Wrong on so many levels. A pursuit is monitored by police supervisors. A supervisor at ANY point may terminate a pursuit. It is not to the sole discretion of the officer involved. This policy was intstitued long ago, at one time late 70's, the officer was the one who "made the call" but back then, typically, pursuits didn't reach anywhere near the speeds we see at times today.
I have called off a few pursuits, the supervisor is trained to at least be familiar with the are in which the pursuit is occuring, (IE is it residential, commercial, or industrial). The supervisor also listens to the "broadcast" of the pursuit, and monitors the officers voice for signals that the pursuit may need to be terminated, (IE heavy or laboured breathing from high stress levels, excited utterances, etc etc etc).
The "tipping point" you referred to is to be assessed on an ongoing basis from the second it becomes clear the subject is "failing to stop". It is assessed by the pursuing officer, also by any other units assisting in the pursuit, as well as dispatchers and supervisors.
The pursuit is a function of policing it is is till the subjects responsibility because as has been pointed out several times the subject has the option of stopping. Everyone thinks an officer lights someone up for say 20 km over and the subject takes off that the rider is only "guilty" of speeding. The officer at that point has NO idea what other offences the subject has committed. Once the subject has been given an "opportunity" to stop, say a couple of blocks but the go WOT then they are no longer wanted for speeding they have now also committed the much more serious violation of stop for police.
Just as an officer should approach every interaction not knowing if the subject is armed, (doesn't mean they are), but the officer MUST consider it for officer safety. A "reasonable" person isn't going to risk all that is associated with running over a 20 km speeding ticket therefore, the quetion the officer has to ask is "why are they running". Typically if a person begins to take unacceptable risks, (Blows through a 4 lane intersection at 100+ km/h), then one has to ask why are they running so hard? Generally it isn't over a mere 20km/h over.
So there are many many factors an officer cnsiders when conducting a pursuit. Most pursuits are relatively short in distance and duration. It is rare for the ones we see on TV out of California where the guy is on the freeway for 90 minutes. I believe if recollection serves me right the longest pursuit I was involved in was abiut 15 minutes and covered about 60 KM, (rural area at 2 am). Guy did pretty well considering how drunk he was.
Now in the case which begun this thread first there is no evidence of a pursuit. The guy crashed virtually right after he was lit up. The SIU hasn't released it's findings.
Also your taking the position that if the pursuing officers terminates a pursuit, (turns off lights and siren and returns to "normal" speed, that means the rider will return to riding normally. That would be VERY rare, most continue along wrecklessly, because they fear other untis are flooding the area and they will be spotted. The main exception to that is if they are close to home that they can duck into.
There are investigations into post pursuit collisions just as there are in any collision. The main difference here in Ontario is that it is turned over to the SIU. It isn't an option it is mandated by law to be done this way. That doesn't mean the pursuit is/was avoidable. It means that like any collision it MUST be investigated.
You may wnat to make any collision resulting from a pursuit the "fault of the police" but that isn't what the law states. It is indeed the offender who is guilty, because without their runnign there would be NO pursuit. The law exists to, (as do mist of our laws), as a deterrent to the offender.
Speeders only instigate the speeding. Police officers instigate any pursuit. Not all speeeders are pusued. The police can pick and choose not only who they will puruse, but they also decide for how long they will pursue and at what speeds. When a pusuit has been started by a police officer, it's up to him or her as to whether he/she will continue the pursuit or stop, *regardless of what the rider does*. The pursuit, its commencement and its end is fully in the domain of the police officer; the speeding and decison to stop or not is in the domain of the speeder. There comes a tipping point when the officer has to ask him or herself a question, and then make a decision: "Am I causing a greater danger to myself and others than the person I am pursuing has caused?" Just as the rider has the feedom to make a decision to stop or run, so to does the officer have the freedom to decide to pursue or not, but as the pusuit is a police act, not an act by any speeders, it's up to the police officer who started it, to stop it...regardless of what the rider, or scum bag of your choice does. Therefore, injuries caused by the police in the act of high speed pursuits, should be considered their reponsibility because they chose the wrong policing methodology/response. Just as all accidents are avoidable, so are all police pursuits that end up with tragic results. If they weren't...there would not be any investiagtions after a pursuit that results in personal injury, like we have here.