Taking photos while driving - for the record

Boy, you guys are a tough crowd!

The discussion in my previous blog entry about the right of police officers to exceed the speed limit on the highway was overtaken by criticism of me in the comments for taking the photo in the first place. And there's plenty more discussion about this on the article that ran on the thestar.com, which was just a cut-and-paste of that blog entry. You can read it, and all the comments, here.

It didn't help that the online editor of that story leaped to the same conclusion as everyone else and originally wrote a caption under the photo that said "Mark Richardson snapped this photo of a speeding police cruiser..."

So let me state this, for the record: I was driving into Toronto eastbound on the Gardiner Expressway with my wife as a passenger in the car. The cop drove past us at a high enough difference of speed that we were both startled. I did not chase him down, but he slowed as he approached the heavier traffic at the Lakeshore cutoff. I found myself behind him in his lane and when both our vehicles were stopped, waiting for the flow to resume, I reached into my pocket, fished out my iPhone, handed it to my wife and asked her to take some pictures. Once traffic got moving, I moved over into the centre lane and she took some more.

My mistake in all this was to not make this clear when I wrote the blog. I find it interesting that so many people dumped on me for not checking my facts as to why the cop was speeding, and yet they clearly read what they wanted to into my writing and pronounced public judgement on me for their own misreading of information. So I give those commenters no credibility whatsoever.

Other commenters have criticized me for not checking with the police first as to the circumstances in this case for the speeding Suburban, and a possible reasonable explanation. But that's not my point. None of us usually know why cops are speeding, but most all of us resent it when there are no flashing lights and we assume it's for personal reasons and not professional need.

In this case, I did not identify the cop except to other cops. If they're concerned, they can ask him for a reason and if he can't give one, then I expect he should be dressed down. If he can, then fair enough - he needed to drive fast, as the HTA allows.

But the police know that they're always on public display, and because they discipline us for our transgressions, they're expected to set an example. Clearly, by the comments on this blog and the related article, some are not doing a very good job of it. Which is too bad for the cops who do lead by example, and who would expect their less conscientious colleagues to be called up on their attitude.

- mark r.

 

Comments

[Cody]

They could have been sneaking up on someone. I've have seen police out here not using their lights for the same thing. They were responding to a situation without alerting the suspect(s). Source : My sister is an RCMP officer. They will do this sometimes when needed.

However in this case, it doesn't sound like he / she got very far anyway.

[Jeff Sands]

Just another point of contention. No emergency vehicles HAVE to go "lights and sirens" everywhere to speed. Ambulances will respond to calls for service without lights and sirens, it all depends on the type of call. Firefighters.. well they go lights and sirens everywhere, even to calls where they are responding after police and EMS as a tiered response, presumably to justify their existence, and granted that they drive far larger vehicles.

A police officer monitoring traffic has to keep up with traffic. You can't observe people driving while texting for example sitting in the median, you have to be moving in and around traffic. It's that type of policing that is going to catch "left lane bandits" and distracted drivers, impaired drivers and drug runners, not sitting in a median with a radar/lidar device.

Ahh the police, they can't win for losing.

[Potent Potable]

The dangers of the internet...too many stupid people on high-horses who nitpick and criticize the wrong points.

Rest assured, Mark, that there ARE people who understood the point of your original article. I didn't even think to question who took the picture, because, WHO CARES?!

(To the haters: does reporting a Toronto Star writer to the police for a minor traffic infraction make you feel better about yourself?)

[hunkydory]

@Potent Potable

Yes, reporting a Toronto Star writer to the police for a minor traffic infraction makes me feel much better. Do you feel much worse off or something?

[Adam]

"I give those commenters no credibility whatsoever." - Their credibility stands on its own, nor do YOU need to justify it.

"but most all of us resent it when there are no flashing lights and we assume it's for personal reasons and not professional need."

-Right, making an assumption about circumstances, I assume Journalists fact check their stories, or at least form an opinion on more than mere observation.

While I respect your right to an opinion, I respect more the work officers do day in day out.

[Melnick]

The article had a caption that said "Mark Richardson snapped this photo of a speeding police cruiser..."

There's no inference or jumping to conclusions involved. If the online editor got the story wrong, and you failed to mention your wife's role in the story, that's not the fault of readers.