And how do you know that there aren't officers doing this already?

As I said, its optics and how the police officers are perceived. I don't mean to have police officers walking around holding a cup of Tim Hortons, but actually looking actively for potential trouble and talking with store-owners etc. That is what they do in Hong Kong. We all tend to overlook all the good, subtle things that they do, and magnify all the negativity.

An example I can relate to:
This morning I was driving to work (Southbound Knight onto 91 East exit) I see police car w/ warning lights pulled over to the side right under the overpass closest to auto mall. Everyone slowed down while driving by but didn't give a crap after passing them because they all saw the 2 police officers facing the other direction chit chatting with each other, and no one pulled over. Radar/Laser Gun was sitting on trunk. If the police officers were watching the on-coming traffic for speeders--that's fine, but when they're looking the other direction, it doesn't seem like it.

What would be your first impression when you see that? I'd consider that "not doing anything"

[
What would be your first impression when you see that? I'd consider that "not doing anything"[/QUOTE]


Maybe they were looking at something else in the opposite direction for the few moments you passed by? They may have been doing more than just speed detection at that location and there could have been any number of reasons that they were not monitoring speeds at that particular moment. The few seconds you drive by does not make up an entire 10 hour shift.

How many of those rolling stops resulted in a collision?

It sounds more like consequence for the sake of consequence than anything. I've never seen someone get hit by someone rolling past a stop sign at 3kph after doing all the usual look left, center, right, shoulder check, etc...

And how often are you actually watching for that? Have you camped out at any intersections specifically to gauge the number of violations there?

No wait, let me guess... you're always watching for other people's violations as part of being a Good Defensive Driver<tm> so naturally you're completely up on the statistics for every intersection, everywhere in Canada.

Whoa,.....steady there big fella,...whoa! :whistle:

Sorry Soundy, I'm having a hard time finding the statistics titled "Injuries and fatalities caused by rolling stops less than 5km/hr".

Could you help me out with that?

So until someone comes up with statistics, the official conclusion is that since Sebberry has never seen it happen, that must mean it doesn't happen.

And what you're suggesting is that police resources be spent on the enforcement of violations so insignificant that no statistics exist.

If you think a failure to stop is not a problem, try passing your driving road test when you do one. It is listed as "C2" on the penalty sheet.

I never suggested that it wasn't illegal.

I've seen near misses at crosswalks cause cars do the rolling stop. Pedestrians had to jump out of the way cause the guy was looking left and not coming to a complete stop and never looked right to see if there were any people on his right crossing the street.

Then the driver wasn't being very observant. When you have a clear view of the crosswalks, sidewalks and crossing traffic, there should be no need to come to a full stop before proceeding if it is all-clear.

When you approach a mid-block crosswalk, do you stop to check for pedestrians or do you stop when you see pedestrians waiting to cross?

Why not just come to a full fucking stop and not worry about it? Take a extra two seconds out of your busy life.

Too much wear on my clutch ;)

I absolutely hate it when drivers coming up to a red light or stop sign to do a right turn don't fully stop before the stop line. The lazy ones just drive right through the crosswalk and stop right before they enter the intersection. I can't tell if they're going to stop properly in time.

It's a very bad habit because other drivers have no idea what you're doing.

You need to stop at the stop line, then creep up to the intersection.

So 4 out of 4 break-ins this guy had, the police were too busy to come check it out, but they had enough surplus traffic enforcement to sit a cruiser there on the side of the street all day just to make sure people are obeying a technicality?

Who decided this?? Really it was City Hall?

Seriously it sounds like either we need to hire more police officers or transfer more of traffic enforcement to these other duties. Priorities are way out of whack.

More people are injured/killed in car accidents than all other forms of crime.

Something to think about next time you think the police have too many units assigned to traffic duty.

IRSU are paid by ICBC, so doesn't that mean that the Municipal police dept have extra budget to hire more officers? IRSU are mostly traffic enforcement and I don't think they ever do general policing duties.

:fulloffuck: This guy...

Everything in that article could of been easily avoided. Don't go straight in an intersection when there are signs telling you it's illegal. Maybe the police are there to make sure people who take that route on a daily basis is actually aware of that sign so they don't repeatedly go through it? The sign was put there for a reason.

Park your car somewhere else, lol.

Well... learn how to write down your license plate number right? I'm sure if you did that for any other occasion which actually required your license plate number to be written down on record you would face some difficulties as well.

Well it is illegal to run without a front plate... there isn't really a legit reason not to. Especially the reason that was said in the article, how do you not notice the front plate missing lol it's a huge difference in the look of the front end

I could go on forever with these quotes on the article. If the guy in the article would just obey the law then he wouldn't find himself with so many tickets and fines. He complains about every little thing that isn't really unreasonable at all. The article is retarded and I'm surprised someone actually took the time to write out 3 pages of whining about such little things that were pretty much obviously all his fault

The front plate issue is interesting.

The officer claimed that the driver would be ticketed, and the vehicle needed to be towed.

When contested, the prosecutor dropped the charges.

So here we have officers enforcing rules that aren't going to make it into the court room. Tell me that's not a waste of resources.

:fulloffuck:
That post makes me think you were the guy in that article. I'm pretty sure he just got lucky.

Everyone who believe's the columnist's version of this story is the 100% accurate unadulterated truth, raise your hand...

came in to this thread wondering what was this going to be about...left with the feeling of...
:rukidding:
:seriously:
:fulloffuck:

No, what we have is Crown dropping a valid charge in response to pressure of some sort...like maybe the "journalist" threatening to use his position to make things unpleasant.....like maybe the editor of the Osooyos paper did?

In BC Crown do not handle traffic charges in traffic court unless it involves a lawyer defending an accused. In BC, Crown always at least inform the Police that they are going to drop a Criminal Code charge and normally ask permission to do so. If the charge was laid legally it should be up to the issuing officer to decide if it goes to trial. That's how it is in Traffic Court here. I write the VT, I decide if I want to withdraw it. Nobody cancels it without my permission. In Ontario things must be different.