Police One Exclusive: Code calls: The biggest roadway killers |
||
| 09/14/2007 http://www.policeone.com/traffic-patrol/articles/1352766/ By: Rachel Fretz, Editor: PoliceOne Nobody wants to talk about officer deaths by
looking at bar graphs and statistics. Statistics can feel like a cold and
inhuman way to analyze the tragic reality of the profession. But doing it
can reveal part of the picture that isn’t always acknowledged, the “elephant
in the room” that is too often ignored.
“Everybody talks about the danger of pursuits, but over the years, actually about 5% of officers killed in vehicle-related accidents have been killed in pursuits,” said risk management expert Steve Ashley. Ashley argues that, when it comes to
officers’ roadway deaths, pursuits are not the primary problem. There tends to be an inverse relationship between the two (e.g., a lot of fender-benders and few fatalities) that rings true in everyday life. For instance, how many times do you walk across the bedroom in the dark, as opposed to how many times you stub your toe? Let’s compare routine driving, emergency
response and pursuit driving: A lot of crashes occur during routine driving,
but they tend to be low in severity. Conversely, officer crashes during
pursuits aren’t very frequent, but when they happen, they are frequently
catastrophic. The upshot? “More police officers are involved in more serious crashes in emergency response than there are in pursuit,” Ashley said, noting that pursuit crashes generally involve the suspect running into somebody or something. So Osama bin Laden walks into a school zone. . . "Driving fast is part of our profession, and
I am not advocating doing away with that,” said driving trainer expert
Travis
Yates, ““But we have to be very cautious when it happens.” Most policies aren’t specific about when to run lights and siren, which
makes sense, Yates said, “because every call is different and if we
specified to run code on every call, much of it would be unnecessary and
place officers and citizens in danger for no reason.” That means one agency may use them to respond
quickly to a traffic wreck while another agency may only use them to respond
to citizens or officers whose lives are in imminent danger, such as a
shooting-in-progress or a bank robbery. Put it this way, he said: “At 3 AM on the freeway, I don’t have a problem with cops chasing a low-level misdemeanor suspect. At 2 PM in a school zone, I would have a problem chasing a low-level misdemeanor suspect….but I wouldn’t have a problem chasing Osama bin Laden.” The above scenario would qualify as a risk benefit. The same holds true for any response. There is a difference between an alarm call and an alarm call where a neighbor hears screaming inside the home. Most policies say that lights and siren can be used to preserve life and property.
The gray area
"It’s faster to get to a scene by not using my lights.” Sound familiar? “While officers don't have to put up with the strange reactions by citizens when they see emergency lights and siren on, excessive speed without using the equipment that exempts officers from obeying traffic laws is not only potentially liable for the officer but is extremely dangerous.” Back in Arizona, Street Survival seminar instructor Dave Smith called “hauling ass” without a siren “Code 2 ½.” Needless to say, Code 2 ½ wasn’t exactly an official classification, and wouldn’t win you many points with a judge. At the end of the day, Yates believes that there is not a lot of time saved by driving in excess of the speed limit to a call, and in most cases, the criminal activity is over when officers arrive. “There’s this mindset that we’ve got to get there right away,” Graham said. “But if you hold that in balance with taking your time and getting there, then maybe you can actually save lives by having fewer accidents.”
What can be done? There are two kinds of driver training, and
both are critical – but for different reasons. Classroom training is
cognitive, addressing things like policies and legal issues. That’s the
“when to” and the “who to”, and is aimed at liability reduction. Range
training develops officers’ motor skills, teaching them — and allowing them
to practice — good defensive driving techniques. That’s the “how to," and
that’s to enhance officer safety. Departments that have done this type of training have had an impact on their liability exposure, but they’ve also had an impact on reduction of injury to officers, because the more training you do, the better you’ll be at your job — an “unintended consequence of well-intentioned actions” as Florida police trainer Ken Murray put it. In this case, the well-intentioned action (reducing liability) had a positive consequence (increased officer safety).
But in order to reduce fatalities, officers
also need more in-car training, which can be a huge strain on resources. “You can put them in a classroom, but they won’t get the practice they need. You really need both pieces.” It is human nature to ignore things that don’t have immediate impact, and police departments are no different. There are plenty of reasons departments give for not putting a greater emphasis on driver training – lack of funding, the “it hasn’t happened here” mentality. But the fact is, if you drive enough miles, you’re going to crash. You can’t avoid all risk. Managing risk is about avoiding the things
you can avoid and taking measures to reduce the negative impact of things
you can’t. Training and policy are put in place to reduce the number of
crashes and to reduce the degree of injury. “They don’t stop pursuits,” the chief said. “Yeah, but they slow the guy down.” This drives home the point that in risk
management, there are no big answers - just a lot of little ones. One bite at a time, of course; Policy is one little bite, and training is another. |
||
|