Police car pursuits- for safety or fun?

[AngryDog]

A road traffic policeman is supposed to be educated in the mechanics of a motor vehicle, he has the authority to stop and check a vehicle for road worthiness. If he has lack of mechanical knowledge as you put it how can he have the authority to check your vehicle over for defects if he stops you.

 

In all fairness, they check for obvious defects such as tyres under the 1.6mm legal limt and other obvious things. Without them taking the cam belt cover off to see if the cambelt was snapped / stripped of teeth, there is no way that they would've known what the fault was.

 

The policeman should basically of said "its knackered love"

[Agent Orange]

A road traffic policeman is supposed to be educated in the mechanics of a motor vehicle, he has the authority to stop and check a vehicle for road worthiness. If he has lack of mechanical knowledge as you put it how can he have the authority to check your vehicle over for defects if he stops you.

 

In all fairness, they check for obvious defects such as tyres under the 1.6mm legal limt and other obvious things. Without them taking the cam belt cover off to see if the cambelt was snapped / stripped of teeth, there is no way that they would've known what the fault was.

 

The policeman should basically of said "its knackered love"

 

As above. Police officers are only trained to spot certain defects, not mechanical. If further checks are required, they take the vehicle off to a testing facility where proper technicians/mechanics do the inspecting.

[jfish1936]

A road traffic policeman is supposed to be educated in the mechanics of a motor vehicle, he has the authority to stop and check a vehicle for road worthiness. If he has lack of mechanical knowledge as you put it how can he have the authority to check your vehicle over for defects if he stops you.

 

There is no need for his "mechanical knowledge" to cover obscure faults that stop the engine running, just the things like obvious bodywork faults, absent lights, worn tyres and such.

When I had a Mitsubishi magna, I was told by the dealer that a belt drove the camshaft; the camshaft operated the valves; if the belt broke, the camshaft would stop, and a valve might be sticking down into the cylinder where the piston would collide with it, stopping the engine most expensively.

Maybe this was just dealer BS for "if you believe that, I can charge you a lot for servicing", but I thought our relationship as doctor and patient might set up some trust and fair dealing between us.

[AngryDog]

If your cam belt snaps then kiss bye bye to alot of money.

Bent valves from piston contact, potentially damaged piston, potentially damaged cylinder head as well. Always replace the cam belt when it's due or before.

 

But we digress.

[lil-minx92]

Since we're adding new things. If a helmetless biker hit your loved one and drove off and the police saw it, would you want them to pursue the biker?

 

Yes because the biker had commited a serious offence. It isnt rocket science

[Waldo]

I would, but lilminx? He/she used an emotional plea, so I thought, why can't I?

 

Well, there was some rational to their plea. For a minor offence (no helmet), is it worth the police chasing, where there is a chance of causing an accident?

 

You're suggestion, or scenario, doesn't have so much rational (that I can see). In the situation you describe, it would make no difference if the bike rider had a helmet or not, so how is that making the case for the police not to pursue helmet-less riders any weaker (assuming you're arguing the case against lilminx's postulation).

 

But yeah, you have as much right to make emotional pleas as the next man!

[Mr_Squirrel]

I can see both sides of this TBH...

 

Biker not wearing helmet - crashes and dies - one less moron in the gene pool.

 

Car driver not wearing seatbelt - crashes and dies - one less moron from the gene pool.

 

Its tragic however for the people who have to scrape them up from the pavement or for their wives to tell their children that "Daddy is never coming home again because he believed it was his choice not to wear a helmet/seatbelt and the ambulance lady had to scrape his brains up off the road".... "Oh thats sad Mummy, are we having fish fingers for tea?"

 

Not wearing a helmet is stupidity, not wearing a seatbelt is stupidity. The Police reserve the right to enforce the law on these grounds to protect the stupid from their own stupidity. If the stupid die as a result of their stupidity... well perhaps its just as well.

[Waldo]

Totally Mr Squirrel. If people want to do stuff that will only potentially harm themselves, then they should be allowed to do that stuff, I completely agree. Only a retard nazi control freak type would think the state has any business dictating otherwise (aside from on financial grounds etc).

[dvp82]

Yes because the biker had commited a serious offence. It isnt rocket science

 

But of a biker is willing to ride around without a helmet there is also a likely chance the bike also has no tax, insurance is in a condition unfit to be used on the road.

 

Simple fact is if the police try to pull over a biker for not wearing a helmet and the biker decides to race off, then the police need to go after them.

 

I've watched many police camera action type of program's and its shown many times when the police have tried to pull someone over for something like not wearing a seat belt or the vehicle not been taxed, it's turned out that once the police have stopped them that the occupant of the vehicle is wanted for something more serious.

[DYKWIA]

What about this scenario.

 

Police see a biker without a helmet, police try to pull biker over. Biker decides to speed off, police decided to let the biker go.

 

An couple of hours later the biker is involved in a crash killing one of IiI-minx92 relatives.

 

IiI-minx92 finds out that only a couple of hours before the crash the police let the bike go. IiI-minx92 goes on a rant as to why the police didn't go after the biker.