(Aired on August 5, 2010)
A new air ambulance service will soon be in place, dedicated to helping move seriously ill patients from rural areas to hospitals in larger centres. It's an idea whose time is long overdue.
The air ambulance service has been in place before, but not, perhaps, in such a dedicated way. The service announced late last month involves transporting patients by helicopter to larger hospitals like Royal Inland. While there will be no dedicated helicopters devoted specifically to this initiative, several companies contracted by the province will be able to provide the service. They'll transport paramedics to the accident site, allow the paramedics to provide treatment, then transport the patients if necessary to trauma centres for followup.
The only real criticism I have is the fact that the government is only going to try this out for 8 weeks. If it's effective, it will become a full time deal. But I wonder how you can honestly say two months is long enough. If the summer causes more cases because more accidents happen in the summer, will that give a false reading? Would we keep the service based on false numbers? Conversely, would we deny keeping the service because the next 8 weeks are relatively slow, with many gone outside the area for holidays. A minimum of six months for any type of study is about the least we should be putting in place for a fair assessment.
I can't see the cost being overly excessive. Let's face it, if we're contracting out these companies on a per-trip basis, it can't be that huge unless there are actual cases to deal with. Let's do the survey right, and make sure it's working or not working before we make a final decision. I think that's the least we can do. Otherwise we're just paying lip service to a very valuable aid in keeping people alive.
Tuesday, August 10, 2010
Lay Off Local RCMP on Police Shooting
(Aired on August 4, 2010)
I think people are perhaps being a little too hasty in condemning our local police for not releasing information yet regarding the shooting of a man in North Kamloops last Friday night. I've seen all sorts of comments from people asking me if we had a couple of cowboys shooting up the city, if the police were holding back because they were trying to hide things. We've had them all in the past few days.
But let's put things in perspective. This is a homicide investigation. Someone died. In any homicide, there's an investigation, and in many cases, information doesn't come out in any great detail for the first few days. Police are still looking for witnesses to interview. The pieces of the puzzle certainly aren't in place yet. And because police are involved, the situation becomes even more complicated. They want to make sure every base is covered before things are released.
And the fact is, an outside police team, including forensic investigators, have been called in to make sure the investigation is transparent. But let's get one thing clear - it's Calgary's investigation. They're the ones who are putting everything together, not the Kamloops detachment. Other than securing the scene the night of the shooting, local mounties have not been involved in this investigation. People who suggest the Calgary police shouldn't be doing the talking on this are wrong. The fact is, they are the ones who should be talking, if anyone is.
I think we have to be a bit patient here. Local police have done a lot to make themselves more transparent. It wasn't very long ago that they held a news conference to come right out and say that two officers had been charged with assault in separate incidents. They're trying to be open and honest. And I, for one, am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. When all the facts are known and released, then let's make our judgments. It's a little early to be condemning them right now.
I think people are perhaps being a little too hasty in condemning our local police for not releasing information yet regarding the shooting of a man in North Kamloops last Friday night. I've seen all sorts of comments from people asking me if we had a couple of cowboys shooting up the city, if the police were holding back because they were trying to hide things. We've had them all in the past few days.
But let's put things in perspective. This is a homicide investigation. Someone died. In any homicide, there's an investigation, and in many cases, information doesn't come out in any great detail for the first few days. Police are still looking for witnesses to interview. The pieces of the puzzle certainly aren't in place yet. And because police are involved, the situation becomes even more complicated. They want to make sure every base is covered before things are released.
And the fact is, an outside police team, including forensic investigators, have been called in to make sure the investigation is transparent. But let's get one thing clear - it's Calgary's investigation. They're the ones who are putting everything together, not the Kamloops detachment. Other than securing the scene the night of the shooting, local mounties have not been involved in this investigation. People who suggest the Calgary police shouldn't be doing the talking on this are wrong. The fact is, they are the ones who should be talking, if anyone is.
I think we have to be a bit patient here. Local police have done a lot to make themselves more transparent. It wasn't very long ago that they held a news conference to come right out and say that two officers had been charged with assault in separate incidents. They're trying to be open and honest. And I, for one, am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. When all the facts are known and released, then let's make our judgments. It's a little early to be condemning them right now.
Graffiti on the Rise in Kamloops
(Aired on August 3, 2010)
The city’s graffiti problem is suddenly getting worse, and there doesn’t seem to be much going on to slow it down. Driving around the city recently, it was amazing to see how much the problem has increased in the past few months. We hear nothing from the city’s graffiti task force, whose leader, Gord Giles, passed away earlier this year. I don’t know if anyone has succeeded him yet, but the city has to get on this problem quickly. I assume from some of the places where graffiti is suddenly showing up that there must be some new taggers out there who have come to the fore.
Some of the graffiti isn’t the result of traditional taggers. It’s amateur writing that is just sprayed on by people bent on vandalism. I don’t know how you track these people down, but we have to find a way to do that. Graffiti is something that not only looks bad, it is perceived by many as a threat because, while it doesn’t amount to physical violence, it makes people uneasy about their safety, and they’re concerned when it happens in their neighbourhood.
One of the best defences against graffiti, of course, is to wipe it out and paint over it as soon as it happens. But if that isn’t done - and I don’t see much evidence that it is - then it’s like a snowball, and just grows and grows.
The city is the leader here. They have to be, because much of the problem appears on their property. They have to commit to getting rid of it, and they have to put resources in place to track down and prosecute the offenders.
People who perceive graffiti as a minor problem just don’t get it. Psychologically, both for the residents and for the attackers, it’s not good. For the residents, a sense of uneasiness, for the taggers, a sense of power that can often lead to more brazen and much more serious acts. If you get away with tagging, how long before you start stealing? There is a definite correlation. Mayor and Council need to take some initiative here. I understand tagging is more common in the summer, with the warm weather, but that doesn’t lessen the necessity for dealing with what is a very serious and expensive problem.
The city’s graffiti problem is suddenly getting worse, and there doesn’t seem to be much going on to slow it down. Driving around the city recently, it was amazing to see how much the problem has increased in the past few months. We hear nothing from the city’s graffiti task force, whose leader, Gord Giles, passed away earlier this year. I don’t know if anyone has succeeded him yet, but the city has to get on this problem quickly. I assume from some of the places where graffiti is suddenly showing up that there must be some new taggers out there who have come to the fore.
Some of the graffiti isn’t the result of traditional taggers. It’s amateur writing that is just sprayed on by people bent on vandalism. I don’t know how you track these people down, but we have to find a way to do that. Graffiti is something that not only looks bad, it is perceived by many as a threat because, while it doesn’t amount to physical violence, it makes people uneasy about their safety, and they’re concerned when it happens in their neighbourhood.
One of the best defences against graffiti, of course, is to wipe it out and paint over it as soon as it happens. But if that isn’t done - and I don’t see much evidence that it is - then it’s like a snowball, and just grows and grows.
The city is the leader here. They have to be, because much of the problem appears on their property. They have to commit to getting rid of it, and they have to put resources in place to track down and prosecute the offenders.
People who perceive graffiti as a minor problem just don’t get it. Psychologically, both for the residents and for the attackers, it’s not good. For the residents, a sense of uneasiness, for the taggers, a sense of power that can often lead to more brazen and much more serious acts. If you get away with tagging, how long before you start stealing? There is a definite correlation. Mayor and Council need to take some initiative here. I understand tagging is more common in the summer, with the warm weather, but that doesn’t lessen the necessity for dealing with what is a very serious and expensive problem.
Air Quality "Good?" Are You Kidding?
(Aired on July 30, 2010)
It seems that there's nothing wrong with the equipment, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the people who work there either. So something must be wrong with the Ministry of Environment's Air Quality Health Index.
The index was at a 3 in Kamloops for most of the day today, on a scale of 1 to 10. That means the index has determined the air quality in Kamloops is "good." Yet in the time it took me to walk from my car in the parking lot to my desk inside the building, my eyes began burning. Thankfully, I have a fairly robust respiratory system. Others who don't are suffering today.
If you judged the air quality based on the index, though, you'd think it was all good. People like me are in a good state of general health are told that this is "ideal air quality for outdoor activities." And the at-risk population is encouraged to enjoy life in the great outdoors as usual. Yet when you step outside, it looks like a cloudy day when there are no clouds, and it smells like an ashtray.
So there is likely no one who is taking the Air Quality Health Index seriously. If that's the case, the system needs to be revamped. If it's not, the Air Quality Health Index will soon lose all credibility and rendered completely obsolete.
It seems that there's nothing wrong with the equipment, and there doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the people who work there either. So something must be wrong with the Ministry of Environment's Air Quality Health Index.
The index was at a 3 in Kamloops for most of the day today, on a scale of 1 to 10. That means the index has determined the air quality in Kamloops is "good." Yet in the time it took me to walk from my car in the parking lot to my desk inside the building, my eyes began burning. Thankfully, I have a fairly robust respiratory system. Others who don't are suffering today.
If you judged the air quality based on the index, though, you'd think it was all good. People like me are in a good state of general health are told that this is "ideal air quality for outdoor activities." And the at-risk population is encouraged to enjoy life in the great outdoors as usual. Yet when you step outside, it looks like a cloudy day when there are no clouds, and it smells like an ashtray.
So there is likely no one who is taking the Air Quality Health Index seriously. If that's the case, the system needs to be revamped. If it's not, the Air Quality Health Index will soon lose all credibility and rendered completely obsolete.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Education not Changing Driving Habits
(Aired on July 29, 2010)
They say education is the key to solving a lot of problems these days. But sometimes the best education is a good swift kick in the pants.
Despite all the education, people aren't getting the message when it comes to driving offences. A major intersection safety check yesterday at Summit and Columbia is a perfect example. The results were absolutely terrible. 19 people still haven't heard the educational message regarding seat belt use. 10 charged with texting while driving, 7 more talking on their cell. How much more education do we need to do on these things? 8 people were charged with blowing a yellow light, 13 charged, if you can believe it, for failing to stop at a red light. No wonder ICBC's bills are so high.
Do these people think they're driving in Vancouver? People seem to zone out when they're driving, and many are obviously totally oblivious to what's going on around them. My wife and son were almost wiped out the other night by some woman who turned left right in front of them because she obviously didn't see them coming. Fortunately, my son has quick reactions and avoided what would have been an extremely serious collision, because the woman was obviously trying to speed through the intersection and make the turn before my son got there. If he had been travelling even at the speed limit he wouldn't have been able to stop.
These kinds of intersection checks should be the order of the day until people start to get the message. I know they take resources, but surely having 20 people blow yellow or red lights is in itself justification for having these patrols. And let's raise the fines. I'm not sure how a figure of precisely $167 was arrived at for a fine, but how about upping it to $500? Maybe that will change a few people's thinking.
People are not invincible, and putting other peoples' lives at risk needs to be punished with something substantial. And let's take their licenses away for a year. I don't think running a red light is any less dangerous than drinking and driving. Keep the education. I think that's important. But we obviously need to do more. So let's ramp up the punishment too.
They say education is the key to solving a lot of problems these days. But sometimes the best education is a good swift kick in the pants.
Despite all the education, people aren't getting the message when it comes to driving offences. A major intersection safety check yesterday at Summit and Columbia is a perfect example. The results were absolutely terrible. 19 people still haven't heard the educational message regarding seat belt use. 10 charged with texting while driving, 7 more talking on their cell. How much more education do we need to do on these things? 8 people were charged with blowing a yellow light, 13 charged, if you can believe it, for failing to stop at a red light. No wonder ICBC's bills are so high.
Do these people think they're driving in Vancouver? People seem to zone out when they're driving, and many are obviously totally oblivious to what's going on around them. My wife and son were almost wiped out the other night by some woman who turned left right in front of them because she obviously didn't see them coming. Fortunately, my son has quick reactions and avoided what would have been an extremely serious collision, because the woman was obviously trying to speed through the intersection and make the turn before my son got there. If he had been travelling even at the speed limit he wouldn't have been able to stop.
These kinds of intersection checks should be the order of the day until people start to get the message. I know they take resources, but surely having 20 people blow yellow or red lights is in itself justification for having these patrols. And let's raise the fines. I'm not sure how a figure of precisely $167 was arrived at for a fine, but how about upping it to $500? Maybe that will change a few people's thinking.
People are not invincible, and putting other peoples' lives at risk needs to be punished with something substantial. And let's take their licenses away for a year. I don't think running a red light is any less dangerous than drinking and driving. Keep the education. I think that's important. But we obviously need to do more. So let's ramp up the punishment too.
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Cigarettes Still Causing Wildfires? Ridiculous!
(Aired on July 28, 2010)
There is some suggestion last night's Barnhartvale fire was started by a discarded cigarette. If that's the case, it's utterly, mind-numbingly stupid.
I'll be quite clear - as of the time I am recording this segment, the cause of the fire has not yet been determined. However, this much we know. It started near a church on Todd Road. There was no lightning in the area. It started under cover of darkness. And to top it off, RCMP this morning issued a stern warning for people not to discard cigarette butts. Police encouraged witnesses to turn in violaters, and threatened to levy fines against people found to be responsible. So it's not far from the realm of possibility that last night's chaos was caused by a simple act of carelessness and/or laziness.
Anyone who has lived in the BC Interior for any length of time should know by now that this is a no-no. And if they haven't had it drilled into their by firefighting public relations types, it should be a matter of common sense.
A spark from a train causing a fire is one thing. It's not inexcusable, but at least in most cases - like last week on the Kamloops Indian Reserve - the railway takes responsibility and tries to make things right. But a cigarette thrown out of a vehicle is pure negligence. It's awful close to being malicious. And the penalties for doing it are not nearly steep enough.
There is some suggestion last night's Barnhartvale fire was started by a discarded cigarette. If that's the case, it's utterly, mind-numbingly stupid.
I'll be quite clear - as of the time I am recording this segment, the cause of the fire has not yet been determined. However, this much we know. It started near a church on Todd Road. There was no lightning in the area. It started under cover of darkness. And to top it off, RCMP this morning issued a stern warning for people not to discard cigarette butts. Police encouraged witnesses to turn in violaters, and threatened to levy fines against people found to be responsible. So it's not far from the realm of possibility that last night's chaos was caused by a simple act of carelessness and/or laziness.
Anyone who has lived in the BC Interior for any length of time should know by now that this is a no-no. And if they haven't had it drilled into their by firefighting public relations types, it should be a matter of common sense.
A spark from a train causing a fire is one thing. It's not inexcusable, but at least in most cases - like last week on the Kamloops Indian Reserve - the railway takes responsibility and tries to make things right. But a cigarette thrown out of a vehicle is pure negligence. It's awful close to being malicious. And the penalties for doing it are not nearly steep enough.
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
BCLC Self-Exclusion Program Toothless
(Aired on July 27, 2010)
B.C. Lottery Corporation has a self-exclusion program which is designed to keep problem gamblers out of casinos. Critics of the program say it doesn't work, and two lawsuits currently being initiated point out the problem.
One man is suing because he claims he was denied a lottery jackpot after signing up for the program. Yet he claims he was able to enter a casino over and over without being asked to leave. Another is suing because she says she was able to lose $330,000 over three years despite enrolling herself in the program.
The program doesn't seem to have much power to stop people from going into casinos. There is no way casino operators can identify those enrolled in the program. I suppose if a person is known to staff and known to be in the program, they should have some onus to keep that person out. But the details of the program are somewhat unclear. Interesting to note that when I went online this morning to get some background on the program, the BCLC site told me the page on the self-exclusion program was no longer available.
Perhaps we should look to other areas of the world where everyone who enters a casino has to show ID. If such ID were scanned, then those registered in the self-exclusion program could be flagged and asked to leave. Some would claim that's an invasion of privacy, and gives the government access to information on everyone who goes to a casino. There are some definite privacy issues involved in that scenario. But outside of that, I don't know what can be done to prevent people from gambling.
It's a serious problem, and needs to be addressed, but simply registering for a self-exclusion program that seems to have no teeth may provide false hope for people trying to deal with their addiction. But in reality, how much should BCLC be required to do? Let's face it, they can't be the police, and people have to take responsibility for their addictions and get help.
I guess the unfortunate part of these scenarios is that they thought they were getting it by signing up for this program, a program that really doesn't seem to offer much in the way of a solution at all.
B.C. Lottery Corporation has a self-exclusion program which is designed to keep problem gamblers out of casinos. Critics of the program say it doesn't work, and two lawsuits currently being initiated point out the problem.
One man is suing because he claims he was denied a lottery jackpot after signing up for the program. Yet he claims he was able to enter a casino over and over without being asked to leave. Another is suing because she says she was able to lose $330,000 over three years despite enrolling herself in the program.
The program doesn't seem to have much power to stop people from going into casinos. There is no way casino operators can identify those enrolled in the program. I suppose if a person is known to staff and known to be in the program, they should have some onus to keep that person out. But the details of the program are somewhat unclear. Interesting to note that when I went online this morning to get some background on the program, the BCLC site told me the page on the self-exclusion program was no longer available.
Perhaps we should look to other areas of the world where everyone who enters a casino has to show ID. If such ID were scanned, then those registered in the self-exclusion program could be flagged and asked to leave. Some would claim that's an invasion of privacy, and gives the government access to information on everyone who goes to a casino. There are some definite privacy issues involved in that scenario. But outside of that, I don't know what can be done to prevent people from gambling.
It's a serious problem, and needs to be addressed, but simply registering for a self-exclusion program that seems to have no teeth may provide false hope for people trying to deal with their addiction. But in reality, how much should BCLC be required to do? Let's face it, they can't be the police, and people have to take responsibility for their addictions and get help.
I guess the unfortunate part of these scenarios is that they thought they were getting it by signing up for this program, a program that really doesn't seem to offer much in the way of a solution at all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
