Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213
Results 1,201 to 1,238 of 1238

Thread: Petition Against Photo Radar Started

  1. #1201

  2. #1202
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    Haha... yeah... that darn "enforcing laws" scam! Dammit, why do people fall for that scam?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  3. #1203

    Default

    Seems like Ottawa could use some Photo Radar! misleading data and all.

  4. #1204
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    212

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post



    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.
    More misleading data, and all.

    These accidents could have been a result of texting or drunk driving -- which a photo radar unit wouldn't have made any difference.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  5. #1205

    Default

    That's certainly possible, that we're getting more distracted. It's also likely that a distracted driving crash at 55 is likely to be less severe than one at 60 or 65.

    That's just as likely as your hypothesis.
    There can only be one.

  6. #1206

    Default

    no hypothesis needed comparing Edmonton to Ottawa, unless we really are terrible drivers compared to them

  7. #1207
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,413

    Default

    While Sherwood Park doesn't use photo radar (they do on red-light cameras) they do have speed traps, tend to set them up in construction zones and along various parts of AHD and Yellowhead. I haven't seen them in school or playground zones, but I don't drive much in those areas during school times.

  8. #1208

    Default

    I'm fine with speed traps. I'm actually OK with the speed-on-green cams and red light cams too. It's the Henday and hidden-trucks on free flowing roads that are BS. It doesn't need to be completely removed, just massively overhauled.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  9. #1209
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    212

    Default

    https://globalnews.ca/news/3738318/e...speeding-less/

    Revenue down by 3 Million...

    Iveson says "The system is working."

    I'm not surprised. The cash influx from the unannounced lowering of the "fudge factor" is drying up, and drivers who were caught unaware by the new enforcement policy have wised up. I don't see any real gains in traffic safety.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  10. #1210

    Default

    I'm terrified of average speed cameras | DriveTribe

    https://drivetribe.com/p/im-terrifie...RsCbE4yI3lDBjg

  11. #1211
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    2,099
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  12. #1212

    Default

    Alberta's review on photo radar

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/photo-radar-review-alberta-mason-1.5028016


    Found this stat interesting:
    "The third-party review found photo radar has a marginal contribution to traffic safety, reducing collisions rates by only 1.4 per cent."
    Last edited by trick91; 21-02-2019 at 01:21 PM.

  13. #1213

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    Alberta's review on photo radar

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/photo-radar-review-alberta-mason-1.5028016


    Found this stat interesting:
    "The third-party review found photo radar has a marginal contribution to traffic safety, reducing collisions rates by only 1.4 per cent."
    Lol CoE is the worst offender in sure. We have something like 1100 phot radar locations in the city. Iím sure our mayor will be trying to justify our past use.

  14. #1214
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    Alberta's review on photo radar

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/photo-radar-review-alberta-mason-1.5028016


    Found this stat interesting:
    "The third-party review found photo radar has a marginal contribution to traffic safety, reducing collisions rates by only 1.4 per cent."
    Lol CoE is the worst offender in sure. We have something like 1100 phot radar locations in the city. Iím sure our mayor will be trying to justify our past use.
    272 in Edmonton vs 950 in Calgary.

  15. #1215

    Default

    Edmonton generated 12 million more in revenue even with fewer locations

  16. #1216
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    11,037

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    Alberta's review on photo radar

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/photo-radar-review-alberta-mason-1.5028016


    Found this stat interesting:
    "The third-party review found photo radar has a marginal contribution to traffic safety, reducing collisions rates by only 1.4 per cent."
    Lol CoE is the worst offender in sure. We have something like 1100 phot radar locations in the city. Iím sure our mayor will be trying to justify our past use.
    272 in Edmonton vs 950 in Calgary.
    Edmonton has way less locations and way higher revenue. Because the CoE is perfectly happy slapping as many trucks on the Henday and the 16/2 deceleration lanes as they can. Those would generate massive revenues. Calgary on the other hand appears to actually use photo radar to, you know, discourage speeding in high collision locations. Not highways/freeways that have minuscule injury accident rates relative to their volume of traffic compared to arterial roads.

  17. #1217

    Default

    I'm OK with photo radar just not the entrapment style. For example, I was driving on 118 ave east bound by Northland. As I was driving at 50 km at 1:00 am, I took my foot off the gas approaching the hill where the train track crosses; my speed reached 59 or so km at the bottom and that was where they stationed the camera; another example is placing a camera right after where the traffic sign display a traffic speed change. This type of trap is equal to theft. I rather thieves blatantly steal from me than this type of charade where they steal from you but make you feel like criminals just to justify their nefarious agenda. It is an insult to our intelligence imo.
    " The strength of a man is in the stride he walks."

  18. #1218
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    408

    Default

    ^ I'm with you. Heavier fines for the most dangerous locations, school zones and the like. Ring fence that money for road safety improvements such as pedestrian lights - wasn't there a report recently where the city said there are 200+ crossings that were classed as dangerous and it would take years to complete. Use photo radar revenues for that.

    Parking a photo radar on #2 where the speed drops from 110 to 90 is plain wrong, unless there is a demonstrated safety issue

  19. #1219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by edmonton daily photo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by trick91 View Post
    Alberta's review on photo radar

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/photo-radar-review-alberta-mason-1.5028016


    Found this stat interesting:
    "The third-party review found photo radar has a marginal contribution to traffic safety, reducing collisions rates by only 1.4 per cent."
    Lol CoE is the worst offender in sure. We have something like 1100 phot radar locations in the city. Iím sure our mayor will be trying to justify our past use.
    272 in Edmonton vs 950 in Calgary.
    If thatís true my bad..I was listening to people talk about so I didnít have an actual article to go back to or reference. I know they pointed out Edmonton was exceptional (not in a good way.)

  20. #1220
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    353

    Default

    The stats clearly show that Edmonton is abusing photo radar especially when compared to Calgary which is a bigger city and has far more photo radar locations. In my opinion this is because Calgary photo radar is run by their police. In Edmonton it’s run by The Office of Traffic Safety (or whatever they’re calling themselves now) which is just another city department and level of bureaucracy the city created which has to justify its existence by operating the photo radar program. I’ve never seen Calgary police sitting on Stony Trail overpasses shooting fish in a barrel as is done every day on the Henday. Edmonton’s photo radar program is a disgrace and has been exposed by this report.
    Ding dong the witch is dead
    Last edited by thegongshow; 23-02-2019 at 06:14 PM.

  21. #1221
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    If only there was a way to drive and not get a photo radar ticket...
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  22. #1222
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    If only there was a way to drive and not get a photo radar ticket...
    No **** sherlock. Still doesn't excuse the city for using it as a revenue generator, instead of what it is really designed for.

  23. #1223
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    Except that one thing it’s designed for is to generate money to help with other initiatives such as those speed signs that show you how fast you’re going. I’ve actually seen people argue against photo radar and say “the city should really install more of the speed signs” without understanding that one funds the other.

    From the city:
    “Revenue generated by photo enforcement does NOT go into general revenue. Revenue from photo radar is spent on traffic safety programs, not on general City expenses.”

    So, how is photo radar a cash cow if the money doesn’t go back into general revenue, but instead goes into traffic safety programs?

    This all comes down to one thing; people who get photo radar tickets are ticked off because they broke the law and had to pay for it. Those who complain that photo radar is a cash cow and does nothing for road safety need to educate themselves.

    So, here you go, educate yourself:
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...forcement.aspx
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  24. #1224

    Default

    “Except that one thing it’s designed for is to generate money...”

    Yet you won’t hear that from the City officials. Instead you hear of its use under the false pretence that reducing speeding is so critical that no other enforcement of any other infractions is ever needed.


    Note how many times speeding is determined to be the cause of an accident:

    motor vehicle collisions
    2017
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...nualReport.pdf
    Last edited by KC; 24-02-2019 at 11:52 PM.

  25. #1225
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    Obviously any kind of ticket will generate money, KC.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  26. #1226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Obviously any kind of ticket will generate money, KC.
    Yes. Design can focus on effective deterrence to improve road safety or as you said, design can focus on revenue generation.

  27. #1227
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Donít worry. Premier Kenny will put the cash cow out of its misery

  28. #1228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Obviously any kind of ticket will generate money, KC.
    the problem with your stance is the province has determined its being utilized to generate revenue. Just because edmonton dumps the money into other areas doesnt mean our city is using it to make the roads safer.

    Once the province removes the ability to ticket off the over passes and remove transition zones then the top 20 radar locations wont be an option any longer.

    Revenue will drop significantly.

    I bet we see the city get rid of some of the roads where the speed jump from 60 to 50 back up to 60 in a few short blocks just so they can continue using photo radar in those locations.

    If Kenney plans to ban photo radar completely then it's another reason to vote for them.

  29. #1229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Obviously any kind of ticket will generate money, KC.
    the problem with your stance is the province has determined its being utilized to generate revenue.
    Obviously it's generating revenue - it's a ticket! The money is not going into GENERAL REVENUE. Since you clearly haven't bothered educating yourself...

    Revenue generated by photo enforcement does NOT go into general revenue. Revenue from photo radar is spent on traffic safety programs, not on general City expenses.

    Revenue covers operating costs of automated enforcement including a base allocation to Edmonton Police Service. In 2018, Edmonton Police Service received $22 million from automated enforcement.

    -15% of the total fine goes to Victims Services
    -16.67% goes to the Alberta Government
    -The remaining fine balance goes to the Reserve Fund and is used to fund safety and community projects at Council’s direction
    -Any late payment penalty attached to the fine goes to the Province (amount of $20 or 20%, whichever is greater)
    -Speed infractions follow the specified penalties as listed in the Alberta Traffic Safety Act

    Some engineering improvements to traffic safety include installation of:

    -Protected-only left turn phases at the signalized intersection to reduce left-turn-across-path type collisions
    -Pedestrian signals and pedestrian amber flashers at pedestrian crossings to improve pedestrian safety
    -Driver-feedback signs to let drivers know if they are speeding
    -Retro-reflective tapes and additional traffic-signal fixtures to improve the signal-head visibility at signalized intersections

    Photo-enforcement revenue is also used for:

    -Redesigning of right-turn cut-offs at major intersections to reduce followed-too-close type crashes
    -Implementation of engineering improvements at schools to increase the safety of our children
    So, for the pro-speeding crowd, how would you prefer those items are paid for? Right now they're paid for (probably partially), by a voluntary tax. Would you like the city taxpayer to be on the hook for 100% of the engineering improvements, or would you like them done away with completely?
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  30. #1230

    Default

    Gord- whatever revenue that's being generated now is going to drop significantly due to the new rules. That's because anyone with half a brain realizes the cities predatory policies arent being utilized to "MAKE THE ROADS SAFER".

    Let that last part sink in.

    So yes it's a cash cow even though you think it's not. It should be interesting to see how this plays out over the next year.

  31. #1231
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,859

    Default

    In 50 years of driving, I've gotten a total of one speeding ticket with demerit points. My wife has never gotten a speeding ticket in five decades of driving.

    Yet both of us somehow manage to get one or two photo radar tickets a year despite being very careful drivers.

    The last photo radar ticket I received last summer was driving northbound on the QE2 where the speed limit drops from 110 to 90 just north of the oil derrick. Apparently I was going 102k in a 90k zone.

    My wife got a photo radar ticket last fall driving through the Town of Whitecourt on Highway 43 as you descend to cross the Athabasca River. She was apparently going 11k over the posted speed limit.

    The Town of Whitecourt even brags on their website about catching unsuspecting travellers just passing through when they post on their website that only 11% of the tickets were issued to local residents:

    https://www.whitecourt.ca/Services/P...nt-Photo-Radar

    Properly deployed, photo radar can be a useful traffic safety tool. But how are these real life examples not using photo radar as a cash cow?

  32. #1232

    Default

    but Gord thinks that type of deployment is perfectly ok as long as its put towards traffic initiatives!

    You and your wife are obviously horrible drivers and deserve to be fined. /sarcasm

  33. #1233
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    353

    Default

    And how many of those QE2 oil derrick tickets are issued to Edmonton visitors that just got off an airplane and hopped in their rental car and are driving into Edmonton not familiar with the roads and signage and then weeks after returning to their home towns they get an extra charge from the rental car company for a photo radar ticket?
    Welcome to Edmonton.
    Cash cow

  34. #1234

    Default

    but that money goes into traffic initiatives!! How can you not be supportive of this.

  35. #1235
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    5,507

    Default

    I have no problem with speeders receiving photo radar tickets. None.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  36. #1236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    I have no problem with speeders receiving photo radar tickets. None.
    I don’t either.

    It’s the imbalance in enforcement that needs to be corrected.

    For instance, could they also be taking photos from overpasses and ticketing cars driving in the centre, rather than the right hand lane? Or nabbing people for failure to signal lane changes, etc.?

    How about all those people that make right hand turns into the centre lane rather than the curb lane? Can’t cameras catch those people too? (About 75-80 % of the people leaving my neighbourhood. I also see it as people turn and cut over lanes to get across the road to go into malls, etc). I think that’s maybe an infraction though I don’t think changing lanes in an intersection is an infraction in Alberta.)

    Note the long list of offences here and think about the number of times you’ve seen any effort to police those infractions:


    The Pointman - Offences and Demerit Points

    http://www.thepointman.ca/offenses-demerit-points.php
    Last edited by KC; 25-02-2019 at 12:59 PM.

  37. #1237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Obviously any kind of ticket will generate money, KC.
    the problem with your stance is the province has determined its being utilized to generate revenue.
    Obviously it's generating revenue - it's a ticket! The money is not going into GENERAL REVENUE. Since you clearly haven't bothered educating yourself...

    Revenue generated by photo enforcement does NOT go into general revenue. Revenue from photo radar is spent on traffic safety programs, not on general City expenses.

    Revenue covers operating costs of automated enforcement including a base allocation to Edmonton Police Service. In 2018, Edmonton Police Service received $22 million from automated enforcement.

    -15% of the total fine goes to Victims Services
    -16.67% goes to the Alberta Government
    -The remaining fine balance goes to the Reserve Fund and is used to fund safety and community projects at Council’s direction
    -Any late payment penalty attached to the fine goes to the Province (amount of $20 or 20%, whichever is greater)
    -Speed infractions follow the specified penalties as listed in the Alberta Traffic Safety Act

    Some engineering improvements to traffic safety include installation of:

    -Protected-only left turn phases at the signalized intersection to reduce left-turn-across-path type collisions
    -Pedestrian signals and pedestrian amber flashers at pedestrian crossings to improve pedestrian safety
    -Driver-feedback signs to let drivers know if they are speeding
    -Retro-reflective tapes and additional traffic-signal fixtures to improve the signal-head visibility at signalized intersections

    Photo-enforcement revenue is also used for:

    -Redesigning of right-turn cut-offs at major intersections to reduce followed-too-close type crashes
    -Implementation of engineering improvements at schools to increase the safety of our children
    So, for the pro-speeding crowd, how would you prefer those items are paid for? Right now they're paid for (probably partially), by a voluntary tax. Would you like the city taxpayer to be on the hook for 100% of the engineering improvements, or would you like them done away with completely?
    Yes good point, I suppose it is a voluntary tax like the carbon tax. Another sin tax I suppose. Property taxes too since no one has to be a homeowner. So is it fair for government to act opportunistically in such things saying the purpose is for one thing when it’s really just about the money? (I recall a time under the PE Trudeau government where it was discovered that the tax department would go after taxpayers when an error was in their favour but would stay quiet when the error was in the taxpayers favour. Something about the morality in that too, rubbed me the wrong way but that’s how it goes.)

  38. #1238
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,413

    Default

    The term safety improvement is very broad and nebulous. It can mean holding a course for bad drivers, adding a traffic signal to building an interchange.
    While it might not go into general revenue the net result is almost the same

Page 13 of 13 FirstFirst ... 3910111213

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
  •