Results 1 to 71 of 71

Thread: Intersection Safety Devices (ISDs) Help Save Lives

  1. #1
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    172

    Default Intersection Safety Devices (ISDs) Help Save Lives

    Red light cameras will now do double duty at high collision intersections in Edmonton, St. Albert and Strathcona County. For years the Province of Alberta has allowed municipalities to use electronic devices to enforce traffic laws. Last year they approved the use of Intersection Safety Devices (ISDs), more commonly known as red light cameras, to measure speed in intersections on all phases of the light. Red, yellow and green. Cameras are already issuing tickets to drivers that run red lights and now if you speed while driving through an intersection, you could receive a ticket for that too.

    The City of Edmonton currently has 60 locations where ISDs are in use. St. Albert has 2 and Strathcona County has 6. The cameras are located at high collision intersections where speed and red light infractions occur the most and where it is dangerous or difficult for police officers to enforce traffic laws. Strathcona County has already started to measure speed in intersections, has gone through a warning letter phase and began issuing tickets on June 1st this year. Edmonton and St. Albert begin using ISDs in September of this year.

    Intersections are very dangerous places for motorists and pedestrians. In Alberta, almost half of all collisions occur at intersections. Each year, more than 25,000 collisions occur in the Capital region and more than one-quarter result in injury or death. Two out of three of these injury collisions occur in intersections. Speed enforcement is a fundamental component of any road safety strategy. There is a direct link between the driving speed and the severity of a collision. The faster you go, the more difficult it is to control your vehicle, the harder you hit and the more severe the collision is. ISDs are just another tool in our strategy to encourage drivers to slow down, and with that, reduce the number of collisions at intersections and help make our roads safer.

    Enforcing the speed limit at intersections is not about generating revenue – it’s about saving lives. It’s about taking big steps to change the attitude and behaviour of drivers. It’s about making speeding through intersections as unacceptable as not wearing a seatbelt or driving impaired. There is no such thing as safe speeding. The cost of collisions to municipalities, the health care system, the insurance industry and society far outweighs anything we could collect from tickets.

    ISDs are not about tricking motorists – they are about getting drivers to slow down and obey the speed limit. Every intersection that has a camera has a sign indicating that the intersection they are approaching has electronic monitoring. ISDs, coupled with a comprehensive signage and education program, has proven to be highly effective in reducing collisions and injuries at intersections by making drivers more aware of their driving habits and to change their behaviour. The constant reminder encourages drivers to slow down or get a ticket. The chance of getting caught is the deterrent.

    The Capital Region Intersection Safety Partnership (CRISP), a partnership made up of Alberta Health Services, Alberta Motor Association, City of Edmonton, City of St. Albert, Strathcona County as well as the EPS and RCMP, completely supports the idea of using ISDs to measure speed in intersections and make our roads safer for all users. Our goal is to see no tickets issued. If drivers are not running reds or speeding though intersections, we will have fewer and less severe collisions. That’s the whole purpose of monitoring speed in intersections – it’s about saving lives.

    -- Gerry Shimko, CRISP Chair
    Executive Director, Office of Traffic Safety, City of Edmonton

  2. #2

    Default

    Yup, that letter in the mail four to six weeks after the fact sure stopped Joe Leadfoot from speeding in the past. Pure cash cow.

    I'm curious, do city buses get these tickets? Of the hundred or so vehicles I've ever witnessed run a red or make a blatantly illegal turn, all but one or two were city buses.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  3. #3
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    a) the intersections are marked. Can't say you weren't warned.
    b) delay in the fine (letter in the mail) doesn't mean it won't have an effect. Just a delayed effect. So what. And if it doesn't have an effect, then maybe the fine isn't high enough - see c) below
    c) why does everyone always use the words "cash cow" like that's a bad thing? Revenue for the police (city) because people are speeding is a bad thing? Bring on the cash cow. Make it a cash Bull. Or cash Whale.

  4. #4

    Default

    Remember that many, if not most, of Edmonton's roads have artificially low speed limits. Combine that with poor signage displaying the speed limit and an automated machine to fine you for it, and you have a device that generates cash, not safety, hence the term cash cow.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    Stupid euphemisms. How about "intersection traffic enforcement cameras".

  6. #6
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Remember that many, if not most, of Edmonton's roads have artificially low speed limits. Combine that with poor signage displaying the speed limit and an automated machine to fine you for it, and you have a device that generates cash, not safety, hence the term cash cow.
    Would knowing there is a camera there make you slow down? The answer to that question also answers the safety question (talking about intersection cameras here as per the original post)

  7. #7
    You registered but never posted. username to be deleted.
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton, Ab
    Posts
    628

    Default

    From what I've experienced, the new cameras placed at 34th Ave and 91st St. have done little to slow down traffic anywhere along that stretch of road except for the couple of hundred feet surrounding that intersection.

    Did it make the intersection safer? Yes. Did it make the roads that pass through that intersection any safer? Marginally (if you include said intersection - otherwise, probably not).

  8. #8
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    photo radar vans could be considered cash cows, since they move around and are not often in the same place day after day. therefore, the feedback loop is not constant.

    but intersection devices are certainly there for safety. anyone who doesn't notice the red light camera sign shouldn't be driving. and if they missed that, the large camera and flash pillar is pretty darn obvious. make the fine higher. $1000.

  9. #9
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    The corner of 89th and 89th.
    Posts
    328

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    Remember that many, if not most, of Edmonton's roads have artificially low speed limits..
    Recently the city was floating an idea balloon in the news about the speed limit in residential areas, dropping the limit from 50kph to 30 or 40 kph. Their logic? Since most people see 50kph as really meaning 60 kph lets make the limit 30kph so really it's 40 kph. If that's their SOP then I can really believe what you say, that means the Whitemud at 80kph is actually 90kph.

  10. #10

    Default

    Photo radar should by definition be illegal under stunting laws. The law itself is defined as calling attention to oneself and creating a distraction. There's one spot in particular in the west end between 156th and 163rd on 95th ave where the speed limit is 50 kph, even though it has no business being that slow. 87th ave, which is more narrow is 60 so there's no justification for that stretch to be lower.

    There's always photo radar there. It's a cash cow and it's made me a worse driver for it because now I always end up looking over to see if there's a van parked there. Often times, i'll see the flash and like everyone else, I look around, removing my focus from the road. A couple times I've noticed it almost start accidents because the moment people see the flash they hit their brakes. It's a natural reaction but it's dangerous.

  11. #11
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    3,792

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post

    There's always photo radar there. It's a cash cow and it's made me a worse driver for it because now I always end up looking over to see if there's a van parked there. Often times, i'll see the flash and like everyone else, I look around, removing my focus from the road. A couple times I've noticed it almost start accidents because the moment people see the flash they hit their brakes. It's a natural reaction but it's dangerous.
    Why not just slow down when you see the photo radar sign? Why look over to confirm if there's a flash unit on the front of the vehicle? Just trying to see what you can get away with, or gain that extra 0.2 secs of time?

    Or just use a little detective work. If you're driving in to a setting sun, no chance they'll set up as no flash is powerful enough to overcome that. If there's a late model Ford Windstar or equivalent, running on the side of the road, and spotless (dead give away in winter), it's probably a photo van, no need to check for the flash.

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^^ Wow, I love the lengths to which people will go in order to justify breaking the law.

    "The speed limits are artificially low!"
    "Looking for photo radar vans is a distraction!"

    Give me a break. You shouldn't be driving around with attitudes like that.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  13. #13
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,004

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post

    There's always photo radar there. It's a cash cow and it's made me a worse driver for it because now I always end up looking over to see if there's a van parked there. Often times, i'll see the flash and like everyone else, I look around, removing my focus from the road. A couple times I've noticed it almost start accidents because the moment people see the flash they hit their brakes. It's a natural reaction but it's dangerous.
    Why not just slow down when you see the photo radar sign? Why look over to confirm if there's a flash unit on the front of the vehicle? Just trying to see what you can get away with, or gain that extra 0.2 secs of time?

    Or just use a little detective work. If you're driving in to a setting sun, no chance they'll set up as no flash is powerful enough to overcome that. If there's a late model Ford Windstar or equivalent, running on the side of the road, and spotless (dead give away in winter), it's probably a photo van, no need to check for the flash.
    If you're concerned about safety and also with getting tickets, I'd suggest if you drive according to the laws and rules you won't have a problem. You'll be able to completely ignore the cameras and photo radar.

    Heck, it wouldn't bother me if they had these at every intersection.
    aka Jim Good; "The sooner you fall behind, the more time you have to catch up." - Steven Wright

  14. #14

    Default

    Fantastic. As if the constant flashing from the people running the red light at 116 ST & Jasper wasn't bad enough, now it's gonna be going off for speeders. Fantastic. Between the constant flashing of the Edmonton Motors sign and the flash for the camera it's gonna be like a rave on the corner.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  15. #15
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ...and it's made me a worse driver for it because now I always end up looking over to see if there's a van parked there.
    lol!
    oh well can't win em all

  16. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^^ Wow, I love the lengths to which people will go in order to justify breaking the law.

    "The speed limits are artificially low!"
    "Looking for photo radar vans is a distraction!"

    Give me a break. You shouldn't be driving around with attitudes like that.
    For the most part I drive the speed limit and obey traffic laws almost robot-like. I don't have to break laws to be of the opinion that instead of adding layer upon layer of ineffective "safety" devices and laws, the city could fix the underlying congestion problems to make getting around faster and less stressful for drivers and transit users, and also make getting a license harder so new drivers actually have to learn how to drive before being thrown behind the wheel.

    But it's easier to forgo all that and just mass-ticket drivers and put the money into the general coffers, isn't it?
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  17. #17

    Default

    The money benefits everyone. The penalty is only payed by those who break the laws.
    You know, the laws you agreed to obey when why signed for your operators liscence? If you don't agree with them then don't drive, or lobby to change them. But I see no grounds for complaining if you receive a fine for violating them.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    ^^ Wow, I love the lengths to which people will go in order to justify breaking the law.

    "The speed limits are artificially low!"
    "Looking for photo radar vans is a distraction!"

    Give me a break. You shouldn't be driving around with attitudes like that.
    I have a perfect driving record. No accidents, no speeding tickets.
    Since when was I ever saying 'Hey those police won't let me speed now'?

    No, what I'm talking about is a stretch of a few blocks that has no business being as low as it is. The police know it too because they commonly park there to give people tickets. A 4 lane road with side lanes. No schools, no nothing that would be a valid excuse for the speed to be that low.

    Since the speed is only 50 there, it makes that stretch really boring. Since I know the police are often there, I end up losing focus of the road cause I'm constantly looking to see what kind of sneaky tricks they're upto.

    The vehicle they use lately is a massive black SUV. They used to use cars, they used to use vans. Now it's a massive SUV that's constantly idling. It's not there to stop people from speeding. It's a cashcow. If it was a deterrent, they've be visible to let you know to slow down and not hiding behind parked cars to catch people going a few km over on a road they know bloats their budget.

  19. #19

    Default

    This wont stop people from speeding in any way shape or form.

    It is a cash cow. But truthfully, the cops need as much money as they can get in these times. So why not?
    youtube.com/BrothersGrim
    facebook.com/BrothersGrimMusic

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I have a perfect driving record. No accidents, no speeding tickets.
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Since the speed is only 50 there, it makes that stretch really boring. Since I know the police are often there, I end up losing focus of the road cause I'm constantly looking to see what kind of sneaky tricks they're upto.
    If you're such a resplendent driver, why is it so hard for you to focus on your driving when there may or may not be photo radar on the road? If you have nothing to fear from them, why bother looking for them to the point that it is distracting you?
    Strathcona City Separatist

  21. #21
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Komrade View Post
    This wont stop people from speeding in any way shape or form.

    It is a cash cow. But truthfully, the cops need as much money as they can get in these times. So why not?
    I disagree with the first sentence but agree with everything else. I'm sure knowing that an intersection has cameras will slow down a significant number of drivers. The only reason it's a cash cow is because drivers make it so. And if people are dumb enough to speed through a marked intersection, then not only should they ante up, but maybe the electronics could be set up such that a picture of their car is posted on a nearby digital billboard, with some clever captions. Money comes out of the cash cow pot of course.

  22. #22

    Default

    I don't like the yellow light stopping they are proposing. Just the other day I stopped on a yellow real fast (nobody behind me as I thought it was about to turn red. I had a load of groceries in the back and the whole lot shifted forward then went crashing back. Anyway, I was thinking. If I had of been a truck driver with a load of pipe on the back (or anything) that stuff would be through the back of the cab. Don't make yellow light infractions a cash cow.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  23. #23

    Default

    Accelerating through an intersection on a yellow light can be considered "stunting". Enforcing a law that's already on the books? No brainer.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #24
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    I don't like the yellow light stopping they are proposing.
    What are you referring to?

  25. #25

    Default

    ^The proposal that if you SPEED UP to go through the intersection when you see a yellow light because you do not want to get stopped by the red light.
    Last edited by Gemini; 17-11-2009 at 01:07 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    I have a perfect driving record. No accidents, no speeding tickets.
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Since the speed is only 50 there, it makes that stretch really boring. Since I know the police are often there, I end up losing focus of the road cause I'm constantly looking to see what kind of sneaky tricks they're upto.
    If you're such a resplendent driver, why is it so hard for you to focus on your driving when there may or may not be photo radar on the road? If you have nothing to fear from them, why bother looking for them to the point that it is distracting you?
    Because it's a personal irk of mine that they're always there being so sneaky. It's gotten to the point that I expect them to be there, so I look over. I almost rear ended someone because of it. My fault for looking over, but through their actions, they've instigated the bad behavior.
    That means, their program is actually more harm than good.

    The yellow light thing will cause more accidents.
    Just the other day, I ran a yellow light. I saw the countdown timer from a distance. I thought it said 8 when it really said 3 and had little choice. Was not happy about that. In winter it'll be way worse.
    Last edited by armin; 17-11-2009 at 01:09 PM.

  27. #27

    Default

    So you have a personal irk and this is now a systemic flaw? Your irk is your problem, not the system's.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  28. #28

    Default

    When it becomes a safety issue, then yeah, it's a flaw. They're distracting me from the road through repetitive behavior and flashing lights. By the very definition of the stunting laws, they're calling attention to themselves and being a distraction.

  29. #29
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    When it becomes a safety issue, then yeah, it's a flaw. They're distracting me from the road through repetitive behavior and flashing lights. By the very definition of the stunting laws, they're calling attention to themselves and being a distraction.
    Do you not see the irony in any of your above arguments??

  30. #30
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^The proposal that if you SPEED UP to go through the intersection when you see a yellow light because you do not want to get stopped by the red light.
    I'm not sure who is proposing that but I agree it is not a good idea.
    I don't see anyone saying yellow light infractions are being ticketed. Being in the intersection when the light turns yellow is not an infraction, unless you're speeding. Sorry if I'm misunderstanding your post.

  31. #31

    Default

    ^The city has mentioned it. They want too ticked drivers that speed up when the light is yellow so that they miss the red. They are not ticketing people already in the intersection when it turns yellow. Just the ones that anticipate the red then speed up to get through the intersection. It has been talked about in the hallowed halls of City Hall.
    Last edited by Gemini; 17-11-2009 at 01:40 PM.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  32. #32

    Default

    That'd already be illegal. (Accelerating through an intersection that's gone yellow.)
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  33. #33

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    That'd already be illegal. (Accelerating through an intersection that's gone yellow.)
    They want to ticket people that speed up BEFORE they are in the intersection.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  34. #34

    Default

    If you enter an intersection while the light is yellow, your exit speed from said intersection should be the same as your entry speed. Whether you jammed the gas to the floor a half block back is irrelevant. If it's not, ticket it up!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Because it's a personal irk of mine that they're always there being so sneaky. It's gotten to the point that I expect them to be there, so I look over. I almost rear ended someone because of it. My fault for looking over, but through their actions, they've instigated the bad behavior.
    That means, their program is actually more harm than good.
    See, this is what I'm talking about. Even taking at face value that you've never been handed a ticket in your life, this is the wrong attitude to be driving around with - that your lack of attention on the road is not your fault. If you're that easily distracted, you should not be driving.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  36. #36

    Default

    I don't usually get in on these discussions of who is the better driver blah blah but I often wonder if the ones that are critical of other drivers are so perfect themselves.
    Writing a good yarn about driving does not translate into being a good driver on the road.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  37. #37
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ I don't drive. So huh.

    ETA: I bike for much of the year, so you can imagine my concern when a driver admits to being easily distracted.
    Last edited by RTA; 17-11-2009 at 03:46 PM.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  38. #38

    Default

    I haven't been a daily driver in over 10 years.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #39

    Default

    ^Not pointing fingers at anyone in particular. Just people in general.
    We all have concerns about what is going on on our roads.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  40. #40

    Default

    I'd love to see them move to a flash-less system for enforcement cameras. IR cameras or whatnot. My big issue with them is the constant flashing on busy nights.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  41. #41

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Because it's a personal irk of mine that they're always there being so sneaky. It's gotten to the point that I expect them to be there, so I look over. I almost rear ended someone because of it. My fault for looking over, but through their actions, they've instigated the bad behavior.
    That means, their program is actually more harm than good.
    See, this is what I'm talking about. Even taking at face value that you've never been handed a ticket in your life, this is the wrong attitude to be driving around with - that your lack of attention on the road is not your fault. If you're that easily distracted, you should not be driving.
    No, I'm an average driver who drives defensively enough that I can guage what others are going to do. I'm not a speed demon, but when I have issues from flashing lights stealing my attention, then I think it's my right to complain about it. Thanks for saying it's my fault when a photostrobe goes off in the darkness.

  42. #42
    never answered e-mail
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Edmonton, AB
    Posts
    656

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by RTA View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Because it's a personal irk of mine that they're always there being so sneaky. It's gotten to the point that I expect them to be there, so I look over. I almost rear ended someone because of it. My fault for looking over, but through their actions, they've instigated the bad behavior.
    That means, their program is actually more harm than good.
    See, this is what I'm talking about. Even taking at face value that you've never been handed a ticket in your life, this is the wrong attitude to be driving around with - that your lack of attention on the road is not your fault. If you're that easily distracted, you should not be driving.
    No, I'm an average driver who drives defensively enough that I can guage what others are going to do. I'm not a speed demon, but when I have issues from flashing lights stealing my attention, then I think it's my right to complain about it. Thanks for saying it's my fault when a photostrobe goes off in the darkness.
    That's not what was written. What was written was it is your fault if said light is so distracting to you that it affects your driving, not the fault of the light itself. I can only imagine how distracting you find changing the channel on the radio.

    I for one have no problem with the cameras catching people who speed, above the posted limit, obviously, regardless of where they are in relation to an intersection and what they're doing. The limit is the limit, full stop. If driving is too complicated for someone, they should take the bus.

  43. #43

    Default

    ^
    And my entire point is that one section has no business being a 50km zone when it should be 60km. 87th ave from 142 street all the way down to Anthony Henday is 60km. 95th between 142 and 178th is 50. There's schools on both. 95th even has a wider road as well the side streets. The police know it should be higher since they keep camping there.

    How hard is it for you to comprehend THE SPEED LIMIT IS TOO LOW?
    The cops are milking that road to fill their coffers. It has nothing to do with fighting crime and it certainly doesn't stop people from speeding. This is just a petty method of grabbing revenue and nothing more.

  44. #44
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    And my entire point is that one section has no business being a 50km zone when it should be 60km. 87th ave from 142 street all the way down to Anthony Henday is 60km. 95th between 142 and 178th is 50. There's schools on both. 95th even has a wider road as well the side streets. The police know it should be higher since they keep camping there.

    How hard is it for you to comprehend THE SPEED LIMIT IS TOO LOW?
    The cops are milking that road to fill their coffers. It has nothing to do with fighting crime and it certainly doesn't stop people from speeding. This is just a petty method of grabbing revenue and nothing more.
    Fer pete's sakes - so make your point and quite driving around in circles, pardon the pun.
    Allow me to summarize:
    You've taken a thread about intersection cameras and turned it into a complaint about photo radar on 95th....
    You've then said that photo radar is a hazard because it distracts you. Heaven forbid you have to glance at a billboard, LED sign, someone's high beams, or change the radio as someone said. Clearly the only distractions in your driving world are photo radar strobes. You never did answer my question about seeing the irony in that statement. And when people point that out a few times you finally respond by saying the limit is too slow....

    Did it ever occur to you that 87th ave has frontage roads along most of the stretch you refer to, while 95th does not? Maybe thats why the limit is different? Because there are houses right on 95th, not separated from traffic by a frontage road? I haven't lived there for 9 years and even I remember that.

  45. #45

    Default

    ^
    You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
    The original topic talks about speed enforcement. I stated my position, which you somehow can't grasp. The speed limit is too low. The police know this so they milk it.
    There's frontage houses along 87th all along it so nope, that's not it either.
    Feel free to berate me on my driving habits, which you know nothing about except for the fact that my record is crystal clean and I only brought this up because it is a distraction. I don't like the flashing billboards either, but those aren't at least trying to be sneaky about it.

  46. #46
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
    The original topic talks about speed enforcement. I stated my position, which you somehow can't grasp. The speed limit is too low. The police know this so they milk it.
    There's frontage houses along 87th all along it so nope, that's not it either.
    Feel free to berate me on my driving habits, which you know nothing about except for the fact that my record is crystal clean and I only brought this up because it is a distraction. I don't like the flashing billboards either, but those aren't at least trying to be sneaky about it.
    The title of the thread is intersection safety devices. The whole original post is about these devices. Perhaps thats not clear enough.

    Do you know what a frontage road is?
    "There's frontage houses along 87th all along it so nope, that's not it either" - that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

    Most of 87th has frontage roads. Most of 95th, particularly the east part, does not, certainly east of 156. End of story.

    I have never once berated your driving habits by the way. Your record is better than mine if that matters.
    Last edited by Chump; 17-11-2009 at 11:57 PM.

  47. #47

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chump View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    ^
    You obviously don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about.
    The original topic talks about speed enforcement. I stated my position, which you somehow can't grasp. The speed limit is too low. The police know this so they milk it.
    There's frontage houses along 87th all along it so nope, that's not it either.
    Feel free to berate me on my driving habits, which you know nothing about except for the fact that my record is crystal clean and I only brought this up because it is a distraction. I don't like the flashing billboards either, but those aren't at least trying to be sneaky about it.
    The title of the thread is intersection safety devices. The whole original post is about these devices. Perhaps thats not clear enough.

    Do you know what a frontage road is?
    "There's frontage houses along 87th all along it so nope, that's not it either" - that sentence makes no sense whatsoever.

    Most of 87th has frontage roads. Most of 95th, particularly the east part, does not, certainly east of 156. End of story.

    I have never once berated your driving habits by the way. Your record is better than mine if that matters.
    Yeah, and I was talking about the strip between 163rd and 156th which does have frontage roads, is 4 lanes, and has no business being a 50 zone. If you compare that to the section along 87th, on the same streets, there's virtually nothing different in the setup. Both are 4 lanes with the frontage, except 87th is 60. Can you explain to me why one is higher than the other?

  48. #48
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Holyrood
    Posts
    4,846

    Default

    ^ Who cares why it is? The speed limit is what it is. Because you or anyone else feels it's artificially low is not an excuse for breaking the law. Period.
    Strathcona City Separatist

  49. #49
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Can you explain to me why one is higher than the other?
    No.

    Perhaps they are less likely to change speed limits along different sections of roads for the purposes of a few blocks when the rest of the road is slower. Who knows. Call the city and ask them to raise the speed limit. If they do, I'm sure that will stop the strobes from going off

    Edit addition: actually after looking on google earth I'm almost positive that the very short stretch between 156 and 163 is not nearly enough to justify a separate speed limit. Too short.
    Last edited by Chump; 18-11-2009 at 02:32 PM.

  50. #50
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    ^ that is it. East of 156st there are no side streets. And at 165st Westlawn school has no sidestreet (whereas the single school on located on 87 does have one).

    So having speedlimits of:

    50kmh from 142-156
    60kmh from 156-164
    50kmh from 164-166

    is likely more than most people could grasp.

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    So the limit for the stretch of road in question is artificially low, but changing the limit every few blocks would result in confusion. Fair enough. Minimising speed limit changes is not unreasonable policy, but the fact that the design of 95 Av between 156 and 164 St would otherwise support a higher limit implies that speeding there is inherently less dangerous than speeding further east or west on the same road. The design of that portion of the road invites drivers to go faster, but also mitigates the danger of doing so.

    This situation makes an excellent test of the true intentions of the photo radar operators. If the main goal was really traffic safety, they would set up east of 156 St or west of 164 St where exceeding 50 km/h creates the largest safety hazard. Setting up between 156 and 164 St only makes sense if the goal is to give out as many tickets as possible, regardless of how much (or little) of a safety hazard the speeders are.

  52. #52
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Oliver
    Posts
    3,194

    Default

    ^ I would agree with that logic (although that logic applies to all sorts of our lowest-common-denominator traffic laws).

    It doesn't explain why the presence of a frequent and well-known photoradar van would cause certain drivers to almost become involved in rear-end collisions, though.
    Last edited by newfangled; 18-11-2009 at 04:31 PM.

  53. #53
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    So the limit for the stretch of road in question is artificially low, but changing the limit every few blocks would result in confusion. Fair enough. Minimising speed limit changes is not unreasonable policy, but the fact that the design of 95 Av between 156 and 164 St would otherwise support a higher limit implies that speeding there is inherently less dangerous than speeding further east or west on the same road. The design of that portion of the road invites drivers to go faster, but also mitigates the danger of doing so.

    This situation makes an excellent test of the true intentions of the photo radar operators. If the main goal was really traffic safety, they would set up east of 156 St or west of 164 St where exceeding 50 km/h creates the largest safety hazard. Setting up between 156 and 164 St only makes sense if the goal is to give out as many tickets as possible, regardless of how much (or little) of a safety hazard the speeders are.
    Now that's a reasonable argument.

  54. #54

    Default

    "ISDs are not about tricking motorists – they are about getting drivers to slow down and obey the speed limit."

    I am sick of the big brother mentality of our politicians. I really don't think that in our free country there is a place for ISD's. I am opposed to the camera being used in every facet of our lives. Our freedoms which our war veterans fought to preserve are slowly being eroded by sales pitches such as these. Our politicians are selling out. Do these camera's save lives? maybe. Do they catch evil speedsters? Maybe. One thing these cameras do represent is big brother watching. I am a private law abiding person and feel that since I am not a criminal I should be free to do as I please (if that includes speeding so be it!) We have police that can issue tickets.

  55. #55

    Default

    If you're speeding you're not a law-abiding, non-criminal person, are you?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  56. #56
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,448

    Default

    ^Speeders are law breakers, but they aren't criminals.

    As far as the loss of hard-won freedoms goes, traffic cameras are low on my list of concerns. Things like our growing culture of security paranoia or proposed laws allowing warrantless internet surveillance in the name of stopping child pornography concern me a lot more. My biggest issue with traffic cameras is the questionable law that allows tickets to be issued to vehicle owners without identifying the driver - after all, cars don't break traffic laws, drivers do. Indeed, I find it curious that mandatory vehicle registration and license plates have been nearly universally accepted for decades by the same people who vehemently protested mandatory registration of firearms.

  57. #57

    Default

    Soooooo....what sort of performance indicator will prove to us all that automated traffic enforcing results in singificantly fewer acidents or less severe damage? I don't mind driving like I have absolutely nothing else to do with my life, but I would like to see proof that the omniscient City knows what's best for me.

  58. #58

    Default

    I got a ticket in the the mail today from an ISD. It was for speeding on the Yellowhead at the 107 St intersection. I was going 86 km/h in a 70 km/h zone. I'm curious how I got this ticket because I take the Yellowhead every Monday-Friday going to and from work. Unfortunately yes I always drive about this speed on the Yellowhead, and so does everyone. What I don't get is why wouldn't I get a ticket everyday then? Is this completely random? Is their certain times of the day or week where it monitors speed and other times it doesn't? It happened on a Sunday afternoon if that means anything.

  59. #59

    Default

    Maybe this is just the start of a pile of tickets to start arriving every day ? Photo Radar tickets are usually about 1.5 months behind actual infraction time!

  60. #60

    Default

    This one was from May 9th. I've been driving this route for almost 4 years. I find it odd how it was on a Sunday afternoon. During rush hour I have a feeling it doesn't apply

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rhino View Post
    This one was from May 9th. I've been driving this route for almost 4 years. I find it odd how it was on a Sunday afternoon. During rush hour I have a feeling it doesn't apply
    Well, I hope your right, for your pocket book sake. The mail man may become really familiar with your address. These devices have only began to be installed over the last year... Perhaps this one just got installed and made operational in May 2010?

  62. #62

    Default

    Do you know if their is a way to find out?

  63. #63

    Default

    this file here: http://www.edmontonpolice.ca//~/medi...2009Dec17.ashx
    references the ISD there as of December 2009... so I guess there's some other explanation of why you just started receiving the ticket.

    I know with the red light cameras, not all spots had cameras all the time, and the city would rotate the location of the cameras...

  64. #64

    Default

    Well do you think they do it during rush hour when theirs probably 20 or more vehicles going through per light? because I know everyone speeds liek crazy on the Yellowhead. Do you think they limit it to not so busy times like a Sunday afternnon? Or maybe I am actually going through it at the speed limit because traffic is backed up and going slower and I just don't realize it. I don't know lol. Thanks for the help though

  65. #65
    C2E Super Addict
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Saskatchewan
    Posts
    1,329

    Default

    There are two of these here at fairly famous intersections (for accidents) and I know for a fact they don't have them "on" all the time. Not sure why mind you.

  66. #66

    Default

    I have a feeling that this was because it was a weekend then. Because I'm usually not on the Yellowhead on weekends. There is very little traffic on the Yellowhead on the weekends so that makes me think that they catch people speeding because no one is around, very little traffic.

  67. #67
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    143

    Default

    You know where an ISD would be unreal? On 105 Street somewhere around 98th Ave. I know it sounds somewhat insane what with the street uphill and all but people rip up that hill so fast. And game over if they don’t have to stop at the intersection on 97th. If the city doesn’t throw an ISD up in that area it would be a fantastic place for cops to hang out with their noise meters next month.

  68. #68

    Default

    Driving back on Yellowhead last night. I'm driving the speed limit and next thing you know, a giant flash right in my face. I think it got the person going in the opposite direction but i'm not sure. I'll have to check the mail.

  69. #69

    Default

    ^If they were trying to get your licence number the flash would not be in your face.
    More than likely the guy going the other way.
    Gone............................and very quickly forgotten may I add.

  70. #70

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by armin View Post
    Driving back on Yellowhead last night. I'm driving the speed limit and next thing you know, a giant flash right in my face. I think it got the person going in the opposite direction but i'm not sure. I'll have to check the mail.
    I got snapped on the Yellowhead one, it is mean. I think that intersection by the Humpties is making a ton of money, I see it flashing all the time. I was doing 90km/hr in 70k zone (I can never figture out speed limits on Yellowhead).

  71. #71

    Default

    ^
    The speed limits are so erratic, how is anyone supposed to maintain an average speed? No one goes the speed limit. If you do go the speed limit, you get tailgaters.
    They had a police car just sitting in the middle of the road with his lights on. They were using him as a pylon. Great use of resources.

    Gemini, I hope. I really hate photo radar.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •