Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition
-
@PleegWat said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Carnage said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
-10 isn't particularly cold though. Below -20 it gets a bit nippy though. I'm still sleeping with my bedroom window open during the night.
You do know what heating costs this year?
The heaters are not turned on.
but yeah, I know. I'm paying for my living.
-
@Carnage Hypothermia is normal.
-
Nice. Too bad the video has no sound.
(Cops flagged down a car, the driver hit the gas instead of stopping and led them on a chase. Went through two roadblocks. Eventually the police managed to stop him, after which it turned out there were 9 illegal immigrants in the car.)
-
@blek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Nice. Too bad the video has no sound.
(Cops flagged down a car, the driver hit the gas instead of stopping and led them on a chase. Went through two roadblocks. Eventually the police managed to stop him, after which it turned out there were 9 illegal immigrants in the car.)
He get's an E for "effort"?
-
@boomzilla said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
It gets even more fun on multi-lane roundabouts.
-
-
@blek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
led them on a chase
Whenever I see one of those videos it seems the police cars have the wipers on all the time, even if it's not raining (which seems to be the case here). Is that standard practice for a police chase?
On one hand I personally would be annoyed (and possibly distracted) at having the wipers on. OTOH, it might make sense to have them on so that if something lands on the windshield, it's wiped away as soon as possible without the driver having to do anything (which helps them staying focused on the chase). So... is it just some random thing that I noticed on a few videos, or is it a rule (in some forces at least)?
Also, another thing I've noticed is that police roadblocks often leave a large-enough gap that the chased car can go through. This looks very inefficient, but again OTOH I can imagine that it's on purpose to avoid a head-on high-speed crash that would probably be somewhat guaranteed to be very painful for all parties (the chased driver, who cares, but also their possibly innocent passengers and most importantly the cops!). It might be better to just force them to slow down (so at least the rest of the chase can catch up) and hopefully stop if their balls aren't large enough, than to kill people if their balls are large enough (to not stop)?
(also also I'd love to know what went through the mind of the van's driver at the end... "Am I helping? Should I stop there or continue? What's happening...??")
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
the chased driver, who cares
In the US, at least, many police departments seem to value the safety of the criminal (fleeing is, itself, a felony, regardless of whatever other offense the driver may or may not have committed previously) over his/her apprehension, or even the safety of the general public the driver is endangering. As far as I'm concerned, if a fleeing driver is endangering the lives of the public by, for example, driving toward oncoming traffic or colliding with other traffic, any amount of force, up to and including potentially lethal force, is justified to protect the public.
-
@HardwareGeek (that discussion can quickly shift to
territory...)I kind of agree with you, but OTOH people can do dumb things for dumb reasons and they don't really deserve being killed for that. Realistically speaking, there is a balance of risk to criminal vs. risk to others that isn't easy to judge (you don't want police to shoot and kill at the slightest thing, and an accident with a member of the public isn't a guaranteed thing either (as the video here shows)). Plus it's not that easy to stop a driver without creating risks! Shooting on a moving target with possible passers-by close-by isn't easy, and if the criminal was crashing full-on in a police car, police officers could easily get injured, which you definitely don't want either.
Overall, it's probably easier for everyone to use less force than more...
It's also likely (and that's where the
is calling!) that if the police started shooting (or otherwise harming) more fleeing criminals, the public reaction would be... quite heated, let's say.
-
@Zerosquare said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Do you have any context?
If the car just hit that sign, wouldn't it have folded forward?
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
the public reaction would be... quite heated, let's say.
Indeed. Some people are unhappy that police even pursue fleeing criminals at all, because of the danger it creates. However, the criminals often drive like that even when police aren't pursuing them. Often, dangerous driving is what attracts the attention of the police in the first place, then they notice that it was reported stolen, or it fits the description of a vehicle used in a robbery, or it belongs to someone with an arrest warrant, or whatever. If the car had been driving with the flow of traffic and obeying other traffic laws, they might not have given it a second glance.
Also, refusing to pursue a fleeing vehicle just provides an incentive to flee, especially in stolen vehicles. If it's not stolen, the police can look up the registered owner and address, and apprehend later. (Of course, proving who was actually driving and committed whatever crime will be much more difficult.) However, that's not possible for a vehicle that is stolen, since the thief is obviously not the owner.
And shooting at the moving vehicle is clearly a bad idea. People who suggest shooting tires and/or radiators have obviously never tried shooting a moving target.
More aggressive PITting and/or tire spiking are not unreasonable, IMHO. There's also a device called the Grappler; I don't know why more departments don't deploy it. (I think it's been posted here previously. It's webbing (nylon or kevlar or something strong like that) that is concealed in the front bumper of a police car. At the push of a button, the bumper extends the webbing in front of the police car. The police officer approaches the fleeing vehicle closely, similar to preparing for a PIT, but directly behind the tire. The webbing wraps around the vehicle's tire and axle. The webbing either remains attached to the police vehicle by a steel cable, so the police vehicle can simply drag it to a stop, or if the officer feels that would pose too much danger from an armed suspect, the cable can be released, and the tangled webbing will partially disable the fleeing vehicle, similar to tire spiking. I can take a couple of guesses at why it's not more widely deployed. I don't know how much it costs, but it's almost certainly not cheap, and it's basically single-use. Also, it's somewhat risky for officers, but probably less, and certainly no more, than PITting.)
-
@JBert said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
If the car just hit that sign, wouldn't it have folded forward?
I would think so. I'm assuming it was hit by another (probably sliding) vehicle that then either drove away or is out of view to the left.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
it's almost certainly not cheap, and it's basically single-use.
That's probably one, if not the, key reason for why all those things don't happen more. The cost of fitting all those devices on all patrol cars (because you don't know which ones may suddenly be involved in a chase), and maintaining it, and training officers, is probably very high, even if a single device was cheap.
More intervention also obviously means a higher risk to police officers, and they might not necessarily be so keen on it. I'm not saying they're not ready to risk their lives -- they are, and already do! But I also wouldn't blame them for asking themselves, and their leaders, a lot of questions as to whether taking a given risk is "worth it" or not (quotes because that assessment will vary with a lot of things). So there are probably quite a few cases where the officers may simply legitimately nope out, even if they had the means to act.
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
The cost of fitting all those devices on all patrol cars (because you don't know which ones may suddenly be involved in a chase), and maintaining it, and training officers, is probably very high
Many departments train only a subset of their officers in PIT, and officers not certified are not allowed to attempt it. If there is a pursuit with an uncertified officer, they have to wait for a PIT-certified officer to join and take over the lead of the pursuit before it can be attempted.
They could do the same thing for the Grappler — train a subset of their officers, and equip only their cars.
there are probably quite a few cases where the officers may simply legitimately nope out, even if they had the means to act.
And there are department policies that take the decision out of the officers' hands, even when they'd be willing to act. Police chiefs are typically hired and fired by politicians, and ... I won't say any more about that because this isn't the
.
-
@JBert said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Do you have any context?
If the car just hit that sign, wouldn't it have folded forward?Seems to be this.
Maybe it got pushed forwards and then the car reversed pulling it back?
I don't think that it's actually stuck in the ground there either and has been dragged from somewhere else but it's not clear from the one photo.
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Also, another thing I've noticed is that police roadblocks often leave a large-enough gap that the chased car can go through.
One thing that's done round here is to set up a partial roadblock and a stinger is deployed across the gap (at the last moment) so that the pursued car gets its tyres gradually deflated, which slows them down massively.
-
@HardwareGeek said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Many departments train only a subset of their officers in PIT, and officers not certified are not allowed to attempt it. If there is a pursuit with an uncertified officer, they have to wait for a certified officer to join the pursuit before it can be attempted.
They could do the same thing for the Grappler — train a subset of their officers, and equip only their cars.
I would imagine that they would do so but that's all coming back to the same problem -- you can't realistically train and equip every officer and if you don't, like you say you have to wait for one of them to arrive, which means basically letting the bad guy get away in the meantime (you can follow but that's not gonna stop him, and if he drives too dangerously, an untrained officer will probably have to let him go entirely). Of course there are helicopters etc. but again, it's a question of resources and availability... and ultimately cost!
Basically and as with any policy, there is a tipping point where "enforce all cases" costs more than it's worth. Where that point is depends on many things, including everyone's (and society's) slightly different estimation of "cost" and "worth", but that point always exists. That's kind of like (we're talking
so here's a 
analogy!) a compiler warning that is triggered by too many "normal" code -- at some point the hassle of checking, ignoring/changing all places is too much, and you simply disable that warning. Where that point is depends on how each developer judges "too many" vs. "hassle."
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Of course there are helicopters
What I said about about not shooting at moving vehicles? Shooting at the ground, so less risk of hitting innocent bystanders. Not aiming for the radiator or tires. Sophisticated aiming computer.
-
@HardwareGeek Can we please leave this kind of Macho-style law enforcement out of this thread?
-
@HardwareGeek A quick search tells me that a typical missile fired by an helicopter costs $100k-150k.
On the plus side, that's probably less expensive than a chase that ends up with ruining a couple of police cars, wounding an officer and/or some by-standers. On the minus side... weren't we talking about public acceptance a couple of posts ago?
(Fake)ETA: oh dear, seems we've woken up the Polizei. We'd better stop discussing then.
-
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@HardwareGeek Can we please leave this kind of Macho-style law enforcement out of this thread?
I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande.
-
@boomzilla said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@HardwareGeek Can we please leave this kind of Macho-style law enforcement out of this thread?
I don't think I'll ever get over Macho Grande.
TIL but wish I hadn't: There was a 70s gay porn movie titled Macho Grande. This was years before the scene in Airplane II you're referring to, so they weren't deriving the title from that. I wonder if one of the writers of Airplane II was inspired by the name of the previous movie.
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
A quick search tells me that a typical missile fired by an helicopter costs $100k-150k.
I wasn't suggesting a missile; the 20mm cannon would be more than sufficient (although with the cost of ammunition these days, it might not be that different).
Ok, enough
.
-
@remi said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
public reaction would be... quite heated, let's say.
A couple of years ago here (the same country as the above video) there was a case where police were chasing a biker, who was fleeing through the city, at almost three times the speed limit and in the opposite lane (four-lane with divider, through a tunnel). The officer coming from the other direction made a quick block, forcing the motorbike to crash (I think the biker survived with some serious injuries, but I don't remember that well).
A huge debate ensued whether it was reasonable thing to do forcing the biker to crash compared to risking further chase and potentially involving more people in an eventual crash. The investigation concludes the intervention was within the officers authority. But it shows it's a difficult and contentious decision.
-
@Bulb said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
A huge debate ensued whether it was reasonable thing to do forcing the biker to crash compared to risking further chase and potentially involving more people in an eventual crash. The investigation concludes the intervention was within the officers authority. But it shows it's a difficult and contentious decision.
A debate I have never understood. The person fleeing the cops and travelling at those speeds has already choosen to place themselves in danger. Law enforcement, likewise, has also placed themselves in a position of danger. The only people who haven't willingly done so are all of the other cars. So causing a crash that only endangers the parties that have willingly choosen to put themselves in that position is the best option (given that we are already past the true best option of them not fleeing the police at high speeds)
-
@Dragoon That's exactly what the investigation concluded too.
-
@Dragoon said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Bulb said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
A huge debate ensued whether it was reasonable thing to do forcing the biker to crash compared to risking further chase and potentially involving more people in an eventual crash. The investigation concludes the intervention was within the officers authority. But it shows it's a difficult and contentious decision.
A debate I have never understood. The person fleeing the cops and travelling at those speeds has already choosen to place themselves in danger. Law enforcement, likewise, has also placed themselves in a position of danger. The only people who haven't willingly done so are all of the other cars. So causing a crash that only endangers the parties that have willingly choosen to put themselves in that position is the best option (given that we are already past the true best option of them not fleeing the police at high speeds)
Thing is that causing a crash is rather chaotic and not very deterministic. You might very well cause the very thing you wanted to prevent: Innocent bystanders being hurt or killed.
-
@Rhywden The officer did it in a place where there couldn't be any bystanders. In the place the road is sunk below surrounding ground and goes through a shallow tunnel/long underpass, so nobody is walking there and only thing the bike could crash into was the car or the walls. Only other person could get in danger if somebody was driving too close behind the officer, but nobody was.
-
@Bulb Worked in this case, yes. I still wouldn't draw general conclusions out of it.
-
@Rhywden Indeed. That's what makes it a difficult decision. The officer has to weight the various risks, and has to do it in a split second.
-
“Delivery van drove along the rails at Diamant”
A delivery van has been seen driving along the tramrails in an underground Brussels tram station. A video posted on social media shows the van driving on the rails. It passes a tram driving in the other direction and then comes to a halt at a platf
-
@Luhmann What amount of Belgian beer was involved?
-
@Carnage said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Cars in the ditches along the highway on my commute to work today. First snow today. Nevermind that we've had frost and -10 °C for several weeks already.
One of the people I work with changed to winter tires yesterday. I suspect the cars that experienced sudden trajectory changes were running summer tires,They may also have been using CrossClimates. Those things are technically approved for winter use, so a lot of people use them in southern Finland; you can't get fined for using them even if you get surprised by the first snow. (In Helsinki, you never know when the snow'll come. This year, we got it this week. Last year, it was after Christmas, I think.)
Thing is, CrossClimates work well enough on cold asphalt. But not on any actual snow. As soon as that first snow falls, they act like summer tyres.
-
@acrow Yeah, that's why I'm switching to winter tyres even with the pathetically meagre amounts of snow we're getting around Hamburg.
-
@Luhmann said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
“Delivery van drove along the rails at Diamant”
A delivery van has been seen driving along the tramrails in an underground Brussels tram station. A video posted on social media shows the van driving on the rails. It passes a tram driving in the other direction and then comes to a halt at a platf
This is going too far. We've got to do something about @HardwareGeek's Delivery Distortion Field.
-
@Luhmann said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
“Delivery van drove along the rails at Diamant”
A delivery van has been seen driving along the tramrails in an underground Brussels tram station. A video posted on social media shows the van driving on the rails. It passes a tram driving in the other direction and then comes to a halt at a platf
LOL. They're not sure!
He, or possibly she, will also have to pay compensation for disrupting the traffic and possibly also a fine.
-
Some people really should not be allowed to drive. Example today:
I had just parked my ID.3 to let it charge and was walking around in the vicinity to do a bit of (planned) shopping. I was on the left side of the street on a walkway. About four meters ahead to the left was the exit of a car park which only allows a right turn to enter the street.
I was seeing a car stopping at the exit, the driver obviously looking for a space in the oncoming traffic (which, me being on the left side, is coming in my direction). However, said driver is obviously blind because she's two thirds across the walkway and, as we say in Germany, is "parking almost half on the street". She's also looking away from me, watching for a chance to turn right into the street (indicators were on).
I recognized this as potentially dangerous because I'd have to walk in front of her car and almost next to her bumper because she was hogging the walkway so much and, as I said, she was not looking at me.
But then I saw the flashing lights of an oncoming ambulance and saw the cars on the street pull over to let the ambulance pass which was nearing my position fast.
Thus I made the executive decision to use this chance to pass the car because surely she would not be so dumb as to pull into the street directly in front of the incoming ambulance?
Well, you know the thread's title. Of course she was.
Luckily, a quick bang on the hood disabused her of the notion of accelerating any further. And then she complained on how I was so audacious to walk on the walkway!
Yeah, lady, let's summarize the dumb things you did:
a) Almost blocking the walkway. Someone with a stroller or a wheelchair would not have been able to pass.
b) Trying to pull out in front of an ambulance
c) Not watching where you are fucking driving. That's the one thing my driving instructor hammered into us time and again: You always look into the direction you're driving.
-
@Rhywden I got hit on my bike once by somebody doing that (except pulling out of a parking lot onto a busy road). Dragged me along about 3m before he stopped. Thankfully the bike took all the damage; I just got skin abrasions and a good shock. He even looked straight at me as I started to cross in front of him before accelerating.
-
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
I had just parked my ID.3
I too have given up tagging my mp3´s.
-
@Rhywden Sounds like your presence prevented her from causing the ambulance to crash into her. Good thing you were there acting as an obstacle.
-
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Trying to pull out in front of an ambulance
Did you forget to tell us that she was driving a Tesla?
-
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Thus I made the executive decision to use this chance to pass the car because surely she would not be so dumb as to pull into the street directly in front of the incoming ambulance?
I will generally walk around behind cars doing this sort of thing.
-
@BernieTheBernie said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Trying to pull out in front of an ambulance
Did you forget to tell us that she was driving a Tesla?
Are you sure thumping the hood of a tesla won't make it explode?
-
@boomzilla said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Thus I made the executive decision to use this chance to pass the car because surely she would not be so dumb as to pull into the street directly in front of the incoming ambulance?
I will generally walk around behind cars doing this sort of thing.
That was the beauty of it: One side of her car was so close to the exit's walls that it would have been even more dangerous to try that route.
-
@PleegWat said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@BernieTheBernie said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Trying to pull out in front of an ambulance
Did you forget to tell us that she was driving a Tesla?
Are you sure thumping the hood of a tesla won't make it explode?
The batteries are on the bottom, so yeah, probably pretty safe.
-
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@boomzilla said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Thus I made the executive decision to use this chance to pass the car because surely she would not be so dumb as to pull into the street directly in front of the incoming ambulance?
I will generally walk around behind cars doing this sort of thing.
That was the beauty of it: One side of her car was so close to the exit's walls that it would have been even more dangerous to try that route.
Yeah, then I'll usually wait until I'm reasonably sure they've either acknowledged me or that there's really nowhere for them to go. The gap with the ambulance would be a big red flag for me.
-
I just crossed the street, walking to an appointment when I heard a crash to the left. Turns out that someone had failed to pay attention and thus drove into the back of the car in front of him when the traffic light turned green.
Considering that the car in front was also the first car in front of the stop line at this junction and that she clearly did not have her reversing lights on, this only left one reasonable explanation: The bozo had stepped on the gas too strong.While this was a pretty cut-and-dry case I nonetheless stopped to state that I was willing to serve as a witness, just to give the first car's driver some support and prevent bozo from claiming stuff I could easily counter. So far so good, nothing worthwhile of this thread actually.
Until I heard what bozo had to say for himself: "Well, the traffic light was green! What was I supposed to do?"
Yeah, dude, the colour of the traffic light in front of you is completely irrelevant if you have a car in front of you that's not (yet) moving. Yes, she may have been slow to accelerate or have thought that there was something on the street or stalled the car. Doesn't matter. And she clearly did not reverse into you and brake-checking is also out of the question considering that she was stopped at a red traffic light just seconds ago.
-
@Rhywden said in Driving Anti-Patterns - Necro Edition:
Until I heard what bozo had to say for himself: "Well, the traffic light was green! What was I supposed to do?"
Probably just a short-circuit defensive statement. He's realized he fucked up and panics, but in his panic his mind doesn't register that he just needs to fess up and reaches for whatever nonsensical defense instead.
I wouldn't even blame him too much for that, unless he actually sticks to that shit once he's calmed down a bit.
-
@topspin We'll see. If she contacts me again because she needs a statement then I'll know that he didn't admit that he fucked up
-
SaaS:
Toyota is going to make you pay to start your car with your key fob
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23083059/1230450659.jpg)
Cars newer than 2018 only come with a free trial of the feature.
Kamscan on Twitter
