If you say “The driver can be chased by the police”, this is certainly something the driver can do. However, as you say it also involves the ability of the police to chase the driver too.
It is logically necessary for both to be true.
The attribute of “the ability to chase/be chased” does not lie simply in “the police” or in “the driver”, but in the relation “police” X “driver.”, where X stands for a relation. Imagine if the driver, for some reason, became unable to be chased by the police. Then, by logical necessity, the police are unable to chase the driver. (But how could this happen if the ability was inherent property of the police?)
I think you would agree that if “A is able to verb B”, then it is logically necessary that “B is able to be verbed by A”. (If you doubt that, think of a few examples and post them)
The “ability to verb” is not an attribute of either A or B by themselves but of the relationship A X B.
If it were purely an attribute of A, one could replace B with C, and assert “A is able to verb C”
But this might not be true. C might be a stationary post. The Police can’t chase a stationary post. And it’s not that the police have lost any powers. It’s just that the relation A X C is not the same relation as A X B. And the “can verb / ability to verb” is part of the relation X, not purely in A.
I believe English handles this relation quite well. You can change an active sentence: “A is able to verb B” into the passive voice “B is able to be verbed by A”, because the relation X (which contains source of the ability) is merely stated in an inverse, but logically equivalent way.