cadillacs, I didn't realise
they'd bought it here).

 

Well the last couple of years of R1 do 160 in first gear, so yeah,
might have been

JL

 

The WA Gov't is pissweak on transport. They made a rule saying you can't
have more than two trailers closer than xx to the city. So that would be a
semi with a trailer? Noooo! Haulage companies figured that allowed them to
have a 4 axle (2x S, 2x D) towing two trailers. We also have B-doubles with
an extra trailer heading North regularly. Also used to cart sheep. There is
a 37.5 metre lenght limit and they make them exactly that long. As for big
loads, I regularly see mini-convoys, being Pilot, Police escort, 2 x
lowloaders carrying haul-packs, and another carrying the wheels. Fucks the
roads in no time.

Theo

 

Nev previously said
"I'll make an outrageous claim and say that a significant proportion of
people who do a runner from the cops do it because they have stolen the
car, they're DUI, or don't have a license, or all of the above. It
doesn't matter if you catch them or not. The next time the same
circumstance arises, they will react in the same manner. Catching them
or not catching them won't make much difference in the overall scheme of
things. If you catch them, you will charge them, take them to court,
they will receive a penalty of some kind, and what have you done to
ensure they won't do it again?"

Are you getting it yet. Nev said there was no difference in _behavioural
outcome_ if you caught them or not. So there is no point in chasing them.
Chasing them will get somebody hurt. I responded that not chasing them
allows everyone to continue living. You then demonstrated your total
misunderstanding and denigrated me for your misunderstanding. I returned the
denigration and you then tried to take the high ground by using "really big
words" and making silly claims which you then asked me to disprove. You went
over the edge. You still appear to be in free fall, but beware, the ground
is approaching.

Some do, some are just on a power trip, some are gang members, the Blue
gang.

It would encourage you to drive a stolen car drunk and unlicensed? It
wouldn't me, or anyone else I know.

You made the claim, you provide the evidence.

Theo

 

A comment 13 (count them) posts and 4 days before yours, that has been well
and truly snipped from the current trend, used to establich context . OK,
if thats how you play, I can accept what you are saying, though it is a
little unconventional in process at best.

That is definitely flawed, in fact as well as in sentiment.

I denigrated you and used big word? ROFL. Heaven help me if I ever said
anything to you like 'God you're dumb'. And I don't tend to use word that
aren't in common use in the groups I inhabit, so I apologise if you find
them long. In fact I believe that the only person in the NG I have ever
insulted is Nev and I have well apologised for that slur on my own
character.

Some. That does not include all or indeed a majority. There are always
cops who have what appears to be a 'God complex', we all meet them, but they
do get it drilled into them as part of basic training.

Not me it wouldn't, but what do you think the effect is on those who do if
it became widely known that the cops refuse to engage in high speed
pursuits? A change in behavour in what direction?

Refusing to accept your premise does not equate to making a claim, though
that is a good try.

The fundamental issue here is one of cause and effect. You accept or even
promote the idea that 'High speed chases are caused by police'.

I believe the alternative, that 'High speed chase are caused by villains
running'.

Now, as to what to do about that, I remain unclear except in that
'abandoning the pursuit' is not always going to save lives, since there are
numerous occasions where the Police HAVE terminated pursuit and the offender
_still_ proceeds to wipe some innocent off the face of the earth.

My real point in all this it that responsibility and culpability for the
tragedies should rest with the villains, not with the law enforcers.

YMMV.

P

 

Amazingly, when the offender crashes (at least here in WA) it almost always
turns out that the Police terminated pursuit 45 seconds earlier. Acording
to their reports anyway.

We'll just have to disagree then.

Theo

 

Theo Bekkers wrote:

Aye, we in NSW seem to have had a few like that too. :-|

regards,
CrazyCam

 

I think the elevation is making you light-headed.

Theo

 

Yopu misspelled facetious, which is what I was being in the post above.

Theo

 

Interesting use of the word offender... don't you mean victim?

Indeed. I'd go on about aggravating circumstances etc but that would appear
to be a waste of bandwidth.

P

 

Good lord! I just told you you were being facetious.

You're mixing your languages Gerry. The correct spelling of the titling is
Heer, but more correct usage is Meneer. For Christ's sake, get something
right.

Theo

 

In your discussions regarding police chasing drivers you all seem to
haveassumed that the crime involved is some minor traffic offence. Is it ok
for the police to chase a car if the driver has just killed someone?
Or intends to kill/hurt someone? Has children in the car and are under the
influence? Has just robbed a bank? Has a car loaded with drugs? Or
explosives?
Maybe this will help

 

Huh? Police should chase people with small dicks? For what? Comparison?

Theo

 

No, not really.

I'd rather the cops switched off the lights and sirens and tried to
discretely follow the offender's vehicle, radioed for additional
assistance and tried to keep things relatively calm.

Chasing sortof implies trying to catch up with, and possibly stop, the
target. Not what I'd first think of as a good idea in your last example.

How ever a chase starts, the participants, both chaser and chasee, get
very quickly dosed up with adrenalin, and adrenalin isn't the best drug
for cool calm logical thinking.

regards,
CrazyCam

 

Totally agree.
But how will they ever get on World's Police Wildest Videos then?

Theo

 

Pretty damn close. Was he in the Palestine Liberation Front or the Front for
the Liberation of Palestine?

Theo

 

In this thread the common enemy are those innocent civilian killing
coppers... Don't they ride BMWs and Hondas?

P