An emergency vehicle's flashing lights and siren do not give its driver an unrestricted right to disregard the rules of the road. British Columbia's Motor Vehicle Act permits certain driving privileges in defined circumstances, but the driver must have a proper justification for exercising them and must continue to drive with due regard for safety.
The 2015 Provincial Court decision in R. v. Jacobson, 2015 BCPC 342, illustrates what can happen when a police officer uses emergency driving privileges to save a few minutes while responding to a police file.
The Collision
On October 9, 2013, Constable Adam Jacobson was driving south on Highway 97 from Kelowna toward the West Kelowna RCMP detachment. He had volunteered to investigate a reported domestic assault after learning that the complainant and her family had been sent between the two detachments.
The assault had reportedly occurred the previous evening. The complainant was with family members and had sought medical attention for a possible rib injury. Confusion and poor communication between the detachments had resulted in her being sent from one detachment to the other.
Jacobson believed the situation was urgent and that obtaining the complainant's statement promptly was important. However, the information available did not establish that the suspect was tracking her down or that an immediate threat required an emergency response.
At the intersection of Highway 97 and Daimler Drive in West Kelowna, Jacobson encountered a red traffic light and a queue of approximately 15 to 20 vehicles. He activated his emergency lights and siren approximately four to five vehicle lengths before reaching the beginning of the left-turn lane, then moved into that lane and approached the intersection.
A driver waiting in the opposing left-turn lane waved him through. Jacobson slowed while scanning for traffic, but accelerated before establishing a clear view of the through lanes on Daimler Drive.
An eastbound Volkswagen Jetta entered the intersection on a green light and collided with the passenger side of the police vehicle. The Jetta's driver and passenger testified that they had not seen or heard the police vehicle's emergency equipment until just before the collision.
Recorded vehicle data showed that Jacobson had slowed to approximately 10 to 11 km/h but had not come to a complete stop. He released the brake and accelerated at full throttle before the collision.
The Legal Questions
Jacobson was charged under section 129(1) of the Motor Vehicle Act in connection with proceeding against a red light without stopping as required. He argued that he was operating an emergency vehicle and was entitled to the exemption provided by section 122.
Judge M. E. Shaw had to decide two questions:
- Was Jacobson justified in exercising the driving privileges available to an emergency vehicle?
- Did he drive with due regard for safety?
When May an Emergency Vehicle Disregard a Red Light?
Section 122 of the Motor Vehicle Act provides certain exemptions for emergency vehicles. These include exceeding the speed limit, proceeding past a red traffic signal or stop sign without stopping, disregarding certain movement restrictions, and stopping or standing where otherwise prohibited.
These privileges are not automatic. Section 122 requires drivers to exercise them in accordance with the Emergency Vehicle Driving Regulation and to drive with due regard for safety, considering the circumstances, road conditions, traffic and the nature of the vehicle's use.
Under section 4 of the regulation, a peace officer responding to an incident other than a pursuit must have reasonable grounds to believe that the risk of harm to the public from exercising emergency driving privileges is less than the risk if those privileges are not exercised. The officer must also use the required emergency equipment and weigh the risks against the seriousness and circumstances of the incident.
Section 6 of the regulation specifically requires an emergency vehicle driver exercising these privileges to slow to a speed consistent with reasonable care when approaching or entering an intersection.
Was the Response an Emergency?
Judge Shaw accepted that investigating a domestic assault and obtaining the complainant's statement were important police responsibilities. However, the judge was not satisfied that the information available to Jacobson justified treating the situation as an emergency requiring the use of emergency driving privileges.
The complainant was with family members and had sought medical assistance. The assault had reportedly occurred the previous evening, and Jacobson had no adequate factual basis for believing that the suspect was tracking her down or that her immediate safety depended on him arriving a few minutes sooner.
The judge also considered the urgency Jacobson perceived among his superiors. Their agitation arose largely from concern that the RCMP had mishandled the complainant's request for assistance. Judge Shaw concluded that Jacobson's perception of an emergency had been influenced by that agitation and the embarrassment surrounding the handling of the complaint. The judge characterized the situation, at most, as an administrative emergency.
The court found that the risk to the public from exercising emergency driving privileges was not less than the risk of harm to the complainant if those privileges were not exercised. Jacobson therefore had no sufficient basis to proceed through the intersection as an emergency vehicle.
Did the Officer Drive with Due Regard for Safety?
Judge Shaw went on to consider how Jacobson had driven through the intersection, even on the assumption that he had been entitled to exercise emergency driving privileges.
The intersection was congested, and vehicles waiting in the left-turn lanes obstructed Jacobson's view of the through lanes on Daimler Drive. He could not see whether traffic was approaching in those lanes, where the Jetta's driver had a green light.
Jacobson had activated his lights and siren only a short distance before the intersection. The Jetta's occupants did not see or hear the police vehicle until shortly before the collision. The judge emphasized that the obligation to yield does not remove the need to allow other drivers time to perceive an approaching emergency vehicle and react.
Although Jacobson slowed as he approached, he accelerated at full throttle before he had a clear view of the through lanes. The judge found this aggressive and unnecessary, noting that Jacobson had failed to account adequately for congestion, obstructed sightlines and the possibility that other drivers could neither see nor hear his vehicle.
The court did not find sufficient evidence to conclude that the Jetta's driver was speeding or failing to pay sufficient attention. Judge Shaw concluded that Jacobson had not driven with due regard for safety. Even if the emergency response had been justified, his manner of entering the intersection would not have met the required standard.
The Decision
Judge Shaw found Constable Jacobson guilty of the offence. The court concluded both that he lacked a sufficient basis to exercise emergency vehicle driving privileges and that his actions did not meet the required standard of care.
The decision demonstrates that two separate questions arise when an emergency vehicle driver relies on statutory privileges after entering an intersection against a red light: was the driver justified in exercising those privileges, and did the driver exercise them with due regard for safety? Satisfying one requirement does not excuse a failure to satisfy the other.
Lessons for Emergency Vehicle Drivers
- Urgency must be based on the available information. An important police responsibility does not automatically justify emergency driving. The officer must assess the circumstances and the risks using the information reasonably available.
- Time saved must be weighed against risk. Saving a few minutes is not, by itself, a sufficient reason to expose other road users to an increased risk of harm.
- Emergency equipment does not guarantee that others will yield. Drivers may not hear a siren or see flashing lights in time to react, especially when traffic obstructs their view. Intersections require particular care because other vehicles may have a green light or be hidden from view.
- Slowing down is not necessarily enough. The driver must assess whether proceeding is reasonably safe and continue to reassess traffic, visibility and other risks throughout the response. Accelerating into an area that cannot be seen clearly can turn a controlled approach into a dangerous manoeuvre.
What Should Other Drivers Do?
Section 177 of the Motor Vehicle Act requires drivers to yield to an approaching emergency vehicle displaying a flashing red light and giving an audible signal, unless otherwise directed by a peace officer. Drivers must move as close as practicable to the nearest edge or curb of the roadway, clear of an intersection, stop and remain stopped until the emergency vehicle has passed.
Drivers should not assume that an emergency vehicle will always be able to stop safely or that its driver can see every approaching vehicle. Keep a proper lookout, listen for sirens, check for emergency vehicles before entering an intersection, and be prepared to respond safely when one approaches.
A green light does not remove the need to pay attention to an approaching emergency vehicle. At the same time, the presence of an emergency vehicle does not mean that its driver may proceed without regard for other traffic.
Learn More
- Log in to post comments
Comments
My first question is, that in as much as Officer Jacobson was determined to be at fault in this collision, what was the outcome in terms of penalties, etc?
Did the officer receive a ticket for driving without due care (or anything else)? If not, why not?
Who paid for the repairs, both to the RCMP car, and the Wiebe vehicle? Was there any injury to any party involved? Did ICBC have to absorb any of the cost?
And so on. Including the broader question of just how many collisions RCMP vehicles are involved in annually - who has this information, and how can we get it released?
- Log in to post comments
1) The likely penalty would be the same as for anyone else convicted of the offence.
2) That's a question for Crown Counsel. They decided the charge to proceed with.
3) Ultimately, the public paid for the repairs to the police vehicle, while the cost of repairing the other vehicle would depend on the applicable insurance arrangements.
4) You should be able to get the data from a Freedom Of Information request to the RCMP.
- Log in to post comments
The Aftermath