Editorial: The high cost of giving chase

Photo / Sarah Ivey

Opinion

Whatever else may be said about the vexed issue of police pursuits, what's happening now is not working. This year alone, 18 people have died as police chased fleeing drivers. That adds up to an awful lot of misery.

And it's getting worse. In the five years to December 2008, there were 137 pursuits resulting in death or serious injury - but only 24 deaths. If we keep going the way we are, we risk overtaking that by Christmas.

In any other area of life, if the rate of fatalities rose by almost 400 per cent, there would be a public outcry for action to stem the bloodletting. But the public response, to judge by comments in online forums, seems to be along the lines that the dead drivers had it coming.

"If [fleeing] results in their death, then so be it," was one typical response. "We all have to deal with the consequences of our own actions. No mercy for criminal scum."

This soberingly uncharitable attitude misses the point - or, more correctly, several points - by a remarkably large margin. Setting aside the issue of whether they are scum, the vast majority of drivers killed in police pursuits do not satisfy anything but the widest definition of "criminal".

Of those 137 pursuits, all of which were examined in detail by the Independent Police Conduct Authority, almost half were undertaken after police had tried to stop someone for a minor traffic offence or "without any specific reason".

Some were boy racers, others were suspected drink-drivers. Even those 31 stopped for "known or suspected criminal offending" included 13 who were suspected only of nicking the car they were driving.

This scarcely adds up to an image of rampaging criminals posing a clear and immediate threat to the lives of ordinary citizens. The picture that emerges is of lowlife, low-rent bad boys who deserve to be brought to heel. But they do not deserve to die.

They aggravated their criminality when they put the foot on the accelerator rather than the brake after being asked to stop, but the law doesn't take a terribly dim view of that act.

The maximum fine for failing to stop when signalled to is $10,000 under the Land Transport Act (and a mere $1000 under the Crimes Act) but in practice the fines imposed seldom top $500.

The contention that fleeing drivers who are killed or injured are the authors of their own misfortune is hard to dispute, but death is a grievous penalty.

We don't exact it from murderers, from recidivist drunk drivers who kill, from drug dealers who profit from the miseries of others; how does a foolhardy youngster come to deserve it? And fleeing drivers don't always die alone: they often take their passengers and other road users with them.

A change in policy would not be tantamount to asking police to stand aside and wave criminals on their merry way. The police are rightly affronted when their authority is ignored, but as matters stand, they are forced to rely for a non-lethal outcome on the driving skill of a stressed and adrenaline-fuelled fugitive.

The debate is not about whether drivers should be allowed to get away, but how they should be apprehended. When a chase occurs in the context of serious criminal offending - by an armed offender, for example - pursuit is plainly appropriate. But in minor matters, it makes more sense to beef up the penalties.

Most fleeing cars have their registration numbers recorded. Make flight a zero-tolerance imprisonable offence. Hold car owners responsible until they identify drivers, as they are for speeding offences. Confiscate and sell cars.

Ban offenders from driving for a year, for ever if need be. When the punishment reflects society's distaste for people who will not stop when asked to, the balance of the calculations will change. The price of simply putting the foot to the floor is way too high.