Moped-enabled crime

Also you're suggesting that just because this is a tactic that has seen some results in ending chases that it's morally and ethically right to use?

I have the theme tune to postman pat every day

Quite a possibly yes. It isn't empirical, but more personal and user based evidence. The reports being that the bikes disappear before the device proves its worth.
Bikes that tend to have those trackers tend to be of a high value or susceptible to theft, and in turn, those who steal them, tend to know what they're doing, so swings and roundabouts unfortunately.

By all accounts most of them are shipped abroad in a pretty organised manner (it seems it's easier to avoid the device lock if it's overseas). Obviously it's not the thieves on the mopeds who are doing this, they just know who to sell the phones to in bulk. With the volumes of phones being stolen they weren't just all being flogged off down the pub/gumtree.

 I've got no concrete alternative to a potentially dangerous and irresponsible use of force ....

Surely that is the justification for the use of these tactics to prevent greater harm to members of the public being knocked-down, dragged, stabbed, run-over?

Kids..

I'd argue that basing your response on assuming my point of view on a different method of stopping a pursuit is putting words in my mouth.

Do you think the risk profiles of hitting a moped are similar to a spike strip or PIT manoeuvre on cars?

@underuser53929 no but gangs related to extortion, armed robbery, drug dealing ... often or not the phones are either broken up for batteries / screen parts or sold to other countries en mass to black market buyers.

They sound quite nasty, tactical stop seems quite proportionate

I'll remind you of that when you're pinned under a dog unit car after matching the description of a perp

Bit binary no? Don't have any alternative? so let's just use the ultimately flawed one we have here simply to pacify people's perceptions by showcasing a PR video with no empirical evidence to show that there's any correlation between its use and crime reduction in areas where it's truly needed?

Feel free - but we both know you’re just making shit up now ;) Also I tend to stop when lit up by the police

Rather the Police have this in their toolbox and work backwards to seek alternative solutions/types of intervention.

Fair enough, but my fears being that it's a slippery slope that facilitates more extreme measures if none are found, or more worryingly, if figures of authority decide that 'fuck it, this will do' and normalize the method.

Also looking at what the current state of policing is like, I hope they do.

I think there was correlation (36% was claimed). Whether there's causation is obviously a different matter.

Anecdotally I've heard it has impacted on young offenders but obviously needs a bit more than that.

Fair, my apologies.

No, that’s why I said that I assume that this would be considered under the threshold of how dangerous is acceptable. It’s the same thing, forcing someone into a vehicle crash on the road at speed, just more protected in a box.

Anyway, that’s enough arguing on the internet for one day for me. I simply think that something needs to be done about the moped enabled crime epidemic and whilst not ideal, they need to be pursued and not be safe in the knowledge that because they’re on a moped, they can get away. If trained officers decide that what is necessary to prevent injury and further crime against the public is to put a stop to a pursuit with a hopefully controlled manouvre, then I’m all for it.
I don’t wish injury on the thieves or think they deserve it but if they commit crime and flee without intending to stop, they should expect to be pursued and the risks that go with that. In my opinion.
Until someone comes up with a better idea that is.

Yeah as much as I love to keep up the world's friendliest forum image, I also apologise for the excessively argumentative tone, and I do mostly agree with you.

For me it comes down to acceptable risk, I can't see the stats available so I can't make an informed decision, which is a shame. What I want to see is the risk to the public from a moped police chase versus the risk to the person fleeing. The assumption I've made is that the risk to the person fleeing is very high, based on motorcycle injury statistics and the fact that we're on a cycling forum where we discuss almost daily the ignorance of risk to cyclists by car drivers. I guess that's partly why I find it disappointing that people are ready to condone this because some of the language is similar to the sort of language that ignorant car drivers would use to try and say their driving isn't risky. I completely acknowledge that the major difference is that 99.9% of cyclists are innocent victims but this is where I think the main opinions differ, I'm not sure I'm happy accepting increased risk to life just because someone is a potential criminal.

I'm totally fed up with moped crime too, and I'm one of those useless hand wringers who doesn't have an answer but has an opinion, I just don't feel comfortable with it.

To address your point about stingers and PIT on cars, your assumption is correct, but I think my point above addresses it, the risk of KSI is much, much lower in cars, and that's not just anecdotal but based on the fact there's a hell of a lot of safety features in a car versus a moped. The risk of public KSI with car is much, much higher too so the risks start balancing in favour of such a manoeuvre.

To me, it very much comes across as a PR exercise (the releasing of the video for example) because the police are losing public favour because they can't stop the crimes being committed so they need to pull out all the stops to apprehend the criminals. It's not the police's fault that we're in this situation, budget cuts, lack of social mobility, youth services, etc etc, and they need to do something but this isn't preventing crime.

You know who does very little moped crime?

Posh kids that go to Eton.

My pet and me or fern and Rory's vet tales.
2 weeks now.

Ban all cars, mopeds, scooters, vans, lorries, hoverboards. I reckon that'd sort it

Forcing moped scrotes to attend Eton seems harsh.

send everyone to Eton, low crime?
Winner.

Nah, it'll just mean more of that white collar crime.

Like Politics.

Ram white collar criminals off their scooters on the way back from the office?

Two police officers took no notice of their training and a kid died.

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/thames-valley-police-to-pay-8k-to-family-of-teen-racer-killed-in-highspeed-pursuit-while-high-on-a4006471.html

It really doesn't matter that the kid was a wrong 'un. We need to be very careful here. Plus the police must have known about the Erith investigation. They must have been aware charges for the officer were likely, and they go ahead and release that film of collisions for a pliant media to lap up. Feels a bit managed.

Taking the gang off the streets has helped cut moped-enabled crime in the capital by 52% in the space of a year, according to the Metropolitan police.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/may/13/london-moped-gang-jailed-for-string-of-raids-and-robberies