Thoughts on the police

This post does not claim to have all the answers, or any answers, nor to be a comprehensive, or any kind of analysis, but is simply some thoughts on a subject that our society has finally been forced to deal with.

One's attitude to the police is clearly shaped by the reality one lives in. Unfortunately for too many people that reality is that the police are people who at worst kill them or their family members and at best treat them unfairly and discriminate against them. To others the police are people they depend on to protect them and in some cases to protect their privileged status in society.

Some will say this is an issue that we have imported from a racist United States. We know that to be untrue. Even those that say that know it to be untrue and the best they can argue is that it is relatively worse in the United States. Not being as bad as America is hardly a standard we should want to be judged by in Canada, particularly when strong arguments can be made that this is not true anyway, we just all wish it was.

Many will argue that abolishing or defunding the police are simply ideas that are too radical.

Indeed for untold decades suggestions for community building and crime prevention as an alternative to policing and incarceration have been met with support in principle without funding being provided, while police budgets have increased exponentially with little restraint. Indeed there seemed to have be an unspoken argument that we will find money for crime prevention when we no longer need it for the police because crime has disappeared.

We could of course reduce the need for the police by orders of magnitude if we stopped criminalizing what is a public health issue – drug use and abuse. We have done that for years with alcohol and tobacco use and cannabis just recently. There is no rational reason why all non-medical use of drugs should not been treated in the same way as a public health issue.

The funds are available to provide proper drug rehabilitation programs, sitting there in police budgets being wasted on treating a health matter as a criminal one. We could also use that money to provide mental health workers to deal with mental health crisis so the individuals receive treatment rather than being killed by police.

I dare say we have a huge amount of room to defund the police and put that money to better use.

We could put traffic enforcement in a separate organization with a greater emphasis on road safety rather than collecting fines,

What we have left within the police for traditional policing, crime investigation and law enforcement would still require major reforms. Reforms of the extent that could justifiably be argued would be best done by abolishing the police as they now exist and starting all over.

Guns – What Are They Good For

War

The Wikipedia section on the history of guns makes it clear that the history of guns and war are clearly intertwined, guns being developed primarily as a means to kill people in warfare.

Indeed even with the advent of weapons of mass destruction, the infamous WMDs, guns are still the weapon of choice in warfare. These guns are often being fired by the poor and disadvantaged against other poor and disadvantaged in wars started by the wealthy and advantaged.

Hunting

People have been hunting successfully without firearms for survival and sport since man started eating meat. Nonetheless the use of hunting rifles to kill game is a long established and accepted part of many societies. But, no one needs a military assault rifle to hunt for sport or survival. Spraying bullets at everything around hoping to hit something or mowing down a whole herd in one push of a trigger is not sport.

Sport Shooting

Shooting as a sport is also a thing, from biathlon in the Olympics to target shooting with handguns. No harm is done here as long as the guns are safely stored at the shooting range.

Criminals and Police

Criminals have discovered that guns can be a useful tool of their trade and the police have responded. In some countries the police responded cautiously with beat police and detectives remaining unarmed and special armed response units established. Other countries decided to start an arms race with the criminals, with ordinary police armed to the teeth and and special (SWAT) units armed like military assault units. We will leave it to your reading of current affairs to determine which response resulted in more or less gun violence and deaths.

Mass Murder

The easy availability of military style assault weapons has made mass murder a much easier undertaking than in the past. Internationally, the numbers of incidents of mass murders compared to the availability of such weapons speaks for itself.

Protection and Vigilantism

While some believe that they need guns to protect themselves and to deal with criminals, most civilized societies believe that should be the role of the police. There is a a belief, primarily in one country, that an armed populace is a safe populace and the more people with guns the safer a society is. Unfortunately the facts internationally indicate the opposite, particularly when it comes to gun violence and the deaths from it.

What Should We Do

So what should Canada do about guns and gun violence. Fortunately we are not saddled by a foolish Second Amendment but consider gun ownership to be a carefully regulated privilege as most civilized countries do.

While hunting rifles can be used in crimes, and no doubt are occasionally, they are not the main problem.

The big problem with gun violence lies with handguns and assault rifles which no ordinary citizens have a need for. This is one situation where there are simple and effective solutions. No one outside of the military and certain special police units need assault rifles. They should simply be prohibited. As for handguns, there is really no need for civilians to have them either but since they can be easily controlled for sport shooting purposes by restricting their use and storage to approved shooting ranges they should be allowed with those restrictions.

Government simply needs to ignore the imported ideas of the American right wing and provide the solutions the majority of Canadians agree with.

In the United Kingdom Peaceful Protest Is Now Terrorism

From Democracy Under Fire:

Here’s one example of the intimidation of peaceful protest by the young that is happening all over Britain. Nicky Wishart is a 12-year-old self-described “maths geek” who lives in the heart of David Cameron’s constituency. He was gutted when he found out his youth club was being shut down as part of the cuts: there’s nowhere else to hang out in his village. He was particularly outraged when he discovered online that Cameron had said, before the election, that he was “committed” to keeping youth clubs open. So he did the right thing. He organized a totally peaceful protest on Facebook outside Cameron’s constituency surgery. A few days later, the police arrived at his school. They hauled him out of his lessons, told him the anti-terrorism squad was monitoring him and threatened him with arrest.

The message to Nicky Wishart and his generation is very clear: don’t get any fancy ideas about being an engaged citizen. Go back to your X-Box and X-Factor, and leave politics to the millionaires in charge.

Original Source: Johann Hari - The Independent

Every Canadian Should Read This

It is long. It is shocking. It will make you sad. It will make you cry, It will make you puke. It will make you angry. It will make you fucking scream. But you should read it.

How I Got Arrested and Abused at the G20 in Toronto, Canada: backofthebook.ca

The G20, Peaceful Protests, Black Bloc Vandalism and Police Violence

The rationalizations are coming out now for why the police were conspicuously absent when acts of vandalism were taking place (away following peaceful protesters around Toronto streets), why they abandoned police cars for the Black bloc to torch (was it inadvertent, incompetence or intentional), and why they decided the best way to counteract a small group of criminals was to attack peaceful protesters, media and bystanders by detaining, arresting and even assaulting them for simply exercising their Charter right of peaceful assembly.

The rationalizations being - it worked, there were no incidents of vandalism on Sunday so whatever the police did was justifiable - they did arrest some criminals so that justifies the arrests of hundreds of innocent people along with them - and the ever used, people were asking for it by being where the police did not want them to be and refusing to do what the police ordered, whether lawful or not.

Indeed the overkill of police intimidation no doubt played into what changed the protests from protests against the actions of the G20 into demonstrations in support of the Charter right of freedom of peaceful assembly.

While we all deplore the vandalism of the Black bloc tactics, interestingly enough there were no reports of physical harm to people resulting from them, while there are many reports of physical harm from attacks on innocent people by the police, as well as massive attacks on the civil liberties and Charter rights of Canadian citizens.

The Story in Videos







For more reports from citizen journalists see Progressive Bloggers.

Over 900 people were arrested and the police claim about 400 will be charged with criminal offences, a tacit admission that over 500 innocent people were arrested. My prediction is that after the Crown Attorneys look at the actual evidence and eliminate those charged simply because they were talking to the wrong people or were wearing black in the wrong neighbourhood (sounds familiar, except for the "wearing" part) less than 100 will actually be charged with anything.

On the upside I suppose it was educational - for a weekend Torontonians and all Canadians got to see what it is like to live in a police state.

Cycling and Safety in Ottawa

This is being submitted to the City of Ottawa Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee and to selected city councillors.

I am primarily a recreational cyclist, not a commuter. I love riding the trails on my mountain bike but most of my kilometres are put on my hybrid on the paved and gravel pathways, though I do ride the roads on occasion and am just starting to ride in the winter.

Ottawa Police Service's Inappropriate Response to Cycling Injuries Caused by Motorists

This post/submission is inspired by this cycling season's large number of injuries and deaths to cyclists at the hands of motorists and the Ottawa Police Service's inappropriate response of targeting motorists and cyclists equally. A proportionate response is not appropriate because the impact and the risks are not proportionate. Motorists kill cyclists with their vehicles. Cyclists don't kill anyone with their vehicles, and are only a risk of minor injuries to pedestrians in the overwhelming number of situations. Yes, cyclists should obey the rules of the road, and I will deal with that, but motorists are the real threat of injury and death and that is where the bulk of resources should be targeted. Now that I have stated the obvious let us move on.

The police need to move aggressively against reckless and impaired drivers because they are a real threat to everyone on the road, but particularly to cyclists who are not protected by a metal box. Crashing into another vehicle can cause damage, crashing into a cyclist can kill them. While the threat from bad and aggressive drivers is the most obvious, the biggest threat to cyclists is from otherwise good drivers who are unaware of cyclists and the potential threat motorists pose to them.

Cyclists are on the roads, and they have a right to be on the roads. The most important thing that we can do to protect them is to make drivers aware of this, so they are thinking of cyclists whenever they are driving and watching for them. And cyclists need to follow the rules of the road and be where they are supposed to be.

The City of Ottawa website lists some of these rules. Perhaps the most important is "Never compromise your safety for the convenience of a motorist".

More information on cycling in Ottawa is available on the City of Ottawa Website Cycling Page, including the City of Ottawa Cycling Map.

I have a rule for motorists - do not give up your right-of-way (unless you need to avoid an accident). The rules are there so everybody knows what to expect from everyone else. If you give up your right of way to me, with a gesture or whatever, I may be aware but other drivers might be confused. I am happy to wait my turn.

The key thing is awareness of other road users, where they are and what they are going to do. The rules of the road exist so all road users know what to expect, that is why it is so important that everyone follows them.

Stop Signs as Yield Signs For Cyclists - The Idaho Experience

There are already some differences in how the Highway Traffic Act applies to motor vehicles and bicycles, such as the requirement that bicyclists stay to the right and allow motor vehicles to pass, unless it is dangerous to do so. I would like to suggest another difference be implemented and that is the Idaho practice of allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs.

The main difference between a bicycle and a motor vehicle is that a bicycle is human powered - having to stop means losing momentum and having to rebuild it again when starting up. This can be particularly frustrating on a hill. The other big difference of course is that a bicyclists is not in a metal cage and thus has a much clearer view all around him than someone in a car. And the biggest difference is that a bicycle is much less dangerous than an automobile.

Experience indicates that allowing bicyclists to treat stop signs as yield signs is safe. As cyclist are going slower to start off with they can easily slow down and check for oncoming traffic without coming to a full stop. The complete stop is what causes the most significant momentum problem. Slowing down enough to check for oncoming traffic allows one to continue, if safe, while conserving considerable human energy.

In the long term this would require the city, along with other cites, to lobby the provincial government to change the law. But in the meantime the police could adopt a policy of only charging cyclists who go through stop signs if they do so in a dangerous manner. It is not unusual for police to prioritize their enforcement policies.

This would also require a public education policy so that cyclists would know what is expected of them, and motorists would understand the reasoning behind the policy. Cyclists at the moment realize they could be charged no matter what speed they go through a stop sign. I would expect this new approach would lead to many cyclists being more cautious at stop signs than they now are.

The Idaho legislation states:

IDAHO STATUTES
TITLE 49
MOTOR VEHICLES
CHAPTER 7

PEDESTRIANS AND BICYCLES
49-720. STOPPING -- TURN AND STOP SIGNALS. (1) A person operating a bicycle or human-powered vehicle approaching a stop sign shall slow down and, if required for safety, stop before entering the intersection. After slowing to a reasonable speed or stopping, the person shall yield the right-of-way to any vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard during the time the person is moving across or within the intersection or junction of highways, except that a person after slowing to a reasonable speed and yielding the right-of-way if required, may cautiously make a turn or proceed through the intersection without stopping.

Source: Idaho Statutes

More information on the Idaho legislation an experience can be found here:

Toronto Star article

Bicycling blog

Bicycle law blog

Bicycle Civil Liberties Union

Clarifying the Rules Regarding Pedestrian Crosswalks

The Highway Traffic Act includes the following provisions:

Definitions
1. (1) In this Act,
“pedestrian crossover” means any portion of a roadway, designated by by-law of a municipality, at an intersection or elsewhere, distinctly indicated for pedestrian crossing by signs on the highway and lines or other markings on the surface of the roadway as prescribed by the regulations;

Riding in pedestrian crossover prohibited
140.(6) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within a pedestrian crossover. R.S.O. 1990, c. H.8, s.140 (6).

Riding in crosswalks prohibited
144.(29) No person shall ride a bicycle across a roadway within or along a crosswalk at an intersection or at a location other than an intersection which location is controlled by a traffic control signal system. R.S.O. 1990, c H.8, s.144 (29).

I think it makes good sense not to allow cyclists to ride their bikes on crosswalks along sidewalks. Cyclists should not be riding on the sidewalk so they should not be riding on crosswalks.

However there is one situation where the wording of the law may create ambiguity, I am talking about road crossings where shared use paths intersect with roadways. Since the pathway is shared all the way up to the roadway, there is no reason it cannot be shared across the roadway with cyclists remaining on their bikes when crossing the road.

The solution is to simply have the city clarify it's documentation and signage to make clear that shared use pathway crossings are not considered pedestrian crossovers or crosswalks.

Rules of The Shared Pathway - To Ring or Not Ring Your Bell

As we discuss the rules of the road let's look at the rules or conventions of the shared pathway. While I have my understanding of them, it is clear that there is no common understanding amongst pedestrians and cyclists.

My understanding is that all users of a shared pathway should keep to the right, allowing room for both pedestrian and bicycle traffic to move in both directions. Since pedestrians walk on the pathway, not alongside it, they should not be walking in the opposite direction of the pathway traffic. They also should not take up both sides of the pathway, though I am willing to be lenient in this regard as long as they move over for oncoming traffic or traffic that wishes to pass them, whether it be cyclists or joggers.

For that reason pathway users, whether pedestrians or cyclists should always be aware of their surroundings. Please leave the headphones at home when out in traffic, whether on the roads or the shared pathways. You do not have to always be plugged in and disconnected from your surroundings. Sometimes I think the Walkman and the IPod are the most evil and dangerous inventions of mankind.

Let me say this to the pedestrians on the pathway. Now that you are aware of your surroundings and I am approaching you, it is a simple matter to ring my bell to alert you of my presence. It would be a simple decision if I could predict your reaction but I cannot. I know what my purpose is - not to tell you to get off the path, but simply to alert you of my presence and to allow groups of pedestrians to move into single file on the right. However all to often the response is for pedestrians in groups to scatter all over the path or for those walking along the right to move over to the left and into my path. It would make both our lives much easier and safer if upon hearing my bell, you just glanced my way to acknowledge my presence and stayed or moved over to the right in single file to allow me to safely pass. In exchange I will slow down and give you sufficient time to do this.

Life on the shared paths would be much simpler and safer if this approach was adopted as the convention by all pathway users, and perhaps made part of a public education campaign.

Bike Lanes - What Are They

One would think that determining this would be pretty simple.

As far as bike lanes are concerned it was always my assumption that the lines along the roadway about a metre from the curb indicated a bike lane. However, I discovered a couple of problems with that.

The first is that those lines appear on many streets where the City of Ottawa cycling map does not indicate a bike lane exists. Also, in many cases those lines appear along roadways where parking is allowed making the apparent bike lane meaningless because it is dangerous to be moving in and out of the roadway between parked cars.

Something more problematic is the City of Ottawa ad stating that cyclists should ride a meter out from the curb and and the following from the city of Ottawa website which states: "Cyclists generally ride in the right-most through lane, about one metre from the curb or parked cars." The apparent bike lane markings are about a metre from the roadway so if cyclists followed the City's advice they would be riding alongside the apparent bike lane rather than in it, causing motorists to be upset that the cyclist are not riding in what they think is the bike lane, and potentially causing confusion for everyone.

We really need some clarification here.

Shared Pathways - What Are They

You would also think that determining this would be pretty simple. My basic rule has always been that if it is cement it is a sidewalk and if it is asphalt that it is a pathway. But again, looking at the City of Ottawa cycling map, many asphalt pathways are not shown. For example the pathway along Carling Avenue from Holly Acres Road to Moodie Drive is officially designated as a pathway while the pathway along Eagleson Road from Cadence Gate to Hazeldean Road is not, even though they have similar characteristics. Both run along major roadways where many cyclists would be leery of riding on the road and both provide connections between neighbourhoods as well as connections between other pathways.

Indeed, the Eagleson Road pathway connects Bridlewood to the Hazeldean Mall and the Hazeldean community as well as to pathways that connect through Katimavik to Beaverbrook. I would strongly recommend that this route be officially designated as a shared pathway.

For purposes of clarity I would also suggest that all asphalt paved pathways be so designated. If the city wants something to be a sidewalk they should build a proper cement sidewalk.

The Big Issue - Separating Bicycles and Automobiles

This past fall a friend of ours was involved in a vehicular collision when the approaching vehicle veered into his lane. Luckily he survived, though with significant injuries. The people in the other car were killed. He survived because his vehicle was larger and provided better protection. In a collision between a bicycle and a vehicle the cyclist will always be the one to suffer greater injuries or death.

Though I have always tried to avoid riding on the road I have always felt safe when doing so. As long as I obeyed the rules of the road and acted as a vehicle I expected other vehicles to do likewise. Even while driving down the bicycle lane along Hunt Club Road with heavy traffic whizzing by me I felt safe because I had my own designated space. It never really occurred to me that a driver would deliberately drive into the bike lane and maim or possibly kill me. Now it does because we know that that happens way too often.

The only real solution that treats cyclist lives as seriously as motorists lives is to adopt the European approach and separate cyclists from motor vehicles.

I would like to see Ottawa adopt it's own version of this approach built on the existing network of pathways. While dedicated bike paths would be nice to have and would allow for a faster flow of cycling traffic the shared pathways we have now work quite well.

However nothing should prevent cyclists who wish to from continuing to share the road with vehicles.

That being said, providing an alternative to riding on the roads has the potential to substantially increase the number of recreational cyclists and the number of cyclists who commute regularly for work, shopping and other tasks beyond recreational cycling.

So we start by building on the existing pathway network to extend it to a true network that provides connections between all Ottawa communities and neighbourhoods, as well as connecting to the NCC recreational pathway system. Preferably this would be a distinct network separate from the roadway system. Where the network did run parallel to roadways there should be physical barriers or barriers of significant space between bicycles and motor vehicles. The network should never have bicycles and motor vehicles sharing busy roadways only separated by lines on the road.

Of course we cannot have a separate system from door to door. The system would be between neighbourhoods. Cyclists would have to share less busy neighbourhood streets with motor vehicles. In the busy downtown core we should follow the European practice of having separate bike lanes on the sidewalks, rather than the roadways.

The system should be an all-season system. I have recently started winter cycling for recreational purposes and find that more often than not I have to use the roads, as the pathways are usually not cleared - some are not cleared for the whole winter. In my case, as a recreational cyclist, I can easily stick to the local arterial roads that are kept quite clear but commuters do not have a choice of routes. With no reliable pathway system in the winter they have to share the busy roads with motorists when it is the most dangerous.

If we want to encourage more environmentally friendly commuting we need to make a paradigm shift in our snow clearing priorities. I would propose this priority - sidewalks, shared pathways, public transit routes, other roads.

The most important first step is to build a shared pathway system that is uninterrupted and truly connects all Ottawa communities and neighbourhoods.

A Note on Bicycle Helmets

I would be remiss if I did not include this subject in this post/submission.

According to the Ontario Ministry of Transportation:

If you are under the age of 18 you are required by law to wear an approved bicycle helmet when travelling on any public road. Cyclists over 18 are encouraged to wear helmets for their own safety, but are not required to by law.

Source: MTO

It is unfortunate that the government of Ontario does not consider cyclists lives to be as important as drivers lives. Drivers and passengers in motor vehicles are required to use seat belts because they safe lives. The government does not seem to consider the lives of cyclists, who do not share the added protection of a metal cage with airbags around them, to be as worthy of protection.

There is extensive proof and studies as well as submissions from various medical organizations that bicycle helmets save lives and reduce injuries, yet we still do not require cyclists over 18 to wear seat belts. What is even more worrisome is the opposition to seat belt legislation from some so-called bicycle advocacy and safety organizations.

I am not going to outline all the evidence and submissions from medical experts here as that would be a treatise on it's own but I am going recommend that City of Ottawa to call upon the Ontario government to recognize that cyclists lives are just as important as the lives of motor vehicle passengers by passing legislation requiring that all cyclists wear helmets.

And a note to parents. Do you know where your daughter's helmet is after she is out of your sight. As one who passes them on the pathways often I can tell you that most of the time it is hanging from her handlebars. Part of the reason for this may be that, in my experience, there appears to be no enforcement of the helmet legislation for those under 18 years of age.

Final Words

It is vital that the City of Ottawa undertake a public education campaign for motorists and cyclists that stresses awareness of other users of the roads and pathways and the need for everyone to obey the rules of the road. Enforcement should be concentrated on the real danger to life and limb - motorists.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is being submitted to:

Ottawa Roads and Cycling Advisory Committee
Stephanie.Brown@ottawa.ca

Councillor Peggy Feltmate
Peggy.Feltmate@ottawa.ca

Councillor Alex Cullen
Alex.Cullen@ottawa.ca

Councillor Clive Doucet
Clive.Doucet@ottawa.ca

Tasers Don't Kill People - The Police Kill People

Tasers can indeed kill people, but not as certainly as guns can. That is why, as originally intended, as an alternative to the use of firearms by police, they are probably a good idea, at least in theory. The problem is that they are not being used responsibly by police. This is just the latest example of the irresponsible use of Tasers by police. Fortunately this incident did not end with a death.

How much more proof do we need that the police cannot be trusted to use Tasers responsibly.

Some Good News About Police Taser Use

The good news about Tasers is that, with proper training, they can be used more responsibly by police.

The CBC reports that:

The use of Tasers, guns and physical force by Ottawa police dropped to the lowest level in years in 2007 — the year after the service introduced a special premium for officers who regularly retake a course on the proper use of force.

The CBC story further states:

Chief Vern White credits better training for the decline in the use of force.

"I went through use of force training two weeks ago," he said, "and I have to say I was totally impressed with the use of force training itself, the instructors."

He added that the instructors encouraged officers to talk to the people they deal with before doing anything else.

Since May 2006, officers have been eligible for a special salary premium called responsibility pay if they take the use of force training force every 11 months.

Const. David Zackrias said he believes the constant retraining has contributed to the drop in the use of force.

"The officers receive better training these days," he said. "We have to requalify annually and every time … there's always new scenarios we use in our training."

The good news is that with proper, and repeated, training the police can use Tasers and other forms of force more responsibly. The bad news is that they appear to have poor memories and require regular reinforcement training to prevent them from developing bad habits and overusing force.

Police Tylenol Deaths Raise Questions

After reading this, I have to ask: How many people have died in police custody after being given Tylenol. This goes along with the question of how many people have died from "excited delirium" that were not in contact with police. Oh, and can someone explain how a pacemaker or defibrillator works if electric currents do not affect the heart.

Tasing Is Oh So Funny

At least according to Fox News it is. Watch the video and read more about it here.

This whole subject just keeps getting more disgusting and shameful everyday.

Royal Canadian Murderous Police Shame

Do we really need another blog stating it's disgust and shame for the murder of Polish immigrant Robert Dziekanski by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Unfortunately we do. This case is of such significance that I feel I must go on the record. However we all know the facts and have seen the videos so I will not repeat or reference them here.

Some have used this as an example of why the police should not use Tasers. The police argument has always been that Tasers are used as an alternative to guns and can allow police to avoid shooting and killing people. What that says is about this case is that if the RCMP did not have Tasers they would have shot him instead. This is not a case of whether the RCMP can be trusted with Tasers, it is a case of whether they can be trusted with any weapons. With four officers dealing with one unarmed man (who could not understand them) there was no need for any type of weapon to be used. We can only hope it was not a case of them wanting to try out their new toy.

One might be able to make a weak case that the first use of the Taser was bad judgment but the continued use on the victim, after he was down, was murder, pure and simple.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police must pull the wagons back out of the circle and join the rest of Canada in expressing their disgust and shame for this act of murder.