Elections and quality candidates: it's a numbers game.

Image courtesy of FreeDigitalPhotos.net

I believe there are lots of people feeling uninspired, perhaps even depressed in the aftermath of the BC election on May 14. As voters we had two poor choices and in the end, when push came to shove, people voted for the leader and party they felt would do the least damage. I doubt that many of the less than 25% of eligible voters that cast a ballot for the BC Liberals did so because they were sincerely inspired by our premier's campaign and message. Hell, we were hard pressed to find the Liberal brand and Christy Clark's name on some of the campaign material for front runners in the party. Anybody who went to Mike de Jong's website, who didn't know him already, would have had to play a guessing game to figure out what party he belonged to. In the end we took the devil that we knew.

It's unfortunate we're in the state we're in right now. Believe me, I'd be happy if the BC Liberals surprised us and turned into a fiscally responsible, inclusive, free enterprise, believable, and free from the politics of fear party. However if history is anything to go by, the odds are against this happening.

People complained about the quality of the candidates we had. Indeed, I heard CKNW's Bill Good and Vaughn Palmer during the campaign discussing various excuses for not voting and one highlighted was "nobody's good" enough. Palmer's antidote, which I liked, was if you don't like the choice then run yourself. That's a good one, but I think the real problem is that we don't have enough good choices because there are just not enough in the talent pool to start with.

Think about it, everything in life is a numbers game. You don't marry the first person you date. In sales you're taught that for every sale you make, you've got to work through a number of prospects. The more prospects to begin with, the greater probability of more sales; and if you begin with less, you can expect less.

The fact is, there's not a huge pool of talent to pull political leaders from in BC. Somebody may change my mind on this but today I don't believe a leader of a party should be someone who's never been elected to public office, so we need to up the game a bit in terms of participation. How are we going to do that if we cut people's heads off, either before they start or after they're underway for some of the most benign stuff imaginable? I still cannot believe that some otherwise seemingly intelligent people gave my twitter comments a second thought, let alone took the time to comment on them; even more surprising was that they had any impact on my standing within the BC Conservatives.

I've had conversations with some in the media and I've yet to see someone quote me, so I'll say it here; we are insular and provincial in BC. And unless we ignore the Alex Tsakumises of the world when they piously bleat about the Premier being unfit for office because she showed some goodwill and good nature by sharing a joke about MILFs with a radio host (who was fired for it btw), or ignore the media prattling on for weeks because of a dancing penis prank on a gay MLA (I've yet to meet gays who don't enjoy dick jokes) we are going to reap what we sow... which is small numbers of people running for public office and even less numbers qualified to run for premier.

I've got two thoughts (besides fascination) when I read about Rob and Doug Ford; one is that it's a shame that Ford's work as a fiscal conservative is being overshadowed by the controversy surrounding him and the other is that I really don't care if Doug Ford sold pot or hash when he was just out of high school nearly 30 years ago (other allegations are more serious IMO, like some of the hypocrisy and denials). I grew up on the North Shore in the 70s and political disqualification for past use of controlled substances would eliminate virtually everybody from there at that time.

Is that what we want?  Do we really want holier than thou'ers running for office in any event? What good after all is somebody who's had no life experience or taken no risk? Wouldn't you think somebody was a little weird if they'd never touched any illicit substance (including alcohol) before or just after they graduated?

Why is humour a no-fly zone in politics? Personally I see humour as a great bridge in forming relationships, keeping perspective and most importantly enjoying life; because at the end of the day, that's what it's all about. I give the premier credit for maintaining her sense of humour, or at the least the impression that she maintained it, in a hostile environment.

No wonder we've got better than 52% choosing to ignore the ballot box at election time. I suspect a good number of those people are saying to us that they don't see people they can relate to running for office. Personally, I want somebody with opinions who's not afraid to share them ... and even be wrong about them. It doesn't mean they need to be irresponsible about sharing them, however in the event they are, it should be ok for them to have taken the risk and deal with the consequences. Let the voters decide, uninfluenced by media editorials being masqueraded as news, whether what they did or said was ok or not.

NDP for firing Ray Lam in Vancouver-False Creek in 2009:                                     

FAIL (although he went away quietly which means he might not have been such a great candidate afterall)

BC Libs for forcing John van Dongen to resign as SG in 2009:                                 

FAIL (law's an ass, he knew it, given time he likely would have addressed it)

NDP for firing Dayleen Van Ryswick in  Kelowna - Mission 2013:                          

FAIL

BCCP for accepting Jeff Sprague's resignation in N Vancouver - Lonsdale 2013:    

PASS  (too bad, good guy but alleged DUI is a problem)

BCCP for firing Ian Tootill in Vancouver - False Creek 2013:                                   

FAIL

BCCP for firing Mischa Popoff in Boundary - Similkameen 2013:                           

FAIL

BCCP for firing Ron Herbert in Vancouver - West End 2013:                                   

FAIL ( should've let voters decide on taste)

NDP for keeping Jane Shin in Burnaby - Lougheed 2013:                                        

PASS (although time may prove me wrong on this one.)

People who are risk takers (somewhat) and who have strong opinions coupled with a high degree of integrity are exactly the people we shouldn't be discouraging, rather we need to encourage to them run for public office. I say bring them on... and lots of them. The more the merrier.

The Cell Phone Ban....How's it Workin' For Ya?

Last night I spent a frustrating five minutes behind a driver who must have been paid by the hour. When it was finally safe to pass him, sure enough he was on his cell phone, despite the fact that BC has now joined many other jurisdictions in passing legislation to ban hand held device usage. As a friend of mine recently said, "I am sure glad they banned cell phones because now everybody will have their hands free for a cigarette and coffee."

What's the problem on the roads in North America really? I suspect, but cannot prove it, that driving has been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. Although people have a natural inclination to get from A to B as quickly and safely as possible, and perform tasks efficiently, they have been lulled into a sense of complacency on the roads and therefore have lost their fear. A good dose of fear is what is necessary to keep ones' wits. However,fear is absent in BC where driving the speed limit on the Coquihalla Highway will put you to sleep. Below is a copy of my July 2009 essay written for The Mark online available at http://www.themarknews.com/articles?search=ian+tootill

It’s true, cell phone drivers can wreak road havoc and people should not be driving while using their phones. However, cell phones are not nearly the only or the most prevalent cause of bad driving. Politicians are falling over themselves calling for cell phone bans for drivers, but are they missing a bigger problem in the process?

Although outlawing the weapon may seem sensible, it is the traffic safety fad du jour, and will do little more than create a perception of improved safety.

Many actions besides cell phone use cause varying degrees of poor driving. This list includes reading, attending to children, personal grooming, operating various electronic devices, holding pets, eating, drinking, etc. These are all symptoms of a driving style that promotes cognitive distraction.

North American driving culture is for the most part sloppy. It is characterized by big vehicles with soft rides, creature comforts, cruise control, and space ... lots of space. Highway speed limits across Canada are set to recognize and include the skills of the lowest common denominator and the condition of the largest and worst vehicles. In turn, speed limits are routinely ignored.

Many drivers see it as perfectly OK to impede traffic on a highway by occupying a left lane, or on city streets by double-parking while engaging in casual conversation. North American consumers and governments alike have embraced this mindset.

In short, driving is not taken seriously. Is it any wonder that people comb their hair and text while they drive?

But attempting to micro-manage drivers is not the answer. Instead, we should empower competent drivers to make better decisions. Where possible, we should be educating, not legislating. Take away decisions and you lose thinking drivers, of which there is already a dearth.

Laws should be designed to be obeyed, not ignored. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in its Speed Zoning Information circular says that “laws cannot be effectively enforced without the consent and compliance of the public majority.” Laws banning cell phones will not be obeyed, and will be impractical to enforce.

The unintended consequences of a ban are likely to be dangerous. For example, in California, simply the act of holding a cell phone will net the driver a ticket and fine. So how do cell phone drivers avoid a ticket? They hide the phone in a less visible place. This will result in more danger than currently exists as the driver must shift both vision and focus.

Another unintended consequence will be merging or rear-end crashes resulting from drivers stopping or pulling over unexpectedly for an important call, causing a sharp interruption in traffic flow. Speed variance is a known cause of crashes, more so than speed itself.

According to a recent British Columbia Automobile Association (BCAA) poll, while almost 60 per cent agreed cell phone use should be restricted, nearly 50 per cent admitted to using their phone while driving. So unless many of the respondents to the poll were not drivers there exists a significant number who believe they are, or will be, above the law.

In any event, the case for a ban should be supported by more than anecdotal or circumstantial evidence showing usage and crash correlation.

The B.C. government recently published a discussion paper describing the types of research being used: observation, data using correlations, and experimental. While the first two types provide some information about contributing factors, they show correlation and not causation. The third type of study is far more engaging, but the results lead to the conclusion that the overall problem of distraction is what needs addressing.

Governments need to take the lead. They should minimize the causes of cognitive distraction and promote the safe and efficient movement of goods and people through education. The laws are already in place to punish drivers who transgress.

Driving without due care and attention should be enforced and applied to many things besides cell phone use. Cell phone distraction is merely a symptom of a greater problem that police and safety advocates should be addressing with effective public relations and existing enforcement tools.

Realistic Speed Limits Prevented by BC Politics

The Vancouver Sun originally posted this in May 2009 (I am the author), however it is gone now. Currently the BC Solicitor General is considering the merits of "Keep Right Except to Pass" so I thought a good idea to republish....

In 1996, 25,000 names were gathered in British Columbia for a petition calling for the removal of photo radar and an independent review of speed limits. The review was completed in 2002 and it revealed what most drivers already knew; that limits on some B.C. highways are set incorrectly, mostly too low.
Over the past 20 years, the B.C. population has increased by more than 30 per cent and roadways have been busier than ever thanks to a recently robust economy. Despite this, we have enjoyed a reduction in crash-related fatalities of nearly 40 per cent from a peak in 1990 -- more cars, more trips, and fewer deaths.

Yet the shrill cries of "Speed Is Killing Us" are still heard. Ironically, the enforcement emphasis during the past six years, during a period of dramatic economic growth and road use, has been rightly redirected toward offences with a higher correlation, to at-fault crashes rather than speeding.

The RCMP now issues about 250,000 tickets per year for speeding, less than half issued during the peak of photo radar. If proponents of more speed enforcement were correct, there should have been a noticeable increase in fatalities during this time. It has not happened just as it did not happen in the United States subsequent to the 1996 removal, despite intense lobbying of special interests, of the federally mandated 55-m.p.h. limit.

The RCMP leadership in B.C. can be given credit for implementing a new philosophy of targeted enforcement which has produced real improvements in highway safety, moving from speed traps to crash black spots. However, the baseline -- the law -- remains flawed.

Laws must be set with the reasonable actions of the reasonable majority in mind, and there is no value in legislation that there is neither the will nor the means to enforce. Anything to the contrary and the door opens for arbitrary abuse, as is the case with photo radar.

If a particular limit is routinely and safely disobeyed by the reasonable majority, it can hardly be called valid. Incorrectly set speed limits are a guarantee of non-compliance, necessitate more police for enforcement, are expensive for motorists (increased fines and insurance), reduce road capacity and efficiency, increase disrespect for laws in general, and can even embarrass politicians whose actions are not consistent with the laws they oversee.

So why then, did the Ministry of Transportation refuse to implement the recommendations in the report it commissioned? Further, why spend taxpayer money in the first place, if there were no plans to act on it? Answer: Politics.

Judith Reid, then minister of transportation and highways, told me during a 2003 meeting that the optics of raising speed limits were bad. Nobody wanted to be the minister during a crash fatality on a road with a higher speed limit -- especially after the public had been bombarded for several years with ICBC's "Speed Is Killing Us" propaganda. Additionally, the change needed to be approved by then solicitor-general Rich Coleman, and that was not going to happen.

An odd thing occurs with the subject of speeding; few drivers see themselves as speeders. While many gasp at tickets for 40 km/h over the posted speed, few connect the dots and realize that most drivers are technically speeding when conditions are good. So if the legal speed limit on a highway is 90 km/h and 85 per cent of the drivers are travelling 110 or 115, the question should be: Are they travelling excessively over the safe speed for conditions? In B.C., the answer is often no.

Highway safety requires two key ingredients: minimal speed variance and reduced traffic volume. Increasing highway capacity and design speed is one way the government reduces volume, but danger increases when vehicles impede others.

A much-needed improvement in B.C. is "Keep Right Except To Pass" legislation allowing police to enforce signage recently placed on highways to enhance safety, by reducing both vehicle interactions and speed variance, HOV lanes included. The Institute of Transportation Engineers recommends setting speed limits based upon an upper limit (85th percentile) of free-flow vehicle speeds.

Drivers naturally comply with limits viewed as reasonable, thus reducing speed variance and potential interactions between vehicles. Everybody wins; scofflaws are fewer and easy to apprehend, drivers are safer and politicians need not fear their driving records.