Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 100 of 1211

Thread: Petition Against Photo Radar Started

  1. #1

    Default Petition Against Photo Radar Started

    Not sure if this is the right place to post, but an online petition was started by someone and has been picked up by a few media places. Doubt its legally binding but still interesting to see

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1595766/th...t-photo-radar/

    http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icks-up-steam/

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/touch...ml?rel=1419033

    http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09...n_5908094.html

    http://blogs.edmontonjournal.com/201...-city-council/
    Last edited by trick91; 03-10-2014 at 11:30 AM.

  2. #2
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    It is not legally binding, there are strict rules on petitions as per the MGA and this does not meet them.

  3. #3
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,235

    Default

    A better option is to call, mail or email the mayor and council, they ultimately set the speed limits. In the case of 99th Street they have decided to let it remain at 50 km/h instead of the more reasonable 60 km/h. They will not necessarily agree with a large number of voters but they will listen.

    Their contact information is here;
    http://www.edmonton.ca/city_governme...uncillors.aspx

  4. #4
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,415

    Default

    ^Agreed. The problem is not photo radar per se, but the unreasonably low - and in a few cases unsafe - speed limits on certain arterial roads.

    For instance, the only way to maintain a 50 km speed limit driving down the hill on Scona Road is to intermittently apply the brakes. How does that improve traffic safety?

  5. #5
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    All I want is for council to come up with some clear numbers and explanations. Exactly how has it made our roads safer since 1993? Is that (likely very insignificant) gain worth the cost to both ticket payers and taxpayers in general? What could have been accomplished with hiring more police officers with that money instead? Why does one person get a ticket for keeping up with the pace of traffic, but the 20 cars around him or her not? Why has there never been a photo radar vehicle on my street where there are constantly kids playing and running around front yards and sidewalks, and yet ensuring people do 80 rather than 90 on a freeway is somehow the most important safety priority?

    If they can honestly explain the use and justify the cost I'd be satisfied. So far, no one on council has managed to do that as far as I'm concerned.

  6. #6
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    In addition to suggesting to Councillors that speed limits should be set to match the design speed according to engineering criteria instead of some arbitrary number chosen for political reasons, one could also suggest that photo radar locations should be chosen using only traffic safety criteria. The number of speeders should be irrelevant, it is the number collisions caused by excessive speed that is important.

  7. #7
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ agreed. how dangerous is 112th avenue at Borden Park, or Jasper Avenue at the Boardwalk buildings ? I would doubt either of those spots are high collision areas, yet popular because they're good places to snag people going over 50

    The mayor looked quite foolish in his stauch defense of the program, especially in light of the financial bungling that has occured

    That said, I do support photo radar in general. But it is being used as a cash cow at the moment
    Parkdale

  8. #8

    Default

    They have used the same rationale for reducing school zone speed limits - "it says lives" - even after all the studies say speed has no effect. This council needs to smarten up and start using hard facts instead of governing with thier hearts.

    Once again I hate to say it but looks like Strathcona county got it right - they removed poratable photo radar and replaced it with more peace officers. They did keep red-light and speed on red - proven that this is where the 'high impact' accidents occur. Time for our ostrich to pull his head out of the sand.

  9. #9
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I am totally for petitions against speed cameras in this city as they are right now for one reason:

    Edmonton speed cameras are DESIGNED TO KEEP PEOPLE SPEEDING. That's right. Edmonton police WANT you to speed. This should be plainly evident to anyone that looks at a photo radar speed trap.

    They purposely hide the trucks behind bushes, buildings, trees, or in parked cars where you can't see them and probably don't even realize you were caught. They then wait a month or more to send out the ticket so you have forgotten the incident completely and can't fight it (who knows if they really caught you or the guy next to you in traffic? there is ZERO way to prove either way except their word, and they have a vested interest in lying about their equipment).

    If they truly wanted to slow down traffic they would put PERMANENT, VISIBLE cameras on the roads. People do not slow down if they feel safe speeding. If they can see the cameras, they slow down.

    EPS: there is a reason people don't respect you. We all know speed cameras are just cash cows, and that you don't care whatsoever about traffic safety. Get out of your cushy, expensive trucks where you sit all day collecting your unearned wages, and do something useful like community policing or catching drunk/distracted drivers.

  10. #10
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,807

    Default

    ^Yes, all very true. Recently my brother received two tickets for going 71 km/h on 170 street around 114 avenue within 30 seconds of each other. Because they put two trucks a block or two apart. That demonstrates how useful photo enforcement is at reducing speeds.

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ agreed. how dangerous is 112th avenue at Borden Park, or Jasper Avenue at the Boardwalk buildings ? I would doubt either of those spots are high collision areas, yet popular because they're good places to snag people going over 50
    Or 142 street just South of 107 avenue? I mean, that traffic circle is always one of the highest collision locations in the city, yet the city sees fit to only bother enforcing the speed of traffic travelling away from the intersection (as there is no parking on the East side of the road to allow for photo radar for Northbound traffic).
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 03-10-2014 at 01:13 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Great article in the Metro today:

    http://metronews.ca/voices/footnotes...-the-big-fine/
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  12. #12
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,415

    Default

    ^The only part of Omar's article I disagree with is at the end. Checked the last two photo radar tickets I've received. I was barely going 10 km/h over the posted limit on Scona Road and Yellowhead Trail. Was driving at the same speed as the rest of the traffic during non-peak periods with ideal daytime driving conditions.

    It does not automatically follow that most people will drive 10 km/h faster should the speed limits on these particular roads be raised to the level they were designed for. I for one would not. I have zero demerit points, but like many other Edmontonians get zinged with the occasional photo radar ticket while driving safely and defensively.
    Last edited by East McCauley; 03-10-2014 at 01:43 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    ^Yes, all very true. Recently my brother received two tickets for going 71 km/h on 170 street around 114 avenue within 30 seconds of each other. Because they put two trucks a block or two apart. That demonstrates how useful photo enforcement is at reducing speeds.
    One night 10 years ago when this B-train going 40 km/h on the inside lane 170th at about the same place, as I passed him on the right I realized that I had to scoot past him quickly because I need to turn left at the next intersection. I got nailed by a real officer in a manned radar trap.

    I apologized to the indifferent officer and accepted my mistake and paid the fine.

    Last time I looked, 170 st is 60 km/h MAXIMUM

    Obey the law, don't speed and you don't get fined.

    Such a difficult concept for some drivers...

    or in your beer...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  14. #14

    Default

    The "natural flow of traffic" excuse is always good for a laugh.

    "Other people were doing it, so that's tacit approval for me to disobey the law."

    And for the 290312903182390128390123481938139012890318293th time: THE COPS DON'T MANAGE PHOTO RADAR. Saying photo radar reduces your respect of the EPS is like saying the food McDonalds reduces your respect for Burger King.

    It doesn't matter if the traps are hidden, the speed limit signs aren't. Cry more about the situation you are entirely responsible for getting yourself in, crappy self-righteous drivers. I needed cheering up on a gloomy Friday.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  15. #15
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    At what point was it even a good article? Just someone blinded by the propaganda that is fed to us, that anything over the limit is dangerous, and that everyone going the limit will significantly reduce the number of collisions.

    Anyone with common sense can see that there are far bigger problems on the road than going over the limit a little, that will have a much bigger impact on reducing the number of collisions, rather than just reducing the severity of them.

    Speed is easy to measure, so they take the easy way out to promote "safety", when in reality, if they reallocated those resources to other safety campaigns (distracted/impaired driving, etc), then it would pay higher dividends in terms of safety, than ticketing someone doing 110 on the Henday, who is really driving very safely.

  16. #16
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The "natural flow of traffic" excuse is always good for a laugh.
    Except that it is well known that travelling with the flow of traffic is much safer than holding it up, or trying to speed past it.

    Only someone with very limited exposure to driving would not realize that
    Parkdale

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Except that it is well known that travelling with the flow of traffic is much safer than holding it up, or trying to speed past it.

    Only someone with very limited exposure to driving would not realize that
    It all has to start somewhere 240 & the people who trot this excuse out are the ones that got a ticket for going 12km/h over the limit on Scona or somesuch, where a 5km/h difference would have resulted in no ticket at all.

    I'm well aware of the safety concerns of being the odd-man-out, speed-wise, but we're talking in degrees of a few km/h here, where the effect would be minimal at best.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    And for the 290312903182390128390123481938139012890318293th time: THE COPS DON'T MANAGE PHOTO RADAR.
    Who manages photo radar?

  19. #19

    Default

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx

    Currently the City of Edmonton contracts Photo Enforcement Operators, who are appointed Peace Officers, from the Corps of Commissionaires, to conduct photo enforcement at various locations throughout the city.
    This is exactly why it's so hilarious to have people say that it takes away from police resources. The program is revenue-positive & hands-off from the police. It only adds to our resources & coffers as a city.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Except that it is well known that travelling with the flow of traffic is much safer than holding it up, or trying to speed past it.

    Only someone with very limited exposure to driving would not realize that
    It all has to start somewhere 240 & the people who trot this excuse out are the ones that got a ticket for going 12km/h over the limit on Scona or somesuch, where a 5km/h difference would have resulted in no ticket at all.

    I'm well aware of the safety concerns of being the odd-man-out, speed-wise, but we're talking in degrees of a few km/h here, where the effect would be minimal at best.
    And in defense of your opinion as well, I will note that the safety benefits of travelling with the flow of traffic are likely most prevalent at highway speeds, not on city streets.

    I've had a few speeding tickets over the years, mostly when I was younger. I am still known to exceed the speed limit when travelling on the highway, where safe to do so, with my Valentine One on the dash and my attention 100% on driving. I also have 24 years and about three million KM's of driving experience, a lot of that professionally, without a single collision.. and I have avoided a lot of collisions that would not have been my fault, but thanks to defensive driving I was able to avoid.

    And if I get a ticket I'll pay it. But I won't... because any place I have gotten a ticket in the past has been in an urban area, and I don't drive in the city anymore.. I let the S.O. do that, because I can't handle the stress and anxiety of being around so many terrible, horrible drivers
    Parkdale

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    They purposely hide the trucks behind bushes, buildings, trees, or in parked cars where you can't see them and probably don't even realize you were caught.
    SO SNEAKY!

    If only the city provided a map where automated enforcement was occurring.

    Oh.

    Wait.

    They DO.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...cation_Map.pdf

    They tell you where they're going to be, speed limits are posted & the system is well-publicized. If you're surprised you got a ticket, the only person you should be pointing a finger at is yourself.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  22. #22
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    The "natural flow of traffic" excuse is always good for a laugh.

    "Other people were doing it, so that's tacit approval for me to disobey the law."
    When a majority of drivers are breaking the law on a regular basis under normal conditions, the law is the problem, not the drivers.

    I'm all for collecting more revenue from drivers (building and maintaining roads is expensive), but lets do it by raising fuel taxes instead of setting artificially low speed limits.

  23. #23

    Default

    Considering how unsafe our city is (44 outta 50 & the highest collision rates), I disagree that it's the law that's wrong.

    Drivers in Edmonton are just far crappier than they believe themselves to be & looooove speeding.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,335

    Default

    The petition starts off with misinformation implying that the extra $46m could have spent on other programs. The program has higher revenues than expenses so no extra money is being spent that could have been used on other programs.

    Further the City's data shows a substantial drop in the rate of injury/fatal collisions since 2007. Perhaps this has been caused by other factors but I've never seen that effectively argued. Mostly this just seems to be people angry about getting caught.

    The claim that it's a cash grab always confuses me as well since the income from the program is spent on a traffic safety programs. It's not like anybody is getting rich on this money or that the City is spending it on frivolities.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  25. #25
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,807

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Considering how unsafe our city is (44 outta 50 & the highest collision rates), I disagree that it's the law that's wrong.

    Drivers in Edmonton are just far crappier than they believe themselves to be & looooove speeding.
    Strange that with the massive photo enforcement that our roads aren't actually safer, then. I mean, photo speed enforcement significantly increases safety right? Weird.

  26. #26

    Default

    No, photo radar is about enforcement, which may lead to safety but is not the primary focus.

    Photo Radar was introduced in 1993 and has proved to be an extremely accurate and effective means of traffic enforcement.
    From http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  27. #27
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    The petition starts off with misinformation implying that the extra $46m could have spent on other programs. The program has higher revenues than expenses so no extra money is being spent that could have been used on other programs.

    Further the City's data shows a substantial drop in the rate of injury/fatal collisions since 2007. Perhaps this has been caused by other factors but I've never seen that effectively argued. Mostly this just seems to be people angry about getting caught.

    The claim that it's a cash grab always confuses me as well since the income from the program is spent on a traffic safety programs. It's not like anybody is getting rich on this money or that the City is spending it on frivolities.
    Paul, how can you possibly think photo radar improves safety when they purposely HIDE the radar trucks so traffic does not slow down? The police go out of their way and use every devious, shady trick in the book down to getting unlikely vehicles to have cameras, just so drivers KEEP SPEEDING. Edmonton police WANT you to speed so they can keep doing their cushy, sit in a heated truck and do nothing all day job collecting money.

    If they put the photo radar out in the open with big signs I would have absolutely no problem with it, because it would actually make people slow down. As it stands it clearly has nothing to do with safety. In fact the opposite, they encourage people to speed by making artificially low limits then hiding the trucks.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 03-10-2014 at 05:00 PM. Reason: Police, not policy.

  28. #28

    Default

    Paul Turnbull

    While I don't agree with the basis of the petition I also don't agree with this:
    Mostly this just seems to be people angry about getting caught.
    From a personal perspective I can't remember the last time I received a speeding ticket of any kind...but I find photo radar offensive.

    - It's comes off as sneaky.

    - I see no active deterrent value, even an empty patrol car on the shoulder would be a greater deterrent to speeding and overall traffic safety. (it is done in places in the USA)

    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/

    So it is not the fact people are getting tickets or the speed limits that bugs me...it is the way it is being done and how it is presented.

    And I don't think I'm alone in these thoughts

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 03-10-2014 at 05:05 PM.

  29. #29

    Default

    I think if you don't want a speeding ticket, you would slow down.... and not speed? Not sure how this issue is any more complicated.

    Cops hide too in regular enforcement... how is it any difference?

  30. #30

    Default

    That ticket revenue mentioned in your article isn't the same pool as automated enforcement revenue, Thomas.

    I concur the EPS shouldn't factor in their fines into the budget, but that's an entirely separate issue you're conflating with automated enforcement.

    Putting a squad car, empty or not, would take EPS resources which, currently, automated enforcement does not & I don't think that's an effective use of our limited police resources. So long as automated enforcement is revenue positive (and Edmontonians have shown that it is, even in spite of the program's overrun) I can't get behind forgoing revenue & allocating higher-value resources to a mundane task.

    I don't understand how anything posted publically can be sneaky. Choosing to remain uninformed doesn't make someone else "sneaky".
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  31. #31
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I think if you don't want a speeding ticket, you would slow down.... and not speed? Not sure how this issue is any more complicated.

    Cops hide too in regular enforcement... how is it any difference?
    This however is not the reality. All the research and stats show that people drive the speed they feel safe going, regardless of the speed limit.

    Also, the research shows that regardless of the speed limit, the safest speed is the speed of traffic.

    The hidden truck nonsense is DOUBLY dangerous because it makes people going a SAFE speed (the speed of traffic) slam on their brakes without notice as soon as they see the truck.

    How the people who are supposed to be keeping our communities safe see this as a good idea is a complete mystery to me. Clearly they care more about money than safety. It also must be nice to sit in the heated/air conditioned truck all day instead of doing something useful and difficult like community policing or trying to catch drunk drivers.

  32. #32

    Default

    Medwards
    I think if you don't want a speeding ticket, you would slow down.... and not speed?
    From my perspective...agree and my drivers abstract shows it...but.
    Cops hide too in regular enforcement... how is it any difference?
    In undercover work they hid to catch the bad guy so they don't do it again, they don't try to justify it as safety or a deterrent.

    Photo radar they do.

    They say it is not about the money and then you get an article such as the link I posted which certainly gives the impression (particularly the headline) that it is.

    Again...this isn't about the tickets or the limits.

    It is about how it's done and the mixed messages that are sent.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  33. #33

    Default

    Jaerdo
    It also must be nice to sit in the heated/air conditioned truck all day instead of doing something useful and difficult like community policing or trying to catch drunk drivers.
    This isn't a policy set by the police doing the enforcement (or the contractors) it is about how the policy makers in the police service are handling the communication and the optics of photo radar.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  34. #34

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I think if you don't want a speeding ticket, you would slow down.... and not speed? Not sure how this issue is any more complicated.

    Cops hide too in regular enforcement... how is it any difference?
    This however is not the reality. All the research and stats show that people drive the speed they feel safe going, regardless of the speed limit.
    What research is this? I highly doubt it's all research. There's quite a lot of research and study behind the limits that are set. Which research are you going to believe? The one that makes you feel better about being caught for speeding? Ya... I get that.

    Also, the research shows that regardless of the speed limit, the safest speed is the speed of traffic.
    Again -- Lets provide a citation here, instead of grandstanding "All research shows I'm right, so there"

    The hidden truck nonsense is DOUBLY dangerous because it makes people going a SAFE speed (the speed of traffic) slam on their brakes without notice as soon as they see the truck.
    Shouldn't be slamming on their brakes, and shouldn't be following too close. If you are speeding , and following too close, you are DOUBLY STUPID. Stupid is as stupid does, and there's a lot of drivers out there that think they are above the rules of the road because "they are better driver"... LOL

    How the people who are supposed to be keeping our communities safe see this as a good idea is a complete mystery to me. Clearly they care more about money than safety. It also must be nice to sit in the heated/air conditioned truck all day instead of doing something useful and difficult like community policing or trying to catch drunk drivers.
    Did you know that its SECURITY OFFICERS sitting in those photo radar trucks? NOT Police officers?

    Thanks...

  35. #35
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Westmount, Edmonton
    Posts
    5,335

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    ...
    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/

    ...
    This article refers to the ticket revenue collected directly by the EPS and does not include photo radar revenue. At least I have to assume as much as the photo radar is about $30m per year while this article refers to ~$9m in revenue from fines.

    Photo radar money is supposed to go to traffic safety programs and research although it would be good of the City gave a breakdown on that.

    "For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong"

  36. #36

    Default

    Coming from a guy who hasn't had a speeding or photo radar ticket in over 7 years...

    Don't speed and maybe you won't get tickets. I'm not perfect and I do speed occasionally but for the most part I follow the speed limits and haven't had a ticket. I can't think of a reason (other than being late) of why I've needed to speed.

  37. #37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Paul Turnbull View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    ...
    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/

    ...
    This article refers to the ticket revenue collected directly by the EPS and does not include photo radar revenue. At least I have to assume as much as the photo radar is about $30m per year while this article refers to ~$9m in revenue from fines.

    Photo radar money is supposed to go to traffic safety programs and research although it would be good of the City gave a breakdown on that.
    Paul

    I agree that is why I said it
    it certainly does come across as
    which is the bigger problem.

    It is the perception left with the public and they need to be clear on the facts or you get the whole tax grab conversation.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  38. #38

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    It also must be nice to sit in the heated/air conditioned truck all day instead of doing something useful and difficult like community policing or trying to catch drunk drivers.
    Commissonaires wouldn't be responsible for community policing or catching drunk drivers.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  39. #39
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Variable speed limits that allow drivers to go safe speed found to increase speed homogeneity and reduce collisions:

    Yu, R., & Abdel-Aty, M. (2014). An optimal variable speed limits system to ameliorate traffic safety risk. Transportation Research: Part C, 46235-246

    Study finds that speed reductions of more than 20 km/h are "not practically achievable" as drivers continue to go "safe speed" (or unsafe) based on perception:

    Hildebrand, E. D., & Mason, D. D. (2014). Effectiveness of countermeasures to reduce vehicle speeds in freeway work zones. Canadian Journal Of Civil Engineering, 41(, 686-694.

    Drivers go the speed they feel safe at: "Speeds are affected by several variables such as driver characteristics, vehicle performance, road geometrics, environmental conditions and driving regulations. It is therefore important to study the relationships between speed and such variables in order to facilitate conscious speed management on existing and planned roads, and to induce drivers to select a speed consistent with the posted limit. "

    Bassani, M., Dalmazzo, D., Marinelli, G., & Cirillo, C. (2014). The effects of road geometrics and traffic regulations on driver-preferred speeds in northern Italy. An exploratory analysis. Transportation Research: Part F, 25(Part A), 10-26.

    Traffic calming effective in reducing speeds, not limits.

    Moreno, A., & García, A. (2013). Use of speed profile as surrogate measure: Effect of traffic calming devices on crosstown road safety performance. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 6123-32.


    Also, I don't care who is sitting in the truck. They are paying people to sit in a truck all day and collect money.

    And yes, I agree, the people who slam on their brakes are MORONS. That doesn't change the fact that the trucks are causing them to slam on their brakes! If the trucks were out in the open, they could still do their task of catching speeders, but they would actually make the roads safer!

    I am ALL FOR photo radar. I just want it to be done in a way that actually improves road safety. Put the trucks out in a visible location and ding everyone that speeds past. I am totally fine with that. The way it is being done now though is completely wrong and has a negative impact on safety.

  40. #40

    Default

    I find one of the worst spots for getting an actual speeding tickets (not photo radar) is just south of Rexall Place on 118th. Ave. Where the road dips under the LRT bridge. It's a 50 zone but if you are heading east or west and are going down the slight hill towards the dip you have to basically ride your brakes as you will be doing 60 in no time. Then when you actually get to the bottom of the dip you have to hit the gas to get up the incline. You are probably going over the limit again. Add to that it's a popular place for an actual officer(s) to be there to pull you over. If I got ticketed at that spot I would contest it. Which leads to the question, why have the not put photo radar on both sides of the road?.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  41. #41

    Default

    How does the visibility of a non-moving vehicle affect your personal choice to exceed the speed limit? It doesn't. You choose to speed. You. Just you.

    If you made them put the vehicles right out in the open, then anywhere you can't see an enforcement vehicle gives you carte blanche to speed.

    Hide 'em. Hide 'em everywhere. Make Edmontonians rightfully paranoid they are having their driving conduct constantly observed & snag as many as you can. Funnel funding from the existing cameras into buying more, until it's ubiquitous everywhere. Start with the high-revenue, high-traffic areas & move into lower impact areas as the finances are in place.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #42

    Default

    ^That's all well and good but statistics are saying it does not impact accident rates. More photo-radar does not equal less accident rates.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  43. #43

    Default

    A speeding fool and his money are soon parted.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  44. #44

    Default

    Speed is a factor in 1/3 of all fatal accidents. That's why we have speed limits.

    Even if speed wasn't a factor in accident rates, how does that mean we shouldn't be enforcing the law as universally & uniformly as possible? The only cost-effective way to universally & uniformly enforce the speed limits is through automated enforcement.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  45. #45

    Default

    The only reason a person is in attending the photo radar box is because the law required it. We could do like some other countries and just automate it all. Like the red light cameras.

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Also, I don't care who is sitting in the truck. They are paying people to sit in a truck all day and collect money.
    So the issue you have is that someone is doing their job? I dont get this. They pay people to do work. Wow. The work involves them sitting in a truck operating the photo radar system. The photo radar system collects money because people speed. Can you elaborate on what the problem is with someone doing their job? Who cares if they are sitting in a truck, or doing speed traps from an office using a drone...

    And yes, I agree, the people who slam on their brakes are MORONS. That doesn't change the fact that the trucks are causing them to slam on their brakes!
    Whoa there Billy!!! Let's step back further here... The photo radar units probably wouldn't even be there if everyone drove the speed limit, and if everyonr drove the speed limit, no one would need to slam on their brakes. So this would be a none issue. You could have 20 photo radar vans in a row if you wanted to, and if no one is speeding, no one has to slam the brakes while passing. Come on man.

    If the trucks were out in the open, they could still do their task of catching speeders, but they would actually make the roads safer!
    I've seen them out in the open. I also see them in the same spots every time. I've noticed the locations of the traps are well advertised including on the local tv, radio and newspapers, they even post a website where they will be. And again, what does it matter if the trucks are in the open or not if you....










    NOT SPEEDING!!! crazy I know!!!

    I am ALL FOR photo radar.
    Really?!!? ALL for it... except when they "hide", or its some guy sitting in a truck, or some guy getting PAID... oh the heavens forbid.

    I just want it to be done in a way that actually improves road safety.Put the trucks out in a visible location and ding everyone that speeds past. I am totally fine with that. The way it is being done now though is completely wrong and has a negative impact on safety.
    Want to improve road safety? Don't speed.
    Want to not get a ticket? Don't speed.
    Want to not worry about slamming on your brakes because you've spotted any type of speed enforcement ? Don't speed.
    Last edited by Medwards; 03-10-2014 at 06:19 PM.

  47. #47
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    How does the visibility of a non-moving vehicle affect your personal choice to exceed the speed limit? It doesn't. You choose to speed. You. Just you.

    If you made them put the vehicles right out in the open, then anywhere you can't see an enforcement vehicle gives you carte blanche to speed.

    Hide 'em. Hide 'em everywhere. Make Edmontonians rightfully paranoid they are having their driving conduct constantly observed & snag as many as you can. Funnel funding from the existing cameras into buying more, until it's ubiquitous everywhere. Start with the high-revenue, high-traffic areas & move into lower impact areas as the finances are in place.

    Oh seriously, don't be so obstinate. We are talking about the behaviour of drivers in general, and you know perfectly well that I am right. Stop trying to tow the party line on this.

    It has been proven again and again that the "hidden camera" crap DOES NOT WORK. If it did, they wouldn't get anyone speeding past.

    Something tells me you work with the police...

    Edit: And Medwards: nice job ignoring all the data that proved you wrong. Just pick out things you can editorialize and make an emotional argument on.

    Nope. You lose. You are wrong, the data proves you wrong, you are supporting a policy that doesn't work.

    Why not just move them to a visible location? Seriously? Answer it. WHY NOT? It would (according to ALL THE DATA) improve traffic safety, but it would still do its job of catching speeders. Why the **** would anyone be against that? I don't get it. It is almost as if you DON'T want to improve traffic safety.
    Last edited by Jaerdo; 03-10-2014 at 06:20 PM.

  48. #48
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Speed is a factor in 1/3 of all fatal accidents. That's why we have speed limits.
    But it doesn't mean it was the cause, and also doesn't mean that if they were going the limit, they would have survived. Plus who is to say that distracted driving had a much more significant part in the collisions? That isn't measured, and likely not known to be a major factor.

    And to those of you who keeping spouting off "Don't speed, and you won't get a ticket", you offer nothing constructive to this thread.

  49. #49
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    I do not support petition against photo radar at all.

    if anyone don't like to get ticketed for speeding, just simply obey the speeding limit on any streets or highway . if not, it is their own fault.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  50. #50

    Default

    My biggest complaint about photo radar is that it's biased vs. income. It forces poor people to be more law abiding than the rich. Someone who's only pulling in $500 a week can be ruined by a $150 ticket, but that d-bag that rakes in $4000 a week can easily absorb that as a cost of living and drive like an arsehole because they can - and my anecdotal evidence based on my own experience tells me that's the case.

    Demerits and the threat of having a license suspension affect everyone equally. The fines should be based on income like they are in nordic and eastern European countries. (See Day-Fine system)
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  51. #51
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,978

    Default

    I got a photo radar ticket 18 years ago, and I don't want to get one again. That's one of the reasons I drive the speed limit, and hey, it's working because I haven't had one since. I use my cruise control (yes, in the city) so I don't need to pay attention to my speed. Set it, and it's good until I hit the brake, or the clutch.

    When you take a position, such as "photo radar is bad," and you don't even know who is sitting in the vehicles handing out tickets, it doesn't help your case much. It's like the people that say "traffic cops should be out solving murders"; don't they realize that a traffic cop and a homicide cop are two very different jobs?

    I drove back from Kamloops on Tuesday, coming back through Banff. I drove the speed limit, and I passed some people, and got passed by others. I saw one "*****" driver who burned past me at way, way more than the speed limit the entire way, that is, until I hit the city limits. Within 10 minutes I was passed by 4 guys that were clearly doing way, way more than the limit. I just shook my head.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  52. #52
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    How does the visibility of a non-moving vehicle affect your personal choice to exceed the speed limit? It doesn't. You choose to speed. You. Just you.

    If you made them put the vehicles right out in the open, then anywhere you can't see an enforcement vehicle gives you carte blanche to speed.

    Hide 'em. Hide 'em everywhere. Make Edmontonians rightfully paranoid they are having their driving conduct constantly observed & snag as many as you can. Funnel funding from the existing cameras into buying more, until it's ubiquitous everywhere. Start with the high-revenue, high-traffic areas & move into lower impact areas as the finances are in place.

    Oh seriously, don't be so obstinate. We are talking about the behaviour of drivers in general, and you know perfectly well that I am right. Stop trying to tow the party line on this.

    It has been proven again and again that the "hidden camera" crap DOES NOT WORK. If it did, they wouldn't get anyone speeding past.

    Something tells me you work with the police...

    Edit: And Medwards: nice job ignoring all the data that proved you wrong. Just pick out things you can editorialize and make an emotional argument on.

    Nope. You lose. You are wrong, the data proves you wrong, you are supporting a policy that doesn't work.

    Why not just move them to a visible location? Seriously? Answer it. WHY NOT? It would (according to ALL THE DATA) improve traffic safety, but it would still do its job of catching speeders. Why the **** would anyone be against that? I don't get it. It is almost as if you DON'T want to improve traffic safety.
    Hidden camera DOES work, if (and only if) there are enough of them that if you speed you'll get a ticket fairly often. What you want is people expecting consequences if they speed whether or not there's a truck parked visibly at the side of the road. Visible photo-radar trucks only slow traffic right where they are.

  53. #53
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Speed is a factor in 1/3 of all fatal accidents. That's why we have speed limits.
    But it doesn't mean it was the cause, and also doesn't mean that if they were going the limit, they would have survived. Plus who is to say that distracted driving had a much more significant part in the collisions? That isn't measured, and likely not known to be a major factor.

    And to those of you who keeping spouting off "Don't speed, and you won't get a ticket", you offer nothing constructive to this thread.
    It does mean that if they were going slower there would be less damage. That goes for EVERY collision. Slower speeds mean less kinetic energy, lower G forces, less crumpling. Distracted driving is a separate issue that should also be enforced, but it's really irrelevant to a discussion of automated speed enforcement, because machines can't do that.

  54. #54
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    I drove back from Kamloops on Tuesday, coming back through Banff. I drove the speed limit, and I passed some people, and got passed by others. I saw one "*****" driver who burned past me at way, way more than the speed limit the entire way, that is, until I hit the city limits. Within 10 minutes I was passed by 4 guys that were clearly doing way, way more than the limit. I just shook my head.
    Considering that BC has recently raised the speed limit on much of highway 1 to match the 100 km/h design speed it is not surprising that there weren't a lot of speeders there. Once you cross into Alberta you have Parks Canada insisting on a 90 km/h speed limit on a fully fenced divided highway, so I'm guessing you weren't passing anyone anymore at that point. You might have passed a few trucks going slow to save fuel on highway 2, but those trucks were still going much faster than most of the trucks on the Coquihalla in BC, where the limit is now 120 km/h. Entering Edmonton, another 90 km/h zone appears - a relic from the days when there were traffic lights at Ellerslie Road and 23 Av. The speed limit still changes there even though the lights are long gone and the freeway now continues for another 3 km. Of course people are speeding.

  55. #55
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,978

    Default

    Oh, I wasn't talking about 10-15 km/h speeding which many consider "normal," I was talking about 30-40 km/h. The kind where someone passes you and you think "wow, what the heck is he doing?!"
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  56. #56

    Default

    Now, if the City had dedicated 100% of speeding fines to snow clearing, pot hole repairs and ancillary safety improvements, they City would have avoided this inevitable backlash.

  57. #57

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    Why not just move them to a visible location? Seriously? Answer it.
    because then speeding douche bags will slam on the brakes moments before the visible speed trap, and then accelerate excessive once past the speed trap. The only reason you want them visible is so you don't get caught by them. This doesn't add to the safety.
    And as for removing the crap you added in the last post, it didn't add anything in to the thread, didn't mention anything about photo radar, the the little snipets were quoted out of context anyways...

    DONT SPEED, DONT GET TICKET. Easy.

  58. #58
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    342

    Default

    I'm OK with the red light cameras but this business of taking pictures of people going 6 km/hr over the speed limit on a wide open piece of road is total bs. Who made the decision to reduce the excess speed for a violation to 6 km/hour.
    Also, how do they get away with parking on the shoulder on a busy overpass (for example westbound Henday to southbound Calgary Trail) while they take pictures of northbound Gateway Blvd near South Common Walmart? Isn't it illegal to park on the shoulder unless you have some kind of emergency issue?
    And what I really want to know is who exactly is the City of Edmonton Office of Traffic Safety? And who are they accountable to and who approves their traffic safety strategies??
    And how is it Sherwood Park, BC, and Ontario manage OK without photo radar?
    CTV did a story on the photo radar petition yesterday and had some close up shots of the laser photo radar in operation. FYI the shoulder patch on the person operating the camera said City of Edmonton Traffic Enforcement Peace Officer.
    It's not EIA it's YEG

  59. #59

    Default

    They don't take pictures of people going 6 km/h over the limit. Where did you hear such a fallacy? Its over 10 km/h above the speed limit.
    Sherwood Park had photo radar for years, and only in the last year gave it up.

    Currently the City of Edmonton contracts Photo Enforcement Operators, who are appointed Peace Officers, from the Corps of Commissionaires, to conduct photo enforcement at various locations throughout the city.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx

    AND HOW CAN ANYONE CALL THEM HIDDEN? heres a map of where they all are. http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...cation_Map.pdf
    Last edited by Medwards; 04-10-2014 at 10:56 AM.

  60. #60
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    342

    Default

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...467/story.html

    "A crackdown on drivers commenced, including a new and unannounced focus on drivers going just 6-to-10 km/h over the speed limit."
    It's not EIA it's YEG

  61. #61

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thegongshow View Post
    I'm OK with the red light cameras but this business of taking pictures of people going 6 km/hr over the speed limit on a wide open piece of road is total bs. Who made the decision to reduce the excess speed for a violation to 6 km/hour.
    Also, how do they get away with parking on the shoulder on a busy overpass (for example westbound Henday to southbound Calgary Trail) while they take pictures of northbound Gateway Blvd near South Common Walmart? Isn't it illegal to park on the shoulder unless you have some kind of emergency issue?
    And what I really want to know is who exactly is the City of Edmonton Office of Traffic Safety? And who are they accountable to and who approves their traffic safety strategies??
    And how is it Sherwood Park, BC, and Ontario manage OK without photo radar?
    CTV did a story on the photo radar petition yesterday and had some close up shots of the laser photo radar in operation. FYI the shoulder patch on the person operating the camera said City of Edmonton Traffic Enforcement Peace Officer.
    How are Photo Enforcement sites selected?
    The Government of Alberta has developed guidelines for the operation of automated enforcement programs (link below).
    Criteria for site selection include areas where:
     Conventional speed enforcement methods are deemed too risky for citizens or police such as high-speed multi-lane
    roadways,
     Data indicates motorists are ignoring or breaking traffic laws on an ongoing basis,
     Data indicates a greater frequency of property damage, injury or fatal collisions,
     Data indicates a high volume of pedestrian traffic including areas near educational facilities and playground zones.
    Photo Enforcement will also be utilized in construction zones and on roadways identified by members of the public as
    problem speeding locations. Automated Traffic Enforcement Technology Guidelines (PDF)
     Who operates the Photo Enforcement units and what are their qualifications?
    The City of Edmonton contracts the Corps of Commissionaires to operate the photo Enforcement units. Each operator has
    successfully completed a recognized training program and has been designated as a Peace Officer as legislated by the
    Province of Alberta (details in link). Automated Traffic Enforcement (PDF)
    Peace Officers are protected by Section 129 of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that:
    Every one who:
    (a) resists or willfully obstructs a peace officer in the execution of his or any person lawfully acting in aid of such officer is
    guilty of
    (d) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or
    (e) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
     Can Photo Enforcement vehicles park illegally and idle for extended periods of time?
    Yes. Section 64 (2) of the Use of Highway, Rules of the Road Regulations authorizes a Peace Officer to park in
    contravention of the Provincial Act and Municipal Bylaw. This includes No Parking zones, boulevards, shoulders and
    overpasses. The vehicles must be left idling to provide the power required to sustain the equipment.
    Roadways such as Anthony Henday Drive, Yellowhead Trail and Whitemud Drive are not classified as highways inside the
    Edmonton municipal boundaries and as per the Highway Transfer Agreement between the Government of Alberta and the
    City of Edmonton, enforcement is the responsibility of the municipality.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...cement_FAQ.pdf

  62. #62

    Default

    Slow the hell down, and pay your fines.

    Anyone who protests should have their licence removed forever.

    No mercy to these selfish slackers.

  63. #63
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post

    DONT SPEED, DONT GET TICKET. Easy.
    Exactly. Do you want to know how to be the slowest vehicle on the road? Drive at the posted speed limit.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  64. #64
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,457

    Default

    if anyone got the ticket , pay up and move on , don't bother fight in court to try to get this ticket tossed out.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  65. #65

    Default

    I laugh at people who think contacting your city councillors is the best avenue for any complaints related to slow speed limits/photo radar. I tried that but got ignored at first and when following up they passed me off to the transportation department who had a carefully crafted templated response.

    City council refuses to address citizen concerns on speed limits and photo radar. Speed limits should be adjusted up and down without a massive debate and there's no reason to have 3-4 photo radar locations in areas they set speed limits way lower then they should be.

    Or what about the 2 photo radar trucks on 2 consecutive over passes on the Anthony henday facing the same direction? I'm not a fan with how city council refuses to discuss this topic. Changes are long over due.

  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Slow the hell down, and pay your fines.

    Anyone who protests should have their licence removed forever.

    No mercy to these selfish slackers.
    If you sign the petetion, your next photo radar ticket should be doubled! :
    smt075
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  67. #67

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AShetsen View Post
    Slow the hell down, and pay your fines.

    Anyone who protests should have their licence removed forever.

    No mercy to these selfish slackers.
    If you sign the petition, your next photo radar ticket should be doubled!
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  68. #68
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    Speed limits should be actual maximums. Where it actually feels unsafe and is unsafe to travel any faster. If the majority of people travelling on a road are speeding it just shows that the majority of people feel safe doing that speed in that area. Shouldn't that be the speed limit then?

  69. #69
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    All the people in here spouting the "if you speed you deserve ticket" rubbish need a reality check.

    Our opposition to photo radar is not because people don't want tickets. People who speed deserve tickets. I support giving tickets to people who speed.

    What we want is EVIDENCE BASED POLICY.

    Here are some facts:

    - No matter how much you repeat it, saying that photo radar "works" in reducing speed is untrue. It is factually incorrect. Photo radar is ineffectual in reducing speeds. Regulation are the lowest influence in the speed a driver chooses. The number one reason people choose their speed is how safe they feel.

    - The way to reduce speeding is not through photo radar. If you want slower traffic, you need traffic calming. Traffic calming has been proven to be the number one easiest and most effective way to reduce speeds.

    - The roads in Edmonton have artificially low speed limits that are not intuitive for drivers. Our roads are overengineered, and the speed limits are not consistent.

    - Traffic safety is influenced most by the disparity of vehicles from the average speed. What does this mean? Cars going far above OR below the speed limit are the highest danger.

    By making artificially low and inconsistent speed limits, you encourage people to go at unsafe (too low) speeds. The average driver goes the speed they feel SAFE going, not what the regulation says. The RARE driver goes the exact speed limit despite being lower than the speed of traffic. This is LESS safe than going over the speed limit.

    Please stop spewing the unintelligent party line. We need evidence based policy. Our photo radar and traffic regime is designed for income above safety. It needs to be changed to improve the quality of our roads.

  70. #70

    Default

    ^^Mia
    The majority used to think that smoking was safe.

    The majority used to think it was safer to drive without seatbelts.

    The majority think that we should not pay income taxes.

    Does the majority actually think? Or do they just act with shelfish disregard of reality?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  71. #71
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,378

    Default

    ^I agree for the most part. Most roads are okay the way they are. I'm just talking about the ones that are artificially low.

  72. #72

    Default

    True.

    I have also seen roads where the majority of drivers will drive well under the speed limit because a higher speed just does not feel right, even under the perfect driving conditions.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  73. #73

    Default

    Hey, what the heck is that Latin looking word above the number anyway?

    We're Canadian, use Canadian I say. Maybe it should say "About".




  74. #74
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx

    Currently the City of Edmonton contracts Photo Enforcement Operators, who are appointed Peace Officers, from the Corps of Commissionaires, to conduct photo enforcement at various locations throughout the city.
    This is exactly why it's so hilarious to have people say that it takes away from police resources. The program is revenue-positive & hands-off from the police. It only adds to our resources & coffers as a city.
    That's right $10s of millions if not hundreds that is taken out of the economy that would be spent on eating out or supporting local talent but instead is used to pay for city administration screw ups. What a pathetic argument.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  75. #75
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    702

    Default

    Many of you (on both sides of the debate) seem to be missing the point of this petition. The issue isn't whether we should condone speeding or not. It's whether Edmonton's photo radar program has any truly valuable effect. The petition clearly states that its demand is to move speed enforcement completely back into the hands of cops rather than have photo radar, not that we should be getting rid of speeding tickets altogether.


    I will make a few counter-arguments to some points though. A couple of posts here seem to think, for whatever reason, it's important to make this distinction that photo radar is about "enforcement" not about "improving safety." But the reason speed limits exist is for road safety. So "enforcement" of the speed limits is inherently about safety. If photo radar isn't making our roads safer, than it is ultimately failing to enforce and therefore sucks as a safety / enforcement tool.

    Many on here have also felt the need to offer the wonderfully patronizing advice that if you don't go over the speed limit, you won't get a ticket. Definitely a 100% true (albeit obvious) point. But there are still overrun costs, the costs of building some of the infrastructure (intersection cameras, etc), and ancillary administration and legal costs not encompassed within the photo radar program's budgeting. These are things all Edmonton taxpayers have to contribute to, regardless if you speed or not (or even drive or not). Now if that cost is worthwhile and effective, awesome. But a great many of us strongly doubt that it is.

    Finally, a few of you taking the position that photo radar is absolutely needed in Edmonton, keep referencing how high the crash rate is here. I can get the logic, but ultimately aren't you in fact proving the photo radar isn't effective? We've have photo radar in the city for over 20 years. If it hasn't made our roads safer by now, why would it suddenly do so? I'll also note that you're comparing Edmonton to many Canadian cities that are in provinces that don't allow photo radar (Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa, Victoria, etc). I honestly don't know if speeding is that much more of a deal here compared to other cities (I suspect the fact we have poorly maintained, snowy, icy winter roads for half the year may have more to do with that high crash rate). But whether speeding is problem or not, photo radar doesn't seem to be helping those crash rate stats.


    For the record, I have only had one photo radar ticket in my 20+ years of driving. So I'm not trying to argue this so I can drive 70km/h over the speed limit everywhere. And I would never want to see the elimination of speed enforcement by police. I just completely disagree with photo radar for its ineffectiveness and hypocrisy, and for the seeming inability of the city and provincial governments to provide tangible proof of its benefit. I think there are better places to spend our time and money on enforcement.
    Last edited by halocore; 05-10-2014 at 03:19 AM.

  76. #76

    Default

    Yeah, speed doesnt create any safety issues, and 20kmh within the limit is hardly noticeable. If anything speeding helps improve safety in order to get out of difficult situations.

    the main problem in Edmonton is that people are asleep at the wheel or have their iphone in their hands. The police and city does absolutely nothing about that problem, hence the high crash rate, and that's verified from personal experience. Stand near a stop sign some day and watch how many vehicles just blow right through it.

    I dont think any normal person will deny photo radar is a cash grab. And based on feedback from change.org Don will get voted out on this issue when the circus comes back to town.

  77. #77

    Default

    Machinery don't lie. Camera catches you speeding, you're the sucker.

    Unless you are also a whiner, and a loser.

    Pay up and shut up.

  78. #78
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,386

    Default

    ^ Speeders need to accept the consequences of breaking the law (pay up), but why should they shut up? Laws should always be subject to public debate. There is absolutely nothing wrong with lobbying for changes to laws you disagree with.

  79. #79

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stunkermann View Post
    Yeah, speed doesnt create any safety issues, and 20kmh within the limit is hardly noticeable. If anything speeding helps improve safety in order to get out of difficult situations.

  80. #80
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,371

    Default

    Guess thats your opinion. However I agree with Stunkermann. I purposely drive a bit faster to create some separation from other vehicles, cause I simply don't trust other drivers. In pretty much all close calls, or collisions I have been in, I've was going the speed limit, or have been stopped at a stop sign/red light. Yet when I'm going a bit faster, and create separation, there has been virtually no close calls or problems.

  81. #81

    Default

    I have zero issues with photo radar. Never have.

    Then again, I always pay attention to speed limits and don't go over them.

  82. #82

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Guess thats your opinion. However I agree with Stunkermann. I purposely drive a bit faster to create some separation from other vehicles, cause I simply don't trust other drivers. In pretty much all close calls, or collisions I have been in, I've was going the speed limit, or have been stopped at a stop sign/red light. Yet when I'm going a bit faster, and create separation, there has been virtually no close calls or problems.
    You don't need to have 20 km/h above the speed limit to get separation though. 20 over a 50 or 60 km/h speed limit is just stupid.

  83. #83
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    SAFE STREETS & PHOTO RADAR
    posted October 6th, 2014

    Last year, 23 people died in collisions on our streets. Thousands were injured in an average of 68 collisions per day, which altogether caused millions in damage and worsened congestion on our roads (source).

    The good news is that injury and fatality rates are coming down, thanks in part to a suite of integrated traffic safety programs including Automated Photo Enforcement. Back in 2007, there were 7.44 such collisions per 1,000 Edmontonians. Last year that number was 3.89 per 1,000 people (source).

    Meanwhile, Edmontonians recently said in the Edmonton Police Service’s Citizen Satisfaction Survey that their top safety concern – ahead of gangs and drug activity – was traffic, specifically speeding and careless driving (see page 7). Given this concern, it’s no surprise to me that Council has received overwhelmingly positive feedback about the re-institution of 30km/h speed limits in school zones as one example of action to improve traffic safety.

    So why do we set and enforce speed limits? Borrowing from a recent City blog post on the topic: “according to Dr. Karim El-Basyouny, the City of Edmonton’s Research Chair in Urban Traffic Safety at the University of Alberta, the risk of a collision doubles at 5 km/h over the speed limit in a 60 km/h zone. The risk is four times higher at 10 km/h over and 10 times higher at 15 km/h over the speed limit.”

    So that’s the need. What are the outcomes? Dr. El-Basyouny found that “on the roads where there was continuous enforcement, severe collisions went down by 32%, speed-related collisions were reduced by 27% and overall collisions were cut by 28%.”

    Some people complain that enforcement is mainly on the busy arterial roads and what they’d really like to see is enforcement in their neighbourhoods. A few years back Council also saw the need in neighbourhoods and responded with the Safe Speed Vans which residents can request through their Community League, their Councillor, or even through 311 (see here for more info on this program). These are marked vehicles that provide a visual deterrent and still conduct photo enforcement where people continue to speed.

    Given all this context, it’s unfortunate to me — just as we’re making progress — that some voices are calling for an end to photo enforcement.

    I’ll admit that the Auditor’s report last month has, without a doubt, clouded the issue. (You can read the Auditor’s full report here and you can watch the Audit Committee meeting where we discussed the matter at length here.) It highlighted significant cost overruns within the program as they transitioned away from a private service provider, and administration has taken responsibility for not keeping Council abreast of these cost overruns. Thankfully, tax dollars were NOT used to cover these overruns, and while the original business case was deeply flawed and the transition costs were vastly underestimated, the city’s photo radar program is now fully transitioned and running efficiently. Council asked point blank questions of Transportation Services administrators as to whether they built a self-funding empire to cover their overruns, and the answer was no.

    Nevertheless, there remains a powerful misconception that the City operates this program to earn revenue. In fact, the formula is more complicated than that and the breakdown is as follows (source):

    15% of the total fine goes to Victims Services
    16.67% goes to the Alberta Government
    The remaining fine balance goes to the City
    The balance that comes to the City does not go into general revenue; it is dedicated first toward covering the cost of automated enforcement, and what’s leftover goes to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.
    http://doniveson.ca/2014/10/06/safe-...s-photo-radar/

  84. #84

  85. #85
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,978

    Default

    I love that Don ended his post with this:

    To me, the solution is simple: the most effective and principled way we can put photo radar out of business is to stop speeding.
    The mayor has spoken.

    I was out earlier today and passed through some of the photo radar locations that are listed here: http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx The crazy thing is... they ALL had signs saying "Photo Radar Enforced." The city is TELLING you where the trucks may be. Insane, right?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  86. #86

    Default

    The only people who have issues with Photo Radar are speeders. Please stop hiding the photo radar vans. Please. I'm not able to slam on my brakes in time if the photo radar vans are hidden! And when I do slam on my brakes, the guy behind me almost runs into me everytime. Those pesky Photo radar vans!

  87. #87

    Default

    The only people who have issues with Photo Radar are speeders.
    Uh no...no speeding tickets on my abstract photo or otherwise and I have an issue with the methods.

    Note the methods not the fact speeders are getting ticketed.

    I recall at least 1 maybe 2 others on this thread that have the same concerns.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  88. #88

    Default

    For the record, what is the concern with the methods?

    And why do you always add this? In my highly biased personal opinion... like it would be anything else? Shouldn't you put that in your signature?

  89. #89

    Default

    Anyone have a link to the El-Basyouny study? I find it hard to believe that going 65 in a 60 zone doubles the risk of a collision.

  90. #90
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Ozerna, North Edmonton
    Posts
    8,961

    Default

    ^ The Mayor must have referenced those figures hoping no one would check

  91. #91

  92. #92

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    The only people who have issues with Photo Radar are speeders.
    Uh no...no speeding tickets on my abstract photo or otherwise and I have an issue with the methods.

    Note the methods not the fact speeders are getting ticketed.

    I recall at least 1 maybe 2 others on this thread that have the same concerns.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

    I too have not had a ticket of either kind in the last 20 years and I do not support the tactics of photo radar. Yes I slow when approaching the truck as I know that their measurement could be out as well as my guage or reading of it. I would much rather be 5kmh slower than have to pay or go to court to fight it.

    In my highly biased personal opinion.

  93. #93
    C2E Long Term Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    30,299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by stunkermann View Post
    Don will get voted out on this issue when the circus comes back to town.
    “You have to dream big. If we want to be a little city, we dream small. If we want to be a big city, we dream big, and this is a big idea.” - Mayor Stephen Mandel, 02/22/2012

  94. #94

    Default

    Don Iveson wants to curtail how much city Transportation Dept gets from photo radar to prevent 'Empire Building' within the department. Said he would like to see some of that money go towards community projects. Does not want photo radar to seem like a cash cow.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...948/story.html

    Let's all MOO to that.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  95. #95

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    For the record, what is the concern with the methods?

    And why do you always add this? In my highly biased personal opinion... like it would be anything else? Shouldn't you put that in your signature?
    From earlier in the thread:
    While I don't agree with the basis of the petition I also don't agree with this:
    Quote:
    Mostly this just seems to be people angry about getting caught.
    From a personal perspective I can't remember the last time I received a speeding ticket of any kind...but I find photo radar offensive.

    - It's comes off as sneaky.

    - I see no active deterrent value, even an empty patrol car on the shoulder would be a greater deterrent to speeding and overall traffic safety. (it is done in places in the USA)

    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/

    So it is not the fact people are getting tickets or the speed limits that bugs me...it is the way it is being done and how it is presented.

    And I don't think I'm alone in these thoughts

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    As far as
    In my highly biased personal opinion
    It is there under advise of legal council dating back a while and I was advised to always write it in rather than in a signature.

    so once again...

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Last edited by Thomas Hinderks; 06-10-2014 at 04:19 PM. Reason: "write it in" added after for clarity

  96. #96

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    - It's comes off as sneaky.
    All locations are posted, both on-line & with signs near the actual automated enforcement. One party being ignorant doesn't make the other party sneaky.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    - I see no active deterrent value, even an empty patrol car on the shoulder would be a greater deterrent to speeding and overall traffic safety. (it is done in places in the USA)
    Despite you not anecdotally finding a deterrent, studies have shown the contrary & were cited by Iveson in his posting.

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/
    Except Automated Enforcement money isn't part of the EPS' budget.

    You're conflating things & then getting upset at your own misunderstandings, not the actual situations.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  97. #97

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    - It's comes off as sneaky.
    All locations are posted, both on-line & with signs near the actual automated enforcement. One party being ignorant doesn't make the other party sneaky.
    The point you miss is perception is reality to most of the public.

    This is about how the public percieves the police actions...much like what has been discussed in the thread on the police.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    - I see no active deterrent value, even an empty patrol car on the shoulder would be a greater deterrent to speeding and overall traffic safety. (it is done in places in the USA)
    Despite you not anecdotally finding a deterrent, studies have shown the contrary & were cited by Iveson in his posting.
    Same response as above....plus
    http://recombu.com/cars/articles/new...rime-deterrent

    http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/ne...or-says/nMFfS/

    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...lice_cars.html

    there are lots more, but the point is made and as noted in at least one of the articles it also helps deter other crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/
    Except Automated Enforcement money isn't part of the EPS' budget.
    Doesn't matter with headlines like that one the perception is left.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You're conflating things & then getting upset at your own misunderstandings, not the actual situations.
    Not at all...I am listening to what my neighbors and others say and how they perceive the whole program.

    Perception is reality in this world of headlines and sound bites

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  98. #98

    Default

    How is it sneaky? Sure, they're hidden, if they weren't hidden, people wouldn't get caught. This is kind of the point... You get caught, you pay a fine, and maybe you decide to the follow the rules of the road now, and if you don't, maybe you can pay another fine, and another fine, and another fine. You'll either get it, or pay for our roads to be paved in gold. I'm okay with both options here. Nothing sneaky. Don't speed, don't worry.

    I've gone past many radar traps where the cops are hiding behind something (a bridge, a sign, trees). Is this sneaky too?

    Maybe we should put up bright neon signs 3, 5 and 10 blocks before the photo radar van so people know there's photo radar ahead...
    ... or people could just do the speed limit, and this wouldn't be a concern.

  99. #99
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ I don't find them sneaky at all.

    If fact I find that I can spot a photo radar truck a mile away
    Parkdale

  100. #100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post

    - It's comes off as sneaky.
    All locations are posted, both on-line & with signs near the actual automated enforcement. One party being ignorant doesn't make the other party sneaky.
    The point you miss is perception is reality to most of the public.

    This is about how the public percieves the police actions...much like what has been discussed in the thread on the police.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    - I see no active deterrent value, even an empty patrol car on the shoulder would be a greater deterrent to speeding and overall traffic safety. (it is done in places in the USA)
    Despite you not anecdotally finding a deterrent, studies have shown the contrary & were cited by Iveson in his posting.
    Same response as above....plus
    http://recombu.com/cars/articles/new...rime-deterrent

    http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/ne...or-says/nMFfS/

    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news...lice_cars.html

    there are lots more, but the point is made and as noted in at least one of the articles it also helps deter other crime.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    - When the EPS uses ticket revenue in their budget it certainly does come across as a tax grab.

    Link: http://metronews.ca/news/edmonton/11...icket-revenue/
    Except Automated Enforcement money isn't part of the EPS' budget.
    Doesn't matter with headlines like that one the perception is left.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You're conflating things & then getting upset at your own misunderstandings, not the actual situations.
    Not at all...I am listening to what my neighbors and others say and how they perceive the whole program.

    Perception is reality in this world of headlines and sound bites

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    In My highly biased personal opinion Public perception and reality are often far apart. People like to think they can do what they want and get away with it. People are upset when they get caught. Photo radar catches them, so they make up every excuse to get rid of it.

    People still have the perception that a traffic cop should be out "doing something better than catching speeders"... like solving the latest murder or busting drug dealers. ... Same story. Perception is often a clouded version of what reality actually is. Reality is that traffic cop is assigned to traffic duty, and another cop is assigned to investigate a murder or a drug dealer...etc.

Page 1 of 13 1234511 ... LastLast

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
  •