Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 200 of 1189

Thread: Petition Against Photo Radar Started

  1. #101
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ My father-in-law was a patrol officer for several decades before becoming an inspector, then instructor.. he's said that he's busted many wanted criminals and people with warrants simply by running license plates or pulling someone over for speeding

    That conversation was not related to photo radar in any way.. but you have to admit that someone actually making contact with the person behind the wheel has a greater chance of happening upon someone who is wanted by the law than sending that person a photo in the mail
    Parkdale

  2. #102

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ My father-in-law was a patrol officer for several decades before becoming an inspector, then instructor.. he's said that he's busted many wanted criminals and people with warrants simply by running license plates or pulling someone over for speeding

    That conversation was not related to photo radar in any way.. but you have to admit that someone actually making contact with the person behind the wheel has a greater chance of happening upon someone who is wanted by the law than sending that person a photo in the mail
    Yeah, but you can run the plates without pulling anyone over. Automated plate scanning on a patrolling car would cast a wider & more efficient net than a cop plugging infractors into the system. Putting a cop, in a car, on the side of the road holding a radar gun is about the biggest waste of police resources I can possibly imagine at this point in time.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #103
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ Not until we get the new license plates with the 3M reflective coating!

    (runs and ducks)
    Parkdale

  4. #104

    Default

    Photo radar doesn't replace cops on the street. We still need that. Photo radar shouldn't even replace traffic cops. Photo radar should and is used IN ADDITION to the regular traffic enforcement.

    Photo radar is an extra tool, in the tool kit, not a replacement for another tool.

  5. #105

    Default

    ^^ Hahaha *badumpbumpching*
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  6. #106

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Photo radar is an extra tool, in the tool kit, not a replacement for another tool.
    Totally agree.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  7. #107

    Default

    One place that should have a permanent, unmanned photo radar trap is the High Level bridge. People seem to like to use it as a drag strip at night, and it's so narrow I can imagine the risk of an accident is higher, even with speed not being in the equation.

  8. #108

    Default

    Unless things have changed (and maybe they have)
    Yeah, but you can run the plates without pulling anyone over. Automated plate scanning on a patrolling car would cast a wider & more efficient net than a cop plugging infractors into the system
    I do not believe you can pull someone over and/or run their plate without probable cause.

    More so, if you scan the plate but don't ID the driver how do you know who was driving which I believe is the basis of the reasoning on not applying demerits on photo tickets.

    Correct me if I'm wrong.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  9. #109

    Default

    I like how so many people pretend like photo radar isn't a cash cow. I keep going back to the low speed limits in some areas where they plaster 3 or 4 photo radar vehicles. In it's current state all we hear from city council is a bunch of gibberish that things are all about safety but they ignore all the examples that prove it's just about the cash.

    Some photo radar locations generate millions. Do we ever see a decrease in tickets? Of course not. I see this as a healthy debate city council should have but we have some leading the charge pretending like the way things are run are perfectly fine.

  10. #110
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,543

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    One place that should have a permanent, unmanned photo radar trap is the High Level bridge. People seem to like to use it as a drag strip at night, and it's so narrow I can imagine the risk of an accident is higher, even with speed not being in the equation.
    Single directional roads without any intersections are pretty much the safest roads in existence. I'm not justifying speeding on them by any means, but the chances of and consequences of accidents on such roads are tiny. If you want to make any permanent upgrade to the HLB, it would be somehow making it impossible for truck drivers to get stuck in it, one way or another.

  11. #111

    Default

    ^^ It's only a cash cow cos you bovines keep driving up to the abbatoir with a lead hoof.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  12. #112

    Default

    ^ they will tell you speed limits are set to low... Because their car can go faster than the speed limit, but they fail to realize that not all vehicles move as well as their sedan, and speed limits are set for all vehicles on the road, so that they all stay within the same speed... so as not to create that difference in speed.

  13. #113
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    This does point to the need for the city to design streets with the desired traffic speed in mind rather than designing with a safety buffer. Higher design speeds, with wider lanes, poles farther from the street and wide, boring treeless medians may protect against a small subset of collisions that occur on the straight-away, but they do nothing to improve safety at intersections and when the increase in actual speed is considered they can be less safe than the supposedly inferior low-speed design.

  14. #114

    Default

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

    Note the methods not the fact speeders are getting ticketed.

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

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Same. I had a problem with speeding, and a few years ago made the lifestyle change to rectify that problem. Photo radar played 0% into that change. Pull overs did.

    I require a valid license for my job and need to drive for business purposes, so not having a license would put me out of work. It wasn't until a couple close calls at the 14 demerit point that I realized I needed to take stock of my driving attitude and make changes. $85 photo radar tickets are laughable. I make enough money that I can absorb those as a cost of driving. Losing my job over a 30 day suspension? There's the incentive.

    There is no incentive from photo radar. Real enforcement changes attitudes. Photo radar is an income generator, and that's it.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  15. #115

    Default

    After hearing the Mayor's response, I sent him an email explaining why I think his response was shortsighted.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  16. #116
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    303

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Paul Turnbull

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

    - It's comes off as sneaky.

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

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

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

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

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

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Those are tickets EPS police officers are writing. Not photo radar ticket revenue. The officers actually have to pull you over and serve you a pink or yellow ticket to get any revenue from it.

  17. #117
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

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

    Note the methods not the fact speeders are getting ticketed.

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

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Same. I had a problem with speeding, and a few years ago made the lifestyle change to rectify that problem. Photo radar played 0% into that change. Pull overs did.

    I require a valid license for my job and need to drive for business purposes, so not having a license would put me out of work. It wasn't until a couple close calls at the 14 demerit point that I realized I needed to take stock of my driving attitude and make changes. $85 photo radar tickets are laughable. I make enough money that I can absorb those as a cost of driving. Losing my job over a 30 day suspension? There's the incentive.

    There is no incentive from photo radar. Real enforcement changes attitudes. Photo radar is an income generator, and that's it.
    $85 is only laughable because you might get one every few months. $85 per incident becomes a big deal even for you if you might get one every day or two.

  18. #118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mi6_ View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Thomas Hinderks View Post
    Paul Turnbull

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

    - It's comes off as sneaky.

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

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

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

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

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

    In my highly biased personal opinion
    Those are tickets EPS police officers are writing. Not photo radar ticket revenue. The officers actually have to pull you over and serve you a pink or yellow ticket to get any revenue from it.
    As I've said a twice in posts earlier in this thread...
    Doesn't matter it is the perception that is left

    - Look at the headline in the link...says police are budgeting on ticket revenue

    - Look at the picture...speeding enforcement

    - Read the article, no where does it say it doesn't include Photo radar
    (does make the point they gain arrests from actually pulling people over though)

    The perception left is the problem, which is the whole point.

    How many make it past the headline alone? Minority I bet.

    If they do, article doesn't differentiate between ticket types.

    To Joe average what's the impression left?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  19. #119

    Default

    the average Joe should realize that a newspaper, especially one like "the Metro" sensationalizes a lot of things, and is to be taken with a big grain of salt.

  20. #120
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,425

    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.
    I don't understand why people got away with it even photo radar is a powerful evidence by taking a pic of their license plate ??
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  21. #121

    Default

    ^you seriously don't understand why a phot of a license plate isn't enough to convict a driver of a vehicle for speeding? Come on... Maybe think about that for a minute.

    You could be borrowing your car out to someone, or family driving it. Do you really want demerits on your license for that? At least a simple fine can be paid off by your friends/family.

  22. #122
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    I don't think he's saying that.

    As for fines, a photo is perfectly fine evidence. If you lend out your car it should only be to those whom you trust would pay for photo tickets they earn that come to your house.

  23. #123
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,425

    Default

    I don't care if someone borrow a car and got speeding ticket , should pay up no matter what
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  24. #124
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Where ever Visa is accepted
    Posts
    4,402

    Default

    I saw our mayor on the 6 o'clock news last night,and I agree with every word he said. I too am tired of people thinking they are above the law and feel that they have to right to speed. If you're in a hurry,leave early and drive the speed limit.
    I'm having people over later to stare at their phones,if you want to drop by

  25. #125
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Regardless, this isn't a safety issue, if it was they'd be located by the high accident locations, or perhaps by schools and playgrounds where children are more likely to dart in front of cars.
    They are located typically on freeways where there is a high revenue stream or locations where the speed limit is set too low for the road.

  26. #126

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry N View Post
    I saw our mayor on the 6 o'clock news last night,and I agree with every word he said. I too am tired of people thinking they are above the law and feel that they have to right to speed. If you're in a hurry,leave early and drive the speed limit.
    The issue isn't people are getting tickets. Speed you get caught yuo get a ticket...no argument.

    It is the methodology and the messaging. Fix that and you won't have Mayor having to be on the news justifying the program.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  27. #127

    Default

    What's wrong with the methodology? What's wrong with the message? If you speed, you get a fine, or a fine and demirits if you go through a regular speed trap. Which still do exist... which amazes me, because when they do the blitz, they advertise on portable billboards all over the city... and they still catch tons of people.
    Last edited by Medwards; 07-10-2014 at 09:44 AM.

  28. #128
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    What is wrong is they are lying about the message. They say speed kills and they are doing this for safety when in reality they are doing it for money.

  29. #129

    Default

    The money that comes from the automated enforcement of the law doesn't go to anything but Traffic Safety.

    OH NOES THE HORRORS! STOP THE PRESSES! THIS INJUSTICE CANNOT STAND!

    The balance that comes to the City does not go into general revenue; it is dedicated first toward covering the cost of automated enforcement, and what’s leftover goes to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.
    http://doniveson.ca/2014/10/06/safe-...s-photo-radar/
    Last edited by noodle; 07-10-2014 at 10:05 AM. Reason: Added url
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  30. #130

    Default

    Theres no citations or links to the research in this link. Theres blanket statements made without any background or how those figures were derived.

    Anyway Iveson mouthing off on this again;

    "These people that want to argue that they're above the law, I've just had it with them, absolutely had it"

    Way to miss the point Mr. Iveson. Actually that isn't what people are arguing but then you're not really listening are you Don?


    Iveson then states theres "lots of evidence photo radar cuts speeds, reduces collisions" and goes on to site injury collisions /1000 residents stat as his primary evidence.

    Thereby revealing no advanced understanding of basic concepts of stats such as correlation, association, causation, extraneous variables, controlled variables etc.

    Iveson then disturbingly plays the "this is about the safety of children" rhetoric card thereby eliciting polarized kneejerk vitriol on the issue as opposed to calm rational thought. No mention made by Iveson regarding schools would be the most likely area where kids would get hit. Wheres the photo radar next to schools? Is this really about keeping kids safe? Or was that just convenient narrative.

    It concerns me that our elected mayor is not only throwing an intolerant tantrum regarding this issue but that he's using misguided presumptuous conclusion to justify his self righteous comments.

    Also just a few comments to the thread. Not all photo radar locations are indicated on the cited map and photo radar vehicles use multiple makes and models. In addition to "hiding" these vehicles its possible that they use different vehicles so that they are not readily identified.
    Last edited by Replacement; 07-10-2014 at 10:16 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  31. #131

    Default

    Who cares if they hide their vehicles, or use a variety of unmarked cars.

    Never come across a ghost cop-car before? Never seen a old school radar speed trap hide behind something before? I don't get why we care that photo radar hides, or uses different vehicles in its fleet.


    Speed does kill. Mostly difference in speed. Speed limits are set for all vehicles on the road, not just how well your sports sedan corners.

  32. #132
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Downtown
    Posts
    3,583

    Default



    Ho-ly !

    Ol' Iverballs sure is sounding anal defending his li'l ATM.

    Reminds Top_Dawg of granny trying to make this the no fun province with her .05 rule.

    And how the PeeCees turned the whole impaired driving thing into a nice big cash cow.

  33. #133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Theres no citations or links to the research in this link. Theres blanket statements made without any background or how those figures were derived.
    http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projec...eed_manual/en/

    Plenty of sources available in the full manual.

    I *LOVE* how the people who are advocating for automated enforcement are the "self-righteous" ones & not those who feel they're not personally responsible for their own actions when they intentionally & knowingly violate the law.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  34. #134

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Theres no citations or links to the research in this link. Theres blanket statements made without any background or how those figures were derived.
    http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projec...eed_manual/en/

    Plenty of sources available in the full manual.

    I *LOVE* how the people who are advocating for automated enforcement are the "self-righteous" ones & not those who feel they're not personally responsible for their own actions when they intentionally & knowingly violate the law.
    I started to skim through the link and do not see much in there that's providing much to the debate on photo radar. All i see is this study quoting Ghana, Thailand, Nicaraguan and other third world countries at every chance they get. Not sure how appropriate that is in relation to us.

    I did find page 167 interesting. It mentions a 10 yr study in Denmark where speed calming measures reduced accidents and injuries by 50%. Not photo radar.

  35. #135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Theres no citations or links to the research in this link. Theres blanket statements made without any background or how those figures were derived.
    http://www.who.int/roadsafety/projec...eed_manual/en/

    Plenty of sources available in the full manual.

    I *LOVE* how the people who are advocating for automated enforcement are the "self-righteous" ones & not those who feel they're not personally responsible for their own actions when they intentionally & knowingly violate the law.
    Being that Iveson just threw a public tantrum in his comments, invoked lets safe the children rhetoric, and denounced photo radar opponents as above the law miscreants its clear that no high road is being taken on this issue excuse the pun. But with the Mayor as an elected official operating in a supposed professional and responsible capacity and one would hope, with his comments.

    Iveson is out to polarize with those comments. That concerns me. Can this debate be had sensibly or through shout downs and rhetoric?
    Last edited by Replacement; 07-10-2014 at 10:49 AM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  36. #136

    Default

    Here's a link talking about raising speed limits, it worth the 12 minutes to view. Definitely changed my mind on a lot of things and no that doesn't mean speeding is okay. There is lots of discussion about reduced car crashes that is not related to photo radar or police enforcement. Lots of comparison data vs other car dependent countries as well.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw

    here is the bc report they discuss in the video:

    http://www.th.gov.bc.ca/publications...iew_Report.pdf

    And here is a link discussing lowering the speed limit by 5, 10, and 15 mi/h (8, 16, and 24 km/h)

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications...ac/rd97002.cfm

    The study finds: Neither raising nor lowering the speed limit had much effect on vehicle speeds
    Last edited by gwill211; 07-10-2014 at 11:43 AM.

  37. #137
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    ^ "Neither raising nor lowering the speed limit had much effect on vehicle speeds."

    Exactly. Any road defines its own speed limit. Drivers drive at the speed comfortable to them, so it will all average out. Then, if the Trans. Dept. wants to come along and stick a sign up, let it be to the nearest 5kmh of that average speed. That way you can still nab the leadfoots, and not **** off everyone else.

    Doubt it would happen that way - not lucrative enough in certain quarters.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  38. #138

    Default

    Here's my reponse to Don's missive on his website:

    Don, there’s a treasure trove of statistical double-talk here and, as noted by a respondent above, a clear conflict of interest regarding the firm doing the research.
    Why don’t we compare the accident rates of Edmonton, with a city like Toronto (or any other city in Ontario), where photo radar was banned by the Mike Harris government in the 90s and continues to be? The government of Ontario correctly saw the problems with due process with automated photo radar very correctly outweighed any benefits to your ballyhooed safety increases or the amount of money it generated.

    If you are truly interested in safety and not the cash grab without due process (which should always involve human interaction and not a machine making the call) then publicise the locations of the cameras and make them obvious and visible where they are installed. THAT would truly reduce the speeds.

    And this piece from the National Post in 2007, regarding Ontario bringing back photo radar, pretty much disputes everything you say, Don. Additionally, the main reason they were thinking of bring it back, was to “reduce the deficit”. If walks like a duck, talks like a duck, it must be a cash grab. And here’s the best quote from the following article and my main opposition to photo radar:

    “… photo radar is not a substitute for investments in (human) policing, driver training and safer highway infrastructure.”

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/n...e-859685fa3632
    Last edited by PJC; 07-10-2014 at 12:17 PM.

  39. #139

    Default

    Replacement
    Can this debate be had sensibly or through shout downs and rhetoric?
    No of course not...this IS Edmonton after all.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  40. #140
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,177

    Default

    ^^Don is going to be very annoyed with you.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  41. #141

    Default

    ^ Well he wanted to be mayor.


    I have to say, good on him for publishing all the responses on his web site, whether they agree with him or not. And I, by and large, do agree with him - just not regarding photo radar.

  42. #142

    Default

    Some of you think Photo radar has replaced traffic cops...

    Hint: It hasn't.

  43. #143
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^^ Yes, lots of good posts on the Mayor's blog, most from people who support speed enforcement, but dislike sneaky tactics designed to maximize revenue generation rather than traffic safety, and dislike speed limits set well below road design speeds. The people have spoken, Mr. Iveson, please read and implement.

  44. #144

    Default

    Going to invest in one of these licence plate hiders as my way of protesting photo radar. Time to start the revolution to overthrow the dictators at city hall by rebelling one plate at a time!!

  45. #145
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ Yes, lots of good posts on the Mayor's blog, most from people who support speed enforcement, but dislike sneaky tactics designed to maximize revenue generation rather than traffic safety, and dislike speed limits set well below road design speeds. The people have spoken, Mr. Iveson, please read and implement.
    100% agreed on all counts.

    Photo radar is a valuable tool, when used in conjunction with enforcement and education

    But right now it's being used as a revenue generator


    The mayor is on the wrong side of the argument on this one, and is being a bit of a baby about it on twitter. He needs to grow up a bit and be a little more thoughtful and pragmatic
    Parkdale

  46. #146

    Default

    Yeah, damn that City Hall, taking money from people breaking the law while driving & throwing it away on traffic safety. THE NERVE OF SOME PEOPLE!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  47. #147
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ if the end game is to get people to slow down and obey the speed limit, then they need to look at the program and see how it can be more effective at achieving that goal

    If the point is to make money, then they're on the right track.

    But then they're really not doing anything to prevent deaths, property damage and injuries from motor vehicle accidents.
    Parkdale

  48. #148

    Default

    I don't think it's about safety directly, nor do I feel it's about the revenue directly either. Those are both strawmen hauled out over & over in the thread.

    See, I look at Automated Enforcement as being part of the uniform & universal application of the law. That's the goal. To make sure everyone is following the rules they agreed to when they took on the additional responsibilities of being a driver.

    So long as the project is revenue-neutral or better, it's working. We invest the money back into the program to expand it, making it more universal, and for other more direct forms of traffic safety improvement.

    Are you against having laws apply uniformly & universally? Is there a more cost- and resource-effective way of enforcing these specific laws?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  49. #149

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I don't think it's about safety directly, nor do I feel it's about the revenue directly either. Those are both strawmen hauled out over & over in the thread.

    See, I look at Automated Enforcement as being part of the uniform & universal application of the law. That's the goal. To make sure everyone is following the rules they agreed to when they took on the additional responsibilities of being a driver.

    So long as the project is revenue-neutral or better, it's working. We invest the money back into the program to expand it, making it more universal, and for other more direct forms of traffic safety improvement.

    Are you against having laws apply uniformly & universally? Is there a more cost- and resource-effective way of enforcing these specific laws?

    I think everyone understands your point of view but the Mayor keeps repeating "Safety, Children, Safety, Children" and he's using the same logic as you regarding breaking the law while pretending its all about safety. There are countless studies that say otherwise. If they want this to be a police state and continue to expand photo radar then they should just say that.

    Or they can look at the data and to our neighbors like Strathcona County. They removed photo radar and have had some interesting things to state about it. Read about it here:

    http://brianbotterill.com/successes/...thcona-county/

    They removed photo radar and added additional enforcement personal onto the streets. Some of their successes included arresting drivers with no licenses, drivers wanted on warrants, wreckless speeders and much more. More interesting though is this tidbit:

    RCMP and Enforcement services also have a video catalogue of over 9,654 stop sign infractions since the elimination of photo radar. Failure to stop is sadly still the leading cause of fatal injuries in Strathcona County. These stop sign infractions would have gone unnoticed as photo radar only focused on speed.

    In other words photo radar did nothing to protect citizens and speeding is not the leading cause of fatalities.

    The other interesting data is this:

    In my opinion, the biggest evidence of the lack of effectiveness of photo radar is in the repeat offenders. In 2010 and 2011 in the Edmonton Capital Region, 33,910 vehicles received more than 4 photo radar tickets. These 33,910 vehicles were involved in 6,710 collisions. If we relied on photo radar for traffic enforcement, these drivers could just keep paying their fines with no improvement in the safety of their driving.

    So the habitual hard core speeders aren't getting the message nor do the photo radar tickets create any deterrent for speeding. Can we really continue to pretend that photo radar makes our streets safer?

  50. #150

    Default

    the mayor has said a lot more than "Safety, Children, Safety, Children", and if you weren't so feeble minded, you would see it for what he is saying, rather than reaching your own self-serving conclusion of "Safety, Children, Safety, Children"...

    and some of you seem to have run into the conclusion that photo radar has replaced traffic cops on the street. This is blatantly untrue and misleading at best... again to fit your agenda...
    Last edited by Medwards; 07-10-2014 at 02:08 PM.

  51. #151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the mayor has said a lot more than "Safety, Children, Safety, Children", and if you weren't so feeble minded, you would see it for what he is saying, rather than reaching your own self-serving conclusion of "Safety, Children, Safety, Children"...

    and some of you seem to have run into the conclusion that photo radar has replaced traffic cops on the street. This is blatantly untrue and misleading at best... again to fit your agenda...
    You fail to ignore any of the evidence before you but that's okay. What we know is changing speed limits won't increase accidents, we know speed isn't the leading cause of fatalities in stratchcona county, we know that photo radar does nothing to protect the citizens when it comes to the leading cause of injuries\fatalities and the city continues to put radar in locations areas that do NOTHING for public safety but pretend that's what this is all about.

    Iveson's blog talks all about safety and photo radar. He relates photo radar to the reduction in crashes but has shifty evidence at best. He quotes so much safety related stuff that is already proven wrong as to reasons for his photo radar support. He was even on the news challenging citizens to come down to city hall to debate breaking the law then gives a good chuckle. He's so clueless that he doesn't understand the support against photo radar is from all sorts of people as you see here. Not everyone who is against it is a criminal like he suggested. I must be reading or listening to a different mayor then you medwards.
    Last edited by gwill211; 07-10-2014 at 02:32 PM.

  52. #152

    Default

    Contrary to what petitioners believe, the end justifies the means.


    http://transformingedmonton.ca/audit...getting-safer/

    The Office of the City Auditor has just posted its review of one of Edmonton’s most important traffic safety tools: Automated Photo Enforcement.

    From a public safety perspective, the headline is on page 13 and it’s great news for Edmontonians: The number of collisions that cause injuries and fatalities is going down, way down. Back in 2007, there were 7.44 such collisions per 1000 Edmontonians. Last year that number was 3.89 per 1000 people.

    IMHO, Cutting collisions in half in six years is a clear and undeniable success for any city. With Edmonton's notoriously bad drivers, those stats are astounding.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  53. #153
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    That's hard to argue. There's no proof of causation, but the trend is pretty clear. Anyone got a better theory? I'm pretty sure it's not reduced distractions

  54. #154

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    the mayor has said a lot more than "Safety, Children, Safety, Children", and if you weren't so feeble minded, you would see it for what he is saying, rather than reaching your own self-serving conclusion of "Safety, Children, Safety, Children"...

    and some of you seem to have run into the conclusion that photo radar has replaced traffic cops on the street. This is blatantly untrue and misleading at best... again to fit your agenda...
    You fail to ignore any of the evidence before you but that's okay.
    Yup, and same to you, you've dismissed or ignored anything posted that doesn't agree with your POV.

    What we know is changing speed limits won't increase accidents,
    Not true

    we know speed isn't the leading cause of fatalities in stratchcona county,
    Speed is a big factor in collisions, and injuries/fatalities.

    we know that photo radar does nothing to protect the citizens when it comes to the leading cause of injuries\fatalities and the city continues to put radar in locations areas that do NOTHING for public safety but pretend that's what this is all about.
    untrue again... just your POV again

    Iveson's blog talks all about safety and photo radar. He relates photo radar to the reduction in crashes but has shifty evidence at best. He quotes so much safety related stuff that is already proven wrong as to reasons for his photo radar support. He was even on the news challenging citizens to come down to city hall to debate breaking the law then gives a good chuckle. He's so clueless that he doesn't understand the support against photo radar is from all sorts of people as you see here. Not everyone who is against it is a criminal like he suggested. I must be reading or listening to a different mayor then you medwards.
    You just listen to what you want to hear... that's all.

  55. #155
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I don't think it's about safety directly, nor do I feel it's about the revenue directly either. Those are both strawmen hauled out over & over in the thread.

    See, I look at Automated Enforcement as being part of the uniform & universal application of the law. That's the goal. To make sure everyone is following the rules they agreed to when they took on the additional responsibilities of being a driver.

    So long as the project is revenue-neutral or better, it's working. We invest the money back into the program to expand it, making it more universal, and for other more direct forms of traffic safety improvement.

    Are you against having laws apply uniformly & universally? Is there a more cost- and resource-effective way of enforcing these specific laws?
    Both strawman arguments have been going on long before this thread.. they've been going on since photo radar was invented.

    We all know that driving while drunk is a bad thing, it's generally not socially accepted, laws againast it are enforced strictly and punishment can be quite severe. Yet driving while texting has proven to be just as dangerous as driving while drunk, yet that activity happens all the time. it's illegal, but many do it and there's little appetite to crack down on it, it seems. So there's a double standard right there.

    I'd love to see laws, bylaws and other rules enforced universally.. but they are not. I'd love to see people in Edmonton become better drivers, but they aren't getting any better either. The chart that PRT posted is NOT proof that photo radar works. We actually don't know WHAT that chart proves. Maybe road design is better ? Maybe cars are safer. Maybe the roads are fuller so people drive slower.

    One area where I absolutely 100% support photo radar is at intersections. You want to actually make an impact ? (pardon the pun) make it so that the general population knows that at 50% of the traffic lights, there are red light cameras. You'll see an instant decrease in actual dangerous behaviour behind the wheel.
    Last edited by 240GLT; 07-10-2014 at 03:20 PM.
    Parkdale

  56. #156

    Default

    Can you also plot average temperature of the earth onto this graph - you will have a strong correlation there too. Hence climate change is saving lives! We can all make conclusions based on stats - no one can get it right.

  57. #157

    Default

    ^ you forgot to tune your hat to the right wavelength.

    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  58. #158
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^^^ Agreed. There should be a red light camera with speed on green at every major intersection in the city. Running red lights creates an obvious hazard, and intersections are particularly dangerous places to speed. Should be cheaper than roadside photo radar too, as there is no need for a dedicated vehicle and full time operator - a single operator could be responsible for testing and maintaining several cameras. There are a few places where the yellow intervals should be lengthened by a second or two though.

  59. #159

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Both strawman arguments have been going on long before this thread.. they've been going on since photo radar was invented.

    We all know that driving while drunk is a bad thing, it's generally not socially accepted, laws againast it are enforced strictly and punishment can be quite severe. Yet driving while texting has proven to be just as dangerous as driving while drunk, yet that activity happens all the time. it's illegal, but many do it and there's little appetite to crack down on it, it seems. So there's a double standard right there.
    So because we can't enforce Distracted Driving via Automated Enforcement, we shouldn't enforce other traffic laws? Leave low hanging fruit rotting on the vine? EPS hasn't cracked down in the last year, but there's been news stories about the RCMP & the CPS in Calgary handing out tons of distracted driving tickets in 2014 alone. The will is clearly there to enforce it.


    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    I'd love to see laws, bylaws and other rules enforced universally.. but they are not. I'd love to see people in Edmonton become better drivers, but they aren't getting any better either. The chart that PRT posted is NOT proof that photo radar works. We actually don't know WHAT that chart proves. Maybe road design is better ? Maybe cars are safer. Maybe the roads are fuller so people drive slower.
    Road design, safer cars & fuller roads? Give me a break. PRTs chart covers the last 7 years. 7 years. There's been no major changes in those three factors in the timeframe the chart is discussing. If we were looking back decades I'd concur that there's a lot of factors to consider, but given the short timeframe & narrow sample I don't think those factors are relevant. The one thing that has changed markedly in the last 7 years is the City's enforcement tactics.


    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post

    One area where I absolutely 100% support photo radar is at intersections. You want to actually make an impact ? (pardon the pun) make it so that the general population knows that at 50% of the traffic lights, there are red light cameras. You'll see an instant decrease in actual dangerous behaviour behind the wheel.
    I concur fully with this, and would go one step further & state that all controlled intersections should be monitored & those that we currently have identified as high value intersections should be equipped with automated licence plate recognition. That's a pricey situation though; it's gonna take a few more years yet of "voluntary donations" to the expansion of automated enforcement by the users of the system to get to that point.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #160
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Both strawman arguments have been going on long before this thread.. they've been going on since photo radar was invented.

    We all know that driving while drunk is a bad thing, it's generally not socially accepted, laws againast it are enforced strictly and punishment can be quite severe. Yet driving while texting has proven to be just as dangerous as driving while drunk, yet that activity happens all the time. it's illegal, but many do it and there's little appetite to crack down on it, it seems. So there's a double standard right there
    So because we can't enforce Distracted Driving via Automated Enforcement, we shouldn't enforce other traffic laws? Leave low hanging fruit rotting on the vine? EPS hasn't cracked down in the last year, but there's been news stories about the RCMP & the CPS in Calgary handing out tons of distracted driving tickets in 2014 alone. The will is clearly there to enforce it.
    Right.. tickets. Tickets for something that's just as dangerous as drunk driving. You don't knock back a 6-pack of bud lite, get pulled over and get a ticket. You get at least a suspension, a fine, and many times, a much stiffer penalty.


    I'd love to see laws, bylaws and other rules enforced universally.. but they are not. I'd love to see people in Edmonton become better drivers, but they aren't getting any better either. The chart that PRT posted is NOT proof that photo radar works. We actually don't know WHAT that chart proves. Maybe road design is better ? Maybe cars are safer. Maybe the roads are fuller so people drive slower.


    Road design, safer cars & fuller roads? Give me a break. PRTs chart covers the last 7 years. 7 years. There's been no major changes in those three factors in the timeframe the chart is discussing. If we were looking back decades I'd concur that there's a lot of factors to consider, but given the short timeframe & narrow sample I don't think those factors are relevant. The one thing that has changed markedly in the last 7 years is the City's enforcement tactics.
    It's plausible. How many older cars with fewer safety features have been pulled off the road in the last seven years ? Lots!

    I gave some examples, maybe some of that decrease is due to photo radar, but there is no conclusive proof, and there are plenty of other factors that could affect those stats

    One area where I absolutely 100% support photo radar is at intersections. You want to actually make an impact ? (pardon the pun) make it so that the general population knows that at 50% of the traffic lights, there are red light cameras. You'll see an instant decrease in actual dangerous behaviour behind the wheel

    I concur fully with this, and would go one step further & state that all controlled intersections should be monitored & those that we currently have identified as high value intersections should be equipped with automated licence plate recognition. That's a pricey situation though; it's gonna take a few more years yet of "voluntary donations" to the expansion of automated enforcement by the users of the system to get to that point.
    I would tend to agree. And I think that this would be much more effective than those trucks parked on straight, double lane roads with no sidestreets, little pedestrian activity and little risk of a collision

    I'd take Don's indignation a little more seriously, if the city was serious about actually reducing speeding in areas where there are serious concerns about the safety of people, pets and such on residential streets. We've brought up short-cutting and speeding through our streets in Parkdale to the city many times, and I know that it has been brought to council as well. And the respense from them was nothing more than crickets. But enforcement in those areas requires a little more investment and thought than sticking a radar truck behind a bus shelter. Don's got lots of time to tweet, but I've yet to see him say or do anything substantive to actually improve the safety of raods where safety is a pressing concern
    Last edited by 240GLT; 07-10-2014 at 04:05 PM.
    Parkdale

  61. #161

    Default

    Hour 3 of the October 6th Andrew Grose show on CHED was all about Photo radar. They interviewed Dorian Wandzura, the GM of Transportation at the City of Edmonton, councillor Bryan Anderson, and took a general call in. Councillor Henderson stated how the program pays for itself and traffic safety initiatives like school zones. He seemed to disagree with Mayor Don's stance that the law was right as it was; he stated certain zones of the city, like Scona Road, have artificially low speed limits, and need to be increased. The consensus, or lack therein, about photo radar in general form the call-in seemed to reflect this thread; some agreed with photo radar, and said don't speed, while others were annoyed at the artifically low speed on some roads, and the deployment of radar on the Henday in less then visible places.

  62. #162
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    That chart doesn't show everything. A better statistic is accident rate per passenger mile.

    Edmonton's population is increasing but the roads aren't so they are getting more congested, while we might have more fender benders we tend to have less injuries and deaths as the speed of impact on a congested road is less.
    Another factor is Alberta has implemented graduated driver licenses, which restrict the most risky behavior from the highest risk group.
    I think to claim that increased speed enforcement cause this drop is not taking every factor into consideration.

  63. #163

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    Right.. tickets. Tickets for something that's just as dangerous as drunk driving. You don't knock back a 6-pack of bud lite, get pulled over and get a ticket. You get at least a suspension, a fine, and many times, a much stiffer penalty.
    If you'd like to get the distracted driving penalties to mirror the drunk driving penalties, I'm right there with you but I suspect proving distraction after the fact might be a bit harder to prove. No distractalyzer to blow into, as it were.

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post

    It's plausible. How many older cars with fewer safety features have been pulled off the road in the last seven years ? Lots!

    I gave some examples, maybe some of that decrease is due to photo radar, but there is no conclusive proof, and there are plenty of other factors that could affect those stats
    Yeah, I am well aware of the differences between correlation & causation. You seem hell-bent to try and find anything but enforcement as a factor, but you can't even quantify what would have changed between 2007 & now to make the rate drop by 50%. You're just picking random possible factors & going "what if" while ignoring the elephant in the room just to pick a point. Alright then. We'll agree to disagree on this one.

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    I would tend to agree. And I think that this would be much more effective than those trucks parked on straight, double lane roads with no sidestreets, little pedestrian activity and little risk of a collision
    Automated Enforcement aims to cast as wide a net as feasible in order to create the largest economies of scale possible. That's the whole point of bringing it in-house. They've already succeeded in making it revenue-positive & will continue to leverage the funds received to continually expand the system to the point we've got resources available for lower-traffic areas. It's like those hideous portable advertising signs. They get put on the highest-traffic streets because they are to capture the largest possible audience. It's not a very "fun" answer, but it's economically sound & doesn't take away from police resources.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  64. #164

    Default

    I don't mind Don Iveson, if he is anything like Mandel he will move this city along nicely. Then again Mandel could be sanctimonious at times and it seems Iveson has picked up that vibe. I don't like speed demons but I realize that every one that gets a photo radar is not a speed demon. I know if I don't constantly watch my speed I can be lead footed. Always checking my speed has netted me one photo radar in about 15 years and that one I appealed and it was lowered.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  65. #165

    Default

    As far as that chart(posted by PRT) stats can lead to very misleading conclusions. Because not all variables are taken into account.

    In fact one of the most obvious things cited is that the city actually tracks, reports top accident locations. Most or all of these usually being within ringroad top accident locations. In fact NONE of the topten accident sites are ringroad related.

    So perhaps not too curiously we design and build a Henday Ring Road designed to take high traffic volume, (high speed..) and this of course takes traffic AWAY from some of the busier streets and intersections that were overwhelmed with traffic volumes, poor designs, accidents.

    During this time frame theres a drastic reduction in city collisions causing injuries and possibly even due to the advent of the Henday RingRoad..

    This could even be considered an Autobahn effect. in otherwords design an implement an efficient roadway designed with safety in mind and some increased safety possible occurs, imagine that..

    Heres what the city could really do if it was really interested in looking at speed as an accident factor. Do detailed studies of specific roadways/traffic volume/collisions/speed/ and see what that reveals. Such results can often be paradoxical and challenging the notion that speed is actually what kills or creates more collisions. In many cases improper or insufficient road designs contribute to increased accidents.

    Now I'm not saying Henday is the reason collisions have gone down but I would bet its a salient variable.

    Now being that I mentioned the Autobahn, lets now mention what actually leads to the most accidents. Not speeding, no, but tailgaiting or following too closely which in the Edmonton jurisdiction is cited as the overwhelming leading cause of accident (again not speed) So how and why are we not targeting tailgaiting? Anybody getting any tickets for that? Any enforcement of that? On the Autobahn you get this;

    "The penalty for tailgaiting, which can be enforced by camera, is up to €375 and three months of a license suspension. "

    Oh, so in Germany they focus on variables that are the LEADING cause of accidents. They allow speed but take a very poor view of following too closely or being too close to other vehicles.

    Why are we barking up only one tree here?
    Last edited by Replacement; 07-10-2014 at 05:57 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  66. #166

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    If you'd like to get the distracted driving penalties to mirror the drunk driving penalties, I'm right there with you but I suspect proving distraction after the fact might be a bit harder to prove. No distractalyzer to blow into, as it were.
    I agree but you are able to gain access their telephone and timestamped text messages
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  67. #167

    Default

    Just as a further response re; Don Ivesons meltdown. The "won't someone think of the children" rhetoric was off base in more ways than one.

    Perhaps Don could realize that very few of the collision fatalities in Alberta are actually children. Contrary to his wish for vitriol and making offputting remarks like that which only create divisive faction between interest groups there is very little carnage of children taking place on Alberta roadways. Speed or no speed children cohorts are the least represented in fatality stats. The LEAST.

    But hey, Don has to raise support for all this anyway he can. Playing the child card was of course the riveting thing he could use, but also the most disingenuous and deceptive.

    Kind of sad that. I had wished for better than this from a new mayor.
    Last edited by Replacement; 07-10-2014 at 06:07 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  68. #168

    Default

    One thing that's evident from PRT's chart is that collisions were already in a big downward trend before the record revenues from photo radar started rolling in. Are we going to really pretend that photo radar is the reason behind the reduction? What a sham

  69. #169

    Default

    Photo radar started in Edmonton before 2007.

    Photo Radar was introduced in 1993 and has proved to be an extremely accurate and effective means of traffic enforcement.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx

    Another fact that clearly shows you are WRONG.
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 07-10-2014 at 08:27 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  70. #170

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Photo radar started in Edmonton before 2007.

    Photo Radar was introduced in 1993 and has proved to be an extremely accurate and effective means of traffic enforcement.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx

    Another fact that clearly shows you are WRONG.
    Haha what?? Read the article that shows revenue from 2009-2012 was only 18 million then in 1 year in 2013 the revenue from photo radar when the city took over everything more then doubled. In less then 12 months the revenue cash cow generating photo radar doubled.

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...1-d199c515d8b9

    Here it is from the article if your too lazy to click:

    From 2009 to 2012, when the Edmonton Police Service ran the city's photo radar program, the program raised just $18.8 million per year.
    In 2013, the City of Edmonton's traffic safety office took over photo radar. Suddenly, in one year, photo radar revenue more than doubled to $41.3 million.

    When i look at the data from your chart i see collisions reduced over many years but when the city decided to turn photo radar into a cash cow the collisions were already at an all time low. Regardless of your position it is clear the additional crack down has not made our streets safer when its come to collisions and there are numerous other reasons one can use to explain decrease in traffic collisions unrelated to photo radar.
    Last edited by gwill211; 07-10-2014 at 09:41 PM.

  71. #171
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Replacement View Post
    Just as a further response re; Don Ivesons meltdown. The "won't someone think of the children" rhetoric was off base in more ways than one.

    Perhaps Don could realize that very few of the collision fatalities in Alberta are actually children. Contrary to his wish for vitriol and making offputting remarks like that which only create divisive faction between interest groups there is very little carnage of children taking place on Alberta roadways. Speed or no speed children cohorts are the least represented in fatality stats. The LEAST.

    But hey, Don has to raise support for all this anyway he can. Playing the child card was of course the riveting thing he could use, but also the most disingenuous and deceptive.

    Kind of sad that. I had wished for better than this from a new mayor.
    I'm glad so few children are killed by drivers, but I'm glad we're starting to put more of the responsibility for keeping it that way on drivers and maybe a little less on our collective effort to keep children out of the way. Maybe if tragic were slower more children would be walking or biking to school or the park.

    Because honestly, if kids still played on the streets an got around independently like they did in past generations our distracted, impatient, self-absorbed drivers would be killing dozens every year. With less speeding we'd only maim them.
    Last edited by highlander; 08-10-2014 at 05:43 AM. Reason: Make it make sense.

  72. #172
    Forum Administrator *
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    2,481
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    Stop with the personal attacks. An opinion about radar does not equate to being a murderer, to being feeble minded, or to any other of the insults that are flying around.
    Ow

  73. #173

    Post

    Cash Cow or not, do you think that the city will give up on taxing people's vices?

    Gambling?
    Drinking?
    Smoking?
    Speeding?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    What is wrong is they are lying about the message. They say speed kills and they are doing this for safety when in reality they are doing it for money.
    Meaningless.

    Life is full of lies. Don't pretend you've never told one to get your way.

  75. #175
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Yes but I'm not lying to 800,000 Edmontonians some who believe every word the mayor says, because he is the mayor. I personally take politicians words with a grain of salt, there might be truth in what they say, or it might be correct from a certain point of view.

    Speeding isn't exactly selling crack to minors, one could got 140 km/h safely (at times and places) on Anthony Henday, it isn't as black and white as Iveson portrays. As well photo radar isn't necessarily the right tool for reducing the speed of traffic.

  76. #176

    Default

    ^Photo radar is just one of the many tools that should and are employed in this city. Speeding just isn't about the time it takes to get home, it also affects our pedestrian environment

  77. #177
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    1,605

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    I'm glad so few children are killed by drivers, but I'm glad we're starting to put more of the responsibility for keeping it that way on drivers and maybe a little less on our collective effort to keep children out of the way. Maybe if tragic were slower more children would be walking or biking to school or the park. ...
    Thank you for drawing the link between a child's autonomy (or an elderly person, or a person with mobility difficulties) and drivers.

    I wonder how many of the anti-radar, "reasonable speed" crew here also decry helicopter parenting and mourn for the care-free childhoods of yore.

    Anecdotal evidence: A couple of consecutive days of radar traps on 85st between the traffic circles and crossing the street to attend elementary school suddenly becomes way more civilized.

  78. #178

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Cash Cow or not, do you think that the city will give up on taxing people's vices?

    Gambling?
    Drinking?
    Smoking?
    Speeding?
    It's hard to refute the evidence isn't it? And no i don't think the city will change anything. Iveson seems ready to take the lead on this and will push this aside. That's my guess.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    ^Photo radar is just one of the many tools that should and are employed in this city. Speeding just isn't about the time it takes to get home, it also affects our pedestrian environment
    I like how simple you keep it here. Red light cameras no problem, better photo radar enforcement in pedestrian areas no problem. If its actually about safety i think 50% of the people against radar would shut up.

  79. #179

    Default

    It is actually about safety. Speeding beyond the speed limits creates a difference between you the speeder and the rest of the public who is more than inclined to obey the LAW. That difference in speed is the problem, and its not the people driving the speed limit that are the problem either...

  80. #180

    Default wilting

    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.
    There's the ageing Hyundai drivers at c2e who drive 49.9kmh and then there is https://www.change.org/p/city-of-edm...-radar-program

    Are you with us or against us?

  81. #181

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It is actually about safety. Speeding beyond the speed limits creates a difference between you the speeder and the rest of the public who is more than inclined to obey the LAW. That difference in speed is the problem, and its not the people driving the speed limit that are the problem either...
    In theory its about safety but the data proves other wise. PRT's chart shows collisions already at an all time low when the city of edmonton needed to double their photo radar revenue.

    Yes it "was" about safety but its not anymore.

  82. #182
    Partially Addicted to C2E
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    North Glenora
    Posts
    187

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It is actually about safety. Speeding beyond the speed limits creates a difference between you the speeder and the rest of the public who is more than inclined to obey the LAW. That difference in speed is the problem, and its not the people driving the speed limit that are the problem either...


    So by your logic I was recklessly engandering everyone on the Henday yesterday evening going 102 kph... but the vehicle going 90ish not signaling for a lane change and distracted driving is not a problem?

    I apologize if my 2 kph over the limit created havoc for the law-abiding speed limit drivers of the Henday.

  83. #183

    Default

    It still is about safety, because people are still speeding, but again, I repeat, it shouldn't and isn't the only traffic control measure the city or EPS employ.

  84. #184

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Photo radar started in Edmonton before 2007.

    Photo Radar was introduced in 1993 and has proved to be an extremely accurate and effective means of traffic enforcement.
    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...oto-radar.aspx

    Another fact that clearly shows you are WRONG.
    Haha what?? Read the article that shows revenue from 2009-2012 was only 18 million then in 1 year in 2013 the revenue from photo radar when the city took over everything more then doubled. In less then 12 months the revenue cash cow generating photo radar doubled.

    http://www2.canada.com/edmontonjourn...1-d199c515d8b9

    Here it is from the article if your too lazy to click:

    From 2009 to 2012, when the Edmonton Police Service ran the city's photo radar program, the program raised just $18.8 million per year.
    In 2013, the City of Edmonton's traffic safety office took over photo radar. Suddenly, in one year, photo radar revenue more than doubled to $41.3 million.

    When i look at the data from your chart i see collisions reduced over many years but when the city decided to turn photo radar into a cash cow the collisions were already at an all time low. Regardless of your position it is clear the additional crack down has not made our streets safer when its come to collisions and there are numerous other reasons one can use to explain decrease in traffic collisions unrelated to photo radar.
    Thank you, i would love the mayor to respond to this. Seems like police were already doing a good job getting accidents down before the city took over photo radar and doubled the revenue

  85. #185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluestreak View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It is actually about safety. Speeding beyond the speed limits creates a difference between you the speeder and the rest of the public who is more than inclined to obey the LAW. That difference in speed is the problem, and its not the people driving the speed limit that are the problem either...


    So by your logic I was recklessly engandering everyone on the Henday yesterday evening going 102 kph... but the vehicle going 90ish not signaling for a lane change and distracted driving is not a problem?

    I apologize if my 2 kph over the limit created havoc for the law-abiding speed limit drivers of the Henday.
    2 kph over the speed limit won't get you a ticket, and is hardly what we are talking about. Was a good attempt on your behalf at an obtuse argument. 5/5.

    We are talking about about speeding tickets and photo radar, neither would happen at 2 kph over the posted limit.

    I don't think I've used the words "recklessly engandering everyone" anywhere on this thread...

    And yes, people travelling well under the limit when conditions are are good should be looked at too.

  86. #186

    Default

    Yeah, that pesky City increasing revenue by bringing costs down per violation. Damn their efficiencies!

    Last edited by noodle; 08-10-2014 at 12:54 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  87. #187

    Default

    If you don't like it, quit feeding it and it will die of starvation.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  88. #188
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    I don't know why a couple specific people here keep repeatedly posting their charts and repeating the fallacy that photo radar means safer roads.

    This is not true. The trend is not correlated. This is obvious, because studies have shown (linked SEVERAL times through this thread - and you same specific people keep ignoring these posts) that regulation increase or decrease is NOT correlated with speed changes.

    So your argument that speed change = safer roads is completely unrelated to more photo radar.

    If you ACTUALLY want safer roads, you need to make VISIBLE deterrents. This includes physical traffic calming (barriers, lights etc), psychological traffic calming (trees on side of road etc, makes road "feel" less safe without being less safe), and ACTIVE law enforcement.

    Photo radar definitely has a purpose, and I advocate using it. There should be PERMANENT and VISIBLE photo radar stations around all areas with high collision rates caused by speed. We have this data. We know which areas actually have an issue with speed. Put permanent, visible cameras there and the problem is solved.

  89. #189
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^ Thank you. I totally agree.

  90. #190

    Default

    So what the photo-radar naysayers are saying is that photo radar is a good tool when combined with VISIBLE deterrents, like physical traffic calming (barriers, lights), psychological traffic calming (trees on side of road etc) and ACTIVE law enforcement.??

    We have all that... Good show.

    Explain now why the photo radar has to be VISIBLE? Why? No one can explain why this must be visible. Especially when we have all the other stuff above.

  91. #191

    Default

    ^^ What if the chart was in a different color? Will that persuade you??

    So safer roads are not due to climate change? How about pot holes??

  92. #192
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    So what the photo-radar naysayers are saying is that photo radar is a good tool when combined with VISIBLE deterrents, like physical traffic calming (barriers, lights), psychological traffic calming (trees on side of road etc) and ACTIVE law enforcement.??

    We have all that... Good show.

    Explain now why the photo radar has to be VISIBLE? Why? No one can explain why this must be visible. Especially when we have all the other stuff above.
    A) We do not have all of that now. There are several hot-spots around the city. Our roads are often ill-engineered for the speed (many residential and other areas are drastically under-engineered for the speed limit, and many major roads and arterials are over-engineered).

    B) Photo radar should be visible to act as a deterrent. As it stands it has marginal impact on speeds. Before you reply, see above post again. It DOES NOT have a real impact on average speeds if it is hidden.

    Photo radar is an excellent deterrent for speeders, but only if they know it is there. If it is hidden, it is not an efficient deterrent.

    As it stands, photo radar is actually the OPPOSITE. Moronic drivers slam on their brakes as they are surprised by the flash, causing a dangerous situation in traffic.

    Permanent and visible stations are PREDICTABLE (a seriously important aspect for creating safety in traffic) and EFFECTIVE. Random ones are UNPREDICTABLE and INEFFECTIVE.

  93. #193

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaerdo View Post
    I don't know why a couple specific people here keep repeatedly posting their charts and repeating the fallacy that photo radar means safer roads.

    This is not true. The trend is not correlated. This is obvious, because studies have shown (linked SEVERAL times through this thread - and you same specific people keep ignoring these posts) that regulation increase or decrease is NOT correlated with speed changes.

    So your argument that speed change = safer roads is completely unrelated to more photo radar.

    If you ACTUALLY want safer roads, you need to make VISIBLE deterrents. This includes physical traffic calming (barriers, lights etc), psychological traffic calming (trees on side of road etc, makes road "feel" less safe without being less safe), and ACTIVE law enforcement.

    Photo radar definitely has a purpose, and I advocate using it. There should be PERMANENT and VISIBLE photo radar stations around all areas with high collision rates caused by speed. We have this data. We know which areas actually have an issue with speed. Put permanent, visible cameras there and the problem is solved.

    Further, theres been a convoluted stream of logic arriving at such conclusions as; photo radar begat decreased speed, which begat a reduction in collisions.

    Not only is there no specific correlation and NO causal relationship to any of the above the whole house of cards argument falls apart when one considers that even the basic premise, that speeds have decreased, is pure conjecture, not substantiated in anyway, and that the increased speeding ticket occurences and infractions themselves in no way reflect that speeding has decreased. They actually hint that instances of speeding has increased while collision rates have gone down.

    hmmm
    Last edited by Replacement; 08-10-2014 at 03:19 PM.
    "if god exists and he allowed that to happen, then its better that he doesn't exist"

  94. #194

    Default

    I signed the petition. Haven't had a ticket in years. I don't speed.

    Here's why I signed:

    The current operation of the program is out of control cost-wise. Big money in, big money out. Anyone who doesn't think the 'threshold adjustment' to 10km/h from 13km/h earlier this year wasn't a shady way to make up the cost overruns from bringing it back into the city's umbrella of services is just sticking thier head in the sand. The size, scope, and costs are too big, with no input of control from the citizens of this city. We are just supposed to accept it as 'proper enforcement' where it is nothing more than a cash/tax grab.

    The current method of vehicle placement is unsafe. Shoulder or sidestreet parked vehicles should be marked, with amber hazards or a signboard arrow, and advance signage. 'Hidden' vehicles are acceptable, with permanent lightstandard signage as it is now, as long as the photot vehicle is completely off the road surface, and a safe distance away from the shoulder in the event of a collision between 2 drivers sends another vehicle over the curb. The current setup of 'is that a photo radar van?' results in other drivers slowing/braking needlessly creating additonal potential for a collision in otherwise smooth flowing traffic.

    Focus should be primarily on high hazard locations: school zones, playground zones, construction zones, high pedestrian traffic locations, residential collectors where route cutting is a problem, etc. Not major routes where a 10km/h difference from the artificially low posted speed limit of 70km/h, 80km/h, 90km/h or 100km/h is a small hazard. I'm talking 30km/h, 40km/h and 50km/h zones where a 10km/h difference may mean the difference between a pedestrian living and dying in the event of a collsion.


    I am not against photo enforcement. I agree with proper use, oversight and public input it is a valuble tool in keeping our roads safer.

    In it's current form in Edmonton, it is a monster that needs to be tamed or slain.

  95. #195

    Default

    Let's see the 2014 numbers before we pass judgement on that one. 2013 may be an out of place stat. Note how smoothly 2008 went. I'd like to see numbers from previous years to that factored in too.



    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Yeah, that pesky City increasing revenue by bringing costs down per violation. Damn their efficiencies!


  96. #196
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Something seems funny with that chart, didn't Iveson and others mention the city spent about $47 million more to run the photo-radar in house versus the former contractor? So how come that expense isn't reflected in the chart?
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/09/0...administration

  97. #197

    Default

    It is.

    This is costs-per-violation & the in-house system was expanded fast enough to cover the $47 million overrun in the project.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  98. #198

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Something seems funny with that chart, didn't Iveson and others mention the city spent about $47 million more to run the photo-radar in house versus the former contractor? So how come that expense isn't reflected in the chart?
    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/09/0...administration
    Not sure if I'm right but...

    The Sun article states the 5 year cost jumped from 6.7m to 53.4m

    Spread over 5 years that's 10.68m per year vs 2013 ticket revenue (after expenses) of 33.6m.

    If the 2013 revenue side reflects the the growth since 2008 that is a tremendous growth in the number of tickets (my calculator says about 998,000 tickets in 2013) for a net revenue (after expenses) of $33.66 per ticket issued according to the article.

    So I think the numbers could work and cover the tremendous cost overruns and due to the volume of tickets bring the cost per ticket down to the area in the graph.

    But it also opens the door to other questions...as in 2013 that is effectively more than one ticket for every man, woman and child in the borders of the City of Edmonton.

    That is a lot of tickets anyway you cut it.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  99. #199

    Default

    I dont think the cost per ticket or violation matters when we know from other data speed crashes have already been reduced before any big crack down and the data from sherwood park councillors show habitual speeders are unaffected by photo radar.

  100. #200
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a van down by the river
    Posts
    342

    Default

    "according to Auditor General Wiun, the fastest-growing category of photo radar revenue has come from the city’s arbitrary (and secret) decision to start issuing tickets to people going just 6 km/h over the posted speed limits. (It was 10 km/h when ACS was in charge.)
    Now, apparently, the bureaucrats at city hall have decided tickets can be issued in some cases when drivers are as little as 2 km/h over."

    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/09/1...on-not-drivers
    It's not EIA it's YEG

Page 2 of 12 FirstFirst 123456 ... 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
  •