Radar warning article brings deluge
Last week we reported on the case of Brad Diamond, the host of TSN's Motoring 2008, who was charged with flashing his headlights to warn oncoming traffic of a radar trap. The case was dismissed because the charging officer had "no evidence," according to the prosecutor.
We pointed out that the law under which Diamond had been charged – the Ontario Highway Traffic Act, Section 169 – was intended to prohibit civilian vehicles from impersonating emergency vehicles, which are the only ones allowed under this section to have "alternating" headlights – nothing at all to do with warning about radar.
The important question was whether Diamond was at fault for warning motorists that police were up ahead, ready to fine them if they were speeding, or if the police intent was for traffic to slow down – which Diamond was actually helping to make happen.
We expected some feedback, mainly from those of you who think we should never interfere with the activities of our Thin Blue Line.
Instead, we were inundated with hundreds of emails and letters. This issue is even bigger with readers than photo radar (although that did help bring down a government).
And we got it all: from letters full of bile toward Toronto's finest for harassing the citizenry, to emails urging Diamond be charged under the Criminal Code for "obstruction of justice."
In fact, in true Canadian fashion, everything from "eh?" to "zed," with the vast majority of the correspondence supporting our stance. Here are some of your letters:
A few months ago, I was pulled over on the same stretch of road and given the exact same ticket that Brad Diamond received.
The officer asked, "Is something wrong with your headlights?" I replied, "No," and then he walked back to his vehicle to write a ticket. When he returned, he simply told me not to do it again, without even clarifying exactly what I had done.
When I got home, I immediately looked up Section 169 and essentially found no law at all regulating this practice. However, like many others caught in this unfortunate situation, I neither had the time, the means nor patience to go through the court system. I simply knew I was charged unjustly, but nothing could be done.
It infuriates me to know that law-abiding citizens in Toronto are being unlawfully charged for this every day just because they want to help a fellow human.
This may be the last remnant of common courtesy in big cities, and the police are trying to squash it. If they're so strapped for cash, I would rather pay them in taxes than for them to charge me for made-up crimes. It's just not right.
Stephen Lee, Toronto
Uneducated rantings pit public against police
As a police officer (not in Toronto), I feel your article resembles the uneducated rantings of the general motoring public rather than the learned opinion of an automotive journalist.
The main issues here are:
Does speed enforcement contribute to road safety?
Does the risk posed by speeding outweigh the public's right to use warning measures (such as radar detectors or headlight flashing)?
We operate under a legislative framework that clearly answers "yes" to both questions. My brothers and sisters and I work within that framework and our organizations' policies and directives are based on it.
Instead of intelligently challenging the framework, you chose like everyone else to criticize its practitioners.
Your article won't necessarily stimulate discussion about the main issue, but will surely reinforce the separation between the public and the police.
Brent Thompson, Simcoe
This old trick goes a long way back
Your story reminded me of a very similar instance that took place in Westport, Conn., about 15 years ago. A car delivering newspapers by tossing them into driveways was weaving from one side of the road to the other. I flashed my lights to warn the driver of my presence.
Behind one of the driveways, a police cruiser with radar called ahead to have me pulled over. They told me that I was warning oncoming traffic about a radar trap. I found this daft, as the radar trap was in the direction I was heading and the cars being pulled over were beyond where I had flashed my lights.
Still, the police threatened to impound my car to search it. I signed the ticket and went to court. The actual law quoted on the ticket was clearly written to stop individuals from using "flashing/revolving" lights that were the reserve of emergency services. In fact, the driving manual in Connecticut advised drivers to use their headlights to communicate with other drivers.
As with Diamond's case, the officer in question did not turn up and the judge questioned why this was a standard policy by the police as it was clearly wrong.
It's funny – in a way – that decades later the same ploy is still being used.
Bill Lilley, Key West, Fla.
Bogus charges meant to create inconvenience
The purpose of Diamond's day in court was not to get a conviction, but to inconvenience him to the point where he will not do this again and lose another day's pay by going to court.
The police knew at the time the charges were bogus and would be withdrawn. They could have charged him with "obstructing traffic" if they wanted, knowing that it would be withdrawn. But the hit of losing a day's pay is more or less similar to a fine. They win either way.
Murray Eaton, Brampton
Reimburse drivers for `miscarriage of justice'
This is clearly a blatant miscarriage of justice on the part of the police, whether they did so knowingly or not.
I'm curious if there is any recourse for those drivers who unwittingly paid their fines assuming they were guilty of this "'infraction." They should definitely be reimbursed by the government for this injustice.
Ian Davidson, Toronto
It happened to me, so I became a lawyer
The same thing happened to me in 1976, when I was 18. I was westbound on Finch Ave. west of Bathurst St., saw a radar trap, and flashed my lights at eastbound traffic.
I was pulled over by a cop who warned me I could be charged with "obstructing police," which is a Criminal Code rather than a Highway Traffic Act offence, and results in a criminal record, if convicted. At 18, I found the prospect rather scary.
He actually charged me with having failed to sign my driver's licence. I went to court to defend it; he didn't show up and the charge was dismissed.
I've thought about it many times since then, and have always been of the view that encouraging people to slow down can't possibly be an offence, as it reduces the extent to which other people are committing offences; and that the police were being unreasonable and unfair. I would have been fully prepared to defend that in court.
I haven't refrained from flashing my lights because of that experience. I think this episode was part of what helped me to decide to become a lawyer.
David Sherman, Toronto
Police were exploiting ignorance of the law
As an articling student, I might also add that flashing one's lights is a form of communication, and therefore protected under Section 2 (b) of the Charter of Rights.
Given that there is no conceivable danger that would arise from a brief flash, the Crown would be unable to justify any prohibition under the Highway Traffic Act using Section 1 of the Charter (which states that rights are subject to reasonable limitations – such as in case of public safety).
I think the police in the case Jim Kenzie mentioned were essentially preying upon public ignorance of the law. Those who were less well-informed than Brad Diamond almost certainly paid their tickets.
I can guarantee you that the police – for whom I have a great deal of respect – knew that the charges were ill-founded.
Mike Barrenger, Newmarket
Courts back tactics that can destroy lives
As all too many of us know, inappropriate tickets are not just a matter of paying for something you did not do, they can destroy lives while the municipality laughs all the way to the bank.
As an advocate and auditor who works pro bono in Ontario communities, I have found over and over that police have got away with such tactics with the full support of the court. After all, it's a police officer's evidence, and who is the person charged but just a member of the public who pays the bills associated with false charges?
Those who have the guts of Jim Kenzie and go to bat for the public interest need an avenue such as the Toronto Star. Let's see a call go out to the public for more such articles.
Anne Marsden, Burlington
Let cops do their jobs to cut down speeding
I agree with your main premise: that police should not be charging someone for breaking a non-existent law. Instead, they should have charged Brad Diamond with obstructing justice.
I admit that years ago in another province, I would send a friendly "flash" to warn drivers about a speed trap. Older, maybe wiser, and living in Ontario, I no longer do it. Why? Two reasons:
If you think the speed limit is unreasonable, don't blame the police. Regulation without enforcement is meaningless.
That guy getting pulled over at the speed trap may be a chronic speeder who isn't thinking about other drivers on the road. Maybe being pulled over now will prevent him from one day plowing into your kids or mine. Maybe that guy you gave the friendly flash to is impaired or doesn't even have a licence.
The way traffic is today, police absolutely have to be "out there," making their presence known. I say let them do their job and stop obstructing justice.
Tim Pope, Brampton
Supervisors need to set errant officers straight
As someone who finished 35 years of being a police officer recently, many of them attending fatal collisions, I agree that the majority occur at night or in lousy weather, but many happen during the day on city streets, such as the situation Jim Kenzie described.
Flashing headlights is something that has gone on for eons. I do it often myself to warn others on highways, but not on city streets.
I totally agree with your description of how lame this charge is, and that the practice of laying charges and then just withdrawing them in court is reprehensible. Supervisors should be pointing out to the officers writing the charges that they're totally wrong and not applicable.
I hope this is followed up by someone at Toronto police, as it seems like no more than a group of officers figuring this is a unique way to punish someone on what is obviously a sham of a ticket.
Grahame Rumsby, Barrie
Site of `trap' actually a busy, dangerous corner
While I do agree with your stance on using headlights to indicate a radar trap, and the idiocy of prosecuting people who do so, I'd like to correct part of Jim Kenzie's column.
The police set up that speed trap at the eastern end of the viaduct because traffic often comes over the bridge up to a very busy intersection at speeds in excess of 75 km/h. And contrary to what you write, there is both a school and a retirement home on the western corners of Broadview and Danforth Aves.
I lived at that corner for almost five years and it is not safe – high traffic volumes, high speeds and drivers impatient to get on the Don Valley Parkway just as school is letting out create dangerous situations.
Adam Hotchin, Toronto
Speeding drivers deserve to get caught
I, too, live in the area and can tell you that it can be dangerous to cross the street because of speeding drivers coming east along Danforth and taking Broadview southbound. Some come around that turn almost on two wheels!
I do not warn oncoming drivers of a radar unit ahead. My reasoning is that if the driver is speeding, they deserve to be caught – maybe in future they will slow down. I learned my lesson many years ago. I think it's rather unfair of Jim Kenzie to suggest in his article that a collective "we" naturally would warn oncoming drivers just because the radar location wasn't in a more dangerous location.
I agree that there are too many "fishing holes" in Toronto, but they do serve a purpose. I was present at one when a taxi was stopped doing 104 km/h in a 40 km/h zone. Fortunately for the cabbie, it was just days before the street racing law came into effect, but what if someone like Brad Diamond had warned him? Does anyone really want a car driving that fast in downtown Toronto, just because the traffic was light enough to permit it?
Clive Reddin, Toronto
Police could have laid more serious charge
I seem to recall a case from many years ago in which the court determined that flashing headlights in this way constituted the criminal offence of "attempt to obstruct justice." My guess is that police officers have developed the policy of using the section of the Highway Traffic Act to which the article referred as a method for dealing with this practice that's less heavy-handed than laying criminal charges.
Peter Maloney, Changchun, China
Shift focus to broader range of offences
Instead of setting up speed traps on deserted roads, why don't the police ticket drivers who drive with fog lights when there is no fog? Or drivers driving with high beams on? Or the ones with burnt-out headlamps? How about the large number of cars that don't have working daytime running lights?
If you do this, police, you should have no problem meeting your daily ticket quota, and actually end your shift early. And it will do more to improving traffic safety than catching radar trap "busters."
Drazen Belosevic, Georgetown
Video: Chevrolet Sonic a small car with a big car price
These four affordable, mid-size SUVs are worth a look
Rick Hendrick buys first Chevrolet Camaro ZL1 in Oshawa
