You know, the police work for US and are subject to the law just like
everyone else. The next time you see this type of activity, it's entirely
within your rights as a citizen to follow THEM and issue THEM a citation.
Sounds like speeding and C&N would do nicely in the case you mention here.
If you don't want to get that close and personal, record the plates and make
sure you call your state legislator with the information *every* time you
see it happen. Follow up with a list to your state attorney general every so
often. Hell, around here, going home is license to speed - if you're a cop.
|> says...|> > Just typical brain dead politicians at work. Misrepresent a situation,|> > trump up some publicity, initiate a lawsuit to exort money, and then be|> > suprised when the target of your actions doesn't want to be freinds|> > anymore. Oh yeah, and have Clarence Ditlow agree with you.....
|> And isn't it interesting that Ford had another car that had disastrous|> results when hit from the rear. Alot of the problem is the media - when|> I saw the initial reports I thought to myself that at 70MPH ain't much|> isn't gonna go up in a collision.
|> But police departments need to learn the old addage 'you can't outrun|> Motorola.'
|> Rhode Island has had a no-chase rule in effect for several years now and|> most every department violates it. Just recently I saw a bunch of North|> Providence police cruisers deep into Providence via secondary roads at|> rates of speed well in excess of the posted limit. And for what - a|> stolen car. I have no sympathy for an officer who violates a no-chase|> rule and gets himself killed in the process.
|You know, the police work for US and are subject to the law just like
|everyone else. The next time you see this type of activity, it's entirely
|within your rights as a citizen to follow THEM and issue THEM a citation.
|Sounds like speeding and C&N would do nicely in the case you mention here.
|If you don't want to get that close and personal, record the plates and make
|sure you call your state legislator with the information *every* time you
|see it happen. Follow up with a list to your state attorney general every so
|often. Hell, around here, going home is license to speed - if you're a cop.
A few years ago a retired Texas state trooper wrote a book about how to beat a
ticket. He noted in the intro that whenever he stopped someone for gross
violations of speed limits - say 100 mph or more - odds were 90% it was an
off-duty police officer. Of course, they expected "professional courtesy" when
they got stopped.
When I lived in Ft Worth, it used to burn me to see all the suburban police
cars, returning from county courthouse and going back to their city, speeding
through Ft Worth at 85-90 mph, through Ft Worth radar traps with a wave, for no
good reason other than they could. I had to move over on several occasions for
them when they ran up on my bumper.
Most of these lawsuits are not about chases. There about cop cars
parked on the side of the road on super highways and having some
jerk rear end them at speed (while the cop car is stationary)
Tell me what car is NOT going to be in bad shape with a 60 to 70+
MPH rear collision. I doubt that even a HUMMER would come out
So what to do? Maybe borrow some of the Alien technology from area 51
and make the police cars hover. Until the drunks get hover cars, they would
be safe. Maybe double deck the roof and put the gas tanks up there.
Or do a Fred Flintstone and put holes in the floor for human motive power.
I am not one to usually side with ford, but a lot of this is all Lawyer BS.
Maybe the police should get VW to open back up the bug plant in
Mexico. Engine in the rear, gas tank in the front. Sounds like the solution.
Interstate chases would be interesting though. If they got hit then, no gas
explosion or fire. But it would lead new credence to the old saying
"squashed like a bug".
Really? where would you put it? Under the back seat? So do you blame
when a taxi company buys the used vic from the police department and
lets the U joints go and at 350,000 miles the drive shaft let's go
through the gas tank and floor boards sending burning gasoline into
the passenger compartment? Oh ford of course, they shoulda made it
front wheel drive or located the gas tank under the trunk because they
knew taxi companies would neglect the cars at the end of their useful
life. Just like they are expected to have designed the vehicle to take
being rear-ended at 70mph when parked on the side of the road.
Or maybe the car should have a force field generator to prevent crashes.
For crying out loud we aren't talking about 1000s of vehicles bursting into
flame from parking lot bumps. We are talking about 29 vehicles bursting into
flames after being hit at expressway speeds while parked over ten years and
who knows how many 100s of thousands of cars being used 24/7 and how many
thousands of crashes.
Not to forget, by the time the trunk is crushed on a vic, that's the backseat
on smaller cars and it would still be a fuel tank rupture.
I think that when a car is stolen the police shouldn't every chase after it.
Just let the people who stole the car drive it until they decide to give it
back. That will solve those chase problems. I'm sure KiloDelate will be
glad to give up his car to criminals and instruct the police not to chase
What is more important, your life or the car..?? If my car was stolen, I
would not want a cop to risk his life in a chase to recover it. That is the
insurances' job, it is part of the reason why I write that insurance check
every month. I am pretty sure if that cop has a wife and kids they would
share my opinion.
One more thing about high speed pursuits.. In England, the police are
specially trained to drive at high rates of speed in real world situations.
Where is there a similar program for US police, especially the city police.?
Driving at a training facility where you are the only car on the track does
not count. And simply having a powerful car does not qualify you either.
On the original score, Ford ought to reposition the fuel tank on the Crown
Vic. I got hit in the rear while driving a Taurus, with a differential speed
of about 55mph. If the tank had been in the position it is in the Crown I
might not be writing this today. I can only thank God and the design of the
Taurus for saving my life.
I have just gone out and checked my 1995 Ford Crown Victoria, and I have
confirmed that the fuel tank in your Taurus is in no safer a position than
the CV's tank (they are both in the same place, above the rear axle, outside
the passenger compartment, behind the rear bench. My 'Vic is also equipped
with the police interceptor package, so police cruisers also have their tanks
in the safe place.
Make sure that you are not repeating someone else's nonsense before giving an
opinion, as your opinion becomes associated with the nonsense, and any point
that you might make is then ignored.
|Just a note: the GM locals are trying to get impalas into the police
|dept. They gave the unmarked guys 6 of them. How they hold up
|is yet to be seen. But i don't see the cops liking them any better
|than the taurus they hated.
I propose they gas one up and park it on the should of Central Expressway in
Dallas, and monitor results (from a distance). Shouldn't be long until a drunk
nails it. Bring weinies and marshmellows.
No sir, I am not repeating someone else's nonsense, and I am not giving an
opinion. Here are the facts,the Fuel Tank on my 1986, 1989,1990, and 1998
Taurus is in front of the rear axle, under the passenger seat, not between
the rear axle and the body as in the CV. (I went to the junk yard to find a
95 CV just to be sure, Checked a 2003 CV also, OK.) Also, the Taurus has
front and rear crumple zones that yields and spares the passenger
compartment in a rear-end, or head on collision. That makes the Taurus safer
with respect to the position of the fuel tank in rear end collision.
I am not advocating, or, clamoring for a law suit, OK. But for you to say
that the positioning on the fuel tank on the CV can not, or need not be
improved is like having tunnel vision. Improving safety is part of my job,
and I examine many cars, Domestic and Foreign, for design improvements. The
CV is my car of choice for long trips, and I am sure I never will drive my
car like the police do, or stop on the shoulder of Highways constantly, so I
do not face the hazards they do. Things are bad as they are with Stupid
Laws, Drunks and Mental cases, and Criminal elements. That is just a part of
what the police face everyday, therefore they should not have to worry about
equipment failure also. Even one such occurrence is too many.
I've owned two vehicles that actually has this feature. The first was a
1968 (?) Toyota Corolla, which had the fuel tank mounted between the rear
suspension towers. The second was an 1986 Audi 5000. The Quattro used the
same fuel tank location as the FWD version, and ran the rear drive shaft
underneath the fuel tank. Granted, a live rear axle complicates the
engineering, but considering the type of service (See other post), it
should be worth serious consideration.
For basic day to day transportation, the CV is solid transportation. A
local non-urgent medical transportation company is using them (probably in
PI trim) for routine patient transport.
The problem comes in when you put that same design into a use with a much
higher probability of high-speed crashes. As I said in my other post, a
high speed pursuit is about as close to racing use as the car is likely to
get. Almost every sanctioning body I can think of specifies fuel cells in
place of the original fuel tank.
Is this the same "emotionalism" that recognized the hazard associated with
the mid-80s GM full sized pickups, with their fuel tanks _outside_ the
| George Ruch |
| "Is there life in Clovis after Clovis Man?" |
firstname.lastname@example.org (Brent P) wrote in message
I'm just telling you what I saw (two times). I could be off on the
speed, but not by much because the Tempo that hit the Town Car was
almost stopped so I said 15MPH. Plus it was an old Tempo and the
damage was not horrible to it. The driver of the Tempo got out and
appeared to be unhurt.The whole back end of the TC was opened like a
tin can all the way into the rear deck of the back seat. I was
flabergasted. I don't think the frame was that bent. The Tempo road
over the frame and ripped the body.
I remember that Ford was the company that used the bottom of the trunk
as the top of the fuel tank in the Pinto and early Mustangs in order
to save $7. They professed the safety of that cheesebox until they
were ordered to recall them.
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.