Suggestion Declined MET - RTPC: Pre-emptive awareness & Visibility

[Deleted member 5106]

Suggestion Title: Pre-emptive awareness & Visibility

Division: MET - RTPC

In conjunction with my previous forum suggestion of Pursuit Safety, linked below, this suggestion was thought of by Requan and wanted me to add it on.
Previous post: https://forum.policemp.com/index.php?threads/met-rtpc-pursuit-safety-awareness.6992/#post-20426

Make it a REQUIREMENT to have unmarked cars take primary during pre-emptive tactics to allow us to have higher chance of successful stop as well as having the marked presence behind us to ensure road safety is prime.

Positives:
- More successful pre-emptive tactic rate
- Safer conclusion

Negatives:
- People *may* try to abuse this
- Less marked traffic cars out since people want primary

 

[L974]

Also,

- Less chance of a fail to stop if an unmarked vehicle is behind
- Less risk to the public/officers if it does fail to stop

 

[Kube]

I agree with this suggestion, put it on a trial for 2 weeks then get feedback - just like it was was done with the callsign patrol area and car restrictions

 

[(OT1) Chinny]

Good evening Freddie,

Thank you for your suggestion. While I understand the merits in the use of un-marked vehicles taking primary in a pre-emptive stop; we will not be enforcing this as a mandatory policy within RTPC. We don't have sufficient resources on around the clock to ensure that there is always an available un-marked asset to attend a call for pre-emptives.

We have no issues with those in channel attending a call for pre-emptives carrying this approach out (providing an un-marked is available) however, we will not be enforcing this as a mandatory policy..

Regards,

RTPC Command