Drivers avoid head-on collisions as suspect car tries to outrun armed police in Hedge End

Drivers avoid head-on collisions as suspect car tries to outrun armed police

Drivers avoid head-on collisions as suspect car tries to outrun armed police

First published in Crime
Last updated
Daily Echo: Photograph of the Author by , Senior reporter

MOTORISTS narrowly avoided head-on collisions as a terrifying high-speed police chase unfolded in a Hampshire neighbourhood.

Armed police officers swarmed onto Turnpike Way in Hedge End after giving chase to a white 4x4 vehicle yesterday afternoon.

Drivers have described how the vehicle was driving at speed towards oncoming traffic and weaving in and out of cars, narrowly avoiding a catastrophe.

Armed officers were joined by a police helicopter as the drama unfolded.

As reported by the Daily Echo, shocked residents watched in horror as police swooped on the neighbourhood with guns. Today police have confirmed the man arrested is a 32-year-old from the West Midlands.

One motorist said: “I wondered what was going on. I was driving past the retail park on Turnpike Way and a white car was driving at speed towards me on the same carriageway in the fast lane.“How he avoided a head-on with me or anyone, I'll never know - he winged it past me. “The police were on the other carriageway chasing.

“It really shook me up - you don't expect to see a car driving at speed down the wrong way of a major road.”

Another said: “It was a miracle he didn't have a head on crash. How he missed me, just past the roundabout, god knows.”

Police confirmed today a 32-year-old man from the West Midlands was arrested on suspicion of theft of a motor vehicle, failure to stop, and possession of a controlled drug.

He is currently still in police custody.

Comments (29)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

1:07pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..
oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police.. KA
  • Score: -30

1:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

sotonwinch09 says...

KA wrote:
oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..
Probably because he used a weapon to step or car jack the vehicle. You don't know and neither do I so why criticize? Armed police may have been in the area, they patrol Hampshire 24/7 and go to normal jobs aswell you know.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..[/p][/quote]Probably because he used a weapon to step or car jack the vehicle. You don't know and neither do I so why criticize? Armed police may have been in the area, they patrol Hampshire 24/7 and go to normal jobs aswell you know. sotonwinch09
  • Score: 52

1:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

sotonwinch09 wrote:
KA wrote:
oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..
Probably because he used a weapon to step or car jack the vehicle. You don't know and neither do I so why criticize? Armed police may have been in the area, they patrol Hampshire 24/7 and go to normal jobs aswell you know.
Oh yeah silly me.. that's got to be it hasn't it...
[quote][p][bold]sotonwinch09[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..[/p][/quote]Probably because he used a weapon to step or car jack the vehicle. You don't know and neither do I so why criticize? Armed police may have been in the area, they patrol Hampshire 24/7 and go to normal jobs aswell you know.[/p][/quote]Oh yeah silly me.. that's got to be it hasn't it... KA
  • Score: -46

1:42pm Wed 13 Aug 14

forest hump says...

KA wrote:
oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..
So you know better than the police? Why do you question their behaviour?
Do you think they would be performing motorists' checks using guns? Personally, I wish they would carry arms permanently. Some of the jerks out there might wise up a bit.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..[/p][/quote]So you know better than the police? Why do you question their behaviour? Do you think they would be performing motorists' checks using guns? Personally, I wish they would carry arms permanently. Some of the jerks out there might wise up a bit. forest hump
  • Score: 31

1:48pm Wed 13 Aug 14

S!monOn says...

Turnpike Way isn't a dual carriageway and it doesn't have a "fast lane" either - so where or what road was the witness on?!
Turnpike Way isn't a dual carriageway and it doesn't have a "fast lane" either - so where or what road was the witness on?! S!monOn
  • Score: -3

1:53pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...
well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so... KA
  • Score: -16

2:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Harold K Steptoe says...

Let's hope he gets the 75quid fine and 18month suspended sentence he really deserves.
Let's hope he gets the 75quid fine and 18month suspended sentence he really deserves. Harold K Steptoe
  • Score: 19

2:09pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Ultra Vires says...

KA wrote:
well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...
You assume wrong. There are a small percentage of officers who are armed. They will patrol and conduct ordinary duties in addition to having the firearms. Of course, they are normally reserved for violence or weapon related crime, however, these calls are not overly common so. They are still Constables, so they conduct ordinary duties as well. That could mean pulling over a car and dealing with a motoring offence, or acting on intelligence against a licence plate, etc.
The police aren't pulling over motorists at gun point, if that's your concern, which it appears to be reading your other comments on the other article. The picture the DE are using is not that of the officers at the scene.
I suspect this man was wanted and known to be dangerous, hence the police operation to get him safely arrested. Then again, that's no fun is it? You'd rather stir-up misinformation and bash the police.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...[/p][/quote]You assume wrong. There are a small percentage of officers who are armed. They will patrol and conduct ordinary duties in addition to having the firearms. Of course, they are normally reserved for violence or weapon related crime, however, these calls are not overly common so. They are still Constables, so they conduct ordinary duties as well. That could mean pulling over a car and dealing with a motoring offence, or acting on intelligence against a licence plate, etc. The police aren't pulling over motorists at gun point, if that's your concern, which it appears to be reading your other comments on the other article. The picture the DE are using is not that of the officers at the scene. I suspect this man was wanted and known to be dangerous, hence the police operation to get him safely arrested. Then again, that's no fun is it? You'd rather stir-up misinformation and bash the police. Ultra Vires
  • Score: 29

2:57pm Wed 13 Aug 14

thesotonsaint says...

KA wrote:
well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...
was the job centre shut today? Seems you've got plenty of time to sit here and talk rubbish.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...[/p][/quote]was the job centre shut today? Seems you've got plenty of time to sit here and talk rubbish. thesotonsaint
  • Score: 11

3:04pm Wed 13 Aug 14

vpharm says...

should had shot the criminal
should had shot the criminal vpharm
  • Score: -10

3:19pm Wed 13 Aug 14

__KTF__ says...

S!monOn wrote:
Turnpike Way isn't a dual carriageway and it doesn't have a "fast lane" either - so where or what road was the witness on?!
The quote in this article was lifted from a comment someone posted on the original article about this incident.

The road they were referring to was Charles Watts Way. I agree there is no such thing as a 'fast' (or any other speed) lane though.
[quote][p][bold]S!monOn[/bold] wrote: Turnpike Way isn't a dual carriageway and it doesn't have a "fast lane" either - so where or what road was the witness on?![/p][/quote]The quote in this article was lifted from a comment someone posted on the original article about this incident. The road they were referring to was Charles Watts Way. I agree there is no such thing as a 'fast' (or any other speed) lane though. __KTF__
  • Score: 7

3:20pm Wed 13 Aug 14

excusemoi says...

Least the nutter is off the road. Be interesting to see what he gets when he goes to court.
Least the nutter is off the road. Be interesting to see what he gets when he goes to court. excusemoi
  • Score: 10

3:29pm Wed 13 Aug 14

davel_cats says...

Further to earlier comments on the name of the road, it may also be "Tollbar Way" (hence the confusion as both names start with the letter "T".) However, you'd think they'd get their facts correct: what if someone called the police to the wrong road?
Further to earlier comments on the name of the road, it may also be "Tollbar Way" (hence the confusion as both names start with the letter "T".) However, you'd think they'd get their facts correct: what if someone called the police to the wrong road? davel_cats
  • Score: 3

3:51pm Wed 13 Aug 14

S!monOn says...

davel_cats wrote:
Further to earlier comments on the name of the road, it may also be "Tollbar Way" (hence the confusion as both names start with the letter "T".) However, you'd think they'd get their facts correct: what if someone called the police to the wrong road?
Everything is ok, it doesn't matter...... apparently, the quote was lifted from a comment someone made.

If they get it wrong, the police can always come here and read the other comments to get the exact location!!
[quote][p][bold]davel_cats[/bold] wrote: Further to earlier comments on the name of the road, it may also be "Tollbar Way" (hence the confusion as both names start with the letter "T".) However, you'd think they'd get their facts correct: what if someone called the police to the wrong road?[/p][/quote]Everything is ok, it doesn't matter...... apparently, the quote was lifted from a comment someone made. If they get it wrong, the police can always come here and read the other comments to get the exact location!! S!monOn
  • Score: 4

4:12pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

thesotonsaint wrote:
KA wrote:
well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...
was the job centre shut today? Seems you've got plenty of time to sit here and talk rubbish.
I don't sign on till fri!!!!! :D
[quote][p][bold]thesotonsaint[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: well in the other report they said there was a stop check carried out by armed police so i assume so...[/p][/quote]was the job centre shut today? Seems you've got plenty of time to sit here and talk rubbish.[/p][/quote]I don't sign on till fri!!!!! :D KA
  • Score: -9

5:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

KA wrote:
oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..
Why is it a problem if they send armed police? When you put other innocent people's lives at risk by driving at them on a motorway you should be deemed to have put your own life at risk of being shot if it saves the death of another. Don't you agree that's fair?
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: oh suspicion of theft and possession now.. so why send in armed police..[/p][/quote]Why is it a problem if they send armed police? When you put other innocent people's lives at risk by driving at them on a motorway you should be deemed to have put your own life at risk of being shot if it saves the death of another. Don't you agree that's fair? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 2

5:40pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?
Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..? KA
  • Score: -8

6:16pm Wed 13 Aug 14

mooky9 says...

KA wrote:
Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?
Shockingly enough the daily echo isn't the font of all information and the Police hold information back that they don't want the public to know whilst they interview/investigat
e. How do you know he wasn't armed, how do you know he wasn't armed earlier and they thought he still had it, oh that's right you don't so step off your soap box and wait for the facts.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?[/p][/quote]Shockingly enough the daily echo isn't the font of all information and the Police hold information back that they don't want the public to know whilst they interview/investigat e. How do you know he wasn't armed, how do you know he wasn't armed earlier and they thought he still had it, oh that's right you don't so step off your soap box and wait for the facts. mooky9
  • Score: 9

6:28pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

mooky9 wrote:
KA wrote:
Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?
Shockingly enough the daily echo isn't the font of all information and the Police hold information back that they don't want the public to know whilst they interview/investigat

e. How do you know he wasn't armed, how do you know he wasn't armed earlier and they thought he still had it, oh that's right you don't so step off your soap box and wait for the facts.
We don't!! but surly its in the interest of the police to make a statement that gives all the facts! or don't make a statement until you are prepared to! twatt
[quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?[/p][/quote]Shockingly enough the daily echo isn't the font of all information and the Police hold information back that they don't want the public to know whilst they interview/investigat e. How do you know he wasn't armed, how do you know he wasn't armed earlier and they thought he still had it, oh that's right you don't so step off your soap box and wait for the facts.[/p][/quote]We don't!! but surly its in the interest of the police to make a statement that gives all the facts! or don't make a statement until you are prepared to! twatt KA
  • Score: -10

6:34pm Wed 13 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

KA wrote:
Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?
If he had driven head on into a car containing your wife and children who were innocently and legally driving home you wouldn't be taking that position. So it may not have been your wife and children but the motorway was packed with other people's families so you get the point. A car is a deadly weapon just as much as a gun, only it has the ability to kill several people at once. Capiche?
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?[/p][/quote]If he had driven head on into a car containing your wife and children who were innocently and legally driving home you wouldn't be taking that position. So it may not have been your wife and children but the motorway was packed with other people's families so you get the point. A car is a deadly weapon just as much as a gun, only it has the ability to kill several people at once. Capiche? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 8

7:20pm Wed 13 Aug 14

KA says...

No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?
No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male? KA
  • Score: -7

8:24pm Wed 13 Aug 14

kiz.bartlett says...

KA wrote:
No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?
If their ANPR flagged the cat up as suspicious, they would have pulled him over to do a routine check of the vehicle to see everything is in order. Now if he made off from the police when attempting to stop him, this would suggest he was hiding something.

Now, if the police were able to identify him and he was known for serious crimes which could endanger the lives of others, it would warrant a backup from armed police to protect the people in case he turned sour. And by the sounds of his driving, he was hellbent on getting away at the cost of both his own and other people's lives. For whatever reasons unknown to the police, he REALLY didn't want to be caught.

The previous statement only says "a routine traffic stop ended in an arrest" which only gives the start and the end of the drama, his reasons for escape and the main "meat" of the chase is still in speculation until police issue further information.

So really, if it was just a routine traffic stop and after the chase, it ended in an arrest the police have not lied at all. For all we know, he could have had a gun ready to take hostages. And I'm sure it would have been too late to call armed response when people were shot.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?[/p][/quote]If their ANPR flagged the cat up as suspicious, they would have pulled him over to do a routine check of the vehicle to see everything is in order. Now if he made off from the police when attempting to stop him, this would suggest he was hiding something. Now, if the police were able to identify him and he was known for serious crimes which could endanger the lives of others, it would warrant a backup from armed police to protect the people in case he turned sour. And by the sounds of his driving, he was hellbent on getting away at the cost of both his own and other people's lives. For whatever reasons unknown to the police, he REALLY didn't want to be caught. The previous statement only says "a routine traffic stop ended in an arrest" which only gives the start and the end of the drama, his reasons for escape and the main "meat" of the chase is still in speculation until police issue further information. So really, if it was just a routine traffic stop and after the chase, it ended in an arrest the police have not lied at all. For all we know, he could have had a gun ready to take hostages. And I'm sure it would have been too late to call armed response when people were shot. kiz.bartlett
  • Score: 5

8:25pm Wed 13 Aug 14

kiz.bartlett says...

Sorry the car not the cat, would have been a dangerous feline if it was the situation.
Sorry the car not the cat, would have been a dangerous feline if it was the situation. kiz.bartlett
  • Score: 3

10:50pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Mr Cynical says...

Echo lifting quotes from the comments pages as news and sources for their stories now?
Oh dear, lazy 'journalism' at it's best.
Echo lifting quotes from the comments pages as news and sources for their stories now? Oh dear, lazy 'journalism' at it's best. Mr Cynical
  • Score: 2

11:21pm Wed 13 Aug 14

mooky9 says...

KA wrote:
mooky9 wrote:
KA wrote:
Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?
Shockingly enough the daily echo isn't the font of all information and the Police hold information back that they don't want the public to know whilst they interview/investigat


e. How do you know he wasn't armed, how do you know he wasn't armed earlier and they thought he still had it, oh that's right you don't so step off your soap box and wait for the facts.
We don't!! but surly its in the interest of the police to make a statement that gives all the facts! or don't make a statement until you are prepared to! twatt
So that's the best argument you have - name calling!? Speaks volumes about you.
Why should the police give further details, just so you can be nosey? Their investigation is far more important then giving you details of anything, what the paper decides to report is up to them, but no it's not in the police interest to give you quotes, shockingly they have more pressing things to deal with but will give a brief outline if asked by the press and nothing more unless THEY want to. Oh and next time you try to swear, spell check it first, makes you look even more of a mug.
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]mooky9[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: Because they dont send armed police unless the situation grants it! and i cant see how this one does .. he wasn't armed was he..?[/p][/quote]Shockingly enough the daily echo isn't the font of all information and the Police hold information back that they don't want the public to know whilst they interview/investigat e. How do you know he wasn't armed, how do you know he wasn't armed earlier and they thought he still had it, oh that's right you don't so step off your soap box and wait for the facts.[/p][/quote]We don't!! but surly its in the interest of the police to make a statement that gives all the facts! or don't make a statement until you are prepared to! twatt[/p][/quote]So that's the best argument you have - name calling!? Speaks volumes about you. Why should the police give further details, just so you can be nosey? Their investigation is far more important then giving you details of anything, what the paper decides to report is up to them, but no it's not in the police interest to give you quotes, shockingly they have more pressing things to deal with but will give a brief outline if asked by the press and nothing more unless THEY want to. Oh and next time you try to swear, spell check it first, makes you look even more of a mug. mooky9
  • Score: 5

11:29pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Mary80 says...

Yeah i live near Turnpike Way there is NO fast lane its just 2 normal lanes which merges with traffic leaving Sainsburys towards the traffic lights
Yeah i live near Turnpike Way there is NO fast lane its just 2 normal lanes which merges with traffic leaving Sainsburys towards the traffic lights Mary80
  • Score: -1

11:47pm Wed 13 Aug 14

Summer77 says...

Thank goodness no one was hurt or killed! I saw the car zoom past us, and my daughter and I had literally crossed the road seconds earlier. He overtook a van and trailer on the new narrow bit halfway up the road! I am just so grateful that no-one was crossing the road there at the time, as he did not slow down!!! He didn't even brake!!! If that would have been term time, parents and children would have been crossing to fetch other children from school. No one would have stood a chance!!!
Thank goodness no one was hurt or killed! I saw the car zoom past us, and my daughter and I had literally crossed the road seconds earlier. He overtook a van and trailer on the new narrow bit halfway up the road! I am just so grateful that no-one was crossing the road there at the time, as he did not slow down!!! He didn't even brake!!! If that would have been term time, parents and children would have been crossing to fetch other children from school. No one would have stood a chance!!! Summer77
  • Score: 1

1:11am Thu 14 Aug 14

andysaints007 says...

KA wrote:
No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?
You are probably neither - just a stain on the y fronts of humanity you boring, boring individual!
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?[/p][/quote]You are probably neither - just a stain on the y fronts of humanity you boring, boring individual! andysaints007
  • Score: 0

6:41am Thu 14 Aug 14

The Wickham Man says...

KA wrote:
No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?
Nothing really, so what? The family allusion was an allegory, which I think I made clear in the post. As for attempting to associate driving as high speed into oncoming traffic as though it were akin to simple speeding you are just being deliberately asinine. You might as well describe rape as common assault. Would you do that?
[quote][p][bold]KA[/bold] wrote: No capiche! So your saying they should have shot him for a driving offence? and what gives you the idea i have a wife or that i am a male?[/p][/quote]Nothing really, so what? The family allusion was an allegory, which I think I made clear in the post. As for attempting to associate driving as high speed into oncoming traffic as though it were akin to simple speeding you are just being deliberately asinine. You might as well describe rape as common assault. Would you do that? The Wickham Man
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree