The publisher's commentary in the January 2013 edition of Blue Line Magazine takes a position that I strongly agree with. The police are responsible for traffic safety. If there are no consequences for bad driving behaviour, then there is no need to behave properly.
The topic of traffic safety came up when my wife and I were sharing a table with two senior members of a major police service at a recent charity dinner. Pedestrian deaths have spiked because of traffic congestion, they mentioned, and one made the mistake of asking what I thought. Imagining my wifeâs eyes rolling, I asked if he was sure he wanted my response. He assured me he did â so I let him have it.
Only police can correct the problem in his city, I curtly told him. He looked surprised and suggested that perhaps more public education, traffic engineering and tougher laws were needed.
The citizenry will never take traffic control seriously if the police donât, I countered. Certainly engineering and education has its place but police enforcement levels must be the first level of attack before anything else is attempted.
I think every police service recognizes the importance traffic enforcement plays in improving traffic safety. A problem arises, however, when the level of enforcement is not kept up or is reduced by changing conditions in society or police priorities. I gauge a communityâs traffic enforcement level by the number of noisy mufflers, minor infractions, horn honking and junk cars on the road.
Vehicular criminal behaviour becomes more prevalent when the perpetrator is confident they will not be caught or held accountable for their actions. It is further fortified when it appears society will tolerate such behaviour. A big part of the illusion of societal tolerance comes from the abundance of advertisements promoting the misbehaviour.
Anyone who watches television or goes to the movies is constantly subjected to the propaganda that speed is sexy. Manufacturers appear to have no concern about whether any of this is safe or practical for the average person. Their consciences seem to be cleared by the small text disclaimer that briefly warns the viewer, âthese pictures are taken using professionals on a closed track.â
None of this is rocket science. The entire concept of advertising is to create demand for a product and brand preference plays a big role. Choosing a car, for example, is a careful decision incorporating your needs, compromised by your wants and ability to pay. Most of us are stuck with vehicles which meet our needs and budget but manufacturers count on the âwantâ factor to make the big bucks â and they do not shrink from inducements to capitalize on this.
There are many television shows and movies which glorify speed and police chases. One young Texas man in the early â80s was completely overwhelmed by the abilities of Burt Reynoldâs 1977 Trans Am in the movie Police are responsible for traffic safety series âSmokey and the Bandit,â and he enthusiastically purchased one. It wasnât long before he was paralyzed after trying to make it fly through the air â just like in the movies. His parents sued General Motors, Gulf & Western Productions and Burt Reynolds Enterprises for several million dollars, accusing them of creating an atmosphere whereby the fantasy of a flying car became a reality in their sonâs mind. There was a large out of court settlement; no dollar value was disclosed but the money has been sufficient to care for the victim in a Texas long-term care facility ever since.
Despite many similar cases the lessons which should have been taught in the court of public opinion have not been learned. Cars are still manufactured with speedometers displaying speeds which are not only unattainable by the vehicle but grossly dangerous if even attempted. If manufacturers show speeds of 240 km/h, itâs not unreasonable to expect someone in the âZoom Zoomâ generation to try to achieve it.
A legislative answer to this problem could well be found in CRTC regulations prohibiting the glorification of speed in advertising motor vehicles. Such restrictions are in place already for alcohol and tobacco and a responsible industry should be willing to co-operate. Too often, however, new and tougher laws do not change anything except the image of the politician who encourages them.
Regardless of the vagaries of societal mass media attention police should still be able to identify the trends, create a plan of action and engage the problems as they become reality. Instead of casting about for someone else to take responsibility, police must recognize that they are the grassroots level and traffic safety depends on their actions.
- Morley Lymburner
Blue Line magazine is Canada's national law enforcement magazine.
but Mine,,If we had a sticktly Traffic Police Force,were 100% of their job and time was enforcing traffic,,You may persued me better,,But if Police have to spend 75% of their time while at work on Dimestic Issuse,,Where is the time left for Traffic Safety?
The other part of My Opinion is even when Police do their job 100%,,Justice comes along and pulls the rug out from under that officer,,and then no consequences for the actions they got Caught at to Begin with,,That nice Judge for whatever reason has to let off who you spent all that time catching,,,,,,and your the police officer,,,go figure.
Other than that I guess I gotta agree somewhat.
- Log in to post comments
I agree with the editorial, it is the job of the Police to enforce the law. That said, the Police have a number of constraints put on them. First of all is the 10 km rule. Most courts will not prosecute a speeder unless there is proof that he was exceeding the speed limit by at least 10 kph. Then the officer has to spend 40% of his time filling out forms on his computer. Then he has to spend a half a day in court waiting for the case to come up if the driver decides to dispute the ticket. I don't wnat to sound like an apologist for the Police, but the cards are all stacked against them. No wonder they tend to look the other way.
If you want to see a change, write to your local Mayor and Council and ask them to consider lowering the speed limit in residential areas to 30 kph. Get your friends and neighbours to do the same. Make it an election issue if they don't wnat to listen. Many of them won't.
30kph has been the norm in many cities in Europe and the UK for 20 years. It works, and it has many side benefits.
- Log in to post comments
There is no rule like this. As long as you can show the court that the speed is over the limit and that the accuracy of the instrument is taken into account they can convict.
Most officers decide on the amount of "leeway" that they are comfortable prosecuting in a given situation and write accordingly.
- Log in to post comments
There is no "official" rule, but without exception every police officer I have asked about this, from constable, to Staff Sgt., to Inspector, have all agreed that is what they do in practice. The reason given is also consistent. They feel it is a waste of their time to go to all the effort required when a ticket is contested and then have the judge throw it out.
Technically you are correct, a ticket can be given if you are doing just 1 kph over the limit, but in my area that never happens.
- Log in to post comments
Your Area,,,Do you live someplace outside plant earth?
NEVER?? UM,,,,,So I am thinking YOUR AREA,,,,Does NOT have ANY PLAYGROUND ZONES or SCHOOL ZONES for example.
Or Can I come to where YOU LIVE,,and risk the childrens lives at 10kph over the POSTED LIMIT in these ZONES????? And You can Gaurantee I won,t get a TICKET,,,,WITHOUT EXCEPTION?????
WOW,,,,would love to run that by ANY OFFICER or right up to that STAFF SGT. That YOU TALKED TOO,,I bet I get a whole lot Different Respone that You Get.
- Log in to post comments
- Log in to post comments

OK Opinion