Hey Alberta! Get ready for some changes to your friendly, neighborhood impaired driving laws.
Transportation Minister Ric McIver laid out the ground rules on Monday. The legal limit isn't changing, but the penalties are. And they're not sitting well with some people.
Here's the basics: starting July 1st, if you provide a breath sample that registers over .08, your vehicle will be impounded for 72 hours (up from the previous 24 hours) and you lose your license indefinitely. What does "indefinitely" mean? It means until the process is done making its way through the court system. Which could be awhile, especially if you've seen some of the waits people are going through to set trial dates (AT LEAST six months).
The #1 question on everyone's mind: isn't this "guilty until proven innocent?" I'll let you be the judge of that. But McIver did reply to one of our questions by saying it's exactly the same way as how you're treated with any other criminal code offense. You're taken into custody (aka your freedoms are taken away) and you make your way into our justice system. Fair enough analogy. But I can already tell you what's going to be on the front page of your local newspaper within a week or two of these new rules going into effect: someone claiming they've been fired after losing their license, where driving was integral to their job. And you know what? That same person is probably going to claim that they are innocent. It might be a badly-calibrated breathalyzer or the officer didn't have reason to pull the person over in the first place. Whatever the case may be, it wasn't their fault they were caught.
Yup. I went there. "They were caught." It's the only reason anyone ever really starts complaining when it comes to impaired driving. Covering docket courts for a few years, you get a really good idea about all the excuses out there for why someone was out drinking and driving. McIver spent 20+ minutes up at the podium and I was waiting for him to say one thing that he never said: "if you don't want to get your license taken away, don't drink and drive." That's what this boils down to. Here's another way of looking at it: for years we've been bombarded with the "don't drink and drive" message yet people still did it and, for the most part, it was "don't drink and drive unless you've only had a couple and, in which case, you're free to go." This is taking a harder line approach to it.
Now, it's my understanding that starting in September is when you can replace the .08 with a .05. Blow over .05 and you're into that "No License, No Car, No Mercy" situation. Again, it's the province playing hard ball. McIver's not afraid of any constitutional challenges.
Here's where things get a little murky. What happens if John Smith gets pulled over and is charged, yet is found NOT GUILTY in the criminal courts? McIver was asked if there'd be any compensation for, let's say, loss of job. No dice apparently. My guess it's THAT part that's not going to fly with a few people. You know the province's opposition parties are going to jump all over this legislation like flies on...well...ya know. They're going to say that the problem isn't the .08 or the penalties, the problem is enforcement. "We need more officers on the street catching these menaces." And we all know that groups like MADD will be happy the province is moving closer to a "zero tolerance" policy. It's a "good step" they will say.
But let's cut the posturing and hoopla. Brass tax: it's ultimately up to individual drivers to take that step in not drinking and driving IN THE FIRST PLACE. Remember how much everyone groaned when seatbelts became mandatory? It was such an inconvenience they said. Yet, I was speaking with Cst. Jim Lebedeff of the Calgary Police Service a while back and, if memory serves me right, he said more than 92% of Albertans buckle up. We got over it. So why is it that Albertans continue to cry rivers over something like drinking and driving?
Monday, June 18, 2012
Sunday, June 10, 2012
The Public Relations Battle
I have to be careful how I write this next entry. Don't want to make any PR flack upset with me. But let's face it: the media's relationship with public relations teams can be...challenging. And I'm sure the public relations teams thoughts of the media aren't exactly peachy either. Dare I say: love/hate.
Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic PR people out there. I'd argue the majority are actually pretty good. But there are also some that we, as reporters, hate dealing with. It's not even that they're bad people. Sometimes, it's just a matter of "policy" that gets in the way.
Let me give you an example. I hear it all the time how, in the old days, you could call up anyone to get comment on something and there would be no repercussions for doing so. Those same people you used to call now say that the reporter must "call the media relations team" first and they will set up the interview. In some cases, that same team will ask for your questions before you're even allowed to ask. Which is kind of difficult as a lot of time, our questions will be based on what the answer is to the question before. You see, I've always viewed an "interview" as a "conversation". The "story" is what comes out of that conversation. Pretty simple stuff.
When dealing with some PR people, the response to my questions can sometimes be funny. My favorite line is "I don't see how that's a story". You might as well be saying "you have no idea how much of a story this will become if you dig deep enough". My approach is pretty simple: if people are talking about it, it's probably worth checking into. The general lack of understanding of radio is sometimes baffling too. The line is always "when's your deadline?" Ummmm...how about "now"? Radio is about as instant as you can get. When you have legitimate breaking news, radio is where people turn to for facts-based news (no disrespect to social media here, but rumours spread like wildfire there, whereas traditional media still has its checks and balances, but that's a different story for a different day). So by delaying your response, you're only making it more difficult for our listeners (aka people affected by the situation) to get the information they need.
An interesting example of this is rural RCMP detachments. I had one situation a few years ago where listeners told us about a plane crash. We called to confirm it but the spokesperson at the time (who is no longer employed by the RCMP) told us "I don't know what you're talking about." So we went to the area where we were told it happened. As we entered the scene, guess who happened to be there? The officer/flack. She was a little more forthcoming with information at that point. I will say the situation with the RCMP has been a lot better in Southern Alberta since then with Patrick Webb (who just recently retired). We also have situations where the team will say "a release is being emailed". That's all well and good but, for radio purposes, we'd like to get some audio. And you know, ask some questions. There is a fine line between getting the information out there and controlling the message.
Now here's where things get a little shaky. Can we call out an organization for having shotty media relations practices? To a certain extent perhaps. On election night, the Wildrose Party had a "lottery" to determine order of one-on-one interviews with leader Danielle Smith after the votes were tallied. We were under the impression this would happen win or lose. But when they lost, we were suddenly told that the one-on-ones would only happen if they won. They even said they wouldn't put her into a "scrum" (those situations where you see a bunch of microphones in front of someone's face and me in the background of the TV shots looking serious). A few of us went on-air/online to point this out and half an hour later, an impromptu scrum was held. But in the past, there's been similar situations, then when you call them a few weeks later to talk about another story, they say they're not granting the interview request because of what you've said.
It can be like walking on eggshells sometimes. Some call it "playing the game". But both sides of this argument need to understand one thing: we need each other. Public/media relations people need the media to get "the message" out there and in a timely fashion. And media needs public/media relations people in order to get the information and, eventually, the story. It's our listeners/viewers/readers (aka people affected by what's going on) that will win once everyone figures all of this out.
Don't get me wrong, there are some fantastic PR people out there. I'd argue the majority are actually pretty good. But there are also some that we, as reporters, hate dealing with. It's not even that they're bad people. Sometimes, it's just a matter of "policy" that gets in the way.
Let me give you an example. I hear it all the time how, in the old days, you could call up anyone to get comment on something and there would be no repercussions for doing so. Those same people you used to call now say that the reporter must "call the media relations team" first and they will set up the interview. In some cases, that same team will ask for your questions before you're even allowed to ask. Which is kind of difficult as a lot of time, our questions will be based on what the answer is to the question before. You see, I've always viewed an "interview" as a "conversation". The "story" is what comes out of that conversation. Pretty simple stuff.
When dealing with some PR people, the response to my questions can sometimes be funny. My favorite line is "I don't see how that's a story". You might as well be saying "you have no idea how much of a story this will become if you dig deep enough". My approach is pretty simple: if people are talking about it, it's probably worth checking into. The general lack of understanding of radio is sometimes baffling too. The line is always "when's your deadline?" Ummmm...how about "now"? Radio is about as instant as you can get. When you have legitimate breaking news, radio is where people turn to for facts-based news (no disrespect to social media here, but rumours spread like wildfire there, whereas traditional media still has its checks and balances, but that's a different story for a different day). So by delaying your response, you're only making it more difficult for our listeners (aka people affected by the situation) to get the information they need.
An interesting example of this is rural RCMP detachments. I had one situation a few years ago where listeners told us about a plane crash. We called to confirm it but the spokesperson at the time (who is no longer employed by the RCMP) told us "I don't know what you're talking about." So we went to the area where we were told it happened. As we entered the scene, guess who happened to be there? The officer/flack. She was a little more forthcoming with information at that point. I will say the situation with the RCMP has been a lot better in Southern Alberta since then with Patrick Webb (who just recently retired). We also have situations where the team will say "a release is being emailed". That's all well and good but, for radio purposes, we'd like to get some audio. And you know, ask some questions. There is a fine line between getting the information out there and controlling the message.
Now here's where things get a little shaky. Can we call out an organization for having shotty media relations practices? To a certain extent perhaps. On election night, the Wildrose Party had a "lottery" to determine order of one-on-one interviews with leader Danielle Smith after the votes were tallied. We were under the impression this would happen win or lose. But when they lost, we were suddenly told that the one-on-ones would only happen if they won. They even said they wouldn't put her into a "scrum" (those situations where you see a bunch of microphones in front of someone's face and me in the background of the TV shots looking serious). A few of us went on-air/online to point this out and half an hour later, an impromptu scrum was held. But in the past, there's been similar situations, then when you call them a few weeks later to talk about another story, they say they're not granting the interview request because of what you've said.
It can be like walking on eggshells sometimes. Some call it "playing the game". But both sides of this argument need to understand one thing: we need each other. Public/media relations people need the media to get "the message" out there and in a timely fashion. And media needs public/media relations people in order to get the information and, eventually, the story. It's our listeners/viewers/readers (aka people affected by what's going on) that will win once everyone figures all of this out.
Monday, May 28, 2012
"The Transient"
I'm tired of moving. No, I'm not contemplating another move. In fact, the next time that happens better be when a house or condo is purchased. But the past couple of weeks have rendered a few interesting conversations where the main talking point is about moving/switching jobs.
This is always one of those questions we get as reporters: where all have you lived? I've been pretty lucky. Since graduating at Lethbridge College in April '05, I've lived in three cities. The bad part is that I've lived in two of those cities twice. I've worked in Lloydminster (CKSA/LloydFM July '05-July '06), Medicine Hat (CHAT/MY96, July '06-March '07), Calgary (QR77/Country 105/Q107, March '07-May '08), Medicine Hat (CJCY, May '08-August '10) and Calgary (QR/Country/Q, August '10-now). I also moved within city limits during two of those stints. Let's just say my belongings are a little travel-weary.
A friend of mine is making a move soon and she's concerned about not having a lot of time (2 weeks) between her current job and her soon-to-be job. So I thought I'd share one of my horror stories of moving. It happened while moving from Lloyd to Medicine Hat. I was working mornings and my last day was on a Friday. That afternoon, I packed up what I could and made the trek down to the farm, where some of my stuff would stay for a while. At about 5am Saturday, I got into my dad's truck and started the trek back up to Lloyd to pick up the rest of my stuff. About ten minutes from the farm, I hit a deer. Didn't do a lot of damage but enough that I had to turn around and grab my own truck ('69 Chevy with no AC for those hot SE Alberta days in July) and ventured up to Lloyd again. Grabbed my stuff, cleaned my apartment and made the 5(ish) hour drive down Highway 41 to Medicine Hat. Arrived at about 9pm. Slept on a couch and woke up at 5am on Sunday to train for my new job doing morning news on MY96. You guessed it. Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for my first show on the Monday. I'll NEVER do that again. Ever. But it does go to show that nothing is impossible!
And once you make the move, then it is time to get to work. You have to know everything about your new surroundings as quickly as possible. Learn the names of all the communities, get to know some of the business types, take in a few sporting events. The move I think about it, the more the first years of my career were an absolute blur. As much as you think you're on top of the game, it's not until later that you realize you might have been a step behind.
When you leave for bigger and better things, it's hard not to take a look back. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some reporters say they still check up on some of the communities they once worked in. I know for me, it still gets me furled up thinking about the debacle that has become the new Events Centre for Medicine Hat. And I'm always a little curious about different stories I remember talking about in Lloyd. We, reporters, are a transient bunch. We leave a piece of our hearts in each place we work. And sometimes we leave a little more, like couches and lamps...
This is always one of those questions we get as reporters: where all have you lived? I've been pretty lucky. Since graduating at Lethbridge College in April '05, I've lived in three cities. The bad part is that I've lived in two of those cities twice. I've worked in Lloydminster (CKSA/LloydFM July '05-July '06), Medicine Hat (CHAT/MY96, July '06-March '07), Calgary (QR77/Country 105/Q107, March '07-May '08), Medicine Hat (CJCY, May '08-August '10) and Calgary (QR/Country/Q, August '10-now). I also moved within city limits during two of those stints. Let's just say my belongings are a little travel-weary.
A friend of mine is making a move soon and she's concerned about not having a lot of time (2 weeks) between her current job and her soon-to-be job. So I thought I'd share one of my horror stories of moving. It happened while moving from Lloyd to Medicine Hat. I was working mornings and my last day was on a Friday. That afternoon, I packed up what I could and made the trek down to the farm, where some of my stuff would stay for a while. At about 5am Saturday, I got into my dad's truck and started the trek back up to Lloyd to pick up the rest of my stuff. About ten minutes from the farm, I hit a deer. Didn't do a lot of damage but enough that I had to turn around and grab my own truck ('69 Chevy with no AC for those hot SE Alberta days in July) and ventured up to Lloyd again. Grabbed my stuff, cleaned my apartment and made the 5(ish) hour drive down Highway 41 to Medicine Hat. Arrived at about 9pm. Slept on a couch and woke up at 5am on Sunday to train for my new job doing morning news on MY96. You guessed it. Bright-eyed and bushy-tailed for my first show on the Monday. I'll NEVER do that again. Ever. But it does go to show that nothing is impossible!
And once you make the move, then it is time to get to work. You have to know everything about your new surroundings as quickly as possible. Learn the names of all the communities, get to know some of the business types, take in a few sporting events. The move I think about it, the more the first years of my career were an absolute blur. As much as you think you're on top of the game, it's not until later that you realize you might have been a step behind.
When you leave for bigger and better things, it's hard not to take a look back. I wouldn't be too surprised to hear some reporters say they still check up on some of the communities they once worked in. I know for me, it still gets me furled up thinking about the debacle that has become the new Events Centre for Medicine Hat. And I'm always a little curious about different stories I remember talking about in Lloyd. We, reporters, are a transient bunch. We leave a piece of our hearts in each place we work. And sometimes we leave a little more, like couches and lamps...
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Removing The "Human Element"
You never forget your first.
No. Not THAT. I'm talking about murders, trials and dead bodies. Some of the things that you see as a reporter can be good or indifferent. But in some cases, it's bad. So bad, in fact, that I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy."
What made me think of this topic was the murder trial which I began covering today. It's the case of two men accused in an alleged murder-for-hire plot which played out in Calgary in January 2006. It happened just before I moved to the city the first time. During my training, this case was at the preliminary hearing phase. It became the first trial I ever covered in Calgary from start-to-finish, and if memory serves me right, the jury came back with its verdict on a Saturday. It was also the first time I was subjected to crime scene photos and video. You get to see everything as nothing has been touched by police yet.
In this particular case, it opens up with some distant video and you can make out a body. By the end, you're getting visuals of the dead man from every possible angle. The gunshot wounds, the puddle of blood the body is in, the lifeless look in his face. For a rookie reporter, it was daunting. But you have to put the "human element" in the back of your mind and report the story.
I'll admit I haven't spent a LOT of years (seven) in this business, but you have a ton of these moments. The images that will stick with me the most are from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. It didn't really register with me until seeing the pictures of the little boy with his throat slashed, his body lying on his bed. And I've been to fatal crashes and all sorts of murder scenes where you're literally a few yards from the bodies. Nothing hit me quite like that.
It sounds bad, but as a reporter, you have to take out the "human element". I tend to think of these situations as being a bad movie or TV show. Otherwise, it can be really tough to not lose your mind thinking about some of the things you have to see on a day-to-day basis. I can't imagine being a first-responder in situations like these, being subjected to these situations on a daily basis (or more). The only thing I can think is that you have to find some sort of healthy balance to maintain your sanity. You hug your loved ones just a little harder and tell them you love them just one more time.
No. Not THAT. I'm talking about murders, trials and dead bodies. Some of the things that you see as a reporter can be good or indifferent. But in some cases, it's bad. So bad, in fact, that I've said it before and I'll say it again: "I wouldn't wish it upon my worst enemy."
What made me think of this topic was the murder trial which I began covering today. It's the case of two men accused in an alleged murder-for-hire plot which played out in Calgary in January 2006. It happened just before I moved to the city the first time. During my training, this case was at the preliminary hearing phase. It became the first trial I ever covered in Calgary from start-to-finish, and if memory serves me right, the jury came back with its verdict on a Saturday. It was also the first time I was subjected to crime scene photos and video. You get to see everything as nothing has been touched by police yet.
In this particular case, it opens up with some distant video and you can make out a body. By the end, you're getting visuals of the dead man from every possible angle. The gunshot wounds, the puddle of blood the body is in, the lifeless look in his face. For a rookie reporter, it was daunting. But you have to put the "human element" in the back of your mind and report the story.
I'll admit I haven't spent a LOT of years (seven) in this business, but you have a ton of these moments. The images that will stick with me the most are from the Medicine Hat triple-murder case. It didn't really register with me until seeing the pictures of the little boy with his throat slashed, his body lying on his bed. And I've been to fatal crashes and all sorts of murder scenes where you're literally a few yards from the bodies. Nothing hit me quite like that.
It sounds bad, but as a reporter, you have to take out the "human element". I tend to think of these situations as being a bad movie or TV show. Otherwise, it can be really tough to not lose your mind thinking about some of the things you have to see on a day-to-day basis. I can't imagine being a first-responder in situations like these, being subjected to these situations on a daily basis (or more). The only thing I can think is that you have to find some sort of healthy balance to maintain your sanity. You hug your loved ones just a little harder and tell them you love them just one more time.
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Taking Some Responsibility
As a reporter, you try to keep yourself as unbiased as possible. You're supposed to think of everyone as innocent until proven guilty. You're supposed to give everyone the benefit of the doubt but at the same time you can't be afraid to ask the tough questions. Yet the one question that continually rises in my head is: when will some people simply take responsibility for their actions?
The one area where this aggravates me more than usual is through our criminal justice system. You can't blame the police as they do all they can (in most cases) to gather enough evidence and bring it to the Crown, who will put its best case together in hopes of laying appropriate charges which will result in the highest likelihood of conviction. The judges are also bound by the Criminal Code of Canada and, once convicted, sentences are likely going to fall in a range set out through previous cases. I get it.
What bugs me more than anything is watching the sense of entitlement some criminals have in using the system to their benefit. I've covered my fair share of trials in my short career but it never ceases to amaze me at how often those found guilty will appeal. They either don't like the charge they were found guilty of or they don't like the sentence. So they bog down the justice system even more by putting the case through the ringer again. And it's usually based on some wording the judge used or some sort of "out there" hypothesis which the defense believes wasn't taken into consideration. Even though the evidence clearly shows the person convicted was responsible. But they've sunk a ton of money into lawyers, so what's another few years of dragging the case through the system one more time? Let's subject the families, friends and witnesses through the pains and struggles one more time, just to see if you can get a six-year sentence instead of a seven-year sentence.
One case that has always bugged me is Daniel Tschetter. Here's an interested piece I found:
http://www.cochraneeagle.com/2009/03/tschetter-laments-media-coverage-of-lethal-crash-trial/
He was behind the wheel of a cement truck which slammed into the back of a car on Macleod Trail in Calgary's south end in 2007, killing five people inside. Witnesses say they saw Tschetter get out of his cab, hop onto the back and throw something into the mixer. They say it was a vodka bottle. He was eventually convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to about six years in prison. You read that right: six years. For killing five people. And yet, if you read the article I've posted above, it's the "media's fault" for him being portrayed poorly. Right.
Here's a recent story which has my blood boiling:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/05/10-year-olds-death-crushes-community
What boggles my mind about this one is that people know who did this. There was supposedly more than one person in the offending vehicle. Instead of manning up and taking responsibility (or at least coming forward with their story), people are staying silent. A 10-year-old girl is dead and people are trying to protect the person who is responsible. Disgusting.
I get it. Not everyone has a great moral compass. Some people have reputations and egos on the line. But let me ask: when will we start taking responsibility for our actions?
The one area where this aggravates me more than usual is through our criminal justice system. You can't blame the police as they do all they can (in most cases) to gather enough evidence and bring it to the Crown, who will put its best case together in hopes of laying appropriate charges which will result in the highest likelihood of conviction. The judges are also bound by the Criminal Code of Canada and, once convicted, sentences are likely going to fall in a range set out through previous cases. I get it.
What bugs me more than anything is watching the sense of entitlement some criminals have in using the system to their benefit. I've covered my fair share of trials in my short career but it never ceases to amaze me at how often those found guilty will appeal. They either don't like the charge they were found guilty of or they don't like the sentence. So they bog down the justice system even more by putting the case through the ringer again. And it's usually based on some wording the judge used or some sort of "out there" hypothesis which the defense believes wasn't taken into consideration. Even though the evidence clearly shows the person convicted was responsible. But they've sunk a ton of money into lawyers, so what's another few years of dragging the case through the system one more time? Let's subject the families, friends and witnesses through the pains and struggles one more time, just to see if you can get a six-year sentence instead of a seven-year sentence.
One case that has always bugged me is Daniel Tschetter. Here's an interested piece I found:
http://www.cochraneeagle.com/2009/03/tschetter-laments-media-coverage-of-lethal-crash-trial/
He was behind the wheel of a cement truck which slammed into the back of a car on Macleod Trail in Calgary's south end in 2007, killing five people inside. Witnesses say they saw Tschetter get out of his cab, hop onto the back and throw something into the mixer. They say it was a vodka bottle. He was eventually convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to about six years in prison. You read that right: six years. For killing five people. And yet, if you read the article I've posted above, it's the "media's fault" for him being portrayed poorly. Right.
Here's a recent story which has my blood boiling:
http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/05/05/10-year-olds-death-crushes-community
What boggles my mind about this one is that people know who did this. There was supposedly more than one person in the offending vehicle. Instead of manning up and taking responsibility (or at least coming forward with their story), people are staying silent. A 10-year-old girl is dead and people are trying to protect the person who is responsible. Disgusting.
I get it. Not everyone has a great moral compass. Some people have reputations and egos on the line. But let me ask: when will we start taking responsibility for our actions?
Monday, May 7, 2012
The Blame Game Continues
There's no such thing as an "accident".
Those words, from a driver's education teacher a few years back, continue to echo in my head. Especially when we start the discussion over Highway 63 heading to Fort McMurray. The political hot potato hasn't been passed around more often than it has in the last ten days, since a fiery crash killed seven people.
By no means am I trying to diminish the true tragedy of another death on the highway. But let's have a full discussion over this roadway. Let's not rush to the "twin it" argument that has been resonating across the province. That may very well be the solution but I have some reservations about blaming the road for all the problems. In fact, I've never been a fan of calling any road "dangerous". At what point do we turn the blame on the drivers?
We just received statistics from RCMP that they pulled over and charged nearly 700 drivers on Highway 63 in a four-day span (last Thursday to Sunday). That's more than twice what they usually see. More than 500 of those were for speeding while another 90(ish) were for "hazardous operation" like dangerous driving. For a two-lane highway, these numbers are mind-boggling. It's quite obvious that drivers aren't getting the message. And they won't. Call me a pessimist, but as my reply to a question on Twitter about this very issue alludes to: "time is money". These drivers obviously don't care about speed limits because they feel invincible. They also realize that the chances of getting pulled over aren't great, so getting home a few minutes earlier will mean a few more dollars in the bank or a little more time with their loved ones or whatever the case may be.
I pose this question to you: do you think that speeding will decrease with the twinning of Highway 63? I will say no. In fact, I believe the numbers will increase if you twin the roadway. Think about it for a second: you now don't have to worry about on-coming traffic when you try to pass that semi that has slowed down because of power loss going up a hill or that camper that isn't made for a 110km/h pace of traffic. Those who speed will speed, regardless of what you do.
The only thing twinning the roadway will solve will be decreasing the number of head-on crashes we see. And with the amount of traffic that takes that highway, that in itself is a good idea, because we've seen the stats on the number of fatalities. We've seen the pictures and videos. We've heard the horror stories. The roadway is too congested for two lanes. I think we can all accept that.
But, as some would say, we "can't fix stupid". That's ultimately the issue we're trying to solve. Do we increase the fines for speeding? More demerits? Do we start fining the companies as well as the drivers for those caught speeding in company vehicles? Driver error is one thing. But ignorance is another. People are too concerned about getting to where they need to go that they don't think that they're putting their own lives in their own hands, let alone the lives of everyone else on the road. It would be interesting to see how many distracted driving tickets would be handed out on that highway.
Going back to that first line of this blog entry: there's no such thing as an "accident". The driving instructor explained to the class that all "accidents" in vehicles are avoidable. Everyone needs to do their part in taking responsibility for their own actions. Yet, responsibility is something many are too quick to toss into another person's lap. And in many cases along Highway 63, it's ending in tragedy.
Those words, from a driver's education teacher a few years back, continue to echo in my head. Especially when we start the discussion over Highway 63 heading to Fort McMurray. The political hot potato hasn't been passed around more often than it has in the last ten days, since a fiery crash killed seven people.
By no means am I trying to diminish the true tragedy of another death on the highway. But let's have a full discussion over this roadway. Let's not rush to the "twin it" argument that has been resonating across the province. That may very well be the solution but I have some reservations about blaming the road for all the problems. In fact, I've never been a fan of calling any road "dangerous". At what point do we turn the blame on the drivers?
We just received statistics from RCMP that they pulled over and charged nearly 700 drivers on Highway 63 in a four-day span (last Thursday to Sunday). That's more than twice what they usually see. More than 500 of those were for speeding while another 90(ish) were for "hazardous operation" like dangerous driving. For a two-lane highway, these numbers are mind-boggling. It's quite obvious that drivers aren't getting the message. And they won't. Call me a pessimist, but as my reply to a question on Twitter about this very issue alludes to: "time is money". These drivers obviously don't care about speed limits because they feel invincible. They also realize that the chances of getting pulled over aren't great, so getting home a few minutes earlier will mean a few more dollars in the bank or a little more time with their loved ones or whatever the case may be.
I pose this question to you: do you think that speeding will decrease with the twinning of Highway 63? I will say no. In fact, I believe the numbers will increase if you twin the roadway. Think about it for a second: you now don't have to worry about on-coming traffic when you try to pass that semi that has slowed down because of power loss going up a hill or that camper that isn't made for a 110km/h pace of traffic. Those who speed will speed, regardless of what you do.
The only thing twinning the roadway will solve will be decreasing the number of head-on crashes we see. And with the amount of traffic that takes that highway, that in itself is a good idea, because we've seen the stats on the number of fatalities. We've seen the pictures and videos. We've heard the horror stories. The roadway is too congested for two lanes. I think we can all accept that.
But, as some would say, we "can't fix stupid". That's ultimately the issue we're trying to solve. Do we increase the fines for speeding? More demerits? Do we start fining the companies as well as the drivers for those caught speeding in company vehicles? Driver error is one thing. But ignorance is another. People are too concerned about getting to where they need to go that they don't think that they're putting their own lives in their own hands, let alone the lives of everyone else on the road. It would be interesting to see how many distracted driving tickets would be handed out on that highway.
Going back to that first line of this blog entry: there's no such thing as an "accident". The driving instructor explained to the class that all "accidents" in vehicles are avoidable. Everyone needs to do their part in taking responsibility for their own actions. Yet, responsibility is something many are too quick to toss into another person's lap. And in many cases along Highway 63, it's ending in tragedy.
Saturday, May 5, 2012
Sensitive In A Dangerous Time
I remember the story like it was yesterday. I remember his name (though I won't use it). I remember what he looks like. And I remember how it was a shock to a city of 60,000 people.
Back in 2009, the young man was charged with the armed robbery of a Medicine Hat convenience store. If memory serves me right it happened late-afternoon, so it obviously had a few people in disbelief as that kind of thing just "doesn't happen" in their community. His name was released as soon as the arrest was made and everyone went about their business.
As our newsroom did with all crime stories that we named the suspect in, we followed the case in court. I remember the first court appearance the young man made and I knew something wasn't right. His mother was sitting in the front row (as she did through most of the court appearances I witnessed). He walked in and despite being 25-years-old, he looked much older. He looked ashamed. And right from the beginning, lawyers were treating it differently. This was sensitive. We knew he had mental health issues. He had a learning disability.
I left Medicine Hat before the case came to a conclusion in court but a quick search on my old station's archive uncovered that the young man was deemed unfit to stand trial as he wouldn't have been able to properly deal with the situation. The unfortunate thing is that we see this situation unfold when covering crime and courts, more often than you would think. Sometimes it's the suspect. Sometimes it's the complainant.
This begs an interesting question: how do you strike a balance between keeping everyone informed about what has deeply affected their community versus being sensitive to the fact that the person may not totally understand what they have done and it may not do them any good to have their name all over the radio/TV/newspaper/internet? Since that first court appearance, I was uneasy using his name in our news reports simply for that reason. But at the same time, in the end, his name was cleared in a roundabout way. And people became a little more understanding of his situation.
Another example would be Randall Hopley. He was accused of kidnapping Kienan Hebert in Sparwood last fall. Some have called into question whether he may have a learning disability of some kind. The way RCMP handled their message through the media to Hopley had me questioning it from the on-set. It was never "we are going to get you". It was always "we know you have a story to tell, so bring Kienan home and we will help tell your story". Almost as if they were speaking to a child.
Should we be seeing these "criminals" as villains? Or should they be looked at as people who need help? Again, does it do anyone any good to continue putting them into the spotlight when, in many cases, they have needs far beyond a jail cell.
And it's a difficult balance to strike even when a situation is playing out. Take a look at when a kid says someone tried to pull them into a van. Police are working off the best information they have and they pass it on to the media, who gets it out there. Hours and days are spent searching for a suspect or a vehicle or any kind of lead that will get them an arrest and let people rest a little easier at night. But after a while, we hear the story was made up by the young boy or girl. You need to err on the side of caution and I get that. But the question has been raised in many newsrooms: how serious do we take these situations? A community needs to know something may have happened. There will undoubtedly be discomfort felt by residents letting their kids go out and play. You have to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt. But the sad reality is it's almost a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Who do you believe?
I don't think there is a solid answer to any of the questions raised here. I do believe though, that in all cases, don't judge any book by its cover. Let all the facts get out there before anyone is made out to be the "villain".
Back in 2009, the young man was charged with the armed robbery of a Medicine Hat convenience store. If memory serves me right it happened late-afternoon, so it obviously had a few people in disbelief as that kind of thing just "doesn't happen" in their community. His name was released as soon as the arrest was made and everyone went about their business.
As our newsroom did with all crime stories that we named the suspect in, we followed the case in court. I remember the first court appearance the young man made and I knew something wasn't right. His mother was sitting in the front row (as she did through most of the court appearances I witnessed). He walked in and despite being 25-years-old, he looked much older. He looked ashamed. And right from the beginning, lawyers were treating it differently. This was sensitive. We knew he had mental health issues. He had a learning disability.
I left Medicine Hat before the case came to a conclusion in court but a quick search on my old station's archive uncovered that the young man was deemed unfit to stand trial as he wouldn't have been able to properly deal with the situation. The unfortunate thing is that we see this situation unfold when covering crime and courts, more often than you would think. Sometimes it's the suspect. Sometimes it's the complainant.
This begs an interesting question: how do you strike a balance between keeping everyone informed about what has deeply affected their community versus being sensitive to the fact that the person may not totally understand what they have done and it may not do them any good to have their name all over the radio/TV/newspaper/internet? Since that first court appearance, I was uneasy using his name in our news reports simply for that reason. But at the same time, in the end, his name was cleared in a roundabout way. And people became a little more understanding of his situation.
Another example would be Randall Hopley. He was accused of kidnapping Kienan Hebert in Sparwood last fall. Some have called into question whether he may have a learning disability of some kind. The way RCMP handled their message through the media to Hopley had me questioning it from the on-set. It was never "we are going to get you". It was always "we know you have a story to tell, so bring Kienan home and we will help tell your story". Almost as if they were speaking to a child.
Should we be seeing these "criminals" as villains? Or should they be looked at as people who need help? Again, does it do anyone any good to continue putting them into the spotlight when, in many cases, they have needs far beyond a jail cell.
And it's a difficult balance to strike even when a situation is playing out. Take a look at when a kid says someone tried to pull them into a van. Police are working off the best information they have and they pass it on to the media, who gets it out there. Hours and days are spent searching for a suspect or a vehicle or any kind of lead that will get them an arrest and let people rest a little easier at night. But after a while, we hear the story was made up by the young boy or girl. You need to err on the side of caution and I get that. But the question has been raised in many newsrooms: how serious do we take these situations? A community needs to know something may have happened. There will undoubtedly be discomfort felt by residents letting their kids go out and play. You have to give the complainant the benefit of the doubt. But the sad reality is it's almost a case of "the boy who cried wolf". Who do you believe?
I don't think there is a solid answer to any of the questions raised here. I do believe though, that in all cases, don't judge any book by its cover. Let all the facts get out there before anyone is made out to be the "villain".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)