Cambridgeshire rail crossing car crash thief jailed

[whole diary]

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

A thief who drove a stolen Mercedes car through a rail crossing barrier seconds before a train passed put "lives at risk", police said.

Terence Fowler showed "total disregard" for the public as he hit 90mph (145kph) to evade officers, police said.

Fowler, 20, of March, Cambridgeshire, admitted dangerous driving in the town and a number of other offences, at Peterborough Crown Court. He was jailed for three-and-a-half years.

Officers released police-car footage of Fowler's getaway drive between March and nearby Whittlesey in June 2010.

"Fowler refused to pull over and a pursuit ensued... at speeds of more than 90mph," said a police spokesman. "During the pursuit, Fowler drove on the wrong side of the road, overtook vehicles on roundabouts and knocked off another vehicle's wing mirror.

"Police abandoned the pursuit because it was too dangerous and could only watch as he ploughed through a closed level crossing at King's Dyke with a Cross Country train just seconds away. Passengers reported feeling the carriages shudder as the train smashed into the barrier debris moments later."

Police said the car was later found abandoned and Fowler, who was jailed on Thursday, arrested after his blood was found on the smashed windscreen.

Det Insp Michael Branston said: "Fowler showed total disregard for other road users, pedestrians and rail passengers as he tried to evade being caught by police. His actions put many lives at risk and he was lucky not to have been killed himself."

[inspector_blakey]

Hmm, well just to play devil's advocate here somewhat, isn't it possible to argue that the police endangered a significant number of lives by pursuing someone at 90 mph on busy roads (I've seen the video footage on the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) site) for stealing a car? A serious crime no doubt, but surely the potential collateral damage risked by that kind of police chase is utterly out of proportion to the gravity of the offence.

[Chris from Nailsea]

Hmm. 

That's always a hard decision for the police to make: in this particular case, "Police abandoned the pursuit because it was too dangerous ... "

But in other circumstances, there will be an equal public outcry as to "Why didn't the police stop this person, before he drove on and killed our son / daughter / mother / father ..."

[JayMac]

Watching that video, there appeared to be an opportunity, approaching the roundabout, for the police to employ a PIT manoeuvre.

Something that we see regularly on American 'Police, Camera, Action' type shows. Are UK^▸ (United Kingdom) police forces allowed to do PITs?




4000th post. Do I get a badge? 

[inspector_blakey]

I don't suppose plod wanted to damage his paintwork.

On a more serious note though, of course I appreciate what Chris is saying above but if it was me making the judgement call I'd have called the whole chase off way, way before it ended up at the level crossing - there was clearly a significant number of other motorists endangered long before that. I really don't see that the police pursuing a vehicle makes things safer for anyone in this situation, and in fact I'd argue exactly the opposite, since once you take the panda car out of the equation the crim no longer has an incentive to burn along busy single-carriageway roads at 90 mph.

[bobm]

Are UK^▸ (United Kingdom) police forces allowed to do PITs?

The link you have quoted says they are not.

I tend to agree with inspector_blakey - there are at least two occasions on that video when I would have called off the pursuit because of the potential danger to oncoming vehicles.