(09-03-2020, 10:28 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Koban! These are everywhere in Japan. And, yes, that's a police bicycle parked in front. Note the holder at the front for the keijou (stick).

(09-03-2020, 10:28 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I'm curious, are you living in a house, apartment building or a smaller multiplex building?

(09-03-2020, 04:03 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I understand the opposition, but only in the context of having given up on improving the police.

(09-03-2020, 05:50 PM)plam Wrote:

(09-03-2020, 04:03 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I think the idea is that the identifiable group decides on its own to appoint some of its own people to do this. So not necessarily that different from the universities encouraging their students to be good neighbours. I can even imagine the regular police calling the group-specific wardens for minor issues; if the group (whichever one it is) is willing and able to work with its members to address issues, this may be more successful than anything the police can do.

In another context, Canadian Rangers are also mostly (but not exclusively) First Nations. It depends on the buy-in from the community. The minor issues probably should be dealt with in the community, and we should use restorative justice more.

(09-03-2020, 07:10 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(09-03-2020, 10:28 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Koban! These are everywhere in Japan. And, yes, that's a police bicycle parked in front. Note the holder at the front for the keijou (stick).

Exactly what I had in mind. I don't know what other countries do this, and how the implementation differs, but I've mostly heard about them in the Japanese context. And after visiting Japan I was surprised at how natural and in-place they felt. You certainly see a lot more cops on bikes there too.

(09-03-2020, 07:10 PM)dtkvictim Wrote:

(09-03-2020, 10:28 AM)tomh009 Wrote: I'm curious, are you living in a house, apartment building or a smaller multiplex building?

I'd rather not be overly specific, but it's a mixed use, King St fronting building. Historically I think the whole building was businesses; my apartment still has a little hidden branding from an old business.

(09-03-2020, 05:50 PM)plam Wrote:

(09-03-2020, 04:03 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I understand the opposition, but only in the context of having given up on improving the police.

I’m not sure that everybody understands that there are always police. The question is whether they are accountable to the communities in which they operate. So my perspective is that if there is a persistent problem with police culture, it needs to be addressed, but not by eliminating the police. However, the management structure and membership may need to be overhauled. Frequently I read of police abuses which make me think “that officer should be fired and blacklisted”, that is, forbidden to be employed in policing or related fields like security or the army. We need to get the right sort of person in the police force; honest people who will hold their colleagues to account rather than hiding crimes committed by them (among many other good qualities that are needed). The way to get there will depend on the force in question; I suspect some forces are already in pretty good shape, while others probably need a sizeable fraction of their officers to be fired (not just retrained, although that would be part of it).

I don't think "defund the police" actually means that there should be no police. I mean, certainly there should be someone to call to handle a domestic violence situation as danbrotherston mentioned earlier. It is tragic that some people do not feel / are not safe in calling the police to handle their situations. The system in which today's police exist is controversial, as is the law in Ontario where the police just get to set their budget and municipalities have to go with it. It is also probably true that police don't have to handle all of the situations that they handle today.

(09-03-2020, 04:03 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: I think the idea is that the identifiable group decides on its own to appoint some of its own people to do this. So not necessarily that different from the universities encouraging their students to be good neighbours. I can even imagine the regular police calling the group-specific wardens for minor issues; if the group (whichever one it is) is willing and able to work with its members to address issues, this may be more successful than anything the police can do.

In another context, Canadian Rangers are also mostly (but not exclusively) First Nations. It depends on the buy-in from the community. The minor issues probably should be dealt with in the community, and we should use restorative justice more.

(10-18-2020, 11:37 AM)ac3r Wrote: $85 dollars for hitting two people? That's a bit absurd.

(10-18-2020, 11:37 AM)ac3r Wrote: $85 dollars for hitting two people? That's a bit absurd.

(10-18-2020, 12:10 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:

(10-18-2020, 11:37 AM)ac3r Wrote: $85 dollars for hitting two people? That's a bit absurd.

I would agree...it makes me wonder who exactly is the opposition to rationalizing our driving laws. Seems like everyone agrees drivers are terrible, yet somehow there is no willingness to strengthen laws. Seems like there is something going on there.

(10-18-2020, 02:52 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(10-18-2020, 12:10 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: I would agree...it makes me wonder who exactly is the opposition to rationalizing our driving laws. Seems like everyone agrees drivers are terrible, yet somehow there is no willingness to strengthen laws. Seems like there is something going on there.

Any time there is discussion of red light cameras or even more so speeding cameras, everybody starts talking about it just being a tax grab. So there is another aspect of it.

To be fair, especially with speeding cameras, I don’t think most people understand that more care needs to be taken with automatically-enforced rules; so I’m concerned that speeding cameras would be used to enforce inappropriate speed limits rather than more appropriate limits. For example, somebody doing 50km/h past a school at midnight is not generally a hazard. But that being said, a lot of people don’t seem to like the idea that we might have to actually follow some rules when driving, not just when a patrol car is around. This also comes up with discussions around sharing the locations of speed traps. The debate gets sidetracked into a BS debate around whether drivers should follow rules all the time or only when the police are watching, rather than a more meaningful debate about what speed limits are appropriate on various roads at different times.

(10-18-2020, 04:11 PM)jamincan Wrote:

(10-18-2020, 02:52 PM)ijmorlan Wrote: Any time there is discussion of red light cameras or even more so speeding cameras, everybody starts talking about it just being a tax grab. So there is another aspect of it.

To be fair, especially with speeding cameras, I don’t think most people understand that more care needs to be taken with automatically-enforced rules; so I’m concerned that speeding cameras would be used to enforce inappropriate speed limits rather than more appropriate limits. For example, somebody doing 50km/h past a school at midnight is not generally a hazard. But that being said, a lot of people don’t seem to like the idea that we might have to actually follow some rules when driving, not just when a patrol car is around. This also comes up with discussions around sharing the locations of speed traps. The debate gets sidetracked into a BS debate around whether drivers should follow rules all the time or only when the police are watching, rather than a more meaningful debate about what speed limits are appropriate on various roads at different times.

What is actually gained by being lax on the speed in school zones at certain times. Scarcely nothing in travel times, I'm sure? I'm far more in favour of a strict and unambiguous application of the law. If the speed can be increased at certain times, it should be signed as such. The current system we have is horrible, where whether you're charged largely depends on if you get seen, if the officer is having a bad day, and the colour of your skin or sex.

(10-18-2020, 05:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Of course, I question your example too, driving past a school at midnight one should be cautious...it's midnight, so it's dark so visibility is poor.

(10-18-2020, 07:00 PM)ijmorlan Wrote:

(10-18-2020, 05:33 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: Of course, I question your example too, driving past a school at midnight one should be cautious...it's midnight, so it's dark so visibility is poor.

Why do we tend to have lower speed limits near schools?

Because lots of kids are about.

That isn’t true at midnight.

What more do I need to say?

Now, that isn’t an argument that it’s OK to blitz past a school at 80km/h just because it’s the middle of the night, but the reason for the lower limit simply doesn’t exist all the time.

Obviously there could be kids anywhere, but hardly anybody thinks limits should be dropped across the board.

I’m more concerned with sidewalks that are right next to roads, including roads that are explicitly designed to move at fairly high speeds. There should be no such thing as a place where non-motor traffic is expected to go immediately beside 60km/h limit or higher motor traffic.

(10-18-2020, 08:34 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: There is literally a massive push by most road safety advocates to drop the limit in residential areas to 30km/h (although most are willing to compromise on 40km/h). This is not "hardly anybody".