Is this the official way of stopping?

[Maxt]

Just curious, I always see CPS pulling people over like this with the ass of the car sticking out into traffic, this is the first time I have seen cps though not totally blocking a traffic lane at least, it just happen that I had camera handy today to capture that.
I never see mounties pulling people over angled into traffic like that , but always see cps doing it blocking usually 1 sometimes 2 lanes, its dangerous if you ask me..That 60 km law could be done away with if they used their brains when they stopped.....
I got a reply from my MLAs office about the 60km law as well, apparently their office has been flooded with complaints about it, I dont think it will be on the books long.. It creates more of hazard than it saves.. Its a noble cause, but you cant have people nailing the brakes everytime they see a light on the side of the road..

[rc2002]

Originally posted by Maxt
That 60 km law could be done away with if they used their brains when they stopped.....

:werd: They do it because they can. I can't see any advantage of blocking that extra lane of traffic.

[alloroc]

They park like that so the if their car is hit it won't be rammed forward into the the other car and possibly the cop himself. The second reason is that it reduces the 'impact of the collision and the rotating back end would help steer anyone who hits the car back onto the main road, again saving the suspect vehicle and the patrolman standing beside it.

Personally although I do understand why they park like that I still think they could pull into the curb just a bit more stickin out like that is in my opinion another incident waiting to happen.

[civicrider]

yeah i see it alot
its another way to avoid getting hit, people will go wider around and if the truck goes get hit the car wont just slide right down the side hitting the police.

[l8braker]

It prob. gives them some cover from on-coming traffic when they're getting out of their vehicles.

[DayGlow]

totally depends on where the person that is being pulled over stops. The angle creates a gap where the cop can stand that is blocked by the police vehicle. If the person stops right on the edge of the shoulder and traffic lane, then you have to stick your ass end out so you have space to stand beside the vehicle.

This way if an unattentive driver is going to hit anything they are going to hit the police vehicle, not the cop on the side of the road.

Also for all the whiners of the 60km/hr law if you driving at a speed that you fear you can't react to any sudden actions of the driver infront of you you are:

a) way too close too the vehicle in front of you
b) driving way too fast for the conditions

So instead of looking around and complaining that everyone else is doing it, buck up and take responsibility for your own actions.

[Maxt]

The problem that I have seen with that action as well, is the cop tends to walk into the drving lane to retrieve stuff from the back of the police vehicle, seen it few times... But then again why only cps, you watch those US police pull over videos and they are always in a straight line behind the suspect car, like the RCMP..
Hmm looks to me like there is danger of the police car coming around and hitting the side of the suspect vehicle when parked like that... If in straight line, cop car would take brunt of rear impact and then just rear end suspect vehicle..

[Maxt]

Originally posted by DayGlow
So instead of looking around and complaining that everyone else is doing it, buck up and take responsibility for your own actions.

I am guessing you do very little highway driving or you are a cop...You get a carmacks truck throwing on amber beacon on a tractor drilling a hole for highway sign, and 3 lanes of 110 slamming on the brakes in the rush hour of traffic into the city....
Tell me how that contributes to public safety..... The law should have read accident scene or red emergency beacon, the AMA boosting aunt edna's pacer in a rest stop on the side of #2 shouldnt bring traffic down to a crawl..
Edit: Since so many people are paranoid of this ticket, its demerits and its high cost, people just dont "slow" to 60, all I have seen so far is full out panic braking when anything flashes now...

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Maxt
The problem that I have seen with that action as well, is the cop tends to walk into the drving lane to retrieve stuff from the back of the police vehicle, seen it few times... But then again why only cps, you watch those US police pull over videos and they are always in a straight line behind the suspect car, like the RCMP..
Hmm looks to me like there is danger of the police car coming around and hitting the side of the suspect vehicle when parked like that... If in straight line, cop car would take brunt of rear impact and then just rear end suspect vehicle..

No, you watch the videos of the State troopers that get sideswiped by cars that bounce off the side of their vehicle and into them you will begin to understand why this is a new 'tactic'

Draw a line straight forward from the rear outside edge of the of police vehicle and it creates a 3-4 ft buffer space for someone to stand in and have cover from oncoming traffic.

[b_t]

Originally posted by Maxt


I am guessing you do very little highway driving or you are a cop...You get a carmacks truck throwing on amber beacon on a tractor drilling a hole for highway sign, and 3 lanes of 110 slamming on the brakes in the rush hour of traffic into the city....
Tell me how that contributes to public safety..... The law should have read accident scene or red emergency beacon, the AMA boosting aunt edna's pacer in a rest stop on the side of #2 shouldnt bring traffic down to a crawl..
Edit: Since so many people are paranoid of this ticket, its demerits and its high cost, people just dont "slow" to 60, all I have seen so far is full out panic braking when anything flashes now...

You seem to have a serious problem with anything the CPS does.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by b_t


You seem to have a serious problem with anything the CPS does.

Don't mind him, all he seems to do is complain incessantly about anything the police do, no matter the reason. If it inconveniences him in any way, expect to see a thread about it.

Next week: "I don't like police officers' black uniforms. They're too sneaky at night. Like ninjas."

[TurboMedic]

We park like that on accident scenes too, it creates a safe "work zone" for us.....if the vehicle gets hit, its better than us!

[sweetchariot]

Next week: "I don't like police officers' black uniforms. They're too sneaky at night. Like ninjas." [/B][/QUOTE]

:rofl: :rofl: LOL........Too funny.

I hate there boots 'cause they don't squeak at night

[thetrousertrout]

sheesh, THIS is why they do that. same reason you don't climb without a rope in a rec center or some such.

last part of this clip.

http://www.i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=15453

[sweetchariot]

From a Police Forum:- Kinda explains the angle stop

I need a little help. Does anybody have an authoritative source on squad positioning for traffic stop?

I have tried both the parallel, kick out and the angled stop.

I prefer the angled for the following reasons.
1. All lights are still visible.
2. More of the squad is visible to the approaching traffic.
3. It is easier and safer to exit.
4. With corner strobes drivers move left to go around the flashing light.
5. Your exposure to traffic is minimized to the time when you pass around the corner strobe.
6. The engine block is between you and the stopped vehicle in the event you need additional protection from someone firing at you.
7. Cars that do not pay attention or are DUI that strike your vehicle are deflected away.
8. Your flashing head lights cause drivers approaching fromt he opposite direction to pay more attention.
9. The reflective striping on the squad assists in the squads visibility.
10. Access to the trunk (not a good idea) does not place you directly between your squad and the striking vehicle.

I am not currently allowed to use this tactic because my chief found something on a site for the Crown Vic that stated the parrallel kick out is better. The committee that made the recommendation appears to be comprised of mostly Ford engineers that I suspect may be influenced by Ford Executives that want a way to minimize their exploding gas tank problem rather than dedicate themselves to officer safety.

I would like to convince my chief to use a safer tactic but need someone other than myself to support the tactic.

By the way a neighboring department uses the same tactic with a twist. What some of the officers do is angle to the right. The only thng you lose is the engine block but you gain a totaly safe exit from your vehicle and approach to the violater if you consider only approaching traffic.

[GQBalla]

your tallywacker is hanging out there

and wow the last clip that cop seemed really calm.

that was so crazy.

[szw]

Maxt,

To answer your question, yes.

Regards,
szw

[95EagleAWD]

Cops park like that for officer safety reasons, as stated above.

And the 60 kmh rule has been fine, in my experience. Two cops on the side of the road coming home from Banff on Sunday... traffic slowed nicely to 60 and back up again, no panic braking or anything like that.

[rc2002]

OK so now I understand it a bit better. Last time I was watching TV, I saw a State Trooper get clipped on the ass as he leaned into the window of the car he just pulled over. :rofl:

So it sounds to me that the 60km/h rule shouldn't apply then. They've already taken the necessary precautions to safegaurd themselves. Plus they're impeding traffic enough to slow it down to a reasonable rate anyway. Especially with the way Calgarians rubber neck...

[TurboMedic]

Why shouldn't the 60km/h rule apply?? You're saying that if a car is angled out, regardless what speed you're doing that the car will protect the officer?? Wow, you know nothing about physics then eh? Incase you don't there richardchan, here's a run down.....

An object in motion travelling in a straight line will continue to do so until acted upon by outside forces.

In this case, the outside force is the cruiser deflecting the vehicle.

We all know that mass x speed=inertia, obviously any increase in either side is going to increase inertia...therefore, a vehicle travelling 60km/h is going to take LESS force to deflect the vehicle from its forward motion than the same vehicle travelling 100km/h.....

Basically, just because there is an object between you and the officer does not mean that they are protected in ALL situations, therefore if you reduce speed, and place an object between you are increasing the likelihood of a positive outcome from a collision....

Make sense??

[Goblin]

I am on the highway everyday, garaunteed. (sp?)

It is a good law and so is this type of parking, nuff said.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by b_t


You seem to have a serious problem with anything the CPS does.
Not true...I have a serious problem with lack of common sense being built into legislation, thats all.. People drive upon an accident scene or a pullover and the first thing you condition them to do is stare at the speedometer instead of the road?
Wow look at all the perfect drivers we have on Beyond... I think we just found the the cops on the board...
Lets look at it overall, why does the law only apply to emergency vehicles, why not broken cars as well with hazards on, is private citizens lives worth less? The law is problematic due to definition and its application is both non inclusive and yet to inclusive for the masses to follow.
Of course the cops will like it, its a great way to generate more revenue and gives a greater sense of power, most cops are power trippers so it suits them fine to see everyone have to slow for them...
For the accident scene it should be like that though, and they should have an emergency sign to signal it so. They do it in other countries when they deem that a slow in speed is neccesary, but they dont bring all traffic to a crawl for every flashing light either..
The law needs some refinement and better application than what has been seen so far..
Think I am done yet, not a chance, I've got a 7 hour hard disc video camera in the truck now.. Every bit of cop idiocy I seen now can be posted..., Shouldnt take long to get 7 hours of it either..:D
J/k, I will get some footage of a mass panic stop, I am planning on sending it Alberta Transportation, this law was just the brain child of an ex cop who had nothing else to do in government...Creative law making with little to no thought...

[djayz]

the picture you have up there is nothing compared to what i have seen a few times. Thats actually a pretty decent parking job.

Ive seen a cop stop someone on the barlow overpass on 16th avenue west right where the people come up the ramp from barlow north.

But you cant always blame the cops for their positioning and the place where they stop cuz they stop behind the people that are getting pulled over. So if you get pulled over pull over way on the shoulder or out of traffics way that way the cops can keep their cars ass off the road and not ruin the flow of traffic

[googe]

Originally posted by Maxt


I am guessing you do very little highway driving or you are a cop...

he is a cop actually ;)

[DayGlow]

Last time I checked, the law is for all emergancy vehicles, including Fire, Ambulance, Tow truck, etc.....you know, the people that are there to help you in a time of need.

Oh the arrogance to create a law to protect them. Screw them, what have they ever done for you eh? Because that's what is seems to be here. All about you. My experience (coming from someone who has been sitting in a parked vehicle with it's equiopment lit sitting on the shoulder and been smoked at 70km/hr) it works. I've done a few stops and accidents on DeerFoot and the difference is amazing. When I'm sitting in my vehicle it is no longer rocking from the buffeting of vehicles flying past a foot to the side and when I stand on the road that buffet is unerving as a car flys past 3 feet from your back.

Guess what? There are bad drivers out there. They don't pay attention and slam on their brakes. But you're such a stud you should have the correct follow distance and looking past them down the road, reconize the stituation ahead and already slowing down in a controlled fashion.

But I guess it inconviences you, so you don't like it.

[dericer]

Originally posted by Maxt

Not true...I have a serious problem with lack of common sense being built into legislation...

The problem is 99.9% of people period lack any form of common sense.

Our laws have to be crystal clear to avoid mis-interpretation from the 'ship of fools' out there, or their lawyers.

[StupidWade]

I wonder how long it'll be before the cops plant an orange strobe on top of a multinova vehicle and start mailing out $500 tickets.

[DayGlow]

guess what, CPS doesn't run photo radar. Different department of the city.

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Maxt

Not true...I have a serious problem with lack of common sense being built into legislation, thats all.. People drive upon an accident scene or a pullover and the first thing you condition them to do is stare at the speedometer instead of the road?
Wow look at all the perfect drivers we have on Beyond... I think we just found the the cops on the board...
Lets look at it overall, why does the law only apply to emergency vehicles, why not broken cars as well with hazards on, is private citizens lives worth less? The law is problematic due to definition and its application is both non inclusive and yet to inclusive for the masses to follow.

The law needs some refinement and better application than what has been seen so far..
Think I am done yet, not a chance, I've got a 7 hour hard disc video camera in the truck now.. Every bit of cop idiocy I seen now can be posted..., Shouldnt take long to get 7 hours of it either..:D
J/k, I will get some footage of a mass panic stop, I am planning on sending it Alberta Transportation, this law was just the brain child of an ex cop who had nothing else to do in government...Creative law making with little to no thought...

I suppose you have an issue with condoms too? They slow you down? the built in safety features not worth the inconvenience?:nut:

[Maxt]

Originally posted by djayz
the picture you have up there is nothing compared to what i have seen a few times. Thats actually a pretty decent parking job.

Ive seen a cop stop someone on the barlow overpass on 16th avenue west right where the people come up the ramp from barlow north.

But you cant always blame the cops for their positioning and the place where they stop cuz they stop behind the people that are getting pulled over. So if you get pulled over pull over way on the shoulder or out of traffics way that way the cops can keep their cars ass off the road and not ruin the flow of traffic
Yep.... You are right, but it seems even when you make an attempt to pull far over the cops still have this thing about taking at least one lane of traffic..


Originally posted by googe


he is a cop actually ;)

I kind of got that feeling from the drone like response in the post..
Like every cop can actually live up to what they preach themselves... Give me break..
Funny how dayglow, thinks he is worth more than the common man. No mention of why not protect all with it?
"So instead of looking around and complaining that everyone else is doing it, buck up and take responsibility for your own actions. "
Maybe heed your own advice, apparently the public doesnt have the same qualms about being parked on the side of the road as you do. If the buffeting scares you sounds like you picked the wrong profession...

The condom analogy... Its called marriage, it doesnt apply to me..

Every politician wants to have a law enacted, its a way of memorializing their term, the problem is every politician wants to do it, and we end up with laws , and to many, that simply arent neccesary. This is one of them...Its always easy to polish up a safety law to get it past as well..... They are just getting sillier and sillier... Next it will be wearing life jackets when driving over a bridge with a fine fitted in there somewhere...

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Maxt





The condom analogy... Its called marriage, it doesnt apply to me..


Ahhh see once again very very linear one dimensional thinking. The kind of thought process you exhibit is going turn you into road kill one day or cause your bits to fall off.

[Alex_FORD]

I like the 60 kph rule, I support it 100%, but with that said - it scares me to think how ridiculuosly easy it is for me to get a $600 fine for traveling 110 kmh on the transCanada.

Let's face it, $600 is fucken insane, I haven't had $600 dollars worth of speeding tickets in the 25 years that I've been driving, now it can happen with one grumpy cop that doesn't know me well enough to cut me some slack.

[DayGlow]

come to think of it, I don't really like being shot at either. Damn I really did pick the wrong job.

[handsomebassman]

http://www.maart.nl/fiblog/oh%20the%20drama!.jpg

Wow, so anyways, i do agree that $600 is just rediculous.

Im afraid to have an opinion on anything more than that:rolleyes:

[capn_nobeard]

Does anyone here know how to bake... cause it sounds like maxt is asking for an awwww muffin

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by DayGlow
come to think of it, I don't really like being shot at either. Damn I really did pick the wrong job.

At least you get shot trying to help someone... I might get shot for money. :thumbsdow

[hampstor]

Correct me if i'm wrong but you only have to slow down to 60 if you are in the lane immediately adjacent to the emergency.

I don't know about everyone else, but I always try and move over 1 lane away whenever someone with his hazards/emergency lights on (whenever there is another lane to move into and it's safe). I give that courtesy because i've changed a tire on deerfoot and man it's scary as shit when a car's going by you at 100-110km/hr.

The law is a good idea, but i think it definately needs to also apply to cars with their hazards on as well or else (EDIT: added "else") it doesn't protect the bulk of the population.

[sweetchariot]

Maybe Maxt would also prefer it if the cops don't wear reflective vests as well, I mean they are on the side of the road, why not just try and hit them, hell why not just smash right into the cruiser at 110kmh, that should finish them off.

[Alex_FORD]

Originally posted by hampstor


The law is a good idea, but i think it definately needs to also apply to cars with their hazards on as well or it doesn't protect the bulk of the population.

What?!?!?!? If I have to change a flat, this law doesn't apply to me? Thats the biggest double standard I've seen for a long time.

Damn, I'm so pissed off, I don't think I'll say another good word about this 60 kmh law, it fucken licks balls!!!! Who ever thought of it, is a godamn cocksucker.

[hampstor]

Originally posted by Alex_FORD


What?!?!?!? If I have to change a flat, this law doesn't apply to me? Thats the biggest double standard I've seen for a long time.



Sorry I think you read my post wrong or something. I was saying if you turn your hazards ON the LAW SHOULD apply to you.

I'll edit the original post so no one else thinks that.

[Alex_FORD]

I agree, the law should apply to me if I turn on my hazards, and if it doesn't that is why I'm so damned pissed off at the double standard.
Mister tow truck driver is important, but Alex_FORD doesn't mean shit to anyone?
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

[Alex_FORD]

Side note: Maybe I should buy one of these:

http://www.canadiantire.ca/assortments/product_detail.jsp?FOLDER%3C%3Efolder_id=1408474396669563&ASSORTMENT%3C%3East_id=1408474396670271&bmUID=1138859360783&PRODUCT%3C%3Eprd_id=845524442457819&assortment=primary&fromSearch=true

and rotate my tires on the side of Deerfoot in the morning rush hour.

eh?!?!?!!?

[BlueGoblin]

^ Perhaps if you did, you might understand why the law is there to protect people whose job it is to work at the roadside - not just police, but EMS, fire, towtruck operators and construction workers.

I do, incidentally, believe that the law should have included vehicles stopped at the roadside with flasher on myself.

[Alex_FORD]

We should start an orange beacon club, and shut the deerfoot down every day while people are trying to get to work. Then, we'll see how much support this fucken law has.

[sweetchariot]

Originally posted by Alex_FORD
I agree, the law should apply to me if I turn on my hazards, and if it doesn't that is why I'm so damned pissed off at the double standard.
Mister tow truck driver is important, but Alex_FORD doesn't mean shit to anyone?
:banghead: :banghead: :banghead:

How many times a day do you change your tire, on Deerfoot with people whipping by inches away from you?????

[Nissanaddict]

Originally posted by Alex_FORD
We should start an orange beacon club, and shut the deerfoot down every day while people are trying to get to work. Then, we'll see how much support this fucken law has.

^^^I wonder why the law doesn't apply to motorists with flashers :rolleyes: ....if you think it's dangerous, call the non-emergency police number, or AMA, and have them take care of it.

[Tyler883]

Originally posted by sweetchariot


How many times a day do you change your tire, on Deerfoot with people whipping by inches away from you?????

Any individual driver doesn't spend more than once on the deerfoot, but the fact still remains that our lives count too.

The 60kmh rule is there to save lives. I guess someone's grade 1 teacher needs to be killed before we realize that hazard lights are supposed to mean something, too.

I agree with Hampstor and Alex, this law should apply to everyone and we should complain to the province until this happens.

[TurboMedic]

I know personally when I'm changing a tire I pull over much farther off the road than when I'm working on th side of the road......At work I use the vehicle as protection, in my personal vehicle I use space as my protection........I think the same can be said for CPS vehicles, when they have someone at a Tstop, they are deliberately pulled closer to the road for the protection, and they cannot control how far someone pulls their car over.....


Now, I also have been to an accident involving someone hit while changing a tire, so you can't say it doesn't happen....Perhaps people have to be more concious of using safety devices, all truckers doo.....

[Tyler883]

Originally posted by DayGlow
Last time I checked, the law is for all emergancy vehicles, including Fire, Ambulance, Tow truck, etc.....you know, the people that are there to help you in a time of need.



Just wondering, If I get one of those revolving amber beacons from Canadian Tire, and I use it to help an old lady change a tire on the deerfoot..

...can I be charged? or can drivers not slowing down be charged? both? neither?

[BlueGoblin]

^Amber beacons on vehicles aren't regulated beyond being a generalised warning device. They can be seen on all sorts of vehicles that may be stopped in odd places, Telus & Enmax service trucks, etc., So no, it would be fine as far as I know if you used one genuinely as a warning device in a way such as you have described. Other colours of lights (red, blue, purple, etc), are regulated in their use on vehicles.

The law regarding modified speed limits as it stands only applies to Emergency vehicles as defined by the TSA (Police, Ambulance, Fire, as well as Emergency Gas Disconnect Vehicles) and Towtrucks. To qualify as a towtruck, you would likely need to have your vehicle commercially insured and registered as such.

[88CRXGUY]

I seen that lastnight on a residental 2 way road. He was blocking the one way and no one was able to get around unless they drove on the other side of the road. It was just to pull someone over. Its another accident waiting to happen..

[95EagleAWD]

Originally posted by 88CRXGUY
I seen that lastnight on a residental 2 way road. He was blocking the one way and no one was able to get around unless they drove on the other side of the road. It was just to pull someone over. Its another accident waiting to happen..

No, it isn't. It's done like that on purpose to prevent exactly what you said. Use your head around Emergency Vehicles on the side of the road, slow down, give them room to work, and go around them.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by Tyler883


Just wondering, If I get one of those revolving amber beacons from Canadian Tire, and I use it to help an old lady change a tire on the deerfoot..

...can I be charged? or can drivers not slowing down be charged? both? neither?
Apparently only if you are wearing the right uniform...;)..

I asked the local Rcmp about the ass end kick out pull over, her reponse was its the worst way to stop, she felt causing an impedence to traffic flow was more a safety concern than reducing traffic speed. I agree with her. She also felt the 60km pass rule needs alot more refining and is for the most part is unenforcable, she felt it needs some perimeter guidlines otherwise it will probably be abused by traffic enforcment heavy jurisdictions or it wont stand up to court challenge. The constables indication was that whenever she had someone pulled over anyway, traffic use to drop at least 20 km/h anyway. I said to her did she think the driver that is going to sideswipe a cop car or an ambulance is the same driver that will slow to 60 before doing it, her answer "Most likely not" at which point it she admitted in that sense its useless in prevention of harm to workers from the public.
Seems RC and CPS dont follow the same teachings. I should add that she said almost all Alberta highways and roadways over 70 km now have rumble strip shoulders and when you pull someone over you should be on the curb side of the rumble strip in order to wake those up that are daydreaming. Makes perfect sense to me. Why make a deliberate obstacle out of something you dont have to?.
Lets see what happens to it when the Legislature is back in order.
I am guessing you will see it pulled or gets re-written.

[TurboMedic]

/\/\/\ is the opinion of one officer who likely hasn't had a near death experience negate the fact that the other 98% of workers support this?? This discussion has been supported by the majority, but once a single uniform says it may not be good suddenly makes it all bad......:thumbsdow :rolleyes:

Its not very often I do this, but Maxt I hope you have an eye opening life altering experience some day, karmas a bitch...

[eljefe]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
/\/\/\ is the opinion of one officer who likely hasn't had a near death experience negate the fact that the other 98% of workers support this??

ummmmm let me think about that a minute....


NO (imo)

[Maxt]

Originally posted by 95EagleAWD


No, it isn't. It's done like that on purpose to prevent exactly what you said. Use your head around Emergency Vehicles on the side of the road, slow down, give them room to work, and go around them.
I dont think anyone is disputing that, but I think we have seen it take to far to many times.
Its a balance, safety is a concern for all, backing traffic up for 5 miles and having gridlock because the fire department decides to close 2 out 3 lanes for a 200 dollar rear ender on deerfoot is ridiculous. They setup their safety perimeter so the feel good, forgetting that they have brought traffic to a halt on sometimes a 100 km/roadway, so 5 miles back you have people coming up on stopped cars at highway speeds. Its the tunnel visioned approach to safety that really gets me...
Maybe I am spoiled by the employment of brain cells in other countries when it comes to such matters...
We should make in car navigation a standard here. It overides everything in the car when there is an accident or a traffic problem, everyone is aware of the accident, everyone moves over well before and they dont drop speed of traffic and cause more mayhem. On top of that people would have a clue where they are going as well.. Maybe in the next 5 years or so..

[Maxt]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
/\/\/\ is the opinion of one officer who likely hasn't had a near death experience negate the fact that the other 98% of workers support this?? This discussion has been supported by the majority, but once a single uniform says it may not be good suddenly makes it all bad......:thumbsdow :rolleyes:

Its not very often I do this, but Maxt I hope you have an eye opening life altering experience some day, karmas a bitch...
Thats the stupidest thing I have read on here yet...Here's Mr safety wishing bad things on someone....

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Maxt

I dont think anyone is disputing that, but I think we have seen it take to far to many times.
Its a balance, safety is a concern for all, backing traffic up for 5 miles and having gridlock because the fire department decides to close 2 out 3 lanes for a 200 dollar rear ender on deerfoot is ridiculous. They setup their safety perimeter so the feel good, forgetting that they have brought traffic to a halt on sometimes a 100 km/roadway, so 5 miles back you have people coming up on stopped cars at highway speeds.


ahhh NO , I personally would rather be inconvenienced than have someone else possibly get hurt because I didn't want to be late getting my coffee , but thats just me.

[dericer]

Originally posted by Maxt

Apparently only if you are wearing the right uniform...;)..

I asked the local Rcmp about the ass end kick out pull over.....


She's talking out of her ass then. The "ass end kick" method is used world-wide, and saves hundred if not thousands of lives yearly.

I can only speak of personal experience on the slowing to 60m/h for emergency vehicles.

I witnessed an accident by the thorncliff Community centre the accident was blocking about 3 of the 4 lanes. The normal speed limit in that area is only 50km/h anyways. Most jackass' were going atleast 10 over passing the firefighters assisting one of the wrecked vehicles.

Keep in mind that ploice were guiding traffic since only one lane was available for both directions of traffic. Once drivers were allowed to go, they intentionally blew past the accident as if the say "fuck you for inconveniencing me"

Drivers in this city are nuts, so we need a law that makes sence, and this just makes sence IMO.

[TurboMedic]

Originally posted by Maxt

I dont think anyone is disputing that, but I think we have seen it take to far to many times.
Its a balance, safety is a concern for all, backing traffic up for 5 miles and having gridlock because the fire department decides to close 2 out 3 lanes for a 200 dollar rear ender on deerfoot is ridiculous. They setup their safety perimeter so the feel good, forgetting that they have brought traffic to a halt on sometimes a 100 km/roadway, so 5 miles back you have people coming up on stopped cars at highway speeds. Its the tunnel visioned approach to safety that really gets me...
Maybe I am spoiled by the employment of brain cells in other countries when it comes to such matters...
We should make in car navigation a standard here. It overides everything in the car when there is an accident or a traffic problem, everyone is aware of the accident, everyone moves over well before and they dont drop speed of traffic and cause more mayhem. On top of that people would have a clue where they are going as well.. Maybe in the next 5 years or so..

No Maxt, thats the stupidest thing on here......You are self centered, god forbid people have to slow down for a bit so we can "feel good about our safety"....Thats the point you dolt....

I guarantee you're the person who thinks they are the best driver out there, and that everybody else is a danger....You may be the least in control....

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Maxt

Thats the stupidest thing I have read on here yet...Here's Mr safety wishing bad things on someone....

Actually I think "Mr. Safety" was wishing an eye opening life changing moment on you , and I am guessing that it was for your own safety and those around you. I think it was awful nice of him to care :thumbsup:

[Maxt]

All you 3 are missing the point, its not about inconveniencing "me" or make "me " late for coffee.
Its about that the measures taken for safety are cause more of an issue than they often solve and thats what I am trying to get into your heads here. Tell me how parking a vehicle in a traffic lane is somehow safer than pulling it off to the side of the road, which one is more likely to get hit, esepecially in the even of a failure of the emergency lighting?...
When ever you demand a drivers attention is when an accident is more likely to happen, whenever you make drivers have to interact, back up, slow and stop traffic demands that kind of interaction and that is when things most often happen. The least amount you need people to ineract on the roadway the less incidents will happen.
In plain english, creating a cluster fuck in now way fixes or helps cleanup another clusterfuck.

[Maxt]

Originally posted by eljefe


Actually I think "Mr. Safety" was wishing an eye opening life changing moment on you , and I am guessing that it was for your own safety and those around you. I think it was awful nice of him to care :thumbsup:

Ahh bs...

[Maxt]

Originally posted by dericer



She's talking out of her ass then. The "ass end kick" method is used world-wide, and saves hundred if not thousands of lives yearly.

I can only speak of personal experience on the slowing to 60m/h for emergency vehicles.

I witnessed an accident by the thorncliff Community centre the accident was blocking about 3 of the 4 lanes. The normal speed limit in that area is only 50km/h anyways. Most jackass' were going atleast 10 over passing the firefighters assisting one of the wrecked vehicles.

Keep in mind that ploice were guiding traffic since only one lane was available for both directions of traffic. Once drivers were allowed to go, they intentionally blew past the accident as if the say "fuck you for inconveniencing me"

Drivers in this city are nuts, so we need a law that makes sence, and this just makes sence IMO.

Yeah I am sure they were mad at the firefighters.....Give me a break most people slow to 5 kmh looking for guts and eyeballs..

[BlueGoblin]

The RCMP are not trained for urban policing, and some tactics that they use are better suited for places where there are shoulders on which to pull. Municipal Police services - Municipal Fire and EMS too- get to do what works right in the places in which they work.

IMO It's people whose worst on-the-job risks are paper cuts, 'mouse wrist' and forgetting if the customer wanted fries with that seem to be the first to jump all over those who have to manage serious workplace hazards.

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Maxt

Its not about inconveniencing "me" Its about that the measures taken for safety are cause more of an issue than they often solve
In plain english, creating a cluster fuck in now way fixes or helps cleanup another clusterfuck.

I think you disputed that all on your own ..


95EagleAWD

No, it isn't. It's done like that on purpose to prevent exactly what you said. Use your head around Emergency Vehicles on the side of the road, slow down, give them room to work, and go around them.




Maxt

I dont think anyone is disputing that...................They setup their safety perimeter so the feel good...................Its a balance, safety is a concern for all, backing traffic up for 5 miles and having gridlock because the fire department decides to close 2 out 3 lanes for a 200 dollar rear ender on deerfoot is ridiculous.

I think you lack some credibility in your every changing arguement. But again that is just my opinion.

[pinoyhero]

Good idea on the pic, I love when stories are backed up like this..look at how much room there is, that is just unessecary. And you wonder why they are in danger and make a law to force all passerbys to go 50kms.

[Tyler883]

Originally posted by dericer



She's talking out of her ass then. The "ass end kick" method is used world-wide, and saves hundred if not thousands of lives yearly.


You may be right about the ass end kick out method, but I call BS for the 60 km/h rule.

For the drivers that are about to run into the emergency vehicle.....how do you expect them to slow down for something that they are too blind to see in the first place?

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Tyler883


You may be right about the ass end kick out method, but I call BS for the 60 km/h rule.

For the drivers that are about to run into the emergency vehicle.....how do you expect them to slow down for something that they are too blind to see in the first place?

Just a question, and I do not know the answer but I am wondering...... would the 60 km/h rule not be less about running into the emergency vehicle and more about travelling at a reduced speed so that a driver can react in time if a person invloved in a cleanup or a person involved in the accident should unwisely walk out from behind one of the vehicles into the line of traffic?

[Tyler883]

Originally posted by eljefe


Just a question, and I do not know the answer but I am wondering...... would the 60 km/h rule not be less about running into the emergency vehicle and more about travelling at a reduced speed so that a driver can react in time if a person invloved in a cleanup or a person involved in the accident should unwisely walk out from behind one of the vehicles into the line of traffic?

I would tend to agree with you. I find it a huge double standard that we are supposed to slow down for workers that should be properly trained regarding "unwise actions" yet we don't have to slow down for a little old lady that probaby hasn't been advise on roadside safety.

To me, this law sound like another not so well thought out law that is catering to the worker's pet peeves.....you know "those effen motorists...." complaints that I am sure are common for those that work in the industry. How much do you agree with this theory?

[eljefe]

Originally posted by Tyler883


I would tend to agree with you. I find it a huge double standard that we are supposed to slow down for workers that should be properly trained regarding "unwise actions" yet we don't have to slow down for a little old lady that probaby hasn't been advise on roadside safety.

To me, this law sound like another not so well thought out law that is catering to the worker's pet peeves.....you know "those effen motorists...." complaints that I am sure are common for those that work in the industry. How much do you agree with this theory?

Yes, but workers on a swing stage are required to have a safety harness and workers on a construction site a hard hat or steel toed boots. These are called safety devices or secondary safety measures even though they are trained for their job. Perhaps this is an equal measure in this occupation....again just a thought.