We have that rule here too do we not? Move over and slow down when passing any emergency vehicle with their lights on.

Have a reply yet?

Does this count? Feet are on the street.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BrL6fE_CQAAsEwN.jpg

I saw a cop in surrey yesterday night try to pull some 1 over and he didn't have a high viz jacket. He had a stick that was flashing blue and red. The person he was trying to pull over never stopped...

There was an officer yesterday at kingsway and royal oak doing cellphone checks, walked in and out of all the lanes of vehicles while the light was red.

Wasn't wearing high vis.

This is not uncommon behaviour.

Also worth linking:
Canadian Freightways Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 391

Seen an RCMP doing this at Willingdon and Canada Way as well. He was walking in and around cars on Willingdon stopped at the red light. He caught the person beside me. I never even noticed him as I was on the left lane and to me, it looked like someone that was looking for someone and then I realized it was an RCMP and he told the car beside me to turn right and pull over when the light changes.

That intersection is a favorite for police to do cellphone checks (I should know, thats where I got mine. lol).

Yeah they normally walk up quickly get you to give them your DL, and then tell you to pull over where you can.

i was actually pulled off the road on at night on a road with no lights on the street. the officer actually stood in the middle of the road to pull over speeding cars and he wore no hi-vis vest or anything to help see him in the dark. i told the cop that what he was doing was quite dangerous because i didnt see him till the light of my headlights shone on him. officer told me that they dont issue them anything to wear most of the time but they have to do it anyways


i guess the popo is too cheap to pay for vests :whistle:

btw for the people who were wondering, no i didnt get a ticket lol

BC Employment Standards Act 25 (1) (a)
An employer who requires an employee to wear special clothing must, without charge to the employee, provide the special clothing

I do have an answer but I will not divulge that info here. If you want an answer straight from the source, I suggest you contact the VPD regarding it. The answer he told me was very reasonable, but then again, as a fellow officer, I understand certain things that people in other lines of work may not. It isn't an "us vs them" mentality, it is just most people will never "get it" until they are in the position (in this case profession). In the end, it will be the officer, or department that has to answer to potential labour law investigations. Like I said earlier, if it was something that was black and white that they MUST do, without any discrepancy, I am sure you would see 100% of the officers wearing hi vis vests 100% of the time.

As for the picture, do you know what the context of that stop/check was?

I sure hope you weren't operating a vehicle at the same time as a handheld electronic device!

:pokerface:

I thought it may be prudent to follow up here with all you folks.
After seeing continued infractions by RCMP in Burnaby, I'm pursuing this fully now.

I have contacted WorkSafeBC as well as Economic and Social Development Canada. They have confirmed that in the course of their duties, police are exempt from certain laws; however, this is not one they are exempt from. I have also been advised that because I am not actually employed by a police force, they cannot enact their usual powers.
It was suggested by ESDC to file with the Commission for Public Complaints Against the RCMP.

I'm hoping for some sort of suggestion from RS of an intermediate step between the "traffic services supervisor" not taking me seriously and making a full formal complaint with The Commission.

I'm sure we're wondering why you have made this your personal crusade? There are so many desperate situations all around us I wonder why this is what you have chosen? If you're really concerned with pedestrians being hit by cars why are you not heading a massive effort to protect the drug addicts and alcoholics who make East Van streets a minefield?

Personally I always wore a hi-vis jacket at work on Traffic duties, even when I didn't have to. That was my choice. I worked alongside others who chose not to. That was their choice. To me, it makes sense to be as visible as possible. Police work is very dangerous and I always took all possible precautions. Others sometimes do not, did not and will not. We don't why they do so but they made that decision for reasons best known to them and have to accept consequences. I will not second-guess them as to their choice as we can't possibly know the circumstances in every case.

Because I'm a strong proponent of both road safety and prevention of industrial accidents.

I've identified a defficency in the safety policy and procedure of a group or an organization in my community and I'm spending a little of my time to correct it. Itks only a matter of time before an officer is struck and killed accidentally on the side of the road and a contributing factor was the lack of high visibility PPE. Then, just because the person who was struck was police, the person charged with their death (if found guilty) would likely face the harshest penalty ever seen for manslaughter of this type simply because they hit a police officer.

Don't think I'm doing this to only police. On Halloween, a school crossing guard (paid adult) wearing a mostly black costume instead ofn the usual high visibility PPE. Called the school board and it was corrected for that afternoon. I don't know why police resist this so much.

As for why I'm not worrying about the DTES, that's nnot my community; Burnaby is. Whenever u see something happening in Burnaby it takes higher priority as a project than anywhere else.

So when an officer (RCMP or otherwise) decides running out in front of a car to stop it but that car does not stop in time and hits and kills the officer, who exactly is at fault?

I'm sure the driver will be beat down on for "killing an officer" but at the end of the day, if you are stupid enough to run in front of a +3000lb object moving at a high rate of speed your an idiot. Police officer or not, that just stupid and you take your life into your own hands and if you get hit you should be the only one at fault.

I have often wondered this as I see this tactic used all the time and can only imagine what would happen if the car did not stop/stop in time.

As for the vests, if you are in an area where there is a high likely hood to be hit, why would you not wear one?

So out of the millions of traffic stops performed by the police in this fashion, none of them have resulted in the officer being hurt, let alone killed? Yet you still think a change needs to be made? I'm all for being proactive but if nobody has even been injured by this it seems a bit excessive, no?

I'm making an assumption here but I'm pretty sure the officers are paying attention to whether or not the vehicle approaching them is slowly down sufficiently or if they are going to need to move out of the way, they aren't walking into the road and twiddling their thumbs and hoping for the best.

when are you an expert enough of a roofer to not require fall protection?
Baww this clunky harness is always such a hassle to put on and tie of to my anchor points on; I know what I'm doing, I don't need this.

When are you expert enough of a carpenter to not require eye protection?
Baww these stupid safety glasses always fog up on me. I know this type of wood doesn't produce flying debris; I know what I'm doing, I don't need this.

When are you expert enough of a worker in a warehouse with moving forklifts to not require high visibility clothing?
Baww these stupid vests look stupid. I bet they would actually get caught on things.

Sorry, no.

Canadian Freightways Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2003 FCT 391

In response to the applicant's argument that high-visibility vests would not be beneficial and might even create a hazard for employees, the appeals officer found that little weight could be given to the view of the applicant's health and safety committees in that regard because the committees based their conclusions on anecdotal experience rather than study, and because they were influenced by an overall worker preference to forego personal protective equipment.

Admittedly police make up probably the smallest proportion of persons operating on our near roadways (behind construction workers, flag people, tow truck drivers ,etc)and because of this we see the smallest number of absolute injuries or fatalities; but to borrow a phrase from the computing world "security through obscurity is no security at all"

A culture of safety within an organization begins at the top.

Sorry, but all your examples aren't even remotely similar, other than safety being involved. Try again, or don't bother.

the point I was trying to make with that post was that new safety policy not directly resulting from an incident across all occupations is often resisted due to the mistaken belief that PPE is either ineffective compared to their personal experience or PPE in itself somehow hazardous.

His examples aren't that bad actually.

Remoteness of probability means pretty much nothing in the OH&S world when the problems solution is wearing a $5 vest which is already part of the kit given to officers.

Even if it only saves 1 life, or injury in 20 years, it is irrelevant. It is a piece of PPE which costs absolutely no additional money for anyone to use, and has the probability of saving a life. In the world of safety, this is a no brainer. Use the fucking vest.

In terms of enforcement, yeah your probably right, WorkSafe has more imminent problems to deal with.

Seen VPD go on to the road at Granville to stop people in their regular dark uniforms on my morning commutes when it is still dark out. Don't really have an issue with it but with the amount of bad drivers out there I'm surprised nobody has been run over yet. As for RCMP i find it more bizarre that an officer is more likely going to get in trouble for not wearing a hat than they would for a piece of safety gear.

We even had one of our very senior officers state that the Forge Cap should be worn because it can be used as a defensive weapon...it could be thrown at an attacker with a weapon to "distract " him....and, unfortunately, I'm NOT making this up. The fact that no such idiotic tactic was ever taught in 6 months of self defence training, seemed to slip from his memory.

Didn't you get the updated steel-rimmed, "oddjob" version?
http://www.007james.com/i/actors/gol...oddjob-hat.jpg