Stealthz
Posts: 5546
Joined: Wed Feb 02, 2005 11:43 am

Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Sun Jan 20, 2013 9:31 am

.. or is it just the hubris of the rich and powerful.

A series airing here in Australia at the moment called Dangerous Drives, tonights episode is about "executive protection", the vehicles and techniques used to protect the VIP "principals"
One of the highlighted operations is a company called Delta One and their client, a property tycoon, in South Africa. The episode focuses on the driving techniques, vehicle armour etc and the measures they might take like ramming a cyclist who, most likely just stopped too close at a traffic light.
All this attention to threats yet the principal, his wife and three children all sit unrestrained in the back seat, the toddlers on the parents laps(and at times held by the older child). How does that make sense?
A simple driver error or a deliberate ramming by a medium truck will have the vehicle off the road and the occupants just as dead as an explosion or machine gun attack.

Perhaps nothing was learned from the Diana & Dodi fiasco in Paris.
If your camera sends text messages, that could explain why your photos are rubbish!
 
blueflyer
Posts: 3633
Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2006 4:17 am

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Sun Jan 20, 2013 12:04 pm

It's a valid point, but at the same time, in certain situations, seat belts are considered an impediment to a quick exit from a vehicle. What is the bigger risk? That the car might roll over a few times and toss its passengers around, or that the car might come under attack, be stranded, and have to be evacuated as fast as possible...

[Edited 2013-01-20 04:07:30]
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has no clothes.
 
User avatar
moo
Posts: 4074
Joined: Sun May 13, 2007 2:27 am

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Sun Jan 20, 2013 2:04 pm

The example yu give, South Africa, makes a difference to the context - have you ever driven around South Africa? I have, Ive been carjacked three times, shot once and had another three attempts.

And I'm a basic joe.

South Africa is a world apart when it comes to personal protection.
 
swissy
Posts: 1481
Joined: Fri Jan 07, 2005 11:12 pm

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:45 pm

Quoting moo (Reply 2):
The example yu give, South Africa, makes a difference to the context - have you ever driven around South Africa? I have, Ive been carjacked three times, shot once and had another three attempts.

And I'm a basic joe.

South Africa is a world apart when it comes to personal protection.

Never was there and have no desire to go there... Our neighbour is a plumper by trade and he just left his home country South Africa because of severe safety concerns for his wife and kids... has been robbed to many times, some of the stuff is quite shocking. He prefers to freeze his bu.. off over the bs down there any day.

Cheerios,
 
Klaus
Posts: 20594
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:47 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 1):
It's a valid point, but at the same time, in certain situations, seat belts are considered an impediment to a quick exit from a vehicle. What is the bigger risk? That the car might roll over a few times and toss its passengers around, or that the car might come under attack, be stranded, and have to be evacuated as fast as possible...

No, the biggest risk is a crash, or even just a sharp deceleration to avoid one, which would already send the passengers flying.

Not using a seat belt in a moving car is utterly stupid and reckless.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 7589
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Sun Jan 20, 2013 5:39 pm

Besides unless you also have an armed escort of several vehicles I doubt getting out of an attacked car is a good idea.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 13356
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:35 pm

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 1):
It's a valid point, but at the same time, in certain situations, seat belts are considered an impediment to a quick exit from a vehicle.

Which circumstances?

Quoting blueflyer (Reply 1):
What is the bigger risk? That the car might roll over a few times and toss its passengers around, or that the car might come under attack, be stranded, and have to be evacuated as fast as possible...

I can guarantee the evacuation decision-making process will take longer than the time required to undo a seat belt. Plus, the evacuation will be significantly hampered if the occupants have been injured because they weren't wearing seatbelts.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Not using a seat belt in a moving car is utterly stupid and reckless.

It is.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 4):
Besides unless you also have an armed escort of several vehicles I doubt getting out of an attacked car is a good idea.

Indeed.
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
 
ltbewr
Posts: 12389
Joined: Thu Jan 29, 2004 1:24 pm

RE: Executive Protection, A Crock Of ..

Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:29 pm

Politicians are the same too. About 6 years ago, the then Governor of New Jersey (and later financial crook with MF Global) Jon Corzine got seriously injured when his SUV/official vehicle, operated at well over (90 MPH/150 KMH) on the Garden State Parkway where the speed limit of I think 60 MPH (100 KMH) when his State Police Officer driver hit a slower car/light truck causing a serious accident. He was not wearing his seat belt and was in the hospital for several weeks due to those injuries. It also changed the policies of operations of the Governor's vehicles that they were to obey the speed limit and all passengers in such vehicles have to wear seat belts per the state law. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,265741,00.html

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: DucatiRacer and 9 guests