One reader, Chester, sent me an amazing video. Some you have undoubtedly already seen this video, but I had not!  (Where have I been?)

Filmed in 1906, “A Trip Down Market Street” was taken from a camera mounted on the front of a San Francisco trolley car, and shows a busy street in a bustling city.  Take in the cars, horse drawn buggies, cyclists and pedestrians all vying for street space!  It makes me wonder when traffic lights were introduced and if they increased road safety at all.  Everyone in the film seems to understand the ebb and flow of traffic, even if there are a few close calls.

Also take in the police officer at the 33 second mark.  He is clearly walking his beat, with billy club in hand. 1906 was a different era.

The story behind the film is as interesting as the film itself.  Originally thought to have been filmed in 1905, historian David Kiehn, of the Niles Essanay Silent Film Museum, determined it had been filmed on April 14, 1906 by the Miles Brothers, four days before the big San Francisco earthquake.

For those of you interested on the full story behind the film, the SF Gate Blog (San Francisco Chronicle) outlines Kiehn’s research on the film in great detail.

By all appearances it appeared to be a robbery.

I caught up to car only because the driver pulled into a parking lot and when I came up behind him with my blue and reds flashing, the driver got out of the car with his arms extended out to the sides.

“What the hell? I didn’t do anything, go pick on someone else!” he shouted. “F****** cops! Don’t you have anything better to do?”

Behind him, his car door was open.  A pitbull sat on the front passenger seat and a large pittbull/mastiff cross was in the back.  Both dogs were looking at their owner, and while the pitbull appeared bored the cross breed in the back was on high alert.  The dog was growing increasingly agitated and was starting to growl.  Not good.

I stood in the V of my open door as the man stalked towards my car, still shouting, and I had to shout back to be heard.  It wasn’t until he got closer that he saw the black police dog staring at him from between the front seats of my SUV.

“Ooo, you have a dog.  Well, I have two,” he said.  I think he was trying to sound threatening but some of the aggression went out of his demeanour when I replied.

“That’s nice.  My one trumps your two so close the door to your car.”

He squinted his eyes at me, then walked backwards and clunked the door shut.  The cross breed went absolutely berzerk.

In the background sirens were growing closer and I instructed the driver to place his hands on the hood of my truck.  He did so, reluctantly, and kept up his loud diatribe as if trying to squeeze all the injustices of the world into the next few seconds before additional police arrived.  That was fine.  He could say whatever he wanted as long as he did what I said. 

A minute later the driver was in handcuffs and the parking lot was swarming with police cars.

Turns out the driver had had an altercation with staff at the gas station, and while he did have some anger management issues he wasn’t a criminal – he hadn’t robbed the place.  He had simply turned his rage at the gas station attendant towards me.  Again, that was fine - I’d rather he rage at a police officer than at some other innocent person.

The appearance of the extra officers and the steel on his wrists had the desired effect and the rest of his aggression dissipated until the driver was polite as could be.  Yes-ma’am, No ma’am, I’m-sorry-ma’am. 

The litany kept up until I issued him a ticket, at which point he fell silent, his shoulders slumped as he took in the hefty fine. Then he was allowed to proceed, which he did so at a considerably more reasonable speed.

What has become apparent, however, is that readers really want to know what other readers think, and several have asked that I open the comments section so everyone can see the e-mails readers send me.  There are a few technical difficulties with that, of course, as many of the e-mails are sent with the assumption I will not re-reprint the e-mail without permission (which is a good assumption) and I’m not sure I could handle the extra time involved even if there was a way. 

Last week the Vancouver Sun column was about motorcycles and parking at metered parking spots.  Well, reader’s seem to be quite upset with the article as when I returned from the weekend away my email accout was full.  There were the usual and most appreciated emails from a few readers, but at least two were very upset at me over the by-law.  Others said my article was confusing, and yes, I guess it was. 

Is the law surrounding motorcycle parking in Vancouver a little ambiguous?  Yes. 

Should there be a better parking by-law for motorcycle and scooter riders?  Of course – we are a city trying our darndest to be green. 

But I will say this – much goes on with the laws and by-laws of the city and I suspect this is already being addressed.

One email from a good source (does that sound all cloak-and-dagger or what??) said he had spoken to a by-law enforcement officer about this exact issue and was informed motorcycles are allowed to ‘space share’ with a car.  This sounds like a great idea and makes perfect common sense, but no where in the by-law could I find a section as it relates to motorcycles, and the last by-law officer I spoke to said he would ticket a bike straddling two spots.  Mind you, as this source pointed out, several motorcycles can share one space without issue and this is a regular occurrence in Downtown Vancouver (again, no notation in the by-law).   The bikes only get ticketed if their meter expires.

Arg!  So confusing!

So, to those of you who have come over to the blog from the motorcycle article, I’m looking into this ever further and hopefully there is a suitable answer soon.  If you are a by-law enforcement officer and want to comment on this – PLEASE DO!!!! 

It looks like this entire issue needs some clarification.

The dogs were very little and neither was on a leash (don’t get me started…), and while the Wife had her little pooch at a neat heel her Husband was having a heck of a time getting his pint size furball to listen to him; the dog had found something interesting to sniff at and no amount of calling could entice it to join him.

The Husband finally crossed the street without the dog and stood on the opposite sidewalk calling to it.  I watched with some amusement while wondering who was training whom and thought the Husband and dog could use a few lessons in an obedience class, when finally, the little dog started to cross the street.

Just as another car was coming in the opposite direction. 

The car was really moving and the Husband saw it; he stepped into the road, waving his arms in a frantic stop gesture, trying to get the lady behind the wheel to at least slow down.

She didn’t.  She sped up, swerved around the Husband, nearly flattened the dog (she missed but it was close enough that I winced at the expected impact) and careened off down the street.

I waited a moment for the Husband to dart out and grab his dog before I went after the car.   I’d like to be polite about this, but there is no other way to say this – that lady driver was a piece of work. 

She was clearly angry at being pulled over and made a point of looking at her watch when I approached her window.  Our conversation went something like this:

Me:  “Vancouver Police.  Driver’s license and vehicle registration please.”

Driver:  silence as she dug out her wallet and other papers, which she handed over with a snap of her wrist 

Me:  “Do you know why I pulled you over?” (I know, it’s sort of a silly question, but I like to hear what people have to say)

Driver:  “I was going a little fast.  I’m late for an appointment.” 

Me:  “Those two pedestrians back there, the ones you went around?  You almost hit their dog.”

Driver:  “Dog? I saw their dog – it was on the sidewalk.  They had plenty of room.” 

Me:  “They had two dogs.  You didn’t see the other one.  You almost hit it when you went around them.  Those people were waving their arms around like that for a reason.”

Driver:  more silence and another look at her watch

At this point I walked back to my car.  I had to cool off before I said something I shouldn’t have.  The lady seemed not to care.  I checked her license, finished the traffic stop and sent the woman on her way with some extra paper (no further education there, I’m afraid), and went back to find the dog walkers.

After driving around the block it was clear they had gone.  Their dogs were okay, at least until their next walkies.  And I’ll tell you one thing – I wouldn’t have liked to have been the Husband on that walk home!

I’m astounded at the number of people talking on their cell phones and driving at the same time since the new law came into effect on January 1, 2010.  So, in case you missed it, here it is – it’s a bit boring so skim if you must, but please, at least read my last two sentences:

Prohibition against use of electronic device while driving

214.2 (1) A person must not use an electronic device while driving or operating a motor vehicle on a highway.

(2) Without limiting subsection (1), a person must not communicate by means of an electronic device with another person or another device by electronic mail or other text-based message.

Use of Electronic Devices while Driving

“electronic device” means

(a) a hand-held cellular telephone or another hand-held electronic device that includes a telephone function,

(b) a hand-held electronic device that is capable of transmitting or receiving electronic mail or other text-based messages, or

(c) a prescribed class or type of electronic device;

“use”, in relation to an electronic device, means one or more of the following actions:

(a) holding the device in a position in which it may be used;

(b) operating one or more of the device’s functions;

(c) communicating orally by means of the device with another person or another device;

(d) taking another action that is set out in the regulations by means of, with or in relation to an electronic device.

$167.00 and three points on your drivers licence, or $20-$100 for a hands free device to use with your phone.

It’s your choice.

I considered the idea of cars having sensors installed which would pick up driving inconsistencies and calculate their cause by reference to some electronic table compiled by a competent psychologist.  The data collected from this table would then send signals to a display on the roof.

‘Attention! The driver of this car has just had a terrible row with his wife.’

‘This driver is besotted with his new mistress.’

‘This driver is in a foul bate after being unable to find his spectacles this morning.’

‘This driver is in an even, equatable temper.’ “ 

I was convinced, as that retired police commissioner used to say, that it would constitute a major contribution to road safety.”

    – Stephen Fry, The Hippopotamus

Even in a work of fiction it appears our driving habits are an issue.  I simply love the gadget idea as described by Mr. Fry, particularly the bit about having a sensor that picks up on driving inconsistencies.  If only it were so easy!

A few years ago a research group conducted a study on VPD officers.  On duty officers were hooked up to heart rate and blood pressure monitors, the readings of which were recorded over the course of the entire shift.  As expected, heart rate and blood pressure went up, sometimes way up, when officers responded to a priority call and readings remained elevated for quite some time afterwards.  I touched on this earlier this year when I attended a medical checkup thirty minutes after being involved in a pursuit.  Even though I felt relaxed and calm, my blood pressure was still elevated. 

I wonder what Fry’s gadget above my police car would have said?

A study I would like to see is one where the eye movements of police officers are measured to try and get a read on how much of the road in front of them they scan.  I know I’m constantly scanning the road ahead of my vehicle looking out for everything from other drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, obstacles and suspects.  My scanning goes into overdrive when driving Code Three, where my safety, the safety of other people on the road and the safety of the citizens I’m trying to help is paramount – I’m no use to anyone if I don’t make it to the call because I’ve been involved in an accident.

Then I’d like to see the study compared to a similar one of drivers with a high-crash ratio.  What don’t those drivers see?  Are they really only looking at the ten foot section of road directly in front of their vehicle? Are they looking at their mp3 player, cell phone or the pretty woman/handsome man on the sidewalk? Or do they sit hunched over their steering wheel staring at the bumper of the car in front of them, completely oblivious to everything around them?

Inquiring minds would like to know.

Prairie snow is fluffy, dry and fairly easy to drive in.  Unless, of course, the weather plummets to -28 C with relentless wind resulting in limited visibility like it was today in Calgary, Alberta. In that case it’s the rest of Mother Nature’s fury you have to deal with.

Then there is West Coast snow. 

The blankets of white are gorgeous for about 24 hours before the tinges and splashes of grey slush take over.  Our snow, at least down near sea level, is heavy, wet and slippery.  It’s hell to drive in and wrecks havoc when temperatures drop below zero turning everything into an Olympic size skating rink.

Vancouver drivers tend to be the laughing stock of Canada when it snows.  Prairie folk and those from out East poke fun at our inability to drive in only one centimeter of the white stuff.  Yes, a lot of drivers need to slow down when it snows, and just because a person is behind the wheel of a four wheel drive or an all wheel drive vehicle does not make them immune to slipping and sliding all over the road.  But it’s not just the drivers, it’s the snow!

Our snow is like the evil little step-child of the Canadian snow family – at first glance it’s pretty in all it’s sparkling splendor, but before you can say, “How charming!” the evil little step-child has turned the road beneath your wheels into a merry-go-round with no way for you to get off the ride. 

Today saw the first snowfall of the season and I woke to a snow-covered neighborhood.  The road in front of our house was packed solid.  My truck’s four wheel drive and appropriate tires came in handy, but I still putted down the street knowing I could end up in the ditch if I wasn’t careful. 

Remember the stop sign by my house?  You’ll never guess what happened there this afternoon.

If I was a game show host and your guess was ‘an accident’, you would be going home a winner.  Someone was going too fast, couldn’t stop at the stop sign, slid through the intersection and t-boned a neighbour of ours.  No one was hurt but both vehicles sustained significant damage and had to be towed away.

So please, forget about our Prairie and East Coast friends laughing at us.  Because really, they can’t laugh at our inability to drive in this snow until they’ve come out here and tried it themselves.

Just slow down, ensure your vehicle is properly equipped for winter driving, take your corners with care, watch out for pedestrians forced into the roadway by snowed-in sidewalks, don’t slam on the brakes at the top of a snow covered hill and take extra time to get to your destination.

With a little patience and a lot of care we will all get to where we need to go.

I, for one, prefer living in an area where the single family homes do not crouch over one another with touching roof lines but instead sit on decent size lots with private backyards. Living in an area where it is still possible to walk or bike to the grocery store is considered a bonus and is the reason I live in one of Vancouver’s suburbs.  That, and the price of homes in Vancouver is a wee bit steep. 

I walk as often as a I can and one thing is for certain – life is different as a pedestrian.  Not only do you have to watch out for other pedestrians and human-powered modes of transportation such as bicycles, roller blades and scooters, you have to really pay attention when it’s time to cross the street.

As most of you know, a vehicle shall yield to a pedestrian waiting to cross the street at a crosswalk.  Sometimes vehicles stop, but in my experience, most vehicles do not.  I’ve been stranded on the center median of a crosswalk waiting to get to the other side with PSD Hondo while tracking a fleeing suspect, and it gets very frustrating when drivers pretend not to see you perched on your precarious island.  But does that mean I step out into the road and take my chances?  Uh-huh, no way, not going to happen.  I’ve seen the end result when a pedestrian and a motor vehicle meet at speed.  Almost always, the ped loses.  Waiting for a break in traffic is usually safer.

Lately, I’ve seen pedestrians move in ways that put them at considerable risk:

• jaywalking on a dark night in the heavy rain while wearing dark clothing
• stopping for no reason while crossing the road
• starting across at a crosswalk when it is not safe to do so
• not making eye contact with drivers
• running across the street at the last minute
• not shoulder checking before stepping into a crosswalk to ensure a vehicle isn’t turning (this happens ALL THE TIME and is one of my biggest pet peeves)

All of the above can have fatal consequences.  Even today, on my way home from work, I saw a woman crossing a major street in a marked crosswalk.  She was fiddling with her MP3 player, her attention drawn to the device in her hand and not to her surroundings.  She was pulling a child’s wagon behind her full of groceries, not kids – thank goodness for small miracles.  When she made it to the other side, she did not scoot the wagon up the wheelchair ramp to the safety of the sidewalk.  Instead, she stood about four feet off the curb out in the road, her wagon alongside her in the blind spot for a driver turning at the corner.  The entire time she kept her attention focused on her music.  Not only was she a good target for an inattentive driver, she was an excellent potential victim for a mugging.

The light eventually changed and she continued on her way, completely oblivious to what was going on around her.

Now here’s the thing – I’m not coming down on pedestrians.  There are a lot of very heads-up, traffic savvy walkers out there. It’s just that I wish more people would pay attention, because even if you have the right of way as a ped, you only stand to get hurt if you get struck by a car.  It doesn’t matter whose fault it is – you lose in the end.

On our first court date Mr. CD was more than thirty minutes late for his appearance.  This did not go over well with the Justice of the Peace, who sternly asked for an explanation as to his tardiness.  Mr. CD showed great humility and gave the court his apologies, saying he had missed one of the three public transit buses required to get him from his home to the court house. 

The JP gave this some thought before accepting Mr. CD’s apology, and then sent him to registrar to set another date with the warning to NOT be late for his second court appearance. 

When Mr. CD sputtered and asked why his case couldn’t be heard then, the JP said there were other cases to be heard whose defendants had been on time.

I love a judge with a good, healthy sense of justice, don’t you?

Our second court date came around a few weeks later.  With only a few moments to spare before the courtroom opened, I still had not seen Mr. CD when scanning the numerous faces waiting in the corridor.  Sprinkled in among defendants were other police officers and bylaw officers.  I recognized one motorcycle officer and went over to say hello.  We ended up talking about the reasons we were in court this day, and shortly after realized we both had previous dealings with Mr. CD.

I was frustrated the defendant was not yet at the courthouse; I suggested perhaps Mr. CD had missed his bus and it was the following reactionary comment from my motorcycle colleague that can be described only as divine intervention.

“What are you talking about?  Mr. CD’s already here.  I saw his car parked outside,” he said.

The next few moments were a flurry of Q & A, and by the end of it we had determined the following:

• Mr. CD’s driver’s licence had been revoked and he was currently a prohibited driver
• Driving while prohibited is an arrestable offence
• While none of the police officers present at court could put Mr. CD behind the wheel, Mr. CD’s bright blue Corvette was parked out front of the court house
• A check of the licence plate on the Corvette confirmed Mr. CD as the registered owner
• the probability of Mr. CD being the one to have driven the Corvette to the courthouse was high
• my motorcycle colleague was going to sit in on the trial and watch, as he knew Mr. CD could get up to some serious shenanigans when in court.

As I took my place in the court gallery beside the motorcycle officer I looked around.  The one person I was searching for was absent, but just as proceedings were about to begin Mr. CD snuck in the door and took his seat.

The Justice of the Peace went around the room, everyone stated their names, and cases were called to the bench.  All the guilty pleas were heard first, fines and adjusted payment schedules were doled out, and time ticked down to when we would take the stand. 

Finally, we were called.

The two of us stepped forward and proceedings began with my taking the witness stand and explaining the facts as they occurred in the original street racing post.  Mr. CD then had the chance to cross examine me, which he did.  That’s when it got weird.

Between questions on how long I had been a police officer and inquiries if I had ever been permitted to give expert testimony on my ability to give a visual estimation of a vehicle’s speed, Mr. CD introduced his argument that there was no way, in the 1.5 blocks we had travelled on the date of the alleged infraction, that a Crown Victoria weighing in at xxx pounds could have reached a velocity of xxx kilometers an hour, even if travelling at a high rate of speed down a hill with a 5% grade.  And yes, that’s really how he talked.

After much deliberation of the calibration of my police vehicle’s speedometer, of my years experience as a driver, and of the sheer ridiculous thought that Mr. CD had been street racing on the day in question, the JP finally instructed Mr. CD to get to the point. 

Mr. CD held his tablet of notes up with a flourish and he paced back and forth as he started his cross examination.  Several of his questions prompted a terse response from the bench with direction to keep the questions on subject, and when such a demand is made after the JP pushes his glasses to the end of his nose so he can better visually penetrate the person he is looking at, you had better heed the warning

Eventually, Mr. CD took the witness stand and gave his version of events.  He denied almost everything, saying he had been driving at the speed limit, admitting only to exchanging words with the motorcycle riders; he said they simply commented on his nice car.  He even went so far as to say his beloved blue Corvette was in storage as he was abiding by the driving prohibition he had been issued.

It was at this point my motorcycle officer colleague quietly slipped out of the courtroom. I’m the only one who noticed.

At the end of the traffic trial, the Justice of the Peace found Mr. CD guilty of the excessive speeding infraction, stating the validity of the officer’s evidence weighed heavily on his decision.  Mr. CD did not have his fine reduced, but he was given an extra few months to pay it down.  Mr. CD gathered his papers together, stuffed them in his briefcase and stormed out of the courtroom.

I gave the customary bow to the JP and pushed out of the courtroom door only to find my motorcycle officer friend waiting outside.  He saw me and quickly pulled me into a nearby doorway.

“We have his car under surveillance.  If he drives, we’ll have him,” he said in a conspirator’s whisper.  

We turned our radios to the channel the traffic officers were using and listened to them give updates as Mr. CD was followed covertly out of the courthouse.

“He’s walking down the sidewalk.  He’s out on the street walking towards the driver’s door of the Corvette.”

A two second pause.

“Shit! A patrol car turned down the street – he stepped away from the car and back to the sidewalk!”

Another pause, this time a little longer.

“He’s back at the Corvette.  He’s opening the door and he’s in the driver’s seat.  Ignition.  We have ignition!” the excited voice exclaimed, “He’s northbound on Hornby!”

Moments later, with a news TV crew in tow, one of the motorcycle officers stopped the Corvette, handcuffed Mr. CD, and arrested him for driving while prohibited. 

God knows where the TV news crew came from, but the entire incident made the 6 o’clock news that night.

Their story was a thing of beauty.

Karma – the force generated by a person’s actions to perpetuate transmigration and in its ethical consequences to determine the nature of the person’s next existence

Here is a Cole’s Notes version of what takes place in traffic court – keep in mind this is an extremely basic explanation:

• When you dispute a ticket you are given a date and time to attend traffic court
• When your day in court arrives, go to your designated courtroom – do not be late. Do not wear a hat, or if you do, make sure to take it off when you walk in to the court room.  Be respectful.  Know what you are going to say. 
• You will be asked by the Judicial Justice of the Peace (the ‘judge’) if you are going to plead guilty or not guilty.  Many people stall at this point, as they want to plead guilty but simply have an issue with paying the fine.  If this is the case, say you want to plead guilty with an explanation
• If you plead guilty, or guilty with an explanation, the Justice of the Peace will discuss the infraction and fine with you to come to an agreement over payment/time to pay etc.
• If you plead not guilty, then both you and the officer who issued the ticket will get to tell your own sides of the story.  There are usually no lawyers involved, unless the disputant is raising a legal issue (see links above).  You will have the opportunity to question/cross examine the officer, and vice versa
• The Justice of the Peace then makes their decision and hands down their judgement

So there you go -  a little bit of background to set the stage.