Who pays?

loskie

you obviously didn't do me the courtesy of reading and understanding my whole post.
Mind you I should expect nothing more from the know-alls on this forum.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

loskie wrote: »

you obviously didn't do me the courtesy of reading and understanding my whole post.
Mind you I should expect nothing more from the know-alls on this forum.

I did read it and I'm struggling to see what you think there is to complain about. So please do enlighten everyone.

AdrianC

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

Joking aside that's the way the country's going.

Don't be ridiculous.

Now the driver of the police vehicle has another accident he would need to talk his insurance company about.

There's no mention of him having one.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

AdrianC wrote: »

Don't be ridiculous.


There's no mention of him having one.

First line of the OP.

outofmoney wrote: »

Our son has just been hit by another that was being pursued by a Police Car. Not surprisingly they didn't stop.
Our son flagged the police down, who by now had lost the car they were chasing.
All details exchanged.
Although our son drove home, we think his car is a write-off. He has bad damage to the back and side, and goodness knows what underneath.
He is 19 so insurance is already high. He is also my carer so income is very low. Will he have to pay for any repair or will it just be written off and he gets pennies? (if he is lucky)

I'm not being ridiculous loskie thinks the police have done something wrong and should be investigated. Why should the driver put himself in that position? He gets paid the same whether he catches the criminal or doesn't.

AdrianC

Yes, exactly. There is no mention of the police car having hit anything.

And if the driver of a traffic car (which is what it'll have been to be given authorisation to pursue) doesn't make any attempt to actually do so, then - yes - it will affect his pay... Because he'll be out of the traffic division in short order.

Car_54

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, exactly. There is no mention of the police car having hit anything.

And if the driver of a traffic car (which is what it'll have been to be given authorisation to pursue) doesn't make any attempt to actually do so, then - yes - it will affect his pay... Because he'll be out of the traffic division in short order.

Are you sure?

I thought traffic cars were dedicated to motoring offences, not chasing down dangerous and possibly armed criminals while armed only with a truncheon.

Are armed response units (for example) not allowed to pursue, if the driver has been appropriately trained? Not to mention the Sweeney;)

Shaun_of_the_Dead

AdrianC wrote: »

Yes, exactly. There is no mention of the police car having hit anything.

And if the driver of a traffic car (which is what it'll have been to be given authorisation to pursue) doesn't make any attempt to actually do so, then - yes - it will affect his pay... Because he'll be out of the traffic division in short order.

He's doesn't have to hit anything to be involved in an accident any accident as a result of a pursuit is classed at as police accident. You know how it goes, owing to the presence of a motor vehicle on a road........ in this case the police car.

I had to shatter your illusion but a traffic Bobby who joined post September 1994 is paid less than a beat bobby who joined in August the same year.

Shaun_of_the_Dead

[quote=[Deleted User];76791772]Are you sure?

I thought traffic cars were dedicated to motoring offences, not chasing down dangerous and possibly armed criminals while armed only with a truncheon.

Are armed response units (for example) not allowed to pursue, if the driver has been appropriately trained? Not to mention the Sweeney;)[/QUOTE]

Any driver with the appropriate training and suitable vehicle can pursue.

AdrianC

Shaun_of_the_Dead wrote: »

I had to shatter your illusion but a traffic Bobby who joined post September 1994 is paid less than a beat bobby who joined in August the same year.

Since either of those could now retire and draw their police pension...

Shaun_of_the_Dead

AdrianC wrote: »

Since either of those could now retire and draw their police pension...

Only if they were 25 or over when the started they could and with a massive financial penalty.

I was of course responding to your incorrect comment in relation to a financial penalty ie pay.