# "Gadgets in Emergency Vehicles Seen as Peril"



## mariomike (14 Mar 2010)

Driven to Distraction
March 10, 2010

"They are the most wired vehicles on the road, with dashboard computers, sophisticated radios, navigation systems and cellphones.
While such gadgets are widely seen as distractions to be avoided behind the wheel, there are hundreds of thousands of drivers — police officers and paramedics — who are required to use them, sometimes at high speeds, while weaving through traffic, sirens blaring.":
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/11/technology/11distracted.html


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 Mar 2010)

I was pretty choked to see numerous police officers both VPD and RCMP chatting away on cell phones while driving after the no cellphone law was in place here in BC, these were not handsfree phones either. Does not exactly inhance their moral authority to enforce the law.

I also see lots of VPD types working alone, driving and looking at the computer screen in their cars. They will get sued big time on day when it's found the officer hurt/killed someone while reading or using the computer.


----------



## medaid (14 Mar 2010)

The only thing is when you're on your way to a call, sometines updates are sent via your MWS/MDT. Hundreds of calls, thousands of updates, if they did it all over the radio no one would be able to use it. Not to mention itsnot practical for you to pull over everytime you need to read an update or send a reply that you're taking the call.

Hands free devices are not provided by majority of Forces/Agencies. Also its just one more thing to lose in a scuffle with SRs. Plus with the increased use of ear pieces for radios, it makes no sense to further limit your hearing by puttinganother ear piece in your other ear for your cell phone.


----------



## mariomike (14 Mar 2010)

Gadgets have become overwelming in recent years. 
Emergency vehicles have always had a lot of buttons and switches added on. But, you can learn to find and operate them without taking your eyes off the road. Just like the windshield wipers in your own car.
You develop a "third ear" listening to your partner in the back, the radio and of course, your vehicle in the traffic.  
But, you can't keep your eyes on the road if you are reading and texting/typing. That's something new.
The fire service always has a Captain in the passenger seat to do that, including the radio and siren, when the truck is in motion, and avoids the problem. Even the District Chief"s car/van always has a full-time  driver ( until recent years, they were officially called "chauffeurs". Now, the are called FIT's - Fire Incident Technicians as in "fit for duty" ). 
The subject of police two-person versus one-person cars is interesting. I remember Metro Police went on a "work slowdown" years ago to get more two-man cars. Even without all the gadgets they have out now, on patrol the two-person car allows the officer in the passenger seat to observe, while the other keeps his eyes on the road. On the other hand, you have to hire more officers if you want to maintain a high car count with two-person teams in them.


----------



## 40below (14 Mar 2010)

I was on Highway 401 last Saturday doing 120 when a stealth-marked OPP SUV blasted by me like I was absolutely standing still, and in the tenth of a second he was in my view, I could see him driving with one hand while he chatted away on a cellphone held to his ear. I'm sure it was super-important police business he was on, because he wasn't using lights or siren. It's comforting to know that police get special training to drive that way safely while someone like say, me, would be hit with a stunt-driving charge, had my car impounded and be written up for using a cell while driving on top of the thousands of dollars of fines I already faced for doing the exact same thing.


----------



## mariomike (14 Mar 2010)

I always watch and listen for emergency vehicles. Of course because it's the right thing to do, but mostly because I don't want to be killed or injured by one. 
I have strong feelings on the subject, because not only was I a driver, I was also an attendant in them.
There are ambulance chasers personal injury lawyers who specialise in collisons involvolving emerg. vehicles ( either directly, or indirectly ).
Look into how many "wake" accidents there are. That is, the emerg. vehicle is not involved, but civilians are crashing into each other like bumper cars trying to get out of the way. I read that the ratio is 4:1 That's four wake accidents. I don't know how scientific that study was. Because there are no accident reports from the emerg. services, as they were not involved. But, I personally have seen many, many "wake accidents".
In Toronto now, you hear sirens much more often than in the past. And they make them much *louder* now too. They have ones now that will actually vibrate you and your car. I had a Supervisor show me not long ago. It's called a Thumper, or Rumbler, or something like that. It was not all that long ago that Metro Police did not even have sirens. Only the accident squad had them. The old electric propellor types.
It used to be a priviledge, not a right - that took a long time to earn, and was easily taken away - to drive an ambulance in Toronto. If you screwed up ( a scratch, a rough ride, agressive driving, or not knowing the streets ), you worked only in the back. And *that* truly sucked. They discontinued that practice for bad drivers years ago. But, I think it was effective. ( The old school had "cures" for a lot of things! hahaha ) 
Our driver trainers have told me some interesting stories about drivers up for remedial again and again on the skid pad on Wilson Heights. Always seems to be the same people.  

"When will we wake up":
http://www.jems.com/news_and_articles/columns/PWW/Ambulance_Accidents_When_Will_We_Wake_Up.html

Quote from link above ( I agree 100% ) :
1.Put the  right  people behind the wheel in the first place;  
2.Monitor driver behavior closely and truly take the steps necessary to change behavior when problems occur; and  
3.If you can’t change bad driving behavior, then get that driver the hell out of the driver’s seat before someone gets killed.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Mar 2010)

40below said:
			
		

> I was on Highway 401 last Saturday doing 120 when a stealth-marked OPP SUV blasted by me like I was absolutely standing still, and in the tenth of a second he was in my view, I could see him driving with one hand while he chatted away on a cellphone held to his ear. I'm sure it was super-important police business he was on, because he wasn't using lights or siren. It's comforting to know that police get special training to drive that way safely while someone like say, me, would be hit with a stunt-driving charge, had my car impounded and be written up for using a cell while driving on top of the thousands of dollars of fines I already faced for doing the exact same thing.



Wow, your knowledge of police procedure and the inner workings of the OPP are really comprehensive!  So tell us, wise one, what function within the OPP do those unmarked SUV's serve?  Who drives them and what sort of calls do they do?  What kind of encryption (if any) does the radio system of the OPP use?  Think there could be a sensitive call and the bad guys have a police scanner?  Think maybe that driving lights and sirens could give away an approaching police vehicle and tip off a bad guy as to their approach?  
While you are filling us in on all of that, perhaps you could give us a quick synopsis of your knowledge of PVO and how it affects an officer?  

Yes, if you were doing the same thing you would be pile driven.  What excuse could a civilian offer?  Oh wait, sometimes we _do_ listen to excuses, that's where discretion comes in.  But you know all about that too, right?  Because _YOU_ know all about "super-important police business".


----------



## medaid (28 Mar 2010)

Mate,

We both know that the OPP member was co-ordinating the next Timmy's briefing!


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2010)

This mechanical gadget has been around a longer than me. Every ambulance I ever worked on had one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tachograph

Now everything is recorded by a digital black box.

They have a gadget now called a "Growler". I haven't seen one, but I have read about them: "When a medic takes a turn too fast, the growler clicks like a Geiger counter. If the medic exceeds the preset limit for a full second, the tone changes and the driver knows he or she has just been hit with a computerized violation of the driving policy."
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2002/03/21/usat-ambulance(acov).htm

Another distraction not mentioned is the hysterical family member riding in the passenger seat en route from scene to hospital. They have been known to grab the driver, and the steering wheel. 
Also, the carload(s) of family members following their loved one to hospital. It's called "riding the siren". That is, following the ambulance through every red light. Some times, they do not even slow down for red lights and rear-end the ambulance. Like they are being waved through an intersection on a funeral escort.
Also, a lot times you would not ordinarily drive lights and siren to hospital, but because you have them on-board, and / or following, you have to do it for the family. 

If interested in this sort of thing, here is a video of a Toronto ambulance transporting a G.S.W. ( gun shot wound ) involved in an accident at Lawrence and Leslie. ( On their way to "the brook" - Sunnybrook Hospital ).    
http://www.flickr.com/photos/news46/2691723262/

Regarding the "stealth-marked OPP SUV". Not to contradict what you saw, but did you actually read "OPP" on the car/uniform? There are many cars on the road that look like police, even with semi-hidden red lights, but are not.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Mar 2010)

MedTech said:
			
		

> Mate,
> 
> We both know that the OPP member was co-ordinating the next Timmy's briefing!



Heh, yeah.  The day-olds just got put out probably.


----------



## Greymatters (28 Mar 2010)

Even if it was official police business, is there a special rule that allows them to violate the MVA on the use of cellphones?  

If so, are there situations where we too can use the same excuse?

If not, what kind of example is being set for the general public?


----------



## mariomike (28 Mar 2010)

"Police, paramedics and firefighters will continue to be allowed to use hand-held devices when performing their duties. All drivers may use hand-held devices to call 9-1-1." : 
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/posteddriving/archive/2009/09/30/ontario-cellphone-ban-begins-oct-26.aspx

Whatever the law says, the rule is "primum nil nocere".


----------



## zipperhead_cop (28 Mar 2010)

Greymatters said:
			
		

> Even if it was official police business, is there a special rule that allows them to violate the MVA on the use of cellphones?
> 
> If so, are there situations where we too can use the same excuse?
> 
> If not, what kind of example is being set for the general public?



An MVA is a Motor Vehicle Accident.  Did you mean HTA? 

We are generally exempt from the HTA while in the performance of our duties, albeit if we cause an accident and we are at fault we will be held accountable.  So if you want to "use the same excuse" then step up, get a badge and serve.  Failing that, get a blue tooth or find a way to fit into the many other exemptions within the legislation.    

If you really need to get into the weeds, have a gander at this:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/source/regs/english/2009/elaws_src_regs_r09366_e.htm

ONTARIO REGULATION 366/09

made under the

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC ACT

Made: September 28, 2009
Filed: September 29, 2009
Published on e-Laws: September 30, 2009
Printed in The Ontario Gazette: October 17, 2009


DISPLAY SCREENS AND HAND-HELD DEVICES

Hand-Held Devices

Exemption for law enforcement officers

9.  The following persons, while engaged in the performance of their duties, may drive a motor vehicle on a highway while holding or using a hand-held wireless communication device:

1. Police officers, within the meaning of the Police Services Act.  


As for "setting an example", you are also suggesting that police effectiveness and operational security should take a back seat to misinformed public opinion?  Wow, I guess nobody in the military should ever be seen in public with an automatic weapon because the general public will think they should be allowed to carry around assault weapons too  :


----------



## Greymatters (28 Mar 2010)

I was looking for a more detailed explanation which would meet not only the original posters questions but also one I had myself.  Thats a very good explanation too, I wasnt aware of that exemption clause in Ontario.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Mar 2010)

Zipperhead 
Thank for posting the reg, legal or not, people will see the police officer doing it and will see a playing field that is not level, and that will piss them off, which will not help police in the long run. The argument to bring about the ban was that it was a distraction that could cause accidents. Since police officers are humans and the laws of physics also applies to them, it's clear they are at the same risk of being distracted (perhaps even more considering the amount they drive and our focusing on more than just the road) 

Frankly I think the law is a kneejerk overreaction in attempt to bubble wrap the world, but to have the police push this law and then exempt themselves leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I will take a look at the BC regs to see if an exemption is in place for them as well. There is no reason that the LEO can't use bluetooth either.


----------



## medaid (29 Mar 2010)

Colin,

There is an exemption for all Peace Officers, Paramedics, and Fire Fighters under the Motor Vehicle Act:

The Section of the Motor Vehicle Act:



> *Part 3.1 — Use of Electronic Devices while Driving
> Definitions*
> 
> 214.1  In this Part:
> ...


----------



## Kat Stevens (29 Mar 2010)

I don't think this law goes far enough.  Remove all cup holders from cars, drinking is a distraction.  Remove lighters and ashtrays, smoking is a distraction. Close all the drive-thrus, eating is a distraction.  Remove all radios, music is a distraction.  No kids in cars, shrieking is a distraction, in fact, forbid all passengers, conversation is a distraction.  Remove all billboards from the side of the road, a monstrous distraction.  That'll do for starters.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (29 Mar 2010)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Thank for posting the reg, legal or not, people will see the police officer doing it and will see a playing field that is not level, and that will piss them off, which will not help police in the long run.



Guess what?  We don't concern ourselves with being on a level playing field.  We _don't_ go punch for punch.  We _do_ shoot first if we can.  We _do_ get to drive really fast.  Such is the life of an officer.  Only non-officers see that as some sort of perk.



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> The argument to bring about the ban was that it was a distraction that could cause accidents. Since police officers are humans and the laws of physics also applies to them, it's clear they are at the same risk of being distracted (perhaps even more considering the amount they drive and our focusing on more than just the road)



Maybe.  We have had MDT's for years without catastrophe striking.  IMO the new law came in because of idiots that needed to check their wall on Facebook and other lame on-line interactions.  People have successfully driven with cell phones for years without issue.  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> Frankly I think the law is a kneejerk overreaction in attempt to bubble wrap the world



Agree 100%



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> but to have the police push this law and then exempt themselves leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. I will take a look at the BC regs to see if an exemption is in place for them as well.



If you put your mind to it, you can find all sorts of ways the law doesn't apply to an officer on duty.  Best get a nice big bottle of mouth wash.  While you are at it, perhaps take a look at who drafts laws.  They don't let us write our own anymore.  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> There is no reason that the LEO can't use bluetooth either.



Says the guy who doesn't have to concern himself with having a fist/foot/object driven upside his head.  



			
				Kat Stevens said:
			
		

> I don't think this law goes far enough.  Remove all cup holders from cars, drinking is a distraction.  Remove lighters and ashtrays, smoking is a distraction. Close all the drive-thrus, eating is a distraction.  Remove all radios, music is a distraction.  No kids in cars, shrieking is a distraction, in fact, forbid all passengers, conversation is a distraction.  Remove all billboards from the side of the road, a monstrous distraction.  That'll do for starters.



That would be wicked awesome!! (because we'd still be exempt
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





)


----------



## medaid (29 Mar 2010)

Its funny how I keep repeating myself everytime an issue with LEOs is brought up.

CF members don't like people who knows nothing about us tell us how, when, where, if we do our jobs. On top of that the same people criticize us on HOW we do our jobs, even though they've never done it before. What do we tell them? To stay in their lane and STFU.

However, when an issue with LEOs are raised, almost everyone on here has something negative to say about, how, when, if they do their jobs. On top of that we even call into their competencies on how their doing their jobs... Isn't it kind of ironic?

Just saying... Those of us CF members who gets pissed off because some civi tells you you're fracked in the head, and you go on a 13pg rant about, should really consider your own advice telling people to stay in their lane and STFU.

Just like you... Us LEOs think you're just a bunch of 'civis' that needs to stay in your lane and STFU too.


----------



## mariomike (29 Mar 2010)

zipperhead_cop said:
			
		

> We _do_ get to drive really fast.  Such is the life of an officer.  Only non-officers see that as some sort of perk.



I have heard "the need for speed" discussed since Day 1. Someone always says, "What are they trying to do, take away the last thing on the job that's fun?"  ;D

It's funny some of the guys you remember. A few, not many, of our old D.P.H. boys refused to take it over 30 M.P.H. when I started. There had apparently been some ancient rule that only they were old enough to remember. But, if it was a "Child Struck P.I." on the other side of town, suddenly the rule was forgotten. You'd brace your hands on the passenger dashboard, and say your prayers! hahaha


----------



## Colin Parkinson (29 Mar 2010)

Zipperhead
So you are telling me that that Police Services (ie Police Chiefs, etc) had absolutely no input into this law, sorry but that I can’t buy. In fact if I where to go to the consultation records for this Act. I bet I would find a submission from Police Associations and/or Police chiefs (along with EHS,fire) that sec. 214.3 should be added. I would also bet that the submission was based on their need to use their vehicle radio microphone, not talking on a cellphone.

As for the level playing field, it may be optics, but it will be optics that will cause you a world of grief and can get people in deep trouble. Police services are getting bad press, this just does not help. I hear people in my office making critical comments about this very issue. Care to have your department spend more valuable time trying to educate the public on this as well as everything else?

 As for the bitter taste, I have to enforce regulatory Acts on people and corporations, for me I despise regulations and Acts that exempt select groups, especially government. If the servants of the people are not willing to abide by a law, then there is something wrong with it. That belief applies to me in my job as well. I have taken flak for promoting such beliefs as well during recent legislation drafting.

As for Bluetooth being an issue when getting into fights, how many fights do you get into while driving down the road talking on the phone? I think most officers are capable of yanking it off themselves before getting out of the vehicle.  

Medtech thanks for posting the regs, the BC Gov servers were hanging on me, must not like Fed servers.

Under "fun" I also think having you picture taken while pretending to arrest some hot aussie tourist girls is perfectable acceptable.  :nod:


----------



## Sheerin (29 Mar 2010)

Are you seriously complaining becuase police, paramedics and (for some reason) fire are exempted from this law?  

Jeez.  Okay, you're a tax paying individual, just think of the additional expense police, EMS and (to a lesser extent) fire would have to take on if we weren't exempted from the cell phone bill.
You want to outfit each cop and medic with bluetooth headsets so when we're driving and need to make a call we can do so.  Well a decent bluetooth would cost about $100, to give you an idea the service I work for has 400+ paramedics, that's a capital expenditure of $40,000.    
Now you're thinking "why do we need one for each medic", well, do you really want to use the same bluetooth headset as someone else?  I don't.  Hell, I don't even share my stethoscope.  

And you know what, if you did outfit us all with bluetooth, we'd still be in violation of the law because of our radio's which we operate while driving, becuase of our computers and navigation devices.  

edited to fix bad math lol


----------



## Greymatters (29 Mar 2010)

Colin P said:
			
		

> I will take a look at the BC regs to see if an exemption is in place for them as well.



Our BC regs have that exemption.  Of note, many organizations, including the police and other services, are now playing catchup on getting bluetooth and built-in communication devices so that they dont have to use handheld devices while in vehicles...


----------



## Greymatters (29 Mar 2010)

Sheerin said:
			
		

> ... that's a capital expenditure of $400,000 (or the equivalent of ~2 ambulances).



Also equivalent to the salary for one senior executive of a government organization or major enterprise - pretty cheap when compared to the big picture and considered well-spent if it means a lower number of safety-related incidents...


----------



## zipperhead_cop (30 Mar 2010)

Colin P said:
			
		

> So you are telling me that that Police Services (ie Police Chiefs, etc) had absolutely no input into this law, sorry but that I can’t buy. In fact if I where to go to the consultation records for this Act. I bet I would find a submission from Police Associations and/or Police chiefs (along with EHS,fire) that sec. 214.3 should be added.



Fill your boots.  Then you wouldn't be talking out of your arse.  But that doesn't negate the fact that nobody in emergency services WRITES laws.  Of course they would have input.  You really think that the exemptions were created so we can check our Facebook accounts and text our girlfriends while we are going lights and sirens to a call?  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> I would also bet that the submission was based on their need to use their vehicle radio microphone, not talking on a cellphone.



_I_ would bet there wouldn't be a cell phone exemption if a bunch of people who are all familiar with risk management didn't think that it was a good idea.  If radios were the issue, it would have come up before this since we've had them since the 60's.  What else should we bet on?  Oooo!!  Who do you think is going to win the Stanley Cup?  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As for the level playing field, it may be optics, but it will be optics that will cause you a world of grief and can get people in deep trouble. Police services are getting bad press, this just does not help. I hear people in my office making critical comments about this very issue. Care to have your department spend more valuable time trying to educate the public on this as well as everything else?



Maybe some people need to worry about their own lives and let the people who protect them get on with it.  I don't see this being a huge issue.  I also don't see a lot of enforcement going on, at least around our parts.  So maybe,_ just maybe_, discretion will kick in and not everybody will get a bun for using a phone.  Yes, that terrifies some easily intimidated people who _for some implausible reason _ manage to get themselves a ticket every time they get stopped.  They also always blame the police for the enforcement action they talked themselves into.  So you'll have to forgive me if I don't get ramped up by your nattery gossip around the water cooler in your office when I'm on my phone trying to talk to a suicidal person in their home as I'm on the way to the call.  Doubtless, the dour looks would cause me to lose sleep if observed  :



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As for the bitter taste, I have to enforce regulatory Acts on people and corporations, for me I despise regulations and Acts that exempt select groups, especially government. If the servants of the people are not willing to abide by a law, then there is something wrong with it. That belief applies to me in my job as well. I have taken flak for promoting such beliefs as well during recent legislation drafting.



Where do you work, Algebra Canada?  Sounds like a drag.  



			
				Colin P said:
			
		

> As for Bluetooth being an issue when getting into fights, how many fights do you get into while driving down the road talking on the phone? I think most officers are capable of yanking it off themselves before getting out of the vehicle.



Yeah, but then again we don't need a blue tooth because we are exempt.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (30 Mar 2010)

Actaully it's a frigging great job, where I get to review project from Mom & pops dock to multi-million dollar mines projects.

As for talking out my arse, we have agreed that yes, police service routinly have input into proposed laws and amendments. I agree that the street level officer has little or no input but I am sure you are all to familar with this group of lobbyists http://www.cacp.ca/index/main

They have been busy enforcing it here. People might be a tad annoyed being ticketed for offense which was claimed by many Police Services PR persons as a apparent overwheleming safety issue, then watching the ticketing officer pass while talking on a cellphone. .

This subject is been well beaten, but I will depart with these words of advice, ignoring public opinion does not mean it goes away.


----------



## zipperhead_cop (31 Mar 2010)

So there ya go.  We haven't been worrying about it that much, so people aren't going to be all that bothered.  But if we do use our phones, I'm sure I don't have to explain "operational necessity" to you.  
If it makes you feel any better, I don't enforce speeding either since it would be hypocritical of me.


----------



## mariomike (31 Mar 2010)

Regarding the term "L.E.O."  
I never heard it used in Emergency Services. "Police" was the only word used on 9-1-1 calls.
Out of curiousity, I looked it up :
"The Municipal *Law Enforcement Officers' *Association":
http://www.mleoa.ca/Default.asp?Key=1

L.E.O.'s are responsible for many things:
Business and trade licensing
Noise Abatement and Control
Woodlot/Forestry Conservation
Weed Control
Fireworks
Animal control including DOLA ( Dog Owner's Liability Act )
Parking and Traffic
Property Standards
Building
Fire Protection
Lottery Licensing
Swimming pools and Fences
Tree cutting
Livestock and poultry
Waste Management and Recycling
Handicap Permits
Taxi Licencing
Signs and Advertising Devices, etc...
Smoking - Parks - Building and Plumbing - Public Halls - Environmental Pollutants -  
 Off-Road Vehicles - Zoning - Sewers and Septic Systems - Drainage - Heating - Weed Contol Act etc. etc.


----------



## medaid (1 Apr 2010)

LEO is more of an American term that's being slowly adopted up here. 

Down south it describes Law Enforcement Officers as in Police, Corrections, Sheriff, CBP/BP Agents and so forth. By Law is not considered as LEO in the traditional sense.


----------



## mariomike (1 Apr 2010)

MedTech said:
			
		

> LEO is more of an American term that's being slowly adopted up here.
> Down south it describes Law Enforcement Officers as in Police, Corrections, Sheriff, CBP/BP Agents and so forth. By Law is not considered as LEO in the traditional sense.



Thank-you for the clarification. My understanding of L.E.O. is as you explained it. Officers - such as the ones you mentioned - who are trained and equipped in the Use of Force.
By-Law officers do not use force ( as far as I know ). Although, they may be trained in self-defence. At least, that's the way I understand it.


----------



## Greymatters (1 Apr 2010)

When we use the term LEO in our company we are refering to officers from multiple departments.  Its easier to say LEO than to name off the six or so municipal and federal police departments working in the area.  In general we're refering to someone who has the authority from the city, province, or federal government to carry a weapon and to arrest someone.  

If someone in bylaw enforcement handing out parking tickets wants to call themselves an LEO, you really cant stop them from doing it, but thats not who we would be refering to...


----------

