Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 28910111213 LastLast
Results 1,101 to 1,200 of 1211

Thread: Petition Against Photo Radar Started

  1. #1101
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    ^Design speed only reflects the geometric road design parameters, not the safe operating speed.
    Yah. I know. Safe speed can be higher or lower than the design speed. Begs the question of why engineer the road with a design speed of 130kph when the governing body regulating speed limits has no such intention of ever implementing a speed that great.


    I lost my respect for AB Transportation when they took a perfectly good safety study and threw it in the trash. There are many things that could be done to improve Alberta roadways but they simply will not even attempt them. A winter/summer max speed on QEII would be a start.
    When did punk rock become so safe? When did the scene become a joke?
    The kids who used to live for beer and speed, now want their fries and coke.

  2. #1102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    Begs the question of why engineer the road with a design speed of 130kph when the governing body regulating speed limits has no such intention of ever implementing a speed that great.
    No it doesn't.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #1103
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    Begs the question of why engineer the road with a design speed of 130kph when the governing body regulating speed limits has no such intention of ever implementing a speed that great.
    No it doesn't.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety
    Doesn't this contradict design speed? Design speed isn't the safe speed. Safe speed can be higher or lower.

    Maybe I'm not following. Can you explain a little more? Very interesting stuff.
    When did punk rock become so safe? When did the scene become a joke?
    The kids who used to live for beer and speed, now want their fries and coke.

  4. #1104
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    ^^ The factor of safety is already built into the design speed parameters. For example, the minimum coefficient of friction required for a vehicle to be able to negotiate a curve is not supposed to exceed 0.17 for a 40 km/h design speed and decreases as the design speed rises, reaching 0.08 at a 130 km/h design speed (reference: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion/chap-b.pdf , p 27). Compare that to typical observed values of 0.7 to 0.9 on dry roads, and 0.5 to 0.7 on wet roads (see results of any tire test). Available friction only approaches the minimum design speed requirement when the road is icy or when pouring rain makes hydroplaning possible, at which point it is understandable that the posted speed limit might be too fast for the conditions. At some point, continuing to pad the safety factor is just a waste of money and resources.
    Last edited by Titanium48; 19-05-2017 at 02:36 PM.

  5. #1105
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    Begs the question of why engineer the road with a design speed of 130kph when the governing body regulating speed limits has no such intention of ever implementing a speed that great.
    No it doesn't.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety
    Doesn't this contradict design speed? Design speed isn't the safe speed. Safe speed can be higher or lower.

    Maybe I'm not following. Can you explain a little more? Very interesting stuff.
    No this means you design the road for a higher speed than the planned posted speed.

    Actually, read the sections on Design Speed and more here: http://www.tac-atc.ca/sites/tac-atc....evisions-e.pdf

    Lots of good info about design speed vs posted speed vs operating speed, etc.

  6. #1106
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ The factor of safety is already built into the design speed parameters. For example, the minimum coefficient of friction required for a vehicle to be able to negotiate a curve is not supposed to exceed 0.17 for a 40 km/h design speed and decreases as the design speed rises, reaching 0.08 at a 130 km/h design speed (reference: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca...ion/chap-b.pdf , p 27). Compare that to typical observed values of 0.7 to 0.9 on dry roads, and 0.5 to 0.7 on wet roads (see results of any tire test). Available friction only approaches the minimum design speed requirement when the road is icy or when pouring rain makes hydroplaning possible, at which point it is understandable that the posted speed limit might be too fast for the conditions. At some point, continuing to pad the safety factor is just a waste of money and resources.
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    Begs the question of why engineer the road with a design speed of 130kph when the governing body regulating speed limits has no such intention of ever implementing a speed that great.
    No it doesn't.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factor_of_safety
    Doesn't this contradict design speed? Design speed isn't the safe speed. Safe speed can be higher or lower.

    Maybe I'm not following. Can you explain a little more? Very interesting stuff.
    No this means you design the road for a higher speed than the planned posted speed.

    Actually, read the sections on Design Speed and more here: http://www.tac-atc.ca/sites/tac-atc....evisions-e.pdf

    Lots of good info about design speed vs posted speed vs operating speed, etc.

    Thanks very much for this. I love stuff like this. Very cool.

    So in your guys' opinion, (lets apply this to a real world highway), does the speed limit on QEII (110kph) suffice? Do you think it is artificially low? Or is it just right?
    When did punk rock become so safe? When did the scene become a joke?
    The kids who used to live for beer and speed, now want their fries and coke.

  7. #1107
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    No this means you design the road for a higher speed than the planned posted speed.

    Actually, read the sections on Design Speed and more here: http://www.tac-atc.ca/sites/tac-atc....evisions-e.pdf

    Lots of good info about design speed vs posted speed vs operating speed, etc.
    Interesting read. A quote from the text:

    However, local roads are often subject to speed controls through measures such as traffic calming and hence the design speed is likely to be dictated by a speed management policy.

    I get the wisdom in that.

    I don't have a problem with the posted speed limits in Edmonton, for the most part. For instance, I suspect that the section of Groat Road flanked by Hawrelak Park probably has a design speed greater than 60 km an hour, but I think 60kmh is more than adequate.

    I've driven down that road at night during early Winter and have been surprised/amazed by the sight of deer. One time they came out of the trees on the hill bordering Saskatchewan Drive, crossed the road at a run, jumped the lane barricade and disappeared into the park. From that point on I haven't have a problem rolling along on that road at 50kmh, in the Winter, at night, in the dark. Frankly, I can understand why Vancouver posts a 50kmh limit on that stretch of forest road that was showcased in the link Moahunter provided: deer running out on the road from the forest do present a safety risk.

    I can honestly say that I've never seen photo radar monitors at that particular spot on Groat Road. They're usually up at the transition point where the speed turns to 50kmh, nabbing the hapless driver who is a little too slow taking his foot off the accelerator to tap the brakes. Of course they are.

    As I said: I don't have a problem with the posted speed limits in Edmonton, for the most part. The current trend in enforcement, on the other hand, I believe to be cynical and greedy.
    Last edited by BoyleStreetBoy; 19-05-2017 at 05:45 PM.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  8. #1108
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Notice the map doesn't tell the number of times they are at certain locations
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...cation_Map.pdf

    They are far more frequent on Anthony Henday or Whitemud than anywhere else. If this was for safety they'd frequently be by the Campbell Road or 127th Street (north side) than at other locations on Anthony Henday. There are also frequent accidents by Lessard and Callingwood Road, however this seems to be a result of stop and go, rush hour traffic, not sure if photo radar will do anything to fix that.

    Notice that not ONE spot on Anthony Henday is on the city's map of frequent injury or death locations
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...sm.pdf#page=24

  9. #1109
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    Could it be that the "safety" isn't for that specific location, but for the city overall? For example, getting a bunch of money from a high-speeder location can held fund those speed-signs everyone seems to like (making those areas safer) as well as those new flashing pedestrian signals that have started appearing. That improves safety, doesn't it?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  10. #1110

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Could it be that the "safety" isn't for that specific location, but for the city overall? For example, getting a bunch of money from a high-speeder location can held fund those speed-signs everyone seems to like (making those areas safer) as well as those new flashing pedestrian signals that have started appearing. That improves safety, doesn't it?
    I've brought this exact point up over & over. Evidently there's a contingent here that would prefer if everyone's property taxes went up to replace the revenue required to fund the EPS, the intersection adjustments, the speed signs & the rest currently funded by AE
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  11. #1111
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    So maybe this is just a marketing problem then. Call it a voluntary donation to the city instead of law enforcement - the more you speed, the more you help fund infrastructure improvements. Just watch out for the tightwads sticking to the extra-low speed limits near the honey holes.

  12. #1112
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,922

    Default

    For those who actually support photo, just remember, you contribute to drunks and or stoners/ DUI's NOT being stopped, disqualified individuals of all kinds,those with warrants, dangerous driving ect ect ect. Take a bow all who commend this idiocy and actually promote it under the guise of safety. Well done.You certainly are helping make our roads safe for all.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  13. #1113
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    How on Earth do you arrive at that statement, cnr67?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  14. #1114
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    5,967

    Default

    I see your point cnr, by not physically stopping a speeder they miss all the other infractions and just send a ticket to an address. If they were physically stopping the speeders they would catch them doing all the other things. A solid point for sure. I wish I'd thought of it. The drunk, the stoned, the criminals just drive through the photo radar and merrily on their way.
    Last edited by Drumbones; 24-05-2017 at 09:29 PM.

  15. #1115
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    For those who actually support photo, just remember, you contribute to drunks and or stoners/ DUI's NOT being stopped, disqualified individuals of all kinds,those with warrants, dangerous driving ect ect ect. Take a bow all who commend this idiocy and actually promote it under the guise of safety. Well done.You certainly are helping make our roads safe for all.
    Yes because all those getting photo radar tickets would have been getting stopped by cops. Dream on.

  16. #1116

    Default

    Given the reality that cops are humans with biases and cameras are not, I would prefer police spent less time pulling people over for driving while black and letting Older and paler people off with warnings.

    cameras can deal with speeding and red lights; tail lights, window tint and illegal lifts should be inspected for annually at registration time(no mail-in). Police can stick to dangerous and distracted driving that camera can't catch.
    There can only be one.

  17. #1117

    Default

    cnr67 must think that if there's photoradar, there's no other type of enforcement going on.

    i'm sure most of you know that this is wrong. Photo radar is used injunction with regular police enforcement.

    Photo radar catches everyone speeding. A cop only can pull over one person at a time.

    Both methods are used and needed.

  18. #1118
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    For those who actually support photo, just remember, you contribute to drunks and or stoners/ DUI's NOT being stopped, disqualified individuals of all kinds,those with warrants, dangerous driving ect ect ect. Take a bow all who commend this idiocy and actually promote it under the guise of safety. Well done.You certainly are helping make our roads safe for all.
    Yes because all those getting photo radar tickets would have been getting stopped by cops. Dream on.
    And a picture is better? Really?? Give your head a rattle.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  19. #1119
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,922

    Default

    Picture=NO Punishment
    Cop on roadway with gun= Demerits,arrests,. How difficult can this possibly be? And I'll throw this out for all to read. I speed and make NO attempt to hide that fact. NOT 30 or 40 over. A good 10 for sure. Now, if I had been yanked over by a cop, and 3 demerits handed to me, would THAT not be a motive to slow it down? Considering my insurance would increase and I'd risk a suspension if I had too many REAL tickets. A camera I laugh at. If I get one...I pay it and care not. Do you see the difference? Never mind the drunk or stoner, the guy who has no insurance ect ect ect. Photo radar does NOTHING to rid the streets of this behavior. They drive by,get a picture and laugh it off while knowing they DIDN'T get caught. I know SEVERAL people who have done and still do this. They are quite stupid to admit it. Oh I wish I could catch them in the act.If you or anyone else says Photo radar makes the roads safer by allow this behavior to continue, I'd suggest..No assert, you and anyone else promoting photo enforcement contribute to a greater # of dangerous people on our roads.THAT is how I come up with my statement.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  20. #1120

    Default

    CNR

    Are you selectively reading?

    There is photoradar
    There is regular enforcement (you know, cops with guns)

    Both are happening at the same time.

    What are you yammering on again about? You seem to be saying that there is only photoradar. That's false. There's both photoradar, and regular enforcement happening. Both are good.

    But your soapbox rant doesnt seem so good when you consider the real facts now does it?


    Maybe photoradar should also include demerit points against the owner of the vehicle.

  21. #1121

    Default

    I'd much prefer that on-site cop money attend to distracted drivers, except in problem areas (e.g., Groat Road) where an immediate "message" needs to be sent. Speeding happens and except in extreme cases (like the fool doing 120+ on the Gateway (a 60 zone)) only needs to be kept in line for the majority of us. Think of it as part of the cost of driving that contributes t the policing budget. The people I see with their heads bobbing up and down as they try to tweet and drive are a serious road liability that we should all definitely not tolerate, with extreme prejudice.
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  22. #1122

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    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.
    The perception that politicians want people to have and reality are often the things that are the furthest apart. "Oh no, it's not a cash cow" - no one really believes this when politicians say it. Especially when photo radar is located in questionable locations or takes advantage of changes in speed zones that are not well marked or when they signs are sort of hidden and especially when Edmonton rakes in so much more cash from it than other cities.

    You know what actually gets people to slow down right away? - the sight of an actual police car. A ticket in the mail 3 weeks later when you don't even remember that trip - not so much. Of course actual enforcement costs money, but pretend enforcement rakes in the dough big time, which is why some politicians here like is so much.

  23. #1123
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Precisely.

    The telling signs...the cash cows on the Henday overpasses, the ones hidden in bridge supports, and other locations on the ring road have been absent since the Minister announced this review. The overpass on the Henday NW and Yellow head ALWAYS had at least one photo vehicle, and often times two, at all hours. Since the announcement, nary a photo truck to be seen.

    If this was about safety vs revenue generation, they'd still be there. Their sudden and conspicuous absence speaks volumes on the city's confidence that the empirical evidence will NOT prove out in their favour.

    ..and please...stop with this overarching safety of the whole jumbo jumbo. If that is the argument you want to put forth, be careful when it comes to talking about safety of the whole in other areas.

    If the city just was honest and said it was a voluntary tax on the careless and aggressive, if they admitted it was revenue generation from the speeders, and if they didn't arbitrarily change speed limits to entrap people...they'd probably be able to keep the cash cow.

    The problem...if the city become reliant on this funding...like the morphine addict...and somehow got compliance and no one sped (or not enough to pay)...then what? If you're advancing the argument that you're fine with photo radar only because you know it prevents taxes elsewhere... then be careful when your world gets invaded by the same logic.

    Admit it. You know the speeders won't stop...just like we'll still consume carbon for some time.
    Onward and upward

  24. #1124
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I've brought this exact point up over & over. Evidently there's a contingent here that would prefer if everyone's property taxes went up to replace the revenue required to fund the EPS, the intersection adjustments, the speed signs & the rest currently funded by AE
    Sure, there's a very small contingent like that here. But there is a larger contingent here who accept that photo radar has a place in enforcement but feel it is currently being used inappropriately.

    Evidently there's a contingent here conflating the two groups.
    Last edited by BoyleStreetBoy; 25-05-2017 at 06:27 PM.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  25. #1125

    Default

    No, I just find it hilarious that you're supposedly in favour of automated enforcement, but disagree with it being done in a way that's revenue positive & allows for the funding of other safety initiatives.

    "I'm not against the idea of automated enforcement, but I'd prefer if it wasn't run so efficiently & cost-effectively, or if it was set up to be less universal or impartial."
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  26. #1126
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Picture=NO Punishment
    Cop on roadway with gun= Demerits,arrests,. How difficult can this possibly be?
    Why do you think that because there's photo radar (which is NOT manned by a Police officer), that EPS isn't doing any other enforcement? If that's what you think, you are wrong, as EPS still has officers looking for distracted drivers, still have officers manning radar guns, still have officers in unmarked police cars pulling over drivers for infractions...
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  27. #1127

    Default

    I watched a guy get a ticket on the yellowhead from speeding through an intersection that had a camera at it. Directly behind this car was a cop. I laughed pretty good at that... the guy was speeding enough to get flashed but wasnt going fast enough that the cop would pull him over. The poor guy was probably doing 5 km over through that intersection.

    Gord - i was shocked when i looked at last years statistics for distracted driving. The total number written equalled to two or three tickets per police officer per year or something stupid. Without a major increase on this the city will not reach their zero traffic fatalaties goal ever...

    Sherwood park has it figured out as they pull everyone over for distracted driving and speeding on the henday. Everyone knows not to risk going to fast or using their phone when driving through there. Their enforcement works.

  28. #1128

    Default

    I'm thinking that a big part of the disagreement here is how we experience the city's roadways, and which parts we experience. Most of those who are supportive of photo radar live in mature areas, and probably use mostly surface streets. More of those who oppose are in peripheral areas and may use freeways more often.

    I've seen photo radar on the Henday exactly once (yes, at YH west) and on the Yellowhead a handful of times but I've seen them on 118ave or along Borden park too many times to count.


    Still I can understand those who think there is excessive deployment on the Henday and similar places relative to the safety benefits, and probably not enough in lower traffic but high impact areas like school zones and around parks.

    On the other hand, I really have seen a reduction in speed differentials on the Yellowhead - there are very few going more than 80ish now, there used to be plenty up around 90, and there have always been truck doing 65 in the right lane.

    It's also unfair, I think, to complain about posting photo radar at speed limit changes when a substantial amount of the revenue has gone to putting up those feedback signs at those locations, or about "hiding" the photo radar truck when the whole point is to slow people down ALL THE TIME and not just when they see enforcement.
    There can only be one.

  29. #1129

    Default

    The way I see it, there are three levels of the argument "How should we do photo radar here".

    The most basic is whether photo radar works to reduce speeds and improve safety. I think it's clear that it does, even if collisions are not reduced substantially. Even slightly reduced speeds, combined with less variance between slow and fast drivers, makes it easier to cross streets on foot, or find holes in traffic to turn across or merge safely.

    The second level is revenue generation. I have no issues with using photo radar as a revenue source, and I'm glad for the other safety upgrades that it can pay for. I would rather there be a universal toll on our freeways as a way to raise money from them, and have photo enforcement levels set just high enough to keep excessive speeding under control.

    The third level is political.
    I would like to keep the benefits of photo radar, so I would rather the city not **** off to many people with the way it's done. That the revenue does good things isn't enough, it has to implemented in a fair enough way that it's not self-sabotaging - losing 30% of the revenue but keeping the program forever has to be better than keeping it all for just a few years and risking a revolt taking the whole system away.
    There can only be one.

  30. #1130

    Default

    i think a lot of people are peeved how the City of Edmonton changed the speed threshold when they took over from the Police, resulting in the massive increase of Photo Radar revenue. We have double the amount of revenue than Calgary.

  31. #1131

    Default

    I think they should set the grace for photo radar back to at least 9 km/h. That would handle most of the speed transition zone or slight heavy foot complaints. Anyone over that pays the speed tax through photo radar. If photo radar picks up someone going 25 km/h over the speed limit, the picture and direction of the car in question should be automatically sent to the nearest available patrol cruiser that can intercept the speeder's projected path. If someone is going 40 km/h over the limit, police dispatch and possibly Air-One should be notified immediately. In this manner, photo radar can be both a tax for safety programs, and an actual enforcement tool.

  32. #1132

    Default

    I think a 10% buffer is good enough. Nothing wrong with 10 on the highway, but 40 in a 30 zone or even 60 in a 50 zone is a much bigger deal. Either that or we need to be setting the legal limit well below the desired speed just so that we can leave a buffer to allow people to break the law.

    Great idea on police notice or dispatch for extreme speeders, that's a great solution.
    There can only be one.

  33. #1133

    Default

    i was at a fundraiser where i was sitting with dave loken and his campaign team. When the topic of photo radar came up i spoke my mind and said i disagree with it 100%. All they said was that it saves lives and makes the roads safer.

    When i asked how the 4 photo radar trucks i pass every morning on the henday or industrial areas make our roads safer i was told the data proves it.

    When i brought up the issue of distracted driving being a bigger issue then someone going 5km over it fell on deaf ears.

    The substance of the photo radar debate is it makes our roads safer and thats all they stick to but when you point out the abuse and the deployment and the areas they ignore they dont care. We dont need a fleet of radar trucks parked on the henday every morning. When you blindly support this non sense you are part of the problem.

  34. #1134

    Default

    So what you're saying is we need to get more cops handing out tickets for distracted driving & the best way to do that is to scrap Automated Enforcement, burden the force with the responsibility of enforcing laws that don't require the full mandate of the police officer, have them do it in a less efficient & less cost-effective manner than what we have now & simultaneously remove $17M in funding in their budget that'll need to be made up through property tax increases or the like?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  35. #1135

    Default

    Your right we can stop spending in excess in other areas. We shouldnt be reliant on photo radar to fund anything if the goal is to stop speeding.

    I can think of 5 or 6 other areas we can tax to oblivion that would save lives as well. Bars, pubs, liquor stores etc etc.

    I found the conversation with lokens campaign team amusing as their arguement for photo radar was extremely basic and ignorant to legitimate concerns people have. One thing i can give loken credit for is speaking his mind on this topic. He doesnt mind telling edmontonians to get lost or worst when this topic comes up.

    But lets be real regardless of being for or against photo radar there are legitimate issues with how photo radar is utilized.

  36. #1136

    Default

    The goal isn't to stop speeding though. The goal is "Vision Zero" (aka general traffic safety), of which Automated Enforcement is but a single aspect of a much larger interconnected picture. It has a nominal effect on its own & through its revenue generation it provides funding to multiple other traffic safety initiatives, all of which are part of the overall strategy.

    I have absolutely no issues with a system that enforces the Traffic Safety Act & directs the revenues solely to other traffic safety initiatives, which is what we've got. I have far more issues with the implementation in many small towns where the revenues aren't directed to the purposes of traffic safety than I do with how Edmonton does it currently.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #1137

    Default



    Paid for by Automated Enforcement revenues.

    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...-we-doing.aspx
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #1138

    Default

    Love the constant circlejerk here.

    Photoradar doesn't stop speeders.... and neither does a cop. What do people do when they see a photoradar truck? They slow down, and speed up again in a few blocks. What do people do when they see a cop? They slow down for a few blocks then speed up again...

    Photoradar is a revenue grab... True. That money is used for other traffic safety initiatives. People who don't want to be fined or don't want demerits don't speed. If you like fines, or demerits taken away, you speed.


    What's the problem with photoradar

  39. #1139

    Default

    if there was no problem with photo radar, the Alberta Government wouldn't be doing a review of it.

  40. #1140

    Default

    you are one of the main culprits of any circle jerk here medwards. I find it pointless to post in this thread when you and a few others will blast anyone who thinks differenly then you.

  41. #1141

    Default

    You realize that any town over 5,000 people can set up their own Automated Enforcement & that the implementation of the systems varies wildly?

    Many places definitely use the revenue obtained to prop up their general revenues (like Edson), which is absolutely not the case in Edmonton. While it certainly brings in a tonne of money thanks to the intransigence of deep-pocketed Edmonton drivers, it's not a cash cow for the city at large as there's very, very specific limitations on what AE revenues can be spent on.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  42. #1142

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    You realize that any town over 5,000 people can set up their own Automated Enforcement & that the implementation of the systems varies wildly?

    Many places definitely use the revenue obtained to prop up their general revenues (like Edson), which is absolutely not the case in Edmonton. While it certainly brings in a tonne of money thanks to the intransigence of deep-pocketed Edmonton drivers, it's not a cash cow for the city at large as there's very, very specific limitations on what AE revenues can be spent on.
    Even if there are specific limitations it is still a cash cow as the money raised allows the city to move money it would have to otherwise spend on these things to other areas of the budget. Most of the funding the city gets has specific limitations, so this is not something unique or unusual.

    One of the problems I have with automated enforcement is it does not take into account weather conditions or other factors that a human being present might be aware of. There is a lot more to safe driving than just the speed a person is going. A person texting going 10 km under the limit is arguably more dangerous than someone paying attention going 10 km over. Speed just gets enforced more because it is easy and it brings in money - the safety arguments are often rationalizations.

    Of course the politicians don't want to admit this, but most people realize all their preaching and lecturing is very self righteous. It doesn't do much to encourage respect for the law, if anything it results in disrespect.

  43. #1143

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    you are one of the main culprits of any circle jerk here medwards. I find it pointless to post in this thread when you and a few others will blast anyone who thinks differenly then you.
    I think you'll agree that it goes both ways.

  44. #1144

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    if there was no problem with photo radar, the Alberta Government wouldn't be doing a review of it.
    I thought the biggest problem with photo radar is when little shitsburgs like Drayton Valley or Edson using it as much as they do.

  45. #1145
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    No, I just find it hilarious that you're supposedly in favour of automated enforcement, but disagree with it being done in a way that's revenue positive & allows for the funding of other safety initiatives.

    "I'm not against the idea of automated enforcement, but I'd prefer if it wasn't run so efficiently & cost-effectively, or if it was set up to be less universal or impartial."
    Who are you quoting? It certainly isn't me.

    What I find it hilarious that you like to point out logical fallacies in others. What's really hilarious is that you don't have a clue of what you're talking about. For instance: the quote that you pulled out of your butt is supposed to be a paraphrase of what I have said? Unfortunately you're not smart enough to realize that your argument has descended to the point of using logical fallacies to try and twist my argument to discredit me. Does the HUD in your car have internet access? Why don't you check Google to hunt down the type logical fallacy you used?

    Because I question the City's motivation in their traffic enforcement strategies, does not mean that I am against the program being run efficiently, cost effectively, or impartially. Only a fool would come to that conclusion.
    Last edited by BoyleStreetBoy; 26-05-2017 at 04:51 PM.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  46. #1146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Because I question the City's motivation in their traffic enforcement strategies, does not mean that I am against the program being run efficiently, cost effectively, or impartially. Only a fool would come to that conclusion.
    What possible nefarious or otherwise untoward motivation could there be in enforcing the Traffic Safety Act to the ultimate ends of increasing traffic safety?

    What evidence have you seen that raises the question of propriety?

    How would you balance the economies of scale in regards to the operation of the program while correcting the issues you feel are inherent in the city's current implementation?

    If the economies of scale cannot be maintained & the ability of Automated Enforcement to fund other traffic safety initiatives is no longer, what would you put on the chopping block to make ends meet?

    Or if cuts aren't your bag, I'd be interested in seeing where you'd get the money to keep pushing forward with safety initiatives, replace the missing funding needed to maintain current EPS staffing levels & then find the additional money required to increase the EPS to account for them being wholly responsible for traffic enforcement yet again. Property tax increase? User fees? Debt?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  47. #1147
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by BoyleStreetBoy View Post
    Because I question the City's motivation in their traffic enforcement strategies, does not mean that I am against the program being run efficiently, cost effectively, or impartially. Only a fool would come to that conclusion.
    What possible nefarious or otherwise untoward motivation could there be in enforcing the Traffic Safety Act to the ultimate ends of increasing traffic safety?

    What evidence have you seen that raises the question of propriety?

    How would you balance the economies of scale in regards to the operation of the program while correcting the issues you feel are inherent in the city's current implementation?

    If the economies of scale cannot be maintained & the ability of Automated Enforcement to fund other traffic safety initiatives is no longer, what would you put on the chopping block to make ends meet?

    Or if cuts aren't your bag, I'd be interested in seeing where you'd get the money to keep pushing forward with safety initiatives, replace the missing funding needed to maintain current EPS staffing levels & then find the additional money required to increase the EPS to account for them being wholly responsible for traffic enforcement yet again. Property tax increase? User fees? Debt?
    You've answered the questions with your own questions: your language relies heavily on the concepts of funding/money/sin tax.

    The City claims photo radar is not about raising revenue, it's about traffic safety. Your own questions point out the lie.

    I would have no problems with the City putting up photo enforcement in school zones, hospital zones, seniors complexes, or wherever there is a real safety issue. If people are 5kmh over the limit in these zones I fully support fining them. I live in a neighbourhood filled with schools but I've never seen photo radar at any of those spots. I even live on a street in spitting distance of a school but I've never seen photo radar here. I do see photo radar on 50 Street in the transition zone between 60 and 50 all the time. I see it on 106 Ave at the off ramp from the Wayne Gretsky -- there is no signage warning unwary drivers that the speed limit abruptly changes from 60 to 50 -- All. The. Time.

    Besides the anecdotal evidence that I and others here have witnessed there are maps showing that the City's favourite photo radar spots are not high accident areas.

    And the City lowering the enforceable limit without using the opportunity to educate and inform people is a blatant cash grab and nowhere near any accepted level of propriety when it comes to political governance. Don't raise the spectre of traffic safety initiatives when the City had a perfect opportunity to educate speeders. Why didn't they? I believe that they wanted the money more than they wanted people to slow down.

    But I'll let the Alberta Government's findings rule on the City's actions.

    The City wants a real cash grab? Then they should target distracted drivers and drivers under the influence and make it financially hurt to dial & drive, drink and drive, or toke and drive.

    As far as economies of scale and economics of city governance, I will let you play the off-topic internet sage. Google whatever you need to come back and try to look what you know what you're talking about. In the past you trumpeted that it was about traffic safety initiatives. Now that you've changed your argument you've basically admitted that you've been blowing bubbles; you need to Google up and come back with a different argument.

    I am looking forward to reading your acquired opinion on what the City is going to do once everybody adjusts to the new order and photo radar revenues drop. No, not really, because you'll get it wrong like you always do.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  48. #1148

    Default

    can we not tax the drunkss, alchoholics, pubs bars and liquor stores for the added police enforcement we pay for from people getting hammed?

    With noodles logic this is all we need to do to prevent increases to property taxes. Why stop there? I can come up with all sorts of taxes in the name of safety that everyone can pay for. If we are taxing one issue into oblivion in the name of safety we may as well do it with other more pressing matters.
    Last edited by gwill211; 26-05-2017 at 06:30 PM.

  49. #1149
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    204

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    can we not tax the drunkss, alchoholics, pubs bars and liquor stores for the added police enforcement we pay for from people getting hammed?

    With noodles logic this is all we need to do to prevent increases to property taxes. Why stop there? I can come up with all sorts of taxes in the name of safety that everyone can pay for. If we are taxing one issue into oblivion in the name of safety we may as well do it with other more pressing matters.
    Sin tax is a hallmark of bad government.

    Evidently there is a contingent here who out of sheer ignorance prefer bad government over fiscally responsible government.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  50. #1150

    Default

    I'm by far the safest driver in the city. I do 20km under. So in a school zone it's 10km. 50 on the yellow head and 80 on Hendry..and it's not even about safety . It's the great gas mileage I get. More money in my pocket. And everyone else too. Except for the city and its businesses for it restricts the flow of goods and services.

  51. #1151

    Default

    I have decided to take the bull by the horns and hope you all join me in this. It's a new campaign aimed at making our roads safer and not allowing the Don Coniversons take food off your table , take from your children's education with his ' pay to speed " gimmicks. ..what we do is : find other law abiding drivers and pull right beside them. Lock in the cruise control, not letting people speed on by. It's being pro active..it's about making our roads safer....most importantly saving you all money ! Quit letting these Don Coniversons pick your pockets!

  52. #1152
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    So your campaign is basically "drive the speed limit, don't get the tickets"? Yes, that's something I can get behind... in fact, I'm already participating. Sounds good, champking.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  53. #1153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    So your campaign is basically "drive the speed limit, don't get the tickets"? Yes, that's something I can get behind... in fact, I'm already participating. Sounds good, champking.
    I don't do the maximum for both my truck and motorcycles the speedometer our out . The truck has 16 inch tires , designed for 15 inch so throws it out roughly 7%. ...when I did my motorcycle test they failed me for driving too slow, but on the second try they caught me doing 20km over and passed me...something about exerting confidence , and not being aggressive enough....but , I also found it impossible to switch have lane's doing the speeds of everyone else...so I do 20-30km under at all times now.
    It frustrates other drivers but I refuse to give the Coniversons my money. I actually feel less safe, as it angers people , and they become confrontational.

    BTW. I have tried to get my speedometer re calibrated but when I talk to the dealer , they say they can put in new parts but legally it can still be out 10 % ...where the Coniversons demand a 5% tolerance.

    The system seems rigged for its about the mighty cash cow.
    Last edited by champking; 29-05-2017 at 12:08 PM.

  54. #1154
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    Red Deer
    Posts
    150

    Default

    ^ I thought, legally, speedometers are allowed to have a 4% discrepancy of the highest number shown. So if your speedo's highest number is 200kph, then it is allowed to have a discrepancy of 8kph +/-.

    Transport Canada doesn't regulate the accuracy of speedometers.

    If I get pulled over for speeding, I'm just going to say - 'I don't know how fast I was going. Speedometer accuracy isn't regulated in Canada.'
    When did punk rock become so safe? When did the scene become a joke?
    The kids who used to live for beer and speed, now want their fries and coke.

  55. #1155
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    I'm by far the safest driver in the city. I do 20km under. So in a school zone it's 10km. 50 on the yellow head and 80 on Hendry..and it's not even about safety . It's the great gas mileage I get. More money in my pocket. And everyone else too. Except for the city and its businesses for it restricts the flow of goods and services.
    So you're that f*cking dummy on the road that completely messes the flow of traffic and jeopardizes people safety. You think your doing the people a favour but in reality you're causing many issues. You need to get your brain examined.
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  56. #1156
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the.tru.albertan View Post
    ^ I thought, legally, speedometers are allowed to have a 4% discrepancy of the highest number shown. So if your speedo's highest number is 200kph, then it is allowed to have a discrepancy of 8kph +/-.
    If that is true it could explain why most speedometer scales extend to far higher speeds than the vehicle they are in is capable of traveling. Why else would a typical vehicle that is shipped with T-rated tires (max 190 km/h) have a 240 km/h speedometer?

  57. #1157
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,715

    Default

    hear HEAR 240. **** the *****'s

    * to hell with them
    Time spent in the Rockies is never deducted from the rest of your life

  58. #1158
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    This morning there were 3 photo radar trucks setup on the accident prone hot-spots (I'm being highly facetious) Anthony Henday at 66th, 97th and 184th streets.

    Perhaps the city is trying to get in as much tickets before the province puts a halt to it.

  59. #1159

    Default

    ^ I haven't noticed any safety issues on the mainline, but my experience is that some of the off-ramps see excessive speed. The exit lane is so wide and the turn so gentle that drivers don't slow down gradually, they either slam on the brakes at the end, or they end up going 20 over on the surface street they exit to if there's no light.
    There can only be one.

  60. #1160
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    CNR Are you selectively reading? There is photoradar There is regular enforcement (you know, cops with guns) Both are happening at the same time. What are you yammering on again about? You seem to be saying that there is only photoradar. That's false. There's both photoradar, and regular enforcement happening. Both are good. But your soapbox rant doesnt seem so good when you consider the real facts now does it? Maybe photoradar should also include demerit points against the owner of the vehicle.
    Just how stupid are you? Demerits on the owner of a vehicle who wasn't driving? Sniff another line genius. To a simpleton I "yammer" To those who understand written English, this is very clear. REMOVE Photo, replace it with laser only WITH demerits. THUS penalizing and ultimately removing the problem children from our roads. I know this is difficult to grasp. Perhaps you ought take a course in common sense. The next drunk who laughs at his ticket while endangering the rest of us have people like YOU to thank for the idiocy that is.....
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  61. #1161
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    If there were demerits against the owner of the vehicle the owner would stop allowing the speeder to drive his vehicle cnr67. Photo radar can enforce much more efficiently than someone operating a laser.

  62. #1162
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I see this thread is still rambling on with some good old urban legends.

    Your speedo is given a margin of error on the most common speed limits, not on the highest speed. So, your speedo needs to be most accurate at highway speeds. However...

    The extra numbers come from the fact that most circular speedos try to calibrate the common speed (60-70mph, 100-120kph) somewhere near the centre or centre left of the gauge. Look at the cruise symbol on most cars, the "needle" is often in the 11:00 position. So, to fill out the gauge, it often goes to "dream-on-o-metre" territory.

    Tire sizes are put on the car to perform not only to speed, but the handling characteristics of the vehicle in question. Lower speed tires also handle worse. So, while 190 km/h is the sustained maximum, the real reason for your high speed tires is more for handling, braking, rain performance, etc of the given vehicle. This is a collaborative effort with manufacturers, lawyers, lobbyists, legislators, and insurance advocates. Speed is but one factor. Note there are no (or at least I haven't seen) VR rated 235/80R16 12 ply truck tires...or 12 ply 175/65R13's with mud grips....

    If you make ANY modifications to your car, INCLUDING changing the stock tire radius and width, you NEED TO recalibrate your speedometer. It must be as accurate as possible, or it is up to YOU to also recalibrate the gauge.

    Your car is licensed and insured as per the manufacturer's specifications. Just ask the hot rodder that gets into an accident and then finds out the insurance is voided because of modifications. ...and good luck trying to get out of a ticket (police officer or judge) with this discrepancy malarkey. IT IS 100% UP TO THE OPERATOR TO ENSURE ALL SYSTEMS ARE ACCURATE. PERIOD. Ignorance of the law, or of your vehicle's maintenance position, is no excuse. In the day where every blasted smart phone has a GPS, there is absolutely no excuse to not use it to find out what 100 km/h is now with your larger summer tires (the most often excuse is bigger summers, smaller winters). If you are so isolated as to not have a friend with a smart phone, the local police detachment is more than happy to actually clock you and give you the readings....at least they used to... You as the operator need to know just how "out" your equipment is.

    This whole discrepancy thing (10%, 4%, whatever) has more to do with not clogging up the courts with excessive appeals for the 1km/2km over tickets. Throw into the mix the traffic flow and conditions, and that is the real reason why you can do 120 on a 110 road without being ticketed most of the time. It is more about the probability of conviction rather than giving you a break. It is really that simple. Police and judges don't want to waste time.

    ...and as for this garbage about doing a consistent 20km/h under the posted limit...you can receive a ticket for that too. You must drive to the flow of the traffic, the conditions of the road, and the conditions of the weather. In a severe storm, you can get ticketed for doing the speed limit, and if you are impeding traffic, you can be ticketed as well. It is, again, up to the operator to drive to the conditions, up to and until the posted limit. This even applies to the "fast" left lane on highways. That annoying driver doing the speed limit in the left lane is obnoxious, but completely legally correct to be there (as of now...not so in BC...another story). The left lane is not a speed lane...it is a passing lane. All lanes have the same top end limit.
    Onward and upward

  63. #1163
    C2E Junkie *
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    13,295
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    If there were demerits against the owner of the vehicle the owner would stop allowing the speeder to drive his vehicle (...).

    Try getting that through court. Why do you think the law is structured as it is??????

    The insurance companies have lobbied HARD to get exactly that...so they can nail everyone with premium increases...and they've failed each and every time in court.
    Onward and upward

  64. #1164
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    I see this thread is still rambling on with some good old urban legends.

    Your speedo is given a margin of error on the most common speed limits, not on the highest speed. So, your speedo needs to be most accurate at highway speeds. However...

    The extra numbers come from the fact that most circular speedos try to calibrate the common speed (60-70mph, 100-120kph) somewhere near the centre or centre left of the gauge. Look at the cruise symbol on most cars, the "needle" is often in the 11:00 position. So, to fill out the gauge, it often goes to "dream-on-o-metre" territory.

    Tire sizes are put on the car to perform not only to speed, but the handling characteristics of the vehicle in question. Lower speed tires also handle worse. So, while 190 km/h is the sustained maximum, the real reason for your high speed tires is more for handling, braking, rain performance, etc of the given vehicle. This is a collaborative effort with manufacturers, lawyers, lobbyists, legislators, and insurance advocates. Speed is but one factor. Note there are no (or at least I haven't seen) VR rated 235/80R16 12 ply truck tires...or 12 ply 175/65R13's with mud grips....
    12 ply 175/65R13 would actually make great trailer tires - load capacity to match a 3500 lb axle and big enough wheels to fit over the brakes, but small diameter to keep the trailer low for easy loading and unloading.

    I understand why one might use tires speed rated for far higher than legal speeds, and even for speeds greater than the vehicle is capable of, but when a manufacturer ships a vehicle with 190 km/h tires they obviously don't expect it to go any faster. When that same vehicle is equipped with a 240 km/h speedometer, the top 20% of the scale will never get used, even on the track, and the resolution of the part of the scale that actually does get used is reduced. The idea of having the common highway speed near center makes no sense to me. The 12:00 position in a typical non-performance car should be a medium speed, fast for the city but slow for the highway. Something like 90 km/h. That puts ~30 km/h at 9:00 and ~150 km/h at 3:00, with nearly all of the speeds one would normally drive at being in the uppermost 120° of the gauge, between 10:00 and 2:00.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ...

    This whole discrepancy thing (10%, 4%, whatever) has more to do with not clogging up the courts with excessive appeals for the 1km/2km over tickets. Throw into the mix the traffic flow and conditions, and that is the real reason why you can do 120 on a 110 road without being ticketed most of the time. It is more about the probability of conviction rather than giving you a break. It is really that simple. Police and judges don't want to waste time.
    The Alberta highway design guide actually includes a statement about a "traditional 10 km/h enforcement tolerance" as a justification for the policy of setting speed limits at least 10 km/h below the design speed. Speed limits are theoretically supposed to be the fastest speed you should ever go, but that is rarely how they are set.

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    ...and as for this garbage about doing a consistent 20km/h under the posted limit...you can receive a ticket for that too. You must drive to the flow of the traffic, the conditions of the road, and the conditions of the weather. In a severe storm, you can get ticketed for doing the speed limit, and if you are impeding traffic, you can be ticketed as well. It is, again, up to the operator to drive to the conditions, up to and until the posted limit. This even applies to the "fast" left lane on highways. That annoying driver doing the speed limit in the left lane is obnoxious, but completely legally correct to be there (as of now...not so in BC...another story). The left lane is not a speed lane...it is a passing lane. All lanes have the same top end limit.
    BC has the right idea. Hopefully their new government doesn't screw it up.

  65. #1165
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RichardS View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SP59 View Post
    If there were demerits against the owner of the vehicle the owner would stop allowing the speeder to drive his vehicle (...).

    Try getting that through court. Why do you think the law is structured as it is??????

    The insurance companies have lobbied HARD to get exactly that...so they can nail everyone with premium increases...and they've failed each and every time in court.
    And that is a good thing. I have never liked the idea of assessing penalties to vehicle owners rather than operators. At least with fines it is often fairly straightforward for the owner to pass the cost on to the driver when the two are not the same individual.

  66. #1166

    Default

    Let's say I'm driving a company vehicle or City of Edmonton vehicle , or any government vehicle...who should get the demerits ? Should it apply to accidents also?

    As for speeding I've been doing a minimum of 20 under and you should see the amount of nutters , they lose their stuff. I get middle finger at least half dozen times a day and then other motorists actually start endangering my life trying cut me off the road. I had 1 guy even get out of his vehicle , big trucks specially. Old people the worst, old lady's...( this all in just 2 weeks) ....but, I'm doing as the system tells me to do

    Great gas mileage though and no tickets ☺. Great thing about being retired ☺ but if I had a job and had to be places , I could see their frustration
    Last edited by champking; 06-06-2017 at 10:14 PM.

  67. #1167
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    No, the system isn't telling you to drive 20 km/h under the speed limit, that's a choice you're making based on some wild reasoning that only you can understand.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  68. #1168

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Let's say I'm driving a company vehicle or City of Edmonton vehicle , or any government vehicle...who should get the demerits ? Should it apply to accidents also?

    As for speeding I've been doing a minimum of 20 under and you should see the amount of nutters , they lose their stuff. I get middle finger at least half dozen times a day and then other motorists actually start endangering my life trying cut me off the road. I had 1 guy even get out of his vehicle , big trucks specially. Old people the worst, old lady's...( this all in just 2 weeks) ....but, I'm doing as the system tells me to do

    Great gas mileage though and no tickets ☺. Great thing about being retired ☺ but if I had a job and had to be places , I could see their frustration
    You are so full of the brown stuff. Saying you have been doing under 20 mph is probably another of your lies. If you do that on a regular basis just to obstruct the flow of traffic you deserve more than a finger. What an r sole.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  69. #1169

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Let's say I'm driving a company vehicle or City of Edmonton vehicle , or any government vehicle...who should get the demerits ? Should it apply to accidents also?

    As for speeding I've been doing a minimum of 20 under and you should see the amount of nutters , they lose their stuff. I get middle finger at least half dozen times a day and then other motorists actually start endangering my life trying cut me off the road. I had 1 guy even get out of his vehicle , big trucks specially. Old people the worst, old lady's...( this all in just 2 weeks) ....but, I'm doing as the system tells me to do

    Great gas mileage though and no tickets ☺. Great thing about being retired ☺ but if I had a job and had to be places , I could see their frustration
    You are so full of the brown stuff. Saying you have been doing under 20 mph is probably another of your lies. If you do that on a regular basis just to obstruct the flow of traffic you deserve more than a finger. What an r sole.
    Gemini - show some tolerance. Just be glad champking is retired and trying to fit in with the seniors or whatever - and not likely driving when our productive members of society are on the road. When I stopped working regular hours it took me a long time to get used to to the mid-day drivers and their unique and unusual driving habits. It adds a lot of unexpected thrills to my day. I imagine there's vision issues, slow response times, unexpected slows, sore legs, medications, mental issues, you name it that cause people to quite reasonably have to slow their speed to make it to their destinations safely - as safely could be expected.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qxQ5Qgl5r0


    Alberta watching B.C. crack down on slow left lane drivers

    BY MATT DYKSTRA
    FIRST POSTED: WEDNESDAY, MARCH 04, 2015

    "In Alberta, under the Traffic Safety Act, we have a fine for impeding traffic on a multi-lane highway and that is $172 and three demerit points so if the RCMP observe someone driving too slow in the left-hand lane or preventing anyone from passing, they are able to levy that fine," said Way."
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2015/03/0...t-lane-drivers

  70. #1170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Let's say I'm driving a company vehicle or City of Edmonton vehicle , or any government vehicle...who should get the demerits ? Should it apply to accidents also?

    As for speeding I've been doing a minimum of 20 under and you should see the amount of nutters , they lose their stuff. I get middle finger at least half dozen times a day and then other motorists actually start endangering my life trying cut me off the road. I had 1 guy even get out of his vehicle , big trucks specially. Old people the worst, old lady's...( this all in just 2 weeks) ....but, I'm doing as the system tells me to do

    Great gas mileage though and no tickets ☺. Great thing about being retired ☺ but if I had a job and had to be places , I could see their frustration
    You are so full of the brown stuff. Saying you have been doing under 20 mph is probably another of your lies. If you do that on a regular basis just to obstruct the flow of traffic you deserve more than a finger. What an r sole.
    let me correct you . Here in Canada we go by Killometers not miles per hour. There's a huge difference . ...As for the law I've looked in to it prior and as long as I'm about to make a left turn I can travel slower than the flow of traffic. For the most part I stick to the right lane . ..nothing brown stuff about it ...for excessive slow speeds you would have to be doing like 50-60 in a hundred zone ...where I'm doing 80... no cops going to ticket.

  71. #1171
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    Word on the street is they've been putting some sort of cameras behind the speed limit signs...anyone seen these or know what they're for???

  72. #1172

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Word on the street is they've been putting some sort of cameras behind the speed limit signs...anyone seen these or know what they're for???
    Havnt heard anything about camera's but will be installing radar to digitally display the speed your going. Similar to what they currently doing in school zones .

  73. #1173

    Default

    Disturbing one of Edmontons finest peace officers ( superintendent of the photo radar ) who's accused of sexually assaulting that woman. I see huge liability for the city and one way they can help prevent this is have these peace officers return their uniform after every shift .

  74. #1174
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Disturbing one of Edmontons finest peace officers ( superintendent of the photo radar ) who's accused of sexually assaulting that woman. I see huge liability for the city and one way they can help prevent this is have these peace officers return their uniform after every shift .
    understand this : it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ..did you know 90% of all charges are either dropped or reduced ?

    There's fake news , then there's the justice system.


  75. #1175

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Disturbing one of Edmontons finest peace officers ( superintendent of the photo radar ) who's accused of sexually assaulting that woman. I see huge liability for the city and one way they can help prevent this is have these peace officers return their uniform after every shift .
    understand this : it must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. ..did you know 90% of all charges are either dropped or reduced ?

    There's fake news , then there's the justice system.

    Notice I used the word ' accused ' . He hasn't been found guilty .

    With that said : I've offered bit of a solution , to help prevent this happening again.

    If he wasn't given a uniform to have while off duty . Chances are : wouldn't have happen. Imo

  76. #1176
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Notice I used the word ' accused ' . He hasn't been found guilty .
    But the facts are that 90% of complaints , investigations, are unfounded . That sais something about our society . Its mostly false aligations


  77. #1177

    Default

    ^^A better solution would be not having uniformed officers handling photo radar at all. They don't need a guy sitting up on the pole to make red light cameras valid, why are they necessary for mobile photo radar?

    Actually, on the list of problematic "cash cow" ticketing I would say red light enforcement ranks way above photo radar. the fine is higher - over $400 - and while it may be appropriate for blowing through a red at speed it's not an appropriate fine for a rolling stop, like is often done for a right turn.
    There can only be one.

  78. #1178
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    1,020

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by champking View Post
    Disturbing one of Edmontons finest peace officers ( superintendent of the photo radar ) who's accused of sexually assaulting that woman. I see huge liability for the city and one way they can help prevent this is have these peace officers return their uniform after every shift .
    Makes a guy wish we had cowboy justice. Anybody that is convicted beyond reasonable doubt for having pulled a stunt like this can hang from a tree for all I care. This could be any one of our mothers or daughters.

    There's a lesson to be learned here though people. If your flags are up while being pulled over record it, call 911, and ask for a second officer on site. Don't ever get into a personal vehicle without reason.
    There was no need to change that plaque. We are the City of Champions.

  79. #1179
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Regardless if you want or don't want a peace officer in the photo radar vehicles, the law demands it, I can't find the exact section in the various bills that state it however.

  80. #1180

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Regardless if you want or don't want a peace officer in the photo radar vehicles, the law demands it, I can't find the exact section in the various bills that state it however.
    Before the city took over it was done by a private company. Correct if wrong but don't believe they needed peace officers.

  81. #1181
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    Private sure, but they were sworn in.

    I still can't find the exact section of the legislation, but this is from the solicitor general's guidelines
    https://www.solgps.alberta.ca/progra...4).pdf#page=10
    Last edited by sundance; 17-06-2017 at 04:50 PM.

  82. #1182

    Default

    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati..._Locations.pdf

    Link to the list of AE locations, in a list (rather than map) format.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  83. #1183
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati..._Locations.pdf

    Link to the list of AE locations, in a list (rather than map) format.
    OH but it's all about Safety...Right??? Pure BS.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  84. #1184

    Default

    Yep. They're hoping that people will slow down in the areas if they know they're at risk.

    The City of Edmonton is now publishing the location of photo radar enforcement in the city on a weekly basis.

    In making the announcement at a council meeting on Tuesday, Coun. Dave Loken said for him, providing the information is an experiment.
    "I want to see if people are actually going to pay attention enough and in fact slow down," said Loken. "If we're getting less revenue because people are slowing down and our streets are safer, that's a success story," he added.
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...199979?cmp=rss
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  85. #1185

    Default

    I asked the city to put up some of those flashing signs on 153 Ave... and they did! And you now what? Anecdotally, people have been driving slower. I asked them to conduct a few EPS speed traps (tickets w/ demerits) so I hope they follow up with that, especially in the evenings when the BMW and crotch rocket crowd are out.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  86. #1186
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    if there was no problem with photo radar, the Alberta Government wouldn't be doing a review of it.
    And the Wildrose Official Opposition wouldn't have shamed the government into announcing the review on the same morning.

  87. #1187
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,922

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I asked the city to put up some of those flashing signs on 153 Ave...
    So,one knows just how far past the limit they are going.Terrific.I can certainly understand how these will remove bad habits from the roads.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  88. #1188

    Default

    From a US DOT study (DSDS is a Dynamic Speed Display Sign, aka the flashing signs Chmilz mentions):

    This study collected speed data upstream and downstream of a DSDS on three corridors withdifferent speed limits: 25, 35, and 45 mph. The 25 mph site was a school zone. The data wascollected with a digital counter for at least one week. After analyzing the data with differentstatistical models, the research team concluded that DSDSs are effective. However, a DSDSshould be used as a temporary solution because its effectiveness reduces with time. The researchteam also concluded that a DSDS is effective only for short distance, as drivers increase theirspeed after passing the DSDS. Therefore, DSDSs should be used on critical points. A criticalpoint could be defined as an area where the probability of crashes is high or safety is veryimportant (e.g., work zones or school zones). When a DSDS is combined with another speedcontrol device, such as a speed camera, its effectiveness increases.
    https://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/speedmgt...ay%20Signs.pdf
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  89. #1189
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,977

    Default

    I think the flashing signs have an upper-limit on them, at least the ones used in the city. I saw someone tear up 99 st the other day, and the sign flashed "60" in red. He was definitely going over 60... I'd say closer to 80.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  90. #1190
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,233

    Default

    If they were beside high accident locations, I would acknowledge it is for safety.
    "that of the 25 photo radar locations most used by the city, a majority had no relation to the top locations where collisions (including both intersection and mid-block) most frequently occur" - Tricia Velthuizen - ward 4 candidate
    https://globalnews.ca/news/3770956/d...cil-candidate/

  91. #1191

    Default

    Maybe they aren't high collision locations because of enforcement?

  92. #1192

    Default

    Or maybe many of the problem intersections don't need photo radar as they've got permanent red light & speed on green cameras installed?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #1193

    Default

    will be interesting to see what the province review says when it comes back this fall

  94. #1194
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,382

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Maybe they aren't high collision locations because of enforcement?
    Isn't reducing the likelihood of collisions the whole reason why we have traffic laws in the first place? Doesn't it logically follow that the strictest enforcement of those laws should be in locations with higher rates of collisions?

  95. #1195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    If they were beside high accident locations, I would acknowledge it is for safety.
    "that of the 25 photo radar locations most used by the city, a majority had no relation to the top locations where collisions (including both intersection and mid-block) most frequently occur" - Tricia Velthuizen - ward 4 candidate
    https://globalnews.ca/news/3770956/d...cil-candidate/

    What nonsense.

    The photo radar locations indicated in the graphic are all in locations where the "cash cow" accusation doesn't make sense, but are in places where lower speeds have a quality of life impact.

    Meadowlark apparently right at the library & curve. Makes sense to me. Whyte ave? not where you'll catch the most speeders but it's a place where they have a big impact on people. Same with 101ave, an oversized street with a current plan to right-size it.

    Some of the high-collision locations are places where speed has a limited impact. The 142st traffic circle has it's own issues. 149st & Yellowhead has congestion issues, not speed issues; I can't remember the last time I was able to travel through on YH at the speed limit, let alone above. Same with WEM accesses.

    All this does is establish Tricia as a candidate who doesn't think issues through.

    I'm not in her ward but If I was I would cross her off the list.
    There can only be one.

  96. #1196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Maybe they aren't high collision locations because of enforcement?
    Isn't reducing the likelihood of collisions the whole reason why we have traffic laws in the first place? Doesn't it logically follow that the strictest enforcement of those laws should be in locations with higher rates of collisions?
    Not the whole reason; not by a long shot.

    We also have rules to limit impact on others. For instance, it's a lot harder to cross a street where traffic is moving fast than one where it's moving slowly. Faster traffic makes more noise, makes using sidewalks uncomfortable.
    There can only be one.

  97. #1197

    Default Let's adopt Sherwood Park strategy, end photo radar cash grab

    This is how you improve traffic safety:

    Take the case of Sherwood Park and Strathcona County, where five years ago, the local council axed photo radar, ended the cash grab, beefed up actual police enforcement and targeted problem drivers and hazardous intersections.

    The new plan led to enforcement measures so effective and fair, they deserve a standing ovation from every driver in the Edmonton region, where too much traffic enforcement is pointless at best and a cash grab at worst.

    In one particularly brilliant case, the police set up digital speed signs by a Sherwood Park neighbourhood road with the hope of slowing down drivers. The police then studied the data collected and found that at one particular time of day, a single car was consistently going far over the speed limit, says Coun. Brian Botterill. “That allowed us to target the enforcement on the individual who was the problem.”

    The police went to the spot at the right time of day and nabbed the speeding menace, giving him not only a photo radar ticket, but also major demerits on his licence and presumably a stern lecture.

    “You didn’t have to hit a bunch of the neighbours with tickets for doing 10 km/h over; you hit the one guy doing 30 to 35 over in a 50 zone,” says Botterill. “The residents were super happy because there was one person who was the problem. The rest of the people in the neighbourhood were reasonable.”
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...adar-cash-grab

  98. #1198

    Default

    Those poor neighbours doing 60 on residential street, would hate to ask them to slow down too.
    There can only be one.

  99. #1199
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,286

    Default

    I really hope that Botterill loses in the next election. How does he think going sixty in a residential area is reasonable?

    I wonder why the article is saying the guy going 30 to 35 over got a photo radar ticket?

  100. #1200

    Default




    https://rjscity.blogspot.ca/2017/10/...ic-safety.html

    Whatever the underlying factors are causing this increase in major injury and fatality collisions, it is clear that the data strongly suggests that the removal of photo radar has greatly increased the rate of major injury and fatal accidents. In other words, the roads are less safe than before photo radar was removed.
    Last edited by noodle; 05-10-2017 at 09:07 AM. Reason: Double pasted
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

Page 12 of 13 FirstFirst ... 28910111213 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
  •