by
Tony Scotti
Most of the driving public can opt out of driving
in bad weather – but CEO’s didn’t get to be CEO’s because they
stayed home when it snowed. So there is a part of the driving
population that has no choice but to drive in weather that sane
people would avoid. Part of that population is Security/Executive
Drivers. When the weather goes bad consideration has to be given to
what you drive and how you drive it.
HOW
YOU DRIVE
Changes in the weather
conditions can challenge the most experienced driver. As an example:
Driving from dry conditions to ice decreases the capability of the
vehicle by 65%, driving from snow to ice decreases the vehicles
capability by 49%. This decrease is the laws of physics at work.
When moving from one surface to another; you are suddenly driving a
car with much less capability. And to make life more exciting this
change in capability all happens in tenths of seconds. This quick
change in vehicle capability would be difficult for the most
experience driver to control.
WHAT
YOU DRIVE - 4WD/AWD
There are so many options
to choose from that it is easy to get confused by all the different
drive systems offered by the car manufactures. There are 3
basic systems - Part-time 4WD - Full-time 4WD, and AWD. We could
spend a lot time talking about the differences between them all but
AWD is best for bad weather, and 4WD is close behind.
But - No 4WD or AWD system will make driving safer,
especially in snow and ice. If there is less adhesion between the
tire and the road, the vehicles capability is greatly diminished.
The problem is that most 4WD/AWD drivers think they have a vehicle
that can defy the laws of physics. However, once the vehicle is
moving the laws of physics for all vehicles are equal.
Here is the issue with AWD or 4WD – they can
accelerate in snow almost as quickly as on dry roads, but that does
not mean they stop or corner any better than a 2WD system can, in
fact 4WD and AWD do very little to help while turning, and
offer no additional braking capability on wet, snowy roads. Once
moving, the physics of 2WD, 4WD, and AWD systems are pretty much the
same.
Here are some of the general bits of advice.
Changes in the weather conditions can challenge
the most experienced driver.
Clean your windshield, back window and side
mirrors.
The problem is that most 4WD/AWD drivers think
they have a vehicle that can defy the laws of physics. However, once
the vehicle is moving the laws of physics for all vehicles are
equal.
A 4WD vehicle will do a better job of getting the
vehicle moving than a 2WD vehicle. But once the brakes are applied a
4WD is like all other vehicles, the driver is at the mercy of the
tire road adhesion.
If you are on a steep hill and in packed snow 4WD
is a big help, but if you are on the same hill and the driving up
the same hill on ice it’s of very little help.
Only tire chains increase traction of rubber
tires on snow and ice significantly.
Although this has been said many times and many ways, stopping on
snow and ice may require up to 10 times the distance as stopping in
normal conditions.
When you turn the steering wheel to drive around
a corner or avoid a problem it makes no difference what drive system
you have under you – you are at the mercy of the tire road adhesion
– if it is icy and that adhesion is low you could be in for an
exciting ride.
This is another one of those warnings that
everyone seems to know but most everyone pays no attention to. Be
careful on bridges, overpasses and infrequently traveled roads,
which will freeze first.
When driving in bad weather the best advice is
slow down.
Securitydriver.com
By John E Reid & Associates
In an ideal world, an
interview or interrogation would always be conducted in a room
specifically designed for that purpose. Most businesses, however, do
not have a room set aside for interviewing job applicants or
employees suspected of acts of wrong-doing. Consequently, interviews
may be conducted in an open cubical, a business office, a conference
room or even a storage facility. With a little preparation, many of
these spaces can be converted into a rather satisfactory
interviewing room.
Importance of privacy: Any person who is motivated
to withhold information should be interviewed in private. This group
includes job applicants, victims, witnesses and employees suspected
of wrongdoing. Privacy is necessary because people almost always
share sensitive information with only one person at a time.
Therefore, the most critical aspect to assure a sense of privacy is
to conduct interviews one on one. That is, there should only be two
people in the room, the interviewer and the subject. If this is not
feasible, the interviewer should sit about 4ð - 5 feet in front of
the subject, while the 2nd party (another investigator)
should sit off to the side.
It is important that the interview room have a door that can be
closed so the subject will not be concerned about someone outside of
the room overhearing what is being discussed. For much the same
reason, it is important to keep electronic recording devices, such
as a tape recorder or camcorder, inconspicuous. This is not to
suggest that all electronic recording must be surreptitious. In
fact, many states require two-party consent to electronically record
a conversation. However, it is a pivotal misunderstanding of human
behavior to believe that a subject would candidly make admissions
against self interest while staring at a camcorder or looking down
at a tape recorder placed in plain view on top of a desk. Therefore,
a camcorder should be placed off to the side of the subject and a
tape recorder on the floor or other place which is concealed from
the subject's constant view.
Distractions: Controlling auditory distractions is
more important than visual distractions within a temporary interview
room. If a subject can hear outside voices behind a closed door, he
or she may be concerned that those on the outside may also be able
to overhear the interview. Even in the most basic interview
environment, internal auditory distractions can easily be
eliminated. This simply requires disconnecting a desk phone, turning
off a beeper or cell phone.
Size considerations: If an interview room is too
small (6' x 7') it is likely to cause unwanted apprehension, and
perhaps even a feeling of claustrophobia. This is undesirable both
from a psychological and legal perspective (coercion). Conversely,
interviewing in a room that is too large (20' x 15') creates a
different problem in that it is difficult to achieve a one-on-one
relationship with another person in such a vast space. This can
usually be remedied by arranging the furniture in such a way that
the interview takes place in a corner of the room, creating the
psychological impression of an 10' x 10' space. Generally, this
arrangement is achieved by putting the interviewer's chair near a
back wall and the subject's chair about 5 feet in front of the
subject's chair. A conference table or desk positioned off to the
subject's side completes the effect.
Eliminate barriers: A barrier is any physical object
placed between the interviewer and subject. In many office
environments this will represent a desk or table. Barriers are
undesirable for a number of reasons, but primarily they offer a
psychological shield behind which a deceptive subject will hide. A
person is much more likely to tell the truth if their entire body is
exposed to the interviewer. Consequently, the room should be
arranged in such a way that the chairs in which the interviewer and
subject sit are placed to the side of, or away from a desk or table.
For example, if a vice-president of operations calls an employee
into his office to be interviewed concerning possible fraudulent
activities, two chairs could be positioned facing each other to the
side or in front of the vice-president's desk. The vice-president
can politely ask the employee to have a seat in one of the chairs
while he sits directly in front of the employee in the other. During
an interview, the distance between the chairs should be about 4 ð -
5 feet apart. This represents a natural distance in which two people
feel comfortable interacting. If the distance is shortened, say to
three feet, the interviewer will be perceived as authoritative and
condescending. This is obviously not desirable if the goal is to
allow the person being interviewed to feel comfortable telling the
truth.
Location: Suppose an employee embezzled $15,000 and
could choose between confessing at her place of employment or in our
office located in down-town Chicago? Ten out of ten guilty suspects,
if given the choice, would choose to confess in our office. The
reason is simple. No employee wants to confess guilt only to leave
the room to face co-workers and supervisors who are undoubtedly
aware of the investigation and who will express resentment for the
problems the employee has caused. This common sense lesson teaches
the following important rule: interview or interrogate suspected
employees away from co-workers and supervisors. A guideline we
follow is that if the guilty employee cannot leave the interview
room without being seen by co-workers, it is not a proper room in
which to conduct the interview. Frequently, under this circumstance,
we will arrange to conduct interviews/interrogations at a nearby
hotel. Most hotels have small meeting rooms which afford privacy and
the furniture can be arranged in such a way as to create a desirable
interviewing environment.
Conclusion: Many of the investigations conducted by
staff members of John E. Reid and Associates occur outside of our
office. Furthermore, we are often successful in resolving those
cases with a confession. A contributing factor to our success is
establishing the correct environment in which to conduct the
interview/interrogation. Once we visit a client's location we survey
the premises looking for a suitable room in which to conduct the
interviews. If one is found we will modify that room to suit our
needs. If none is found, rather than hoping that we might be
successful in solving the case with the interviewing space that is
available, we will suggest that the interviews be conduced at a
nearby hotel. By conducting interviews/interrogations within a hotel
conference or meeting room, our staff has obtained countless
confessions that otherwise may never have been obtained on the
client's premises. Credit and Permission Statement: This
Investigator Tip was developed by John E. Reid and Associates Inc.
Permission is hereby granted to those who wish to share or copy the
article. For additional 'tips' visit
www.reid.com; select 'Educational Information' and
'Investigator Tip'. Inquiries regarding Investigator Tips should be
directed to Janet Finnerty
johnreid@htc.net. For more information regarding Reid seminars
and training products, contact John E. Reid and Associates, Inc. at
800-255-5747 or
www.reid.com.
By Harvey Hedden
ILEETA
One of
the most common complaints of trainers within criminal justice
agencies is that when budgets are cut, training is usually the first
casualty. Cutting training is terribly easy from a bureaucratic
standpoint. It requires no re-scheduling, no cuts in public services
and there are fewer complaints except for those zealots who work in
the training bureau. We need to look at defending funding for
training as just another teaching assignment. We must inform and
persuade administrators and public officials of the importance and
advantages of training.
When agency budgets are cut we never
expect that the agency will cut back on its services to the public
but rather that it will work more efficiently with fewer resources.
But how likely is it this will occur without training? Training is a
force multiplier making for more effective and efficient work,
boosting morale, reestablishing agency priorities and improving
teamwork. When we train our staff during the toughest of times we
are telling them we are in this together, that we value their work
and their professionalism. Conversely when we drop training we send
a quite different message down the line which will impact agency
performance.
If we learned that our surgeon or
airline pilot had not received training updates due to budget
cutbacks, would we feel confident about their work? We expect them
to be well trained because their work product can be the difference
between life and death. Law enforcement officers are often tasked to
make critical decisions alone and under pressure that can also have
grave consequences. When we tell our officers they don‟t need
training aren't we telling them that their performance and/or their
safety really doesn't matter?
Even in a bad economy the courts are still
open. Decreasing training can make the agency a more appealing
target of litigation. A single lawsuit could cost and agency much
more than its annual training budget.
Training not only reduces the
frequency of workplace errors but protects the agency from
deliberate indifference claims when an error is made. Plaintiff‟s
counsel would much rather attack the agency for allowing an
unskilled or rogue officer to have made the error without concern
for the public.
It is important realize that the
budget shortfall isn‟t going to just go away. Be prepared to offer
suggestions of other ways to reduce the budget. Before we point the
red pen at other parts of the agency, find ways to reduce training
costs such as roll call or other self-directed on-duty training.
Maximize every minute of real training time and offer examples of
how this training can reduce other operating costs as well as keep
our officers safer and reduce civil litigation.
Does the agency have non-mandated
services we can curtail or charge user fees? Can some services be
reassigned to non-law enforcement resources? Can we reduce fleet
operating costs through better driving (training)? Can we find ways
to reduce overtime? Does every report have to be completed before
the officer goes home? Our officers and first line supervisors are
often in the best position to help our administration find cost
savings.
We can hardly expect to have great
training without also investing in our instructors. Keeping the
trainer up to date in an ever more complex world is critical to our
success. Without effective training we cannot keep pace with change
and we cannot effectively protect our officers, agency and
community. Training is much like insurance, if you don‟t pay now,
you almost certainly will later.
y
< <
jump to the policetraining.net home page