Crash between RCMP vehicle and SUV under investigation in Surrey
Nobody was seriously hurt after an RCMP vehicle and an SUV crashed in Surrey's Cloverdale area Sunday night, according to authorities.
An officer with the RCMP Surrey Provincial Operations Support Unit was responding to an emergency call just before 8:30 p.m. when an SUV crashed into the vehicle at the intersection of 176 Street and 64 Avenue, police said.
'The occupants of the SUV, two adults and a small child, were taken to hospital by (B.C. Emergency Health Services) and examined by medical staff and it was determined that they had no injuries,' the Surrey Police Service wrote in a news release Monday.
'The RCMP officer was taken to hospital, examined, and later released with minor injuries.'
The SPOSU's major crime MVI unit and the integrated collision analysis and reconstruction service were called in to investigate and the intersection was closed for several hours as a result. The cause of the crash is yet to be determined.
Police asked anyone who witnessed the collision or has dash camera video to call 604-599-0502.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Man seriously injured in North York stabbing
A Toronto police car is pictured in this file image. (File Photo) A man in his 20s has been taken to hospital with serious injuries after being stabbed in North York in the early hours. Toronto police said officers were called to the area of Bayview and Steeles avenues around 4:40 a.m. for a stabbing. One man was subsequently transported to hospital with serious, but non-life-threatening injuries, police said. The suspect fled on foot. There was no immediate suspect description or any word about a possible motive. Police are asking anyone with information to contact them or call Crime Stoppers anonymously.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Fowl play
Clandestine surveillance, allegations of unsafe chicken and a broken business relationship: the story behind a Canadian lawsuit against Popeyes Louisiana Kitchen Susan Krashinsky Robertson Retailing reporter The Globe and Mail Augo Pinho, president and CEO of ADP Direct Poultry, at the company's Etobicoke chicken processing facility. Galit Rodan/The Globe and Mail to view this content.
Globe and Mail
an hour ago
- Globe and Mail
Sorry, speed cameras aren't the problem
A spectre is haunting Canadian roads: the real prospect of actually having to pay a fine for not respecting the speed limit. As speed cameras proliferate, particularly in Ontario, some drivers are showing their displeasure. Many of the cameras have been vandalized and one in Toronto cut down six times. It's time for a deep breath. Speed cameras shouldn't disappear, they should multiply. The cameras are effective and, because their penalty is so easily avoided, they are fair. In fact, a recent poll for CAA showed majority support among Ontarians for the cameras. Politicians who pander to the minority of drivers who hate them are gambling with public safety. Those politicians span the ideological spectrum, from Ontario's Progressive Conservative Premier Doug Ford to former Ontario Liberal leader Steven Del Duca, now mayor of suburban Vaughan, and left-leaning Toronto Mayor Olivia Chow. So busy trying to placate drivers, these politicians ignore that speed cameras work. The hit in the wallet is sufficiently unpleasant that it convinces people to slow down. For evidence, consider that the number of tickets issued by any given camera typically goes down over time. That effect has been further demonstrated by research from a hospital and university in Toronto. According to their findings, referenced in a recent city staff report, the proportion of vehicles speeding went down 45 per cent after cameras were installed near schools and in high-collision areas. The cameras actually generate relatively little revenue, after administrative costs are deducted. Their effect on behaviour is more important than the money. Fines lead to slower driving, and less speeding equals fewer injured or dead people. That's because speed is dangerous. The brain has limits on how fast it can process information taken in from peripheral vision. So a driver going more quickly experiences a literal narrowing of their vision, making it harder to spot possible risks in time. And the distance needed to brake goes up dramatically with speed, doubling between 30 and 50 kilometres an hour. Both of those factors make a collision more likely. And if one does occur, speed will make it worse. A person hit by a vehicle travelling at 30 kilometres an hour has a 90-per-cent chance of surviving. Increase the speed to 40 kilometres an hour, though, and the survival rate drops to 60 per cent. A person hit at 50 kilometres an hour has only a 20-per-cent chance of living. Mr. Ford may commiserate with drivers 'getting dinged' for going '10 kilometres over,' but small increases in speed matter. So keep the cameras, even though there are aspects of the policy over which reasonable people can disagree. Cities tend to be cagey about how much over the limit a driver has to be going to be issued a ticket. There will be absolutists on either side – claiming that any violation is worth ticketing, or that everyone speeds and thus a big buffer is warranted – but the best solution is location-specific. Speed increases make a much bigger difference on a quiet residential street than on a highway. Another contentious point is the extent to which drivers should be warned about speed cameras. Ms. Chow called earlier this year for bigger and more visible warning signs, in order to be 'fairer' to drivers. On the face, this is a farcical idea. The speed limit sign is surely warning enough. Why add a sign that effectively says, 'We really mean it'? Still, if signs flagging the presence of speed cameras are the price that must be paid for their political acceptability, so be it. Because, in the end, it may not make any difference to the effectiveness of the cameras. Cities are typically littered with so many signs that they become background clutter for drivers. These will similarly fade from notice. People who rail against speed cameras because thousands or tens of thousands of tickets have been issued – framing this as unjust or evidence of government overreach – miss the point. The volume of infractions speaks to how common speeding has become. Police rarely take traffic laws seriously, so the chances of being caught by them are slim. Cameras are reviled because they change the risk calculus. Unhappy drivers should remember that choosing to exceed the speed limit is, in fact, illegal, and that there's an easy hack to avoid getting a ticket: lighten up on that right foot.
