Talk:PIT maneuver

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Law Enforcement Low‑importance This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. Automobiles Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Automobiles, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of automobiles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutomobilesWikipedia:WikiProject AutomobilesTemplate:WikiProject AutomobilesAutomobile articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that a video clip or video clips be included in this article to improve its quality.

I feel no more information can be added to improve. So assessed at a B. Dep. Garcia ( Talk | Help Desk | Complaints ) 12:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the instructions to immediately pull over and stop. Wikipedia is not an advice column. Instructing readers to surrender first makes and then does not explain numerous assumptions about the situation, which could prove fatal to anyone following such ill-considered advice. ➥the Epopt 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention the fact that if a LEO is trying to terminate the pursuit using a PIT, the reader is not inclined to pull over, advice from a website or no... Pyrogen 11:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watching an episode of "The Investigators" on CourtTV today, the acronym PIT was defined as "Parallel Immobilization Technique" by an office from the Indiana State Police training center.

Yes you are quite right Wikipedia isn't an advice column and for that reason I recommend also removing the section on "Defense against the PIT". Not only is it pointless to have anti-authority advice and other such nonsense in wikipedia, but I think it's also the legality issue. Why on earth should we be telling people how to resist police arrest? It's absurd, it's like having an article on how to become a good criminal. Wikipedia isn't some sort of technical manual on resisting authority, and this really shouldn't be in here. I can see no good reason about having a section that essentially amounts to a "how-to" on resisting police arrest. Hell if you should ever find yourself in such a situation, you definitely SHOULD be arrested.

I'm removing this.

And I am restoring it, and will continue to restore it. ➥the Epopt 04:51, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And there is no possible way that a non law enforcement officer would be attempting a PIT? That sounds like a big assumption to me. Eliminating knowledge on how to "resist police arrest" is also kind of Fascist sounding to me as well.--PM - PhilyG ^talk 16:16, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No edit warring, fellas. Come to a reasonable decision before you start just editing out and restoring back and forth; that'll benefit no one.Zujua (talk) 04:22, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Numerous Arbitration cases have reiterated the principle "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented." Deletion of the section discussing defenses against the PIT on the basis that no one but an "authority" who is unquestionably right could ever possibly attempt to execute a PIT maneuver, and furthermore could not possibly attempt to execute it against anyone except anyone except a heinous "criminal" who is unquestionably guilty, is a violation of NPOV and I will revert it as such. Note that reversions of such vandalism are not offenses against 3RR. ➥the Epopt 05:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if it ever gets to the point where the police is using the PIT on a vehicle, yes, the driver is in fact a criminal. It's called "Resisting arrest", "Failure to stop for an officer", and "Attempting to Evade".

LBaeldeth 04:49, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because there are no known incidents of the police ever acting unlawfully, right? Terry Carroll 07:09, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of guilt or innocence prior to a chase, once the chase STARTS, you ARE a criminal. Those are specific offenses, and if a chase gets to the point where an officer has to PIT you, you've met all of them.

If you can prove misconduct on the part of the officer present at the original traffic stop - misconduct severe enough to warrant putting innocent lives in danger by fleeing at high speeds - you might be able to get the charges dropped after-the-fact, but in the meantime, as far as his backup knows, you're just another dangerous driver on the run.

LBaeldeth 21:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a strange and terrifying world you live in, where "you ARE a criminal" any time someone tries to run you off the road. I'm glad I don't live there. ➥the Epopt 21:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you would kindly note, I am referring to suspects in police pursuits where measures such as the PIT maneuver must be undertaken to stop them. At that point, the suspect is in violation of the law simply from the pursuit itself and can be charged accordingly. I said nothing so vague as "someone being run off the road", which is a much broader statement and can apply easily to, say, being chased by a vengeful ex-spouse.

Please refrain from misrepresenting my statements in the future.

LBaeldeth 22:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok sry for continually deleting this section but i think it eventually must go. Im sry I don't have the time to organise this article (lol not like its really important) and take out any information from that section thats worthwhile and reuse it but I think we just need to remove the section, and take out any information that could be used in other sections.

Why do we need to have advice on how to resist police arrest? Use your brains this is not encyclopedic, and Wikipedia doesn't have this sort of anti-authority crap anywhere else. If need I wouldn't mind if you renaming the section and discussed the all the details of the maneuver's operation without giving out any advice or knowledge on how to resist it.

It just seems stupid. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gamer112 (talk • contribs) 11:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

The section is about defending against the PIT. What makes you think it is about resisting police arrest? ➥the Epopt 14:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes genius and why on earth would someone need to know on to defend or resist against the PIT maneuver? It's not like this is a common occurring thing on the roads due to road rage or that carjackers use to steal ur car or something, don't be stupid, defense against the PIT is a nice way of saying "Resisting Arrest" and more than likely if you are trying to evade and resist police in your car then your RESISTING ARREST and that's ILLEGAL. Only the Police force use the PIT maneuver as for as I know.

Defense Against the PIT is not an encyclopedic summary, it's stupid, it's like "Defense against Police Arrest", lines like Also, the target vehicle can maneuver to block the pursuer from setting up the technique by outrunning the pursuer, staying squarely in front of the pursuer, or braking sharply so the pursuer overshoots the correct position. Sound pretty much a how-to on resisting Police maneuvers, it sounds idiotic and is illegal.

When I find the time in the next few days I will take out any viable info from the Defense Against the PIT section and incorporate into other sections if need be, and I will delete the rest.

P.S. Epopt, u seem very preoccupied and concerned over such a minor article?

Gamer112 15:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. ➥the Epopt 15:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok Riiiight, do you have anything constructive to add there in your defense, I see you don't in which case I'm gonna change this article and please don't turn this into a revert war ok, if u want to at least tell me why I can't get rid of this section.

Gamer112 20:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can't get rid of this section because numerous Arbitration cases have reiterated the principle "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view requires that all significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented." Deletion of the section discussing defenses against the PIT on the basis that no one but an "authority" who is unquestionably right could ever possibly attempt to execute a PIT maneuver, and furthermore could not possibly attempt to execute it against anyone except anyone except a heinous "criminal" who is unquestionably guilty, is a violation of NPOV and I will revert it as such. ➥the Epopt 21:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or, to put it simply, the "defense" section provides valuable and interesting material that is 100% related to the subject of the article, and "it might help criminals" is not a valid reason to remove it. Neither is "Wikipedia might face legal liability" Jhinman 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Only the Police force use the PIT maneuver as for as I know". Well, I'm just a normal civilian driver, but I know about the PIT, and I can't be the only one. If someone changes lane suddenly across me and there's just nowhere to go to avoid a big collision (say: something big and nasty close behind), then I'll automatically use the PIT and let the other guy take his chances with St Peter. This I believe would justify somebody other than a criminal wanting to know 'Defense Against the PIT'. As far as I know, there is no real defence against a successful pit. You can only reduce the effects (especially in the wet) by locking all four wheels up solid. This will cause the car to carry on in a fairly straight line while spinning end-for-end, rather than arching off the road or over into the divider. 160.84.253.241 10:04, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given that, at least according to the article, performing a PIT requires you to brake, that something big and nasty close behind might still rear-end you. And you might be open to criminal charges. But, it's your car.

That said, I don't see anything wrong with "defense against the PIT". It's all common-sense anyway, at least what is currently posted; stay ahead of the vehicle, don't let it get in position, etc. People can probably figure that out on their own, and it's not necessarily always going to be the police PIT-ing them. It could be a crazed ex-spouse chasing them down the freeway.

LBaeldeth 04:45, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ahaha your gonna use the PIT maneuver? Give me a fkn break, I highly doubt most of the general public knows what the PIT is, LET ALONE their prepared to use it in some extremely unlikely situations (Eg: Ex-spouse chasing you, collisions). You'd probably spin your own car out of control and cause more damage to yourself trying to use the PIT, and I highly doubt most people have enough time to react in collisions. You guys are talking a bunch of crap, Defense against the PIT, yeah let's have Defense against Police Batons, Defense against Riot Police... etc.. Just get rid of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gamer112 (talk • contribs)

Well, when you are old enough to drive, give it a try and tell us if it works. In the meantime please have a word with your English teacher. 160.84.253.241 (talk) 08:37, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better yet, remind me when you turn 18 and then I'll speak to you, instead of contributing garbage to discussions. Gamer112 (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If (as your user talk page suggests) you like to contribute garbage to discussions, I can't see how talking to me will change anything. You are not my problem. God I wish I was 17 again, but you're 34 years too late :-). Never mind 160.84.253.241 (talk) 07:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is NOTHING to apologize for.
The inclusion of a section detailing how to avoid a PIT Maneuver, irregardless the reasons for it to be included, would violate the law by any person to act on such information in an actual police pursuit, in exactly the same fashion detailing how to defeat body armor would in the event of a shootout with police, or detailing how to convert an AR-15 to am M-16. Here’s the thing: It’s not illegal to know how to do it, it’s not illegal to tell others how to do it, it’s not illegal to put it in print- But if someone actually does what you told them how to do, you can be held liable for their actions. In this case, as “Wikipedia” told people how to defeat a PIT Maneuver, Wikipedia would be held liable for whatever happens, up to and including potentially murder charges. It wouldn’t matter that Wikipedia is a group and one member of the group went off on their own agenda, they can not transfer blame for the action to the singular member beyond banning them.<br /The argument about defeating PIT’s by carjackers, etc, is irrelevant; These are actions committed by definition by criminals, and therefore there will be nothing resembling proper conduct. They do not care if the passengers or innocent bystanders are killed, all they care about is getting the car. It may or may not be true that anti-PIT tactics are effective against them, but if they can’t PIT you they will bury you, and unless you want to develop tactics to defend against a running gun battle there’s in all practical sense nothing you can do.
In the end, this is a real “Get Real” moment; It’s not appropriate to detail anti-PIT tactics any more than it’s appropriate to detail how to do a PIT here. A. J. REDDSON

Which legal statute is this based on, that Wikipedia would be held liable? If someone learns how to run up a wall and fire automatic weapons into a wall of security guards from watching Keanu Reeves do it in "the Matrix," will they send Keanu to jail for murder? Zujua (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi:

I have nothing to contribute but to ask the question is there a difference in performing a PIT with and against front wheel drive vehicles and rear wheel drive vehicles?

AG —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.157.174.202 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Maybe a slight difference, with front-wheel drive cars having a slight advantage. It has more to do with weight distribution, so it will be harder for example for a rear-engined car to do a pit against another, or obviously a small car against an SUV. In the normal course of events: the 'pitter' will be using the heavy - engine - end of his car against the lighter end of the 'pitees' car. (User - ChrisRed)

There's no noticable difference, so far as I can tell. The police car is exerting its force against the far back of the suspect vehicle, behind its tires. It's that long "lever" that makes the suspect vehicle spin out so easily. The difference I have noticed is with a pickup that has nothing in the bed. In that case, with so little rear end weight to swing around, the truck just slid a ways and then righted itself. In contrast, pitting a Crown Vic or Caprice is very easy, because it's got all that weight to start spinning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.162.223.254 (talk) 08:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the target is driving a FWD car and slows down right before the maneuver is performed the target can easily recover by going full throttle during and right after the maneuver. The front wheels will pull the car straight forward. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.159.64.26 (talk) 11:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Driving stability is controlled by the hind axle. Every apprentice of vehicle mechanics in the second year should know. Mount the best tires on the hind axle! With no regard of powered axle.

You can check it by yourself: Take a matchbox car and block one axle. Let it drive down a slope with the blocked axle in front - and nothing will happen to its stability. It will move strait forward. When driving down the slope with the blocked axle aft - it will perform an uncontrolled movement. In a safe driving training you can learn this when they use a skid pad. Getting back control is not easy.

That is the reason for the success of PIT. Harald wehner (talk) 10:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The history section seems lacking, as it says the maneuver was imported from Germany. And usage of the maneuver in Germany is lacking. 70.55.201.213 09:17, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also the article is self-contradictory in that respect. It states that the earliest instance of the technique we can find is in Germany, and then later it says that an american police force was the first to use it. 81.152.196.62 18:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history section is very disappointing in that it lacks any years/dates. I have rearranged, renamed, & combined these TALK sections since they're related to each other. Steve8394 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree - this article is totally USA-centric. Does not offer a worldwide view of the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.253.175.9 (talk) 15:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Germany (moved from article page)

Note: Although this may sound rather petty, I am contesting the ownership of who created or started this maneuver. In the 1970's, I was working for the US military in Germany and wanted to find a technique to disable soviet vehicles (called SMLM for Soviet Military Liaison Mission) interrupting our convoys. I was also scheduled to start working with the US Military Police and wanted to find a technique that could be used to stop a suspect vehicle without using the original “wolf pack” procedure. One day while playing at the local carnival and driving a go-cart around the track I hit and spun out the cart in front of me. I started perfecting this maneuver with the go-carts and wanted to find a way of seeing if it could be used for real situations like disabling the SMLM vehicles. It was not until I started working with the MP’s and had an opportunity to attend the VIP driving school that this procedure had a chance of real world perfection. The VIP cars had reinforced bumpers and I was allowed to try this procedure. Throughout the school myself and two MP’s honed this procedure until we considered it perfect. We than wrote up our findings and started instructing the other MP’s in this area, along with the Germany Police in our sector on how to use this technique. Unfortunately, we never called the procedure PIT as it is now know, but in the grand tradition of the military called it a rather long and technical sounding name. Frankly I like the name PIT and wish I would have thought of it myself. On a final note, the Germany Police we worked with were some of the best trained individuals that it has been my pleasure to work with, and they were not familiar with this technique until we taught them the maneuver. I am glad that the law enforcement community is using this technique, and that Mr. Milner introduced our procedure to the US, I do think that credit should be given to the original creators of this maneuver. (comment by Topdriver (talk · contribs) moved from article)

Wow, nice! Would you have any other sources to cite that would back up some of this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zujua (talk • contribs) 04:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Topdriver's comments would be more interesting if years and names were provided. Steve8394 (talk) 05:22, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm removing the reference to the Supreme Court case Scott v. Harris as irrelevant to this article on the PIT maneuver. The decision in that case makes clear that the PIT was not employed in the case:

Following respondent's shopping center maneuvering, which resulted in slight damage to Scott's police car, Scott took over as the lead pursuit vehicle. Six minutes and nearly 10 miles after the chase had begun, Scott decided to attempt to terminate the episode by employing a "Precision Intervention Technique ('PIT') maneuver, which causes the fleeing vehicle to spin to a stop." Brief for Petitioner 4. Having radioed his supervisor for permission, Scott was told to "'[g]o ahead and take him out.'" Harris v. Coweta County, 433 F. 3d 807, 811 (CA11 2005). Instead, Scott applied his push bumper to the rear of respondent's vehicle.¹

¹Scott says he decided not to employ the PIT maneuver because he was "concerned that the vehicles were moving too quickly to safely execute the maneuver." Brief for Petitioner 4. Respondent agrees that the PIT maneuver could not have been safely employed. See Brief for Respondent 9. It is irrelevant to our analysis whether Scott had permission to take the precise actions he took.

See [1] (emphasis added).

It might be appropriate in some other article that more generally discusses police intervention through vehicular contact, but not this one.

That's probably true of the other paragraph in the Legal opinions section, too, but since the Scott case expressly states that the PIT was not involved, the paragraph on that case is the only one I'm deleting.

Terry Carroll 20:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The result was merge to Deadly force#Legal_opinions. -- Terry Carroll 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to move the Legal opinions section to the article Deadly force.

Although all of the three opinions discussed in this section involve vehicular police chases, none of them appear to involve the PIT that is the subject of this article.

With respect to the Harris case, see my comment Scott v. Harris immediately above.

With respect to the Adams case, again, there was no use of the PIT. The police car in that case "rammed the automobile several times." Also, the Adams case is probably a lousy one to cite. In Harris v. Coweta County, the same court (the 11th Circuit) strongly limited Adams... and Harris v. Coweta County is the same case that went to the Supreme Court as Scott v. Harris, discussed above. So citing Adams is pretty shaky ground, and a poor case to which to point readers who may not have the means to discover and unravel the subtleties of the intersecting case law.

With respect to the Donovan case, again, no use of the PIT. In that case, Zirbes, the officer being sued, participated in a roadblock. A motorcycle was being chased by another police officer, lost control and became airborne, hitting Zirbes' stationary car.

I'm going to clean up this section a bit, regardless.

Terry Carroll 18:17, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continues here: Talk:Deadly_force

Terry Carroll

This continual adding and removing of this section is pointless and interfearing in more productive editing. Can folx edit this section to a point that everyone can live with it rather than simply contiunue in this manner ?
Or might it be helpful for each involved editor to simply state their point of view on what they would like to have included here on the talk page, let an uninvolved editor put it all togeather and then agree to live with it. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong consensus that the section should be included; only one or two vandals keep deleting it. It's hard to find a compromise between "present" and "that knowledge is a crime." But if someone can point out something wrong with the section other than its very existence, I'll happily cooperate. ➥the Epopt 14:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IF the contention is that it may not be the police doing this maneuver, then why not make mention of: Fishtailing Oversteer Hydroplaning (road vehicle) or any of the other articles in Category:Car safety which are all involved in this type of "Accident". Also renaming this section could go a long way too defuse things. Just some suggestions. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 02:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
_{P.S. a person is not a vandal for a difference of opinion.}

The continued reversion of this section to an obviously unaccepted version is not helpful. Since these reversions are continious and increasing in frequency, there is no consensus for either version at this time. I have been bold and edited this section to be more encyclopedic and nutral toned. It is now named ==Avoidance maneuvers== and does not imply attempting to Duel with the police Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 22:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revisions are fine with me, but I'll bet that in a day or two the entire section will again be blanked by our solitary vandal, whose goal is the complete removal of any mention of defense whatsoever. You continue to miss the fact that the deletions are being performed by a single person, who is clearly no longer a newbie. And by the way, a difference of opinion most certainly can be vandalism. Consider a difference of opinion as to whether this article should have "JOEY IS GAY!!11!" inserted into the middle of it.... ➥the Epopt 15:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not (see Stubbornness ). All I ask is that instead of blindly RVing and recreating the problem, try editing the article to a possibly more acceptable version and see if that helps. "JOEY IS GAY!!11!" inserted into the middle of it would classify as a personal attack, so yes that would be vandalism. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 18:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wanderson95: I honestly think that it should be removed due to the neutrality that it may conflict with the United States of America law enforcement strategies.

I myself tend to sympathise with that point of view. However, I would also like you to consider the the other side of the coin on that issue. Consider the number of Non-US citizens that have never heard of the term and wish to 'look it up'. This section is also pertinent to all the amature race track drivers out there that see the close ties it has with the Bump and run. If you are simply planning on blanking out the section, be aware, it would only be restarting a edit war that has only recently been quelled. If you believe that you can help with the neautrality issues, please do be bold and edit.

The inclusion of a section detailing how to avoid a PIT Maneuver, irregardless the reasons for it to be included, would violate the law by any person to act on such information in an actual police pursuit, in exactly the same fashion detailing how to defeat body armor would in the event of a shootout with police, or detailing how to convert an AR-15 to am M-16. Here’s the thing: It’s not illegal to know how to do it, it’s not illegal to tell others how to do it, it’s not illegal to put it in print- But if someone actually does what you told them how to do, you can be held liable for their actions. In this case, as “Wikipedia” told people how to defeat a PIT Maneuver, Wikipedia would be held liable for whatever happens, up to and including potentially murder charges. It wouldn’t matter that Wikipedia is a group and one member of the group went off on their own agenda, they can not transfer blame for the action to the singular member beyond banning them.
The argument about defeating PIT’s by carjackers, etc, is irrelevant; These are actions committed by definition by criminals, and therefore there will be nothing resembling proper conduct. They do not care if the passengers or innocent bystanders are killed, all they care about is getting the car. It may or may not be true that anti-PIT tactics are effective against them, but if they can’t PIT you they will bury you, and unless you want to develop tactics to defend against a running gun battle there’s in all practical sense nothing you can do.
In the end, this is a real “Get Real” moment; It’s not appropriate to detail anti-PIT tactics any more than it’s appropriate to detail how to do a PIT here. That said, the entire Procedure section should be removed; If even ONE jackass tried doing a PIT based on seeing the “how to” here, it’s the same thing as how to avoid one. It would be one thing to present either or both sets of information in a theoretical sense, but the sections as written clearly are intended as a “how-to” manual, complete with pictures. A. J. REDDSON

So your saying that Wikipedia is censored ??? ... have you read WP:NOTCENSORED. "If even ONE jackass tried doing a PIT based on seeing the “how to” here" is a argument for deleting the entire Article, not the Avoidance section you removed. This maneuver can occur accidentally and are not "actions committed by definition by criminals,". Did you even notice that the section you removed also mentioned "Coming to a complete stop...". Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 05:50, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying if someone reads about how to do it here, then tries it in the “real world” Wikipedia can be held accountable. And do not mix apples and rocks; A traffic accident is still a traffic accident, it’s not a combat driving maneuver intended to disable vehicles. A. J. REDDSON

No. You are acting as a censor. Acquire consensus for this before deleting it again please. Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 18:19, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I know my next step.Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

MedCab would like other avenues attempted before it is brought to them. I am open to a reasonable discussion about the laws the 'pedia must abide by if that is the point of view being taken. I would repeat a question asked ealier: "Which legal statute is this based on, that Wikipedia would be held liable? ... " Zujua (talk) 04:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC) Exit2DOS ^{• Ctrl • Alt • Del} 00:28, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Push It Tough makes no sense. Push It Through makes much more sense. A typo? Is there a citation for the Push It Tough alternative?

Nasukaren (talk) 02:09, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I know that this procedure is rarely if ever used in the UK, but does anyone know the official police position on it? Are traffic officers trained to perform it, and if so what are the rules of engagement? Given the centralized control of most UK police pursuits I would expect any PIT to require authorisation from a senior officer, but that's just a guess. --Ef80 (talk) 08:52, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article now has

'The PIT maneuver is permitted during police pursuits in the United Kingdom. ^{[citation needed]}

but a separate section PIT_maneuver#TPAC gives preferred responses

I came here after watching BBC News - Cardiff hit-and-runs CCTV shows Cardiff 'mayhem'

A variety of other techniques - 'boxing-in', being rammed head-on and pursuit on foot (!) are tried first,

(even though the driver has killed 1 and injured 17 in a series of 8? deliberate incidents as children came out of school)

but PIT maneuver as a last resort on a clear road with side-barriers is effective, on a Long Iveco 3 Ton van at 35-40 mph.

The first gentle attempt may have been to try to burst tires against the central-reservation kerb (median curb), or might just have lacked enough impact to break traction - trying to avoid damage to the police car, too.

It does need a good citation, though - I guess this isn't it !

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Optimal application of TPAC would seem to require between 5 and 8 units. knoodelhed (talk) 05:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was confused by the simple diagram because I misunderstood which was the front and rear of each car. I was able to figure it out but initially I thought the cars were traveling 'down' - leading me to believe PIT was a form of cut-off move. Could someone please adjust either the caption or graphic to help make orientation more clear? 47.208.27.40 (talk) 19:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. And even once I figured out that they were facing upwards, There is a huge leap between diagrams 2 and 3 that makes it very hard to understand 74.109.235.8 (talk) 14:55, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's still confusing, especially since the image #3 CAPTION says "the target is in front of the police car" but in the IMAGE, the target is *behind* the police --unless, pic #3 is upside down for no reason. I'm actually leaving to try find something on YouTube that makes sense of it. Cramyourspam (talk) 23:40, 22 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the original diagram (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pit_maneuver.svg) was SO bewildering as to be almost dysfunctional. I'll make a better one. Cramyourspam (talk) 07:57, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Annnd, here's my replacement: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PIT_TVI_aniGIF_byCramYourSpam_PublicDomain_2024.gif Cramyourspam (talk) 01:21, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AthensBureau: @Deepfriedokra: @Instant Comma: @Kpgjhpjm: @Oshwah: Over the last two months, there has been one user (evidently using two usernames) who has persistently re-added content after that content was removed. This user doesn't seem to comprehend that his personal recount of his own contributions to the PIT maneuver is not suitble content for WP. While I realize there's a series of increasing sanctions to apply to non-compliant editors, I think it's reasonable to "short circuit" some of those steps. Given that he just doesn't get it, a permanent ban could be justified. OTOH, an extended-period block would probably work also. But OTOOH (on the other other hand), why would we think that he wouldn't just re-insert his content as soon as his block was lifted? Maybe he could "pinky swear" that he won't ever re-insert this content and we could have a relatively moderate length block.

In any case, something ought to be done so that we can stop this endless cycle of reviewing and reverting his unacceptable content. Fabrickator (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have limited experience dealing with cases such as this and would welcome input from others. Instant Comma (talk) 12:24, 3 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that the article be reorganized into the following sections, with the current sections that content would be copied from in square brackets:

• Development [History]
• Mechanism [Procedure, Avoidance maneuvers]
• Risks [Limitations]
• Legal status [History, Limitations, TPAC]

Any objections or suggestions or other comments?

Should I do this when I find the time, or does someone else want to?

P.S. I found the following source that might be useful as a reference, or at least an external link: https://archive.investigativereportingworkshop.org/investigation/deadly-force-behind-the-wheel/

Solomon Ucko (talk) 03:55, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that this page be renamed to something like "Police Pursuit Policies." This is a topic that is frequently in the news and is the subject of evolving legislation and public debate. The PIT Maneuver topic would fit right in on such as page as just one aspect of this broader topic. SuperDuperFly (talk) 03:29, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That page might be good to create too, but it doesn't negate the existence of this page. Solomon Ucko (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I know this topic has been back and forth but I do believe instead of a “Defense” section a “Recovery” section should be added. Not to push against a PIT but how to recover once spun. This is because in racing PIT maneuvers accidentally happen. The primary use is by police but there are numerous accidental (or purposeful depending on the drivers/theme of the race such as The Freedom 500) uses in racing. Also there are videos on Youtube of the occasional civilian vehicle initiating one due to lane changes or defensive driving. In the end this is a driving tactic that is used by people other than the police and so while I understand a “Defense” section is unnecessary as you shouldn’t fight against it, a “Recovery” section would be helpful for certain use cases. Recovering from a spin isn’t going to help someone evade police unless they’re a stunt driver that can execute it perfectly and keep their previous speed out of the spin. ChaseViolet (talk) 19:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two separate incidents, one from 2021 and another from 2023 are conflated in the article. The pregnant driver whose vehicle was flipped in 2021 was not the driver of the wrong car that was stopped in 2023. I'm not well-versed enough in Wikipedia style or rules to amend this myself, but it needs to be addressed. 23.240.36.187 (talk) 17:33, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]