Grandmother and child killed during police chase

If I understand correctly, she turned left in front of him, so it's possible they both had a green light. Depending on the intersection, if there is a dedicated left turn lane with a green arrow, then if she had the green, he would have had a red coming straight from the opposite direction. However, if there was not a green arrow, but just a green light where turning traffic is supposed to yield to oncoming traffic, then the question is whether she was able to see him before she started her turn.

 

I got it now. I was under the assumption she was on River Road turning to 85, but failed to realize she was probably on 85 turning left to River Road. I can see where they were both green in that instance. Thanks for clearing that up.

 

they both had the green. she was northbound, he was southbound at the same intersection. she was stopped at the intersection waiting to turn left across oncoming traffic, therefore she did not have the right of way even though she had a green light. the cop also had a green light and technically would have the right of way even without blue lights.

i was driving up to dc a few weeks ago during daylight, running 75 or so northbound on 95. i wasn't looking for a cop in my rearview mirror, although i pride myself on frequently checking them and knowing who is coming up behind me, etc.... i almost saw him too late. i saw him coming up behind me at a high rate of speed, lights on. i checked to my right, hit the blinker and started to move over. as i did i also checked the rear view again, and saw that the cop had actually already started to move right to go around me! he corrected and stayed left and kept going. i was running 75, he had to be going 100 or better. at those speeds, closing rates are not what you are used to. if i was standing still and he was closing at that speed, i don't care if he had his siren on or not, i wouldn't have heard it til he passed me. i think the lady just didn't see him, or if she did, figured she could make it because she didn't comprehend how fast he was moving.

bottom line: i also blame the chasee.

 

It's like I said when the thread first started, what the trooper was doing is NOT against any laws or rules as they currently stand. We can Monday morning quarterback until doomsday, but it is not going to bring that woman or child back. I don't know how many more folks have to die in situations like this for something to change. With that said, I am not sure what the "right" answer is about chasing speeders, etc. I'd hate to think that all criminals have to do to evade capture is speed. :?

 

In this situation, I'm not sure what you could do to toughen the laws. The speeder, by all indications, wasn't fleeing to avoid arrest, the grandmother would have likely been charged had she lived but obviously paid a greater price and the trooper was doing what troopers are supposed to do, except the question is was he overzealous in his attempt to catch up with the speeder? Some say yes, some say no.

So what could be done? Well, the state should make traffic lights more emergency vehicle friendly. That is, many cities have traffic lights that change to red as emergency vehicles approach. Traffic should be stopped from every direction until an emergency vehicle has cleared. However, this won't help at crossroads that do not have stoplights. Perhaps a louder siren or with greater technology, perhaps vehicles in the future should have a warning system that can be received by radio waves as emergency vehicles approach. Since so many people have radios blasting, AC running and are talking to passengers or on a cell phone, such a system would be prudent. Perhaps police cars need the louder air horns that ambulances and fire trucks have installed.

If a police officer is allowed to drive down the road at more than twice the speed limit using his/her own judgement during pursuit and no rules of engagement from his/her agency, then the public needs a bit more assistance in being alerted to their presence when their lights/sirens are activated.

 

Correct...both had the green but obviously the SHP had the right of way.

 

Coming from someone who knows a little bit about procedures here...

It's an unfortunate situation. I personally am overly cautious about other drivers, especially with blue lights and sirens on. Overly cautious isn't a bad thing. 120 mph is not unreasonable when you take into account that the trooper had to lock in radar, make a decision, decelerate, find a place to make a U-turn, turn around, and build speed to MATCH the other car. This can easily take up 30 seconds, depending on traffic. The other driver has a 30 second head start, travelling at 80 mph. 80mph = 1.3333 miles per minute. Let's say the speeding driver has a 3/4 mile head start. It could be MUCH more, it could be a little less.

Now the trooper, who's job is to catch people speeding on the highway for the purpose of public safety, has a lot of ground to cover. Driving at 90 mph, just 10 mph over the speeding car's speed, meaning he'll cover the 3/4 mile between himself and the speeding car in approximately 5 minutes (takes 6 minutes to travel a mile at 10 mph). Then the chase has continued not for 1 mile, or 3 miles, but almost 7 miles. Who know's how many opportunities the speeder has to turn off and lose the trooper in those 7 miles. I think the article is using a little "shock and awe" with the 120 mph thing, but I do NOT think it is prudent to assume anything traveling that speed through an intersection... even if you do have the right of way.



We're not talking 70 in the middle of Clayton here, more like 70 between Smithfield and Goldsboro in terms of lanes and traffic. The trooper did have the right of way at the intersection. I personally would have slowed down anyway, because I am paranoid and do not trust any other drivers. To imply that the trooper is at fault though, is kinda dumb, or you don't understand every car's placement at the intersection. I'm a supporter of most no chase policies, especially in town. "No Chase" doesn't mean you can't run the other person down to initiate a traffic stop, it just means high speed chases where the car refuses to stop and others are being placed in danger. I have to say that I love the link about "OMG, high speed chases care killing people left and right". Awesome how 3 of the 4 examples were people in the wrong.

 

What is the typical response of a speeder targeted by a LEO for being stop and cited? Would most speeders, with no intention to flee, slow down in hopes that they won't be stopped rather than maintain their violation speed? I would imagine having a Hemi Charger whipping a U and building speed quickly would most likely provoke most to slow down and put a death grip on their steering wheel.

 

I'd have to say about 1/3 of the time, someone going 80 in a 55 is just as likely to step on it and take the first right turn as long as he can do it before he gets blue lights right behind him. It depends on the road, situation, etc. Of course there is also a good chance they will slow down to 54 in a 55, but you would be surprised at the number of times that's not the case. The hemis are quick and all, but they aren't top fuel dragsters. They are still confined by physics just like every other car. Most police cruisers aren't as fast as many people think.