New 7 Day Impoundment Legislation

On December 1st, 2010 new Highway Traffic Act Offences were implemented that have to do with the impoundment of motor vehicles for various offences.  The new sections come under the umbrella of the Road Safety Act, 2009 (Bill 126) and are administrative suspensions.

The sections allow for vehiclesto be impounded for 7 days when the people driving them have committed the following offences:





1.) A driver who's licence has been suspended for any reason, including default of family support (with the exception of unpaid fines or medical reasons) is caught driving. Section 55.2 HTA

2.) A driver who is required to have an ignition interlock device and are found driving without one. Section 41.4 HTA
3.) A driver caught with a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) over 0.08 or who fails/refuses to comply with a demand made by a police officer under section 254 of the Criminal Code of Canada.  Section 48.4 HTA

OK, so that is the legal stuff. Here is what it all really means and what is important for you to remember.

All these offences identify high risk road users.  Those people who have a disregard for the rules of the road and the safety of all of us.

Drivers receive suspension for several reasons.  Most commonly for breaking the rules of the road to such a degree that the punishment handed down by the courts is a suspension.  Some offences come with mandatory suspensions and you can bet that those are the offences that are high risk behaviours that compromise the safety of everyone.  (Impaired driving, stunt driving, multiple demerit point accumulations, etc) = High risk road user.

For a driver to be required to have an ignition interlock device, they have had to have broken the law in terms of drinking and driving.  Part of their conviction is the order that they must have the device installed on any vehicle they drive.  It is a requirement on their licence. = High risk road user.

Anyone charged with over 80 or refusing / failing to comply with the demand, naturally =  High risk road users.

Like I said...the vast majority of us never have to worry about these things.  It is only those drivers who have been self identified as high risk road users.  Self identified? Yes, they are the ones in control of their behaviours and their actions on our roads.

They are the ones who have completely missed section 31 of the Highway Traffic Act:

Driving a privilege

The purpose of this Part is to protect the public by ensuring that,

31.

(a) the privilege of driving on a highway is granted to, and retained by, only those persons who demonstrate that they are likely to drive safely; and

(b) full driving privileges are granted to novice and probationary drivers only after they acquire experience and develop or improve safe driving skills in controlled conditions.  1993, c. 40, s. 1.

No one has the right to drive.  It is a privilege and one that if you don't comply with or abide by the rules and regulations, that privilege is taken away from you.

Back to the impoundments...

The legislation doesn't say the vehicle of the driver...it says the vehicle that is being used by the driver. 

So parents...are you willing to part with your car for seven days because of the behaviour choices of your children?  This is something that you really need to discuss with them so that they understand the importance of good choices.

Friends...are you willing to lose your car for seven days because you loaned it to a friend?  Make sure they have a licence, they aren't required to have an ignition interlock device and they aren't going to be drinking.

These are just a few of things that you have to consider.  Also, the bill for the towing and impoundment doesn't go in the name of the driver...it's in the name of the registered owner of the vehicle.  

Hope this help to educate a few people. 

Remember, RIDE is out there all this month.

Pedestrian collision prevention - Education, Awareness and Responsibility

My daughters are in the thick of learning how to read right now.  Some words they see and say, some they sound out and get right, while others they just can’t find the ways yet to put the sounds together and miss it completely.

When that happens, I have a choice to make.  Do I help them with the word or just ignore their mistakes and let them go on repeating their errors?  I mean, at their age, who really cares…it’s not like they are reading anything that can be the difference between passing their grade or failing…yet.  But I can assure you, if their errors aren’t pointed out, it will make a huge difference someday.  As painful as it may be, pointing out their errors is in their best interest for long-term success.

It’s a lot like pedestrian safety.  My partner and I had a very busy day answering media questions about the ‘sudden spike’ in pedestrian collisions over the last 48 hours.  (If you go back to just before Halloween, we were warning people that this was going to happen.)

The media wanted to know who is to blame, who is at fault, why is this happening and why people aren’t getting the message.  So we responded to the questions.

Who is to blame?

Simple…road users.

Who is at fault?

Simple…road users who aren’t aware, alert and observant.

Why is this happening?

Human error, distraction, environment, daylight savings time, clothing choices, ambient light, on and on.

Why aren’t people getting the message?

No answer from me…I guess you would have to ask the people who are causing the problems.

You see, road safety is everyone’s responsibility.  Plain and simple.  Everyone who uses the roads plays a role in the ensuring safety for themselves and for the other road users around them.

When a pedestrian is stuck by a vehicle, the pedestrian will always be on the losing end.  The easy thing to do would be to blame the driver for not doing their part in ensuring the safety of the pedestrian.  But, sometimes that is not the right thing to do, nor is it ever the proper thing to do for long term success of reducing collisions, injury and death.

A pedestrian who isn’t watching where they are going, disobeying traffic signals, impeding traffic, wearing dark clothes at night, crossing mid-block is not doing anything to help keep our roads safe.  They aren’t doing anything to keep themselves safe.

A driver who is distracted, travelling too fast for conditions, not looking where they need to be, impaired, etc,  is not doing anything to help keep our roads safe.  They aren’t doing anything to keep themselves safe and they aren’t doing anything to keep pedestrians safe.

A pedestrian who crosses a street mid-block at night wearing dark clothing, texting, where street lights are burnt out while listening to an MP3 player is doing nothing in terms of taking personal responsibility for their own safety.  According to many people today, I should ignore that and never point things out like that because I could be blaming the ‘victim’ (I’ll get to that in a minute).

You bet I’m going to point that out!

Now, what if a car strikes that pedestrian?  You bet I’m going to question why the driver didn’t see the pedestrian.  I’m going to ask about the speed, the lighting the location, the sight lines, the environment.  I’m going to point out that each road user has responsibility for one another.

Interviews

This whole post is because of how interviews are turned into reports.  You can be sure that when PC Hugh Smith and I are interviewed we look at all angles of any incident and where there is a safety message to any category of road user, driver, cyclist, pedestrian or transit user, we include it.

Anytime there are two people involved, each of their actions will be analyzed.  If there is any message that we can bring to light to help educate and raise awareness, we’ll bring it up.

But, no matter what we say, we do not have the last word.  It is always up to the reporters to file and even then, editors and producers have their opportunity to massage a report.  So the final copy rarely tells the whole story.

So when you read or watch, understand that there is way more information that doesn’t make a story than does.

Victim

In traffic safety, we avoid referring to anyone as a victim.  Since a pedestrian is considered a vulnerable road user, (none or little protection), people naturally refer to them as the victim.  They do get the worst of it after all. We refer to them as the injured party. Simply stated they are not always the victim.  A pedestrian that steps onto the roadway into the path of the car, not allowing the driver any opportunity to avoid striking that pedestrian can very successfully be argued as the actually the victim of someone else’s action.  Sure the pedestrian is going to be on the losing end.

All the parties involved are victimized in one manner or another.  Our society as a whole can be argued as the victims.  Because of a bad crash, roads get closed, transportation flow is compromised, people miss meetings, goods are delayed, infrastructure suffers, etc…we are all victims. 

In the end, if our road safety messaging is interpreted as placing blame, then so be it.  I would rather point out the mistakes that have led to road tragedies in an effort to educate others from making the same mistakes then to ignore the obvious and allow the same mistakes to be perpetuated.

So, that’s my view. What are yours? Agree, disagree? Let me know.  The communication is what creates awareness and education.  Thanks for reading.

Sharing the road with streetcars

Streetcars present a unique challenge to Toronto road users, but at the same time are very simple to share the road with.  A couple of things that make them easy to be around is that they can't change lanes, they are very visible and they are only found on roads with rail lines running on them.  They only turn onto roads that also have intersecting tracks, but they do make those turns from lanes that we aren't accustomed to seeing traffic legally turn from.  In fact, if you make the same turn they do...you will be charged.

They are recognized in the Highway Traffic Act because there are specific laws regarding them and how you need to behave around them to be sharing the road with them for every one's safety.

Almost every law that applies to the driver of a motor vehicle or a cyclist applies to the operator of a streetcar and vice verse.

You can pass a streetcar that is in motion on the right side only.  Like every rule, there are exceptions...

1. If the streetcar is travelling on a one-way street, you can pass it on the left.
2. You can not pass on the right through the approach area of a pedestrian crossover.

Always look at a streetcar as a moving intersection, after all it does have stop signs on it.  When a streetcar is approaching an intersection don't try to pass it.  You can safely assume that it is going to stop. When it stops, the side doors may or may not open.  The safest practice is to stay behind the streetcar until it goes into motion again.

You can't see past it so trying to pass it at an intersection is a recipe for trouble in the case where a pedestrian is trying to catch it from the side you can't see or a car/cyclist blows a red light and creams you as you clear the front of the streetcar.

When the doors are open it is against the law to pass it or approach the doors to closely.  This applies to both motor vehicle drivers, cyclists, skateboarders, roller bladers, e-bikes, etc.

Pedestrians are not allowed onto the roadway until the streetcar has come to a full stop and the doors have opened.  Having said that...they will, so again, go back to the point of don't pass a streetcar as it nears an intersection.

For those of you that complain that streetcars enter intersections on amber lights, you should know that there is a mechanism on them that talks to the intersection.  It holds that light amber so that the streetcar can make it through which creates a better traffic flow for all of us.

The LRT lines are designed to specifically allow a free flow of traffic around the street car lanes.  No vehicles are allowed on them except streetcars and other authorized TTC vehicles.  (You will on occasion see police, fire and ambulance use them - seconds save lives).

Make sure when you are travelling parallel to LRT lines (Spadina, Queens Quay, StClair to name a few) that you pay attention to the traffic signals especially at turning points.  The streetcars have their own signals as do you....mix them up and you run the risk of being T-boned by 20 tonnes or so of metal.

Here are some safety tips from the TTC website

Here is the Highway Traffic Act

Speed Trap Capital of the World

Wow, what an amazing amount of attention Toronto got this week after it was revealed on a website that we are the Speed Trap Capital of the World!!

It was a very busy 24 hours after that news broke, but what exactly does it mean? 250 locations (give or take) on the list, crowd sourced information, not really verified and what do they class as a speed trap?

Lets kick this off by talking about traps:

• a device in which something (usually an animal) can be caught and penned

• drain consisting of a U-shaped section of drainpipe that holds liquid and so prevents a return flow of sewer gas

• something (often something deceptively attractive) that catches you unaware; "the exam was full of trap questions"; "it was all a snare and delusion"

• a device to hurl clay pigeons into the air for trapshooters

• place in a confining or embarrassing position; "He was trapped in a difficult situation"

• ambush: the act of concealing yourself and lying in wait to attack by surprise

• catch in or as if in a trap; "The men trap foxes"

• informal terms for the mouth

• a light two-wheeled carriage

So I guess we can agree that there is no way what we are doing can be considered traps.

Posted speed limits, uniforms, equipment, cars, motorcycles...any decent driver that is

observant and scanning their route of travel surely has to see the police enforcement. Often times, other stopped cars can even be a clue. One prominent driving advocate even stated he has seen as many as eight officers at a location…not much of a ‘trap’.

Who is in control of the speed of a vehicle? The passenger? The other cars? The pedestrians? Nope…it’s the driver. Gas pedal for faster, brake pedal for slower. What is the incentive for the drivers to speed? Tickets, possible insurance rate hikes, demerit points, loss of license, etc. Or is the incentive to avoid tickets? By doing something crazy like, I don’t know…travelling the speed limit.

Road safety is based on three simple tenants.

• Education
• Awareness
• Enforcement

(You can add in engineering but that’s not in law enforcements hands).

Folks, we do enforcement based in one simple principal…safety. We educate and raise awareness so that we can avoid the enforcement. But, there will always be some people who choose to risk all our safety in one manner or another. We will always be there to address them appropriately.

If you combine all other crimes committed you would not come close to devastation and societal impacts that traffic related incidents have on us. You are far more likely to be in a collision than you are to be the victim of violence. Go to any community meeting, town hall meeting and you are sure to find that traffic related matters (speeding and parking in particular) top the list of concerns of the community.

Two of the main ways we determine locations are:

• Community generated concerns reported to us asking for our help making their neighbourhoods safer
• Crash analysis that has indicated a need for enforcement/education/awareness

One of the things this list indicates to me is how plugged in and tech savvy Toronto is. You have given that site more locations that New York, LA and Montreal residents combined. Way to go.

I can’t believe how many of those locations I’ve actually stood in ‘beaming’ the traffic. Some of them though…don’t think they were actually speed enforcement locations, bit more likely officers sitting at the side of the road doing reports and passerby’s have fed the locations as a radar spot.

So, thank you Toronto for helping us spread the word and show the world how committed the Toronto Police Service is to road safety. We have made it a priority <-(PDF) for several years now in an effort to reduce collisions, injuries and death in Toronto.

Interesting fact…Los Angeles is about 2X the size (population) of Toronto and has about 2X more sworn officers. According the Speed Trap Site, we have about 2X more locations than them.

In 2008 (last published numbers for LA) they had 234 fatalities…Toronto had 54.

So let me know are there any areas that you particularly like? Any locations you would like to add to the list? Let me know. Love to hear from you.

Bicycle Helmets...you choose

Bicycle helmets have been a very hot topic in Toronto the last few days. On Friday August 13th, a cyclist died after a fall from his bicycle almost a month earlier. He struck his head which ultimately led to his death.

I issued a news release about the death and the same day that it was released via the Toronto Police Website, the Toronto Sun published an article that urges mandatory helmet use according to an Alberta study.

So, looking at raising public awareness over the issue, I Tweeted and Facebooked (is that a word?) both the news release and the article...then the storm came.

The word 'helmet' became a trending topic on Twitter in Toronto and the conversation was heated on both sides of the issue. Some people argue that helmets should be mandatory while others say that the choice is up to the individual.

My opinion is simple...what is safest should stand. Mandatory? Not sure on that, but should you choose to wear one? Absolutely!!

You can't tell me one solid reason for not wearing one...I've heard plenty, but not ones I'd support. But, I can give you one good one. A helmet protects your brain. You know that thing inside your skull, pretty much runs your body...only get one, can't be fixed thing?

But, who am I to say...here are some other opinions.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/276/24/1968

(Thanks to @bradeinarsen for the link)

But there are lots more...

http://www.bhsi.org/index.htm#statistics

Best line I have ever heard?

"Let me first say that I didn't start swearing a helmet regularly until AFTER I WOKE UP FROM THE COMA"

See the whole article for that line:

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/09/on-bicycle-helmets.php

So...whats your opinion? Your views, thoughts, arguments.

Do you have any research that can support helmets, no helmets. Can you make a strong point?

Let me know and have your say here...pls keep it clean!

To see some of the conversations that took place look at the following Twitter Streams

@TrafficServices

@DuncansCityRide

@BikeTree

@BikingToronto

#bikeTO

Guest Post - Why Do Cops Get To Harass People?

I have to confess right off the bat here, this is not my original thought. I wish I was talented enough to come up with this stuff on my own. I am re-posting this. It is from a good friend of mine who has a blog as well. http://www.motorcopblog.com/

Just like Motorcop, I found it funny and thought I would share it too.

You can follow him on Twitter and Facebook as well.

Please remember, commenting is welcomed, just keep it clean and respectful. Even if you don't agree with what is said, be polite and factual about how you tell us you don't agree. If you agree, same thing, be clean and polite.

I don't often straight plagiarize or just post something someone else has written...but the BlogStocker sent me something I couldn't resist posting. Please to enjoy...

Recently, the Chula Vista Police Department ran an e-mail forum (a question and answer exchange) with the topic being, "Community Policing."

One of the civilian email participants posed the following question: "I would like to know how it is possible for police officers to continually harass people and get away with it?"

From the "other side" (the law enforcement side) Sgt. Bennett, obviously a cop with a sense of humor replied:

"First of all, let me tell you this...it's not easy. In Chula Vista , we average one cop for every 600 people. Only about 60% of those cops are on general duty (or what you might refer to as "patrol") where we do most of our harassing.

The rest are in non-harassing departments that do not allow them contact with the day to day innocents. And at any given moment, only one-fifth of the 60% patrollers are on duty and available for harassing people while the rest are off duty. So roughly, one cop is responsible for harassing about 5,000 residents.

When you toss in the commercial business, and tourist locations that attract people from other areas, sometimes you have a situation where a single cop is responsible for harassing 10,000 or more people a day.

Now, your average ten-hour shift runs 36,000 seconds long. This gives a cop one second to harass a person, and then only three-fourths of a second to eat a donut AND then find a new person to harass. This is not an easy task. To be honest, most cops are not up to this challenge day in and day out. It is just too tiring. What we do is utilize some tools to help us narrow down those people which we can realistically harass.

The tools available to us are as follows:

PHONE: People will call us up and point out things that cause us to focus on a person for special harassment. "My neighbor is beating his wife" is a code phrase used often. This means we'll come out and give somebody some special harassment.

Another popular one is, "There's a guy breaking into a house." The harassment team is then put into action.

CARS: We have special cops assigned to harass people who drive. They like to harass the drivers of fast cars, cars with no insurance or no driver's licenses and the like. It's lots of fun when you pick them out of traffic for nothing more obvious than running a red light. Sometimes you get to really heap the harassment on when you find they have drugs in the car, they are drunk, or have an outstanding warrant on file.

RUNNERS: Some people take off running just at the sight of a police officer. Nothing is quite as satisfying as running after them like a beagle on the scent of a bunny. When you catch them you can harass them for hours.

STATUTES: When we don't have PHONES or CARS and have nothing better to do, there are actually books that give us ideas for reasons to harass folks. They are called "Statutes"; Criminal Codes, Motor Vehicle Codes, etc... They all spell out all sorts of things for which you can really mess with people.

After you read the statute, you can just drive around for awhile until you find someone violating one of these listed offenses and harass them. Just last week I saw a guy trying to steal a car. Well, there's this book we have that says that's not allowed. That meant I got permission to harass this guy. It is a really cool system that we have set up, and it works pretty well.

We seem to have a never-ending supply of folks to harass. And we get away with it. Why? Because for the good citizens who pay the tab, we try to keep the streets safe for them, and they pay us to "harass" some people.

Next time you are in my town, give me the old "single finger wave." That's another one of those codes. It means, "You can harass me." It's one of our favorites.

People argue to be able to drink and drive!

Why do people still insist on driving after they have been drinking? Why do drivers speed at ridiculous rates through residential neighbourhoods, or anywhere else for that matter?

I had the misfortune today of attending a fatal crash in North York this morning. A car was travelling at a high rate of speed and was T-boned in an intersection on a quiet little side street.

The debris field was huge. 2 cars absolutely destroyed. 1 person dead and 4 sent to hospital. One of the drivers was arrested for an alcohol offence related to driving. The car he was driving was the one that the deceased person was in, that was allegedly speeding and allegedly went through a stop sign.

Between Twitter and Facebook there were lots of messages condemning drinking and driving and aggressive driving. That led to some conversation about the new 21 and under law. Surprisingly in some of that conversation stream, people were willing to chastise the new law for being age discriminatory or unacceptable on some level because of a Zero BAC requirement.

WHAT??? Why in the world would people argue to be able to drink and drive. I mean that's really what it comes down to. That is what you are arguing for...to defend your desire to drink and drive. Think about it. If you argue against a zero BAC, or the newer "Warn Range" Suspensions being too restrictive, or the legal limit being too low, you are arguing in essence to be allowed to drive a 2000 pound weapon with an an intoxicant in your system!

How about supporting the notion of someone drinking while walking down the street with a loaded machine gun.

I had a number of people ask my opinion on the law and what I believe. Some asked if I believe it should be just 21 and under or all drivers. Well, you probably know me well enough by now to know what my answer was:

IF YOU DRINK, DON'T DRIVE!