Jim Kenzie's The Driver's Seat

Whose Rights are More Important?

A British Columbia Supreme Court judge has ruled that the roadside spot check program the province has been running for the past year is unconstitutional, because it violates Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms by not (if I've got this right...) allowing an alleged perp proper opportunity to defend himself or to appeal the case.

Justice Jon Sigurdson said, "Although I am fully satisfied of the importance of the objective of reducing harms [sic] caused by impaired driving...the impugned legislation infringes the rights of individuals to be free from unreasonable search and seizure."

"Fully satisfied" about the 'harms' caused by drunk driving?

Apparently he's not quite satisfied enough.

What about the rights of the rest of us to be free from being run into and injured or killed by drunk drivers?

While Justice Sigurdson's ruling is binding only in British Columbia, various legal experts believe other provinces which have similar legislation (such as Ontario now or Alberta soon) will face similar challenges.

The B.C. legislation, among other things, allows police officers to issue immediate licence suspensions, impound cars on the spot, and issue heavy fines.

Sound familiar?

You bet. Ontario cops can do that now for doing 50 over the limit.

That law was challenged on Charter provisions and was found to be constitutional.

I argued against that decision, but decry this one.

The difference?

There isn't a lick of evidence that exceeding the speed limit by ANY amount is per se dangerous.

But nobody - not even Justice Sigurdson - argues that driving drunk isn't dangerous. Apart from failure to wear a seat belt, it is probably the single most dangerous driving behaviour there is.

B.C. officials say the now-illegal program was instrumental in reducing drunk driving deaths this year by 40 percent compared to the average of the previous five years.

So, statistically, people are going to die because of Justice Sigurdson's ruling.

Way to go, Judge.

Representatives of the drinking establishment business welcomed the ruling because they said the spot check program had reduced their business.

Well, boo hoo.

Bar profits versus dead citizens?

Give me a break.

All laws restrict our rights and freedoms to some degree. It is up to Supreme Court judges to determine how far the laws should go.

In my view, Justice Sigurdson got this one wrong.

Dead wrong.

In the longer term, the B.C. government may appeal.

In the shorter term, it will re-design the provisions of the spot check procedure to comply with Justice Sigurdson's misguided view of this situation.

They better.

The safety of your friends and relatives (and complete strangers) in that province and possibly elsewhere in Canada depends on it.

 

A Very Special Idiot, is who…

…that being the answer to the question:

What sort of idiot plasters stickers and/or posters on traffic warning signs, especially those indicating a one-way street - the other way?
Maybe it was one of the car-hating idiots, of whom our fair city has no shortage.

Or maybe just one of your run-of-the-mill, garden-variety idiots.

Don’t they realize that it could be them or, worse still, some innocent child who gets run down by someone who didn’t see the warning, as I very nearly did not, just a few days ago?

This sign is on a side street running south to Queen Street just west of Spadina - I’m sorry I didn’t catch the intersection, and I've already spent way too much time on Google Earth trying to find it.

Let’s hope city maintenance workers can find it, and clean it up straight away.

o

"Right" Road Signs

Was there some genuine progress on my Drive Right campaign this past week?

A couple of the pixelboard signs on the 401 actually read:

"KEEP LEFT LANE OPEN FOR PASSING"

and

"SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT"

Well, it should be "ALL TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT EXCEPT TO PASS", but we'll take what we can get.

At least it shows that someone in the Ministry of Transportation sort-of gets it.

But this sign, sent to me by colleague Lesley Wimbush, is how all the overhead road signs should read:

Yeah, Baby!!

Is This the Ultimate Urban Driving Distraction?

There's been a lot of blather recently about distracted driving.

(Is anybody - ANYBODY - still obeying the 'no hand-held devices' law? Not so's you'd notice.)

But I saw THIS on Yonge Street the other day, and surely it takes the cake:

 

Now, don't get all excited - I was NOT shooting this video while I was driving. A passenger held the camera. I (very badly) edited the footage and uploaded it to YouTube - a first for me, which may be obvious...

It's not that easy to make out, as it happens, but it's a movie screen with nothing but ads on it, built into a cube van, driving around in Toronto.

How can something like this possibly be allowed?

I mean, talk about distracted driving. How could you NOT be distracted by something like this?

I'd mention the name of the company, but that would only give them more publicity than they deserve.

If there isn't a law, there oughta be.

Sometimes, Front-Wheel Drive is a Good Thing

I'm not really much of a YouTuber.

(Sounds like some sort of potato...).

Some/many/most/all of you might have already seen this.

But a friend sent me this one, and I had to laugh...

If it were anywhere but China, I'd suspect it was a set-up; I don't know much - anything, really - about the Chinese sense of humour.

But you have to wonder:

a) How would the woman know that her car could pull a tow truck when the vehicle was already 'on the hook'?

b) Why would the tow truck operator not have the parking brake set on his truck? Surely, that would be part of the Standard Operating Procedure.

OK, OK, so don't over-analyze this.

It's still funny.

Setting a Good Example

To whoever was driving the gray Toyota Corolla with the 'Seoul Driving School' sign on the roof, southbound on Yonge Street between Cummer and Finch Avenues, today (Saturday, July 23) at around 2:30 p.m.:

Is running a red light really the best way to advertise your services?

There was just the driver, no-one else in the car, so I assume the perp was an instructor.

Nonsense on the Yuppie Highway

I have had occasion to drive on the 407 a few times in the last few weeks.

It sure makes commuting a lot faster - if you can afford it.

Judging from the prevalence of BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, Lexi and Audis, these folks can.

And it's faster except if (e.g.) you were trying to go eastbound last Friday evening between Goreway Drive and Highway 27. There was a huge crash in the left lanes - I couldn't see how many lanes were blocked, but there were police cars, tow trucks, and the inevitable fire engines, all over the place.

Traffic was backed up for two or three interchanges.

I hope the drivers had packed picnic lunches, because they weren't going to be home in time for dinner.

Not tonight's dinner, anyway.

I called it in (hands-free, of course...) to 680, so maybe some of you got warned soon enough.

You're welcome.

I also wonder if there's a refund on the toll in cases like this? I mean, the reason you pay is to get there sooner. If the highway can't hold up its end of the bargain...

The other thing I noted on my recent forays on the Yuppie Highway is that if lane discipline is a problem on all our freeways (and it is; we've got a major brouhaha going on in the print edition of Wheels these days; check out my response to the feedback from a recent column on this topic in this weekend's issue), then it's beyond hopeless on the 407.

Some roads seem to develop a certain 'localized culture'. I remember back before Daytime Running Lights were introduced; on some highways, almost everyone turned their headlights on during the day. You all should all the time anyway, but this did seem to happen on particularly dangerous stretches of highway, and I don't know how it evolved.

Sort of like a 'flash mob', except those things just LOOK random; they aren't.

Anyway, the 'localized culture' on the 407 seems to be that the driving lane is the second one from the left.

I know, I know - this is stupid, inconsiderate and unsafe, not to mention contrary to at least two subsections of Ontario's Highway Traffic Act.

But there it is.

Minivans with canoes on the roof.

Pick-ups with trailers tacked on the back.

Transport trucks.

Cars and, disproportionately, SUVs, all lined up, second lane from the median barrier, like they were slot cars.

They trundle along, oblivious to everything going on around them, as the aforementioned BMWs, Mercedes-Benzes, Lexi and Audis (and me) rocket past on both sides at once.

(Oh yeah - did I mention the average speed on the 407 seems to be about a buck thirty-five?)

Why do all these people drive in this lane?

I have to assume that part of it - probably a big part of it - is my old bugaboo; completely idiotic lane markings.

It looks as if the road designers outfitted helicopters with thousands of paint-ball pellets filled with white paint, had them fly over the freshly-poured concrete, and said, "Let 'em go!"

Wherever they landed, that's where the lane markings were.

Geez - it'd be funny if it weren't so tragically stupid.

It's six lanes wide here, three lanes wide there, not a hint of rhyme or reason.

Lanes added, lanes dropped, sometimes two at a time.

Some on-ramps become lanes, others don't (hint - they NEVER should; they should ALWAYS merge into the driving lane, the REAL driving lane, i.e. the right lane...).

Right lanes disappearing, either just ending, or turning into off-ramps, again, sometimes two lanes at a time.

I can only conclude that regular 407 users have determined that the one lane which does seem to keep on keeping on is that second lane from the median.

So they park themselves there, and damned be the hindmost.

Or the rightmost.

The upside for me is that there are sometimes two or even three Jim-Only lanes to choose from.

Gotta keep your head up though (which of course you always should) or BAM! - off you go to Barrie.

I wish I had had time to investigate that crash. I would bet the farm it had something to do with those stupid lane markings.

They almost always do.

Can't anyone from the Ministry of Transportation tell me why our highway lane markings are so badly done?

Unless my helicopter scenario is correct, SOMEBODY tells the line painters to do it wrong.

I would just like to know who that is.

Hmm-mm - you don't suppose he operates the tow truck company...

Another Great Australian Road Sign

My spies Down Under sent this along:

Maybe you might HAVE brains, but if you aren't wearing a belt, chances are they'll be splattered all over the dashboard...

Finish that cereal BEFORE you get in the car...

...or the O. P. P. is gonna getcha.

Or so they say.

This week, they're starting one of their 'blitzes', this time aimed at 'distracted drivers'.

We all know about the 'hands-free' cell phone law which went into effect a while back.

We also all know:

(a) that this law is essentially pointless, because talking on the phone is not materially more distracting hand-held as it is hands-free;

and,

(b) that after a brief 'honeymoon' following this law's introduction, most people started ignoring it anyway.

With extra attention allegedly being paid to it now by the O.P.P., maybe compliance will increase.

From (a) above, though, we know that it won't make a whit of difference.

The only hope here is that if the perp is too distracted to notice a cop is watching him on the phone, he really IS distracted.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD!

The cell phone law is popular with the police because it's pretty much open-and-shut.

You're carrying a hand-held device, you're guilty.

Bang!! (That's the gavel, not a gun...). $155 or however many days.

But the O. P. P. is also looking for other distracted-driving behaviour, which they say can include eating, searching for something you've dropped under your seat, or the infamous applying make-up/shaving/changing clothes/sorting vacation photographs/reading a newspaper/watching a movie on a HandiCam/fill in your own favourite here.

These can result in a Careless Driving charge, which will hit you a lot harder, points- and cash-wise, although they might be a bit harder to make stick in court.

If this blitz does nothing else but direct scarce police resources away from their futile and pointless obsession with speed limit enforcement, I'm all for it.

If it actually catches some distracted drivers, well, bonus.

If only the police would direct their enforcement attention to what I believe is the biggest safety issue we face these days: Lane discipline.

As Lorraine Sommerfeld's recent feature with Ron Fellows noted (read it here), I'm not alone in believing this to be a huge issue.

The laws are there - failure to drive right and failure to yield to the right to overtaking cars are both contrary to Ontario's Highway Traffic Act.

And no, it does NOT matter if you're doing the speed limit or not. Obeying one law does not give you the right to break others: just because you're not murdering a guy doesn't mean you're allowed to rob him.

All we need is for the cops to enforce these provisions, and for the Justices of the Peace to convict when the charges come to court.

Oh yeah - if the Ministry of Transportation would quit making the Driving Lane disappear all the time it sure would help...

We also could benefit if the police would use their considerable political power to encourage legislation along the lines of New York State and other jurisdictions: if your wipers are on, your full lights have to be on too.

I see SO many cars - especially during the recent monsoon season - puttering along the highway in heavy rain with no lights showing to the rear at all.

What - are these people nuts?

Sadly, I think so...

The Provincial police forces can't do much about Transport Canada's abject failure to make Daytime Running Lights legislation meaningful - DRL should require ALL lights, front and rear, to be on ALL the time.

(You of course as an individual can make this happen, and I hope you all do...).

Or, at the very least, Transport Canada should make it illegal for instrument lighting to be on when DRL is active, so drivers won't be fooled at dusk into thinking that they do have their proper lights on.

What are the chances of meaningful improvements in our traffic law enforcement?

I'm not particularly sanguine.

This very morning, in the middle of this blitz, I saw an O. P. P. black-and-white sitting in the weeds on the 407. From where he was parked, there's no way he could have spotted a cereal bowl, let alone a cell phone.

His radar gun, however...

Oh, speaking of lane discipline - the 407 has to be the worst road in the WORLD for that. OK, maybe tied with the entire Shanghai Expressway system.

Bicycle Lanes - AGAIN? STILL??

It's been a while since I revisited the ludicrous Jarvis Street bicycle lanes, one of the sadder legacies of ex-Mayor David I-hate-the-car Miller.

On the plane over here to Rome, I saw in the Wednesday Star our transportation reporter Tess Kalinowski's piece on a report (presumably prepared by the same City employees who installed the lanes in the first place) which said that the delays encountered by motorists due to these bike lanes were not quite as bad as expected.

Southbound trips apparently were within the projected two-minute window.

Northbound rush hour was a different story though. The extra fourteen minutes was four to six minutes longer than the predicted eight to ten minutes.

Bike traffic, however, was up by 30 percent.

Impressive?

Sure is. All the way up from 228 to 297.

Wow.

69 more cyclists. Those bike lanes really dragged them out, didn't they?

The report suggested the 'after bike lane installation' number might have been understated, because the survey was done in October, and cycling varies by season.

And the northbound data may have been invalid because it was raining on the day the count was done.

What?

We have SEASONS in Toronto?

And sometimes it RAINS?

Gosh. Who knew?

Did anybody count the cars?

I Know someone did, but I can't find any reference to it, on the Intenet or even in my own blog (has somebody been screwing with my posts??)

But it seems to me it was something like 10,000.

You lose a game 10,000 to 298 - that's 33 to 1 - you have lost.

Big Time.

So, that 30 percent increase in bike traffic? Resulting in a 50 percent increase in traffic delays?

To thirty-three times as many citizens?

That sounds fair.