Award for Canada woman handcuffed for not holding escalator

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
31,267
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Rarely have I heard of a more ridiculous reason for a cop to arrest someone. Apparently Canada's Supreme Court agrees, despite lower courts dismissing her lawsuit. Glad she didn't give up and appealed it all the way up.

Award for Canada woman handcuffed for not holding escalator (BBC)

Ms Kosian had been taking the down escalator into the Montmorency Metro station in the city of Laval, Quebec, which is part of Montreal's public transit system, when a police officer stopped her and told her to hold the handrail.

Their exchange became heated when she refused, and refused to identify herself.

The officer then searched her bag and handcuffed her, issuing her two tickets - a C$100 one for disobeying an illustrated sign instructing her to hold the handrail, and a C$320 one for obstructing the work of an inspector.
Click to expand...

I can imagine a germaphobe would prefer to not touch the handrail. I don't know if that's why she didn't, but it's hardly a crime for an adult to ignore a sign like that. It's an escalator. Police officers should mind their own business unless someone is committing a real crime.

The court ruled the officer had conducted an unlawful search based on a "non‑existent offence, namely disobeying the pictogram indicating that the handrail should be held".

It settled on C$20,000 damages to be split between the city, the transit authority and the officer. The amount had been proposed by a lower court judge, in a dissenting opinion, in one of the earlier court cases.

"In a free and democratic society, no one should accept - or expect to be subjected to - unjustified state intrusions. Interference with freedom of movement, just like invasion of privacy, must not be trivialized," the court wrote in its decision.
Click to expand...
 
It's a longstanding joke. There's even a postcard of a guy with a Great Dane sort of half draped over his shoulder passing one of the signs.
 
Thanks. Googled it and that was one of the top results.

Those without dogs must take the stairs, right? ;)

Also if you have to hold the handrail too, you better be able to carry the Great Dane with one hand.
 
Last edited:
I'm amazed by the people who hold the handrail on the escalator in the large hospital here. And they're in turn amazed that they come down with norovirus. Which they take to the hospital to treat, holding the handrail...
 
Probably for most people who don't have any trouble standing up, the risk of putting your hand on the handrail is greater.
 
I always hold the handrail, to keep my immune system alert. One thing I've noticed is that often the handrail speed doesn't exactly match the speed of the escalator steps; it usually seems to go slightly faster, so keeping hold of it on a very long downward escalator means I lean gradually further and further forward.

Dave
 
BillC said:
"Dogs must be carried".
Click to expand...

So, if you don't have dog, I guess you have to borrow one to ride the escalator. If the government is going to make this a requirement, the least they could do is provide dogs to those who can't afford their own. They could just have some kennels at both ends, and you could grab one, then put it in the kennel at the other end after you ride the escalator. I'm not sure what you would do if there's more people going up than down, or vice versa, and all the dogs end up at the top or the bottom, and there are none at the end you're starting at.
 
Clearly the Canadians who conceived those ridiculous signs have never ridden the London Tube during morning rush hour.

That transit officer would have a fit if he saw what happens at stations like Kings Cross, Monument or Paddington.
 
Last edited:
smartcooky said:
Clearly the Canadians who conceived those ridiculous signs have never ridden the London Tube during morning rush hour.

That transit officer would have a fit if he saw what happens at stations like Kings Cross, Monument or Paddington.
Click to expand...

But at least standing on the left is not a capital offence in Canada.
 
smartcooky said:
Clearly the Canadians who conceived those ridiculous signs have never ridden the London Tube during morning rush hour.
Click to expand...


I’ve recently been hearing announcements on the Tube telling us to hold the handrail while using the stairs.
 
Another case of contempt of cop. He tells her to hold the handrail, she refuses and he goes off on a 'how dare you not obey me' outrage.
 
Dave Rogers said:
I always hold the handrail, to keep my immune system alert. One thing I've noticed is that often the handrail speed doesn't exactly match the speed of the escalator steps; it usually seems to go slightly faster, so keeping hold of it on a very long downward escalator means I lean gradually further and further forward.

Dave
Click to expand...

Does this explain your extensive facial scarring?
 
Dave Rogers said:
One thing I've noticed is that often the handrail speed doesn't exactly match the speed of the escalator steps; it usually seems to go slightly faster, so keeping hold of it on a very long downward escalator means I lean gradually further and further forward.
Click to expand...

Children are right about escalators: they really are sentient and trying to eat you. The handrail is faster so you'll lose balance and fall and get sucked underneath at the bottom. Too many people are wary and know to step over the grinding interface where the tread meets the teeth, so the escalators have to try to get you to fall into there.
 
GlennB said:
Does this explain your extensive facial scarring?
Click to expand...

No, that's self-inflicted, in an attempt to convey the impression that I'm the sort of edgy rebel anarchist outsider who wouldn't hold on to the handrail on an escalator. I'm starting to understand why I'm not getting the message across now.

Dave
 
TragicMonkey said:
Children are right about escalators: they really are sentient and trying to eat you. The handrail is faster so you'll lose balance and fall and get sucked underneath at the bottom. Too many people are wary and know to step over the grinding interface where the tread meets the teeth, so the escalators have to try to get you to fall into there.
Click to expand...

Ever been on an escalator when there was a power cut?

Luckily, I was on the "up" escalator - only had about 45° to pitch forwards. Those on the "down" escalator weren't so lucky.
 
Puppycow said:
Rarely have I heard of a more ridiculous reason for a cop to arrest someone. Apparently Canada's Supreme Court agrees, despite lower courts dismissing her lawsuit. Glad she didn't give up and appealed it all the way up.

Award for Canada woman handcuffed for not holding escalator (BBC)



I can imagine a germaphobe would prefer to not touch the handrail. I don't know if that's why she didn't, but it's hardly a crime for an adult to ignore a sign like that. It's an escalator. Police officers should mind their own business unless someone is committing a real crime.
Click to expand...

I agree with you in principle, but who decides what is real crime is and what isn't?

One of the situations that is pretty common wrt drunk drivers who fail to stop and flee is the mistaken idea that 1) if they make it home w/o hitting something or someone they won't be taken into custody and 2) that if they make it home their motor vehicle won't be impounded.

There's also the folks that during the course of a garden variety vehicle stop will inform the officer involved that they should be arresting "the real criminals" like crack addicts and rapists rather than writing traffic citations.
 
BStrong said:
I agree with you in principle, but who decides what is real crime is and what isn't?
Click to expand...

In its ruling, the Supreme Court said that failure to hold the handrail was a "non‑existent offence". Not a crime. Police shouldn't be bothering members of the public legally going about their business. If they witness them committing a crime like drunk driving that's different of course.
 
I'm no defender of outrageous police misconduct, but the story includes this:
Ms Kosian had been taking the down escalator into the Montmorency Metro station in the city of Laval, Quebec, which is part of Montreal's public transit system, when a police officer stopped her and told her to hold the handrail.

Their exchange became heated when she refused, and refused to identify herself.
Click to expand...

If a cop asks you to do something that isn't unreasonable, like "try not to fall down the moving stairs," it's not worth fighting about it, and refusing to provide ID is another mistake. I'm glad she won her suit, but I wonder whether it was worth the time it took out of her life.
 
BStrong said:
I agree with you in principle, but who decides what is real crime is and what isn't?
.....
Click to expand...

That's easy: the legislatures and the courts. The story says she was stopped and charged with failing to obey a sign. The Supreme Court apparently determined that there's no such crime. It's certainly not up to the cop on the street.
 
BStrong said:
....
One of the situations that is pretty common wrt drunk drivers who fail to stop and flee is the mistaken idea that 1) if they make it home w/o hitting something or someone they won't be taken into custody and 2) that if they make it home their motor vehicle won't be impounded.
....
Click to expand...

I'm all for locking up drunk drivers whenever you catch them, but if the guy gets all the way home with his car, what's the point of impounding it?
 
Bob001 said:
I'm no defender of outrageous police misconduct, but the story includes this:


If a cop asks you to do something that isn't unreasonable, like "try not to fall down the moving stairs," it's not worth fighting about it, and refusing to provide ID is another mistake. I'm glad she won her suit, but I wonder whether it was worth the time it took out of her life.
Click to expand...
Why would she have to provide ID if she was not comitting a crime? She was perfectly entitled to tell the cop to mind his own business as she was not doing anything wrong
 
Segnosaur said:
I was on an escalator when the power went out. Was stuck there for an hour until the power came back on.
Click to expand...

That's nothing! I was attempting to go through an automatic door when power went out and it was stuck halfway! I couldn't go in or out! Stood there for hours!
 
BStrong said:
One of the situations that is pretty common wrt drunk drivers who fail to stop and flee is the mistaken idea that 1) if they make it home w/o hitting something or someone they won't be taken into custody and 2) that if they make it home their motor vehicle won't be impounded.
Click to expand...

And this was just about literally the case in this country prior to 1992. Before then, our Traffic Cops were officially known as the Traffic Safety Service (TSS) and were part of the Ministry of Transport, not the NZ Police. As such, they carried no weapons in their cars, had no formal Police training, and most importantly, they had no authority outside the confines of a gazetted roadway, i.e. they could not enter private property without a Policeman and a search warrant.

It was not uncommon for a young driver who had a few too many to refuse to pull over for a Traffic Cop. If the driver got home and parked up his driveway, the Traffic Cop would have to get a search warrant and a Police unit to execute it. By the time that happened, the driver had usually scarpered out the back gate through a neighbour's property and walked around to a mate's place to sleep out enough time for the booze to wear off.

The worst he could be charged with is speeding (if indeed he was) and/or failing to stop. Both were fines much lower than DUI and were not a risk of losing your driving licence.

(in 1992, the TSS was merged into the NZ Police)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom