November 2002 Volume 83 Number 11 "serving the protectors"
By Trevor Haskell PASA Vice President

Alcohol and drugs – avoidance of a real policy continues

A draft alcohol-and-other-drugs-in-the-workplace instructions document has been released for consultation. You might recall that, in early 2001, the Commissioner’s new policy was withdrawn. The new draft has been written without wide consultation, and this finished format is now out for comment. The Police Association had many concerns about the withdrawn policy. I guess some of us are not surprised to find that virtually none of those concerns seems to have been credited with enough merit to be included in this new set of instructions.

The fact that it is promulgated as “instructions” and not as a policy is curious and I do not know what the effect of that is. I believe the new instructions provide absolutely no assistance for employees, supervisors and managers in understanding what it is they can do when an employee is experiencing difficulty in the area of alcohol or drug use.

There is no commitment to education, despite the findings of the old NPRU (now Australasian Centre for Policing Research) that identified problem areas for police officers.

The policy seeks to change working conditions. The ramifications for clause 14 members and those on call are significant. The policy puts tremendous pressure on supervisors to make informed decisions about fitness for duty without any testing protocols.

One can draw the inference that, while a zero level is the go for anyone who might drive over the speed limit or carry a firearm, supervisors might be able to override that requirement. At whose risk?

I ask that members of OHS&W committees ensure that the issue is put on local agenda. Consider the realities of the “instructions”. Do the instructions actually assist at the grass-roots level to get positive action when concerns exist about a members’ misuse of alcohol or other drugs?

I have reflected on all of the cases over the past couple of years. I cannot find one that might have had the process of addressing the issue assisted by these new instructions.

The continued lack of acknowledgment of this issue by the Commissioner dismays me. That SAPOL will not sit down with the unions – as other police services and other occupational areas have done – and work out a policy that is real, meaningful, owned by all and instructive, annoys me.

No one but the Commissioner owns these instructions. They avoid the issue and simply allow for a reactive, post-event response that is most likely to be the use of disciplinary processes. The issue will remain underground.

Community traffic planning and enforcement – illustrations of a process lacking integrity

Traffic planning and traffic safety are issues that one would think are linked. If roads are well planned and traffic flow is enhanced, particularly during peak periods, frustration levels and the incidence accidents should reduce.

Those who enforce traffic laws then link into the process with attempts to target problem areas, hence the regular public announcements about targeted traffic campaigns. Police are commonly the face of these campaigns, which have often been very effective.

But there is another arm of traffic safety – parking.

On a recent visit to Melbourne, I wandered along one of its busy shopping streets in the late afternoon. I was taken by the sudden departure of cars from along the kerbs. One minute there were no parking spaces at the kerb and, in the next minute, the street was essentially vacant of parked cars.

A bit further along the street, a tow truck pulled up to a BMW, hauled the car onto its tray and drove off. I then noticed some signs that read: “Tow away zone”. Now, while the tow-away zone did have the odd car or two in it at the prescribed time, they were within a few minutes towed away. The road was free for the peak hour.

In Adelaide, and other parts of Melbourne, the clearway system is pretty good. But, as we all know, if a car is parked on the clearway it can create havoc. And, even if an infringement notice is issued, the havoc continues until the driver returns. Thus, the revenue created does not make for a safer road that day. Perhaps the payment encourages the driver not to do it again. Some might argue that such a strategy creates a safer road tomorrow.

From what I see of a curious piece of roadway that abuts the Memorial Hospital and the Women’s and Children’s Hospital, where my wife works, I stand bemused. At this locale, the Adelaide City Council plays pretend road safety enforcement in order to make thousands of dollars.

Sir Edwin Smith Drive allows parking heading out of town up to 4pm. Then, only part of it becomes a no-standing zone. A situation arises where, for 100 metres, you can park legally all day, but for the next 100 metres you can only do so up until the prescribed time, when it becomes a “No Standing” area. Now, no-standing areas are so designated to improve road safety. This area equates to about nine or 10 parking spaces.

The people using these parks are almost exclusively hospital visitors. They are in clear contravention of the signs but, in their haste to visit ill loved ones, do not read them correctly.

Now, the beauty of this is that the city council tickets about six to 10 cars each afternoon. I kept a mental record recently – out of 30 days there was not one on which – at about 5:15pm – the roadway was clear. What then is the purpose of the no-standing zone? It is totally and utterly ineffective in keeping that part of the road free of parked cars. It begs the question – does the road need to be clear of parked cars? What is the accident rate? The argument that it will be safer tomorrow is a little thin here. The visitors are not, they hope, going to be regulars.

There is no mercy for these parkers, absolutely no fee wavers. The inspector strikes at least once between the no-standing times every day. It doesn’t matter whether your loved one is dying or has an ingrown toenail – just pay the money. The situation has been the same for at least five years. Now, is the no-standing zone a tool for road safety or a tool for income? How does it add to road safety when cars park there every day?

Now, contrast this with another traffic area enforced in the same Adelaide City Council parking area – Victoria Square. I am a daily walker around the square, and it bemuses me to see traffic safety and laws being ignored.

Consider the Hilton Hotel slipway area. This is a short-term parking area. I regularly see driverless cars – that are not waiting for parks – ranked three from the kerb. The Hilton uses the roadway as a valet parking lot. Why wouldn’t it when there is no ACC enforcement. Drivers have recently taken to ranking right to the Grote Street roadway. These are obviously more legitimate members of the community, unlike those evil people who park near the hospitals.

Any traffic safety planning is made a mockery of when, clearly, the aim is one of revenue and not safety. The city boundaries provide daily examples of traffic planning and enforcement that is simply inane – unless one accepts that it is about revenue. I suspect that the decisions are made by the ACC management, and that directions such as, “Enforce this area but ignore that area,” are given to its inspectors.

The inequity lacks a little integrity.

PASAweb   Index & Search   Top of Page   Comments   Email to Editor

The Police Journal Online is an official publication of the Police Association of South Australia and is published monthly. Editors of kindred publications can seek permission from the Editor to re-publish any Police Journal Online article. Copyright 2001  The Police Association of South Australia sustance