Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 300 of 1189

Thread: Petition Against Photo Radar Started

  1. #201

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by thegongshow View Post
    "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
    they had to pay for the 47million overrun somehow

  2. #202

    Default

    The limit is the limit. How is this so hard to understand? As the reliability & accuracy of speed measuring technology increases, the margin decreases. Simple enough.

    It says MAXIMUM right on the signs. It's not a suggestion or guideline. Don't want a ticket? Don't speed. Lots of tickets means lots of speeders.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  3. #203

    Default

    I think the city is pretty foolish for putting out tickets for under 10km/h over the limit (unless in a school zone)... Those tickets would be easy to contest, and the JP/Judge usually understands that a vehicles speedometer might be out by that much... simply different tires that OEM can throw out a speedometer by many km/h.
    It will wind up costing the city more in administration fees if enough people contest those tickets under 10km/h...

  4. #204
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ I'd most definitely take a ticket at 3kph over to court. And I would win.
    Parkdale

  5. #205

    Default

    and you lose a day of pay back at your job.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  6. #206

    Default

    I just did some googling & I'll happily relax my stance a little, if only because the SAE standard is +/- versus the UN/EU standard being - only. I thought they were both - only. My bad.

    It'll be interesting to see how the policy changes as we move to the international standards for automobiles (to facilitate EU trade) & away from the US-centric setup we have now.

    Here's the Euro standard:


    The indicated speed must never be less than the actual speed, i.e. it should not be possible to inadvertently speed because of an incorrect speedometer reading.

    The indicated speed must not be more than 110 percent of the true speed plus 4 km/h at specified test speeds. For example, at 80 km/h, the indicated speed must be no more than 92 km/h.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  7. #207
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Noodle are you as a driver accurate enough to keep your speed with 2 km/h of the limit up or down? I doubt anybody is that accurate without cruise control.

    Sure we can measure speed to the 2nd or 3rd decimal place, but we can't drive like that.

  8. #208

    Default

    If you can't keep your vehicle under the speed limit, perhaps you shouldn't be driving right at the speed limit? How hard is that to understand?
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  9. #209

    Default

    noodle - I think your losing my support here. Ticketing someone for 2 km/h over? That's stupid...

    All my previous posts in this thread were made under the impression that the city was only ticketing people 10km/h+ over the speed limit. Ticketing people under that is outrageous.

  10. #210

    Default

    I'm not saying 2, I'm fine with the current 6. 10 is too much.

    Where the hell did I say 2? Get upset with me all you want, but don't put words in my mouth & then use those against me.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  11. #211

    Default

    your response to sundance is invalid then?

  12. #212
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Edmonton - Blue Quill
    Posts
    3,057

    Default

    I received a photo radar ticket for going 64 k in a 50 k zone. The infraction was at Whyte Avenue and 95 Street. I had thought the speed limit on Whyte Avenue was 60 k. Ever since I received that ticket I've been driving no faster than 50 on Whyte.
    Fly Edmonton first. Support EIA

  13. #213

    Default

    It never was 60

    It only turns 60 east of 50th street.

    Upon entering the city limits there is a notice. 50 Km/h Maximum unless otherwise posted.

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

  14. #214
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    10 is fine for ticketing on any major road. 6 is good for residential streets, pedestrian areas and school zones, although many of those areas need lower speed limits. 56 is unsafe on many streets. A speed limit of 30km/hr enforced at 35 would be just about right.

  15. #215
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    and you lose a day of pay back at your job.
    Sometimes it's worth making a principled stand
    Parkdale

  16. #216

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    your response to sundance is invalid then?
    No, I think everyone should be cognizant of their abilities as a driver & operate their vehicle within those limits, along with the law. That was the entire point I was trying to make.

    That's it.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  17. #217
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    I think you'd find that many people have major problems with competence behind the wheel, even well below the speed limit!!
    Parkdale

  18. #218

    Default

    Oh, I'm with you on that. We need European-style driver education & licencing here, ASAP. Edmonton drivers scare the bejeezus outta me.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  19. #219

    Default

    Lots of people have posted on here in different threads about getting tickets for going 6km over. Saw a few tweets about people getting it as low as 5km recently. Don ivesons stance has been quoted in the papers as 1km over is too much. Don't break the law.

    I am curious about a defense on a ticket thats 8-10km over the speed limit. You can't just assume your speedometer is over by so much. Wouldn't the court need actual evidence of this? Would be hard to produce. Or would your defense be all on a hypothetical scenario? Seems a bit shaky if you ask me.

  20. #220

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    I am curious about a defense on a ticket thats 8-10km over the speed limit. You can't just assume your speedometer is over by so much. Wouldn't the court need actual evidence of this? Would be hard to produce. Or would your defense be all on a hypothetical scenario? Seems a bit shaky if you ask me.
    Not hard, but also not cheap

    1) Been awhile (about 8-10years) but there were a couple of shops that certified speedometers, one was Loveseth but I don't know if they are still around or still do it.

    Basically they checked the operating systems and certified your speedo read X +/- speed vs actual.

    Cost back then was about $200.00

    At the time we were getting it done for custom built vehicles.

    2) Go after the radar itself, seen this done a couple times. Operators do always follow protocol on the radar system operation.

    If you cast doubt it can be turfed.

    But it becomes cost/benefit to fight

    $118.00 ticket
    vs
    $200 +/- to have your speedo checked
    +
    Day lost wages

    As no demerits are involved I bet the vast majority would just skip it even if they were in the right.

    Makes me wonder though...how often people getting a ticket and believe it's incorrect but just pay it as its cheaper?

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  21. #221
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,842

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    It never was 60

    It only turns 60 east of 50th street.

    Upon entering the city limits there is a notice. 50 Km/h Maximum unless otherwise posted.

    Lesson learned.
    Sorry EPT, but you're wrong on this one.

    Driving West, it's 100 Km/h until you hit 50 st (sign until the overpass for 50 st) and then it's 80 Km/h until you hit the turn for Argyl Road, then it drops to 60. The 60 Km/h speed stays up until you hit 83 st, and once you cross that it's 50 Km/h for the rest of the way down Whyte. The speed indication signs are quite visible (there's nothing around the 50 Km/h sign near the mall).

    You'll find the photo radar set up between 87 and 89 st, or 96 to 98 almost all the time. Both spots are marked on the city photo radar map.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  22. #222

    Default

    @thomas - Its definitely counter productive to fight unless you already have the day off work. Also no one is stupid enough to pay more then the ticket to fight it in court.

    I suppose you would need to be able to quote some previous cases that got thrown out or studies that were done that show speedometer/radar guns have a certain amount of error. Medwards mention of tires is an interesting one but not sure that would hold up either.

    Even at 5-6km\hr over i don't see much of a defense for the judge that would get your ticket thrown out without spending money to prove your case. I'd be interested to hear of anyone who has fought one as a slight acceleration in gas or a wonky speedometer is a start but hardly enough for them to throw it out.

  23. #223
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    It never was 60

    It only turns 60 east of 50th street.

    Upon entering the city limits there is a notice. 50 Km/h Maximum unless otherwise posted.

    Lesson learned.
    East of 83rd Street I believe on Whyte, but your point stands.

    edit: I was 20 minutes late on this. haha

  24. #224

    Default

    If the C of E was not making money on speeding tickets would Iveson be so sanctimonious about speeders. If the program was losing money would he protest as much. Interesting article in the Edmonton Sun about this.


    http://www.edmontonsun.com/2014/10/0...ut-photo-radar
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  25. #225
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Just a FYI, here is a blog post that Iveson links to in in an update to his blog:

    http://transformingedmonton.ca/resea...s-roads-safer/

    Specifically it includes the study mentioned in the Edmonton Sun piece directly above.

    What the Edmonton Sun piece correctly points out, is that continuous enforcement (ie. always there photo radar) decreases collisions by 26-32%. And that Edmonton mostly does the discontinuous variety of enforcement. It doesn't point out that discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18%. (with 18% being the decrease in serious collisions) So the Sun Piece seems to say Iveson is just doing it for the money which is silly, since the money is to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.

    So is the Sun advocating for MORE enforcement, as it rightly points out that photo radar does decrease collisions?

  26. #226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    and you lose a day of pay back at your job.
    If you can't or don't want to take a day off work, but can get to Oliver at lunch, you can go to Fight That Ticket and pay a fee to have them represent you to try and get a lower fine. They're ex-traffic cops, and I've used them to have photo radar ticket amounts lowered enough to more then justify their fee (can't remember how much exactly, but probably saved three to four times their fee).

    They'll also try to plead you down to a lesser offence should you run into a demerit situation, to reduce your fine and demerits, and will also provide a traffic safety course that is included with their fee that can knock an additional demerit off your license.

  27. #227

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Just a FYI, here is a blog post that Iveson links to in in an update to his blog:

    http://transformingedmonton.ca/resea...s-roads-safer/

    Specifically it includes the study mentioned in the Edmonton Sun piece directly above.

    What the Edmonton Sun piece correctly points out, is that continuous enforcement (ie. always there photo radar) decreases collisions by 26-32%. And that Edmonton mostly does the discontinuous variety of enforcement. It doesn't point out that discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18%. (with 18% being the decrease in serious collisions) So the Sun Piece seems to say Iveson is just doing it for the money which is silly, since the money is to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.

    So is the Sun advocating for MORE enforcement, as it rightly points out that photo radar does decrease collisions?
    That blog speaks in absolute certain terms that photo radar changes peoples mindsets and stops speeding when in reality thats not the case. Just read the thread a bit and you'll see its actually furthest from the truth.

    Repeat offenders with photo radar are responsible for a large majority of our crashes.

  28. #228

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Just a FYI, here is a blog post that Iveson links to in in an update to his blog:

    http://transformingedmonton.ca/resea...s-roads-safer/

    Specifically it includes the study mentioned in the Edmonton Sun piece directly above.

    What the Edmonton Sun piece correctly points out, is that continuous enforcement (ie. always there photo radar) decreases collisions by 26-32%. And that Edmonton mostly does the discontinuous variety of enforcement. It doesn't point out that discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18%. (with 18% being the decrease in serious collisions) So the Sun Piece seems to say Iveson is just doing it for the money which is silly, since the money is to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.

    So is the Sun advocating for MORE enforcement, as it rightly points out that photo radar does decrease collisions?
    If the discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18% on serious collisions what are you basing this figure on?. What stats from what year?.
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    Last edited by Gemini; 09-10-2014 at 02:32 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  29. #229
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    It never was 60

    It only turns 60 east of 50th street.

    Upon entering the city limits there is a notice. 50 Km/h Maximum unless otherwise posted.

    Lesson learned.
    Not true, here is a picture of the 60 sign at 79th street
    https://maps.google.com/?ll=53.51803...62.69,,0,-8.65

    50 Ahead sign is just before Bonnie Doon
    https://maps.google.com/?ll=53.51811...289.74,,0,1.01

    Eastbound just east of Bonnie Doon
    https://maps.google.com/?ll=53.51801...0.01,,0,-13.11

  30. #230
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    *Snip*
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    And they look like crap and block visibility. I wouldn't want to see them in regular use on normal streets, but maybe on freeway off-ramps or places where the speed limit drops as roads enter the city?

  31. #231

    Default

    Keep in mind the term "continuous" means "every year", not 24/7/365.

    From http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...rial_Roads.pdf pg 14

    5.3 Continuous versus Discontinuous Enforcement Evaluation
    Among all the enforced segments, some were enforced each year during the after period while others were not due to limited enforcement resources. In this section, the safety effects on the continuously enforced segments were compared with those on discontinuous enforced segments using the same methodology described in the previous section. The purpose is to examine whether continuous enforcement was more effective in reducing collisions. Before making the comparison, it is critical to control for both collision characteristics and deployment length, since they are likely to influence the collision reductions. As shown in Table 8, two groups were selected to ensure that both had similar collision data, traffic volume, and deployment length. The evaluation results are provided in Table 9. It can be observed that the continuously enforced segments had larger reductions for all severities/types of collisions compared to the segments that were discontinuously enforced. The implication of the results is that continuous enforcement is a preferred strategy leading to greater collision reduction than discontinuous enforcement.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  32. #232

    Default

    ^Thanks for the clarification. Now, if a speed board yields the same results as photo radar why are more speed boards not implemented?. They can bee seen way easier at night and in the dusk, they save money, just about take up as much room as a parked photo radar vehicle.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  33. #233

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    *Snip*
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    And they look like crap and block visibility. I wouldn't want to see them in regular use on normal streets, but maybe on freeway off-ramps or places where the speed limit drops as roads enter the city?
    ............and a radar vehicle on a normal street does not block visibility. Those big flash boards do not have to be used. Surely they can design them the size of a 30ins. TV and mount them on lamp posts on residential main streets.
    Last edited by Gemini; 09-10-2014 at 03:00 PM.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  34. #234
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Just a FYI, here is a blog post that Iveson links to in in an update to his blog:

    http://transformingedmonton.ca/resea...s-roads-safer/

    Specifically it includes the study mentioned in the Edmonton Sun piece directly above.

    What the Edmonton Sun piece correctly points out, is that continuous enforcement (ie. always there photo radar) decreases collisions by 26-32%. And that Edmonton mostly does the discontinuous variety of enforcement. It doesn't point out that discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18%. (with 18% being the decrease in serious collisions) So the Sun Piece seems to say Iveson is just doing it for the money which is silly, since the money is to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.

    So is the Sun advocating for MORE enforcement, as it rightly points out that photo radar does decrease collisions?
    If the discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18% on serious collisions what are you basing this figure on?. What stats from what year?.
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    I'm basing my figures on the study, same as the Sun.

  35. #235
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Iqaluit, Nunavut
    Posts
    1,942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Just a FYI, here is a blog post that Iveson links to in in an update to his blog:

    http://transformingedmonton.ca/resea...s-roads-safer/

    Specifically it includes the study mentioned in the Edmonton Sun piece directly above.

    What the Edmonton Sun piece correctly points out, is that continuous enforcement (ie. always there photo radar) decreases collisions by 26-32%. And that Edmonton mostly does the discontinuous variety of enforcement. It doesn't point out that discontinuous enforcement reduction rates are lower at 9-18%. (with 18% being the decrease in serious collisions) So the Sun Piece seems to say Iveson is just doing it for the money which is silly, since the money is to fund traffic safety education initiatives and to make physical modifications to roadways that improve safety.

    So is the Sun advocating for MORE enforcement, as it rightly points out that photo radar does decrease collisions?
    That blog speaks in absolute certain terms that photo radar changes peoples mindsets and stops speeding when in reality thats not the case. Just read the thread a bit and you'll see its actually furthest from the truth.

    Repeat offenders with photo radar are responsible for a large majority of our crashes.
    My information comes from an Edmonton study, not anecdotal evidence from this thread. Of which, if I add my own, I've teduced speeding because of photo radar. So it worked for me...

  36. #236

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    ^Thanks for the clarification. Now, if a speed board yields the same results as photo radar why are more speed boards not implemented?. They can bee seen way easier at night and in the dusk, they save money, just about take up as much room as a parked photo radar vehicle.
    Because to get money for increased Traffic Safety initiatives like additional speed-reader boards, we had to bring the revenues from Automated Enforcement to positive, and that's why we brought it in house, faced challenges, expanded the service on the backs of the speeding fines & are in a much better position to have increased money for Traffic Safety in the coming years.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  37. #237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Repeat offenders with photo radar are responsible for a large majority of our crashes.
    Citation please. I can't find any data to support what I assume to be your hunch here.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  38. #238

    Default

    Maybe serious repeat offenders should have their car registration revoked, if what gwill211 speculates is true. I realize its not possible to pin the driver, so that's why I suggest car registration. The registered car owner knows who was driving the car, and if they don't want their car registration revoked, perhaps they'll think twice about allowing that driver to drive+Speed.

  39. #239

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    *Snip*
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    And they look like crap and block visibility. I wouldn't want to see them in regular use on normal streets, but maybe on freeway off-ramps or places where the speed limit drops as roads enter the city?
    ............and a radar vehicle on a normal street does not block visibility. Those big flash boards do not have to be used. Surely they can design them the size of a 30ins. TV and mount them on lamp posts on residential main streets.

    You mean something like the speed limit sign/ current speed indicator sign below?

    From Google Maps:



    The sign shows the speed in a constantly lit number if you're below the limit, and flashes the speed multiple times if you're above the limit.

    I probably would accept photo radar if they:
    • raised the grace speed to 6 km/h over the speed limit
    • added the above signs at key transition points along routes using the photo radar money
    • either increase the speed limit on certain roads to match the road design, or change the road design to naturally decrease the speed limit.


    For the second point, examples of where I'd put the speed limit/indicator signs are on coming onto Stony Plain road from 149th street and 142 street, dropping from 100 km/h to 80 km/h on the Yellowhead at 50th street, and at school zones along busy roads

    For the third note, an example would be that they should either raise the limit on the Scona Road to match the 60 km/h of 98th avenue, as it's a natural extension of it as is, or add a nice looking, landscaped, big arse boulevard in the middle to narrow the lanes and naturally slow down traffic.

  40. #240
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Repeat offenders with photo radar are responsible for a large majority of our crashes.
    Citation please. I can't find any data to support what I assume to be your hunch here.
    Post 149 was probably the source. Repeat offenders with 4 or more photo tickets were involved in 6000 collisions. That's not a large majority, though.

  41. #241
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    *Snip*
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    And they look like crap and block visibility. I wouldn't want to see them in regular use on normal streets, but maybe on freeway off-ramps or places where the speed limit drops as roads enter the city?
    ............and a radar vehicle on a normal street does not block visibility. Those big flash boards do not have to be used. Surely they can design them the size of a 30ins. TV and mount them on lamp posts on residential main streets.

    You mean something like the speed limit sign/ current speed indicator sign below?

    From Google Maps:



    The sign shows the speed in a constantly lit number if you're below the limit, and flashes the speed multiple times if you're above the limit.

    I probably would accept photo radar if they:
    • raised the grace speed to 6 km/h over the speed limit
    • added the above signs at key transition points along routes using the photo radar money
    • either increase the speed limit on certain roads to match the road design, or change the road design to naturally decrease the speed limit.


    For the second point, examples of where I'd put the speed limit/indicator signs are on coming onto Stony Plain road from 149th street and 142 street, dropping from 100 km/h to 80 km/h on the Yellowhead at 50th street, and at school zones along busy roads

    For the third note, an example would be that they should either raise the limit on the Scona Road to match the 60 km/h of 98th avenue, as it's a natural extension of it as is, or add a nice looking, landscaped, big arse boulevard in the middle to narrow the lanes and naturally slow down traffic.
    This is a very reasonable response, but as far as we've ever heard a 6km/hr grace has always been maintained before issuing tickets.

    I said earlier that speed boards are ugly, but those little permanent ones aren't bad, and they do have a place, especially at transition zones.
    Last edited by highlander; 09-10-2014 at 03:41 PM.

  42. #242

    Default

    ^
    There's a reference upthread to tickets going out at 2 km/h over the speed limit, from the Sun, so take that with a grain of salt. If that's true, thats bullschtako, in my opinion.

  43. #243

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Post 149 was probably the source. Repeat offenders with 4 or more photo tickets were involved in 6000 collisions. That's not a large majority, though.
    There were 51922 collisions in the years 2010-2011. That makes it a hair under 13% of collisions caused by chronic AE recipients.

    That's definitely an eye opening stat, but it's not a large majority. Or a majority at all. I'm not surprised that there's a large overlap between the two groups & we certainly need to try and get that number down, though.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  44. #244

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gord Lacey View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    It never was 60

    It only turns 60 east of 50th street.

    Upon entering the city limits there is a notice. 50 Km/h Maximum unless otherwise posted.

    Lesson learned.
    Sorry EPT, but you're wrong on this one.

    Driving West, it's 100 Km/h until you hit 50 st (sign until the overpass for 50 st) and then it's 80 Km/h until you hit the turn for Argyl Road, then it drops to 60. The 60 Km/h speed stays up until you hit 83 st, and once you cross that it's 50 Km/h for the rest of the way down Whyte. The speed indication signs are quite visible (there's nothing around the 50 Km/h sign near the mall).
    You are right Gord

    I was thinking 75th but typed in 50th. It does actually change to 50 at 83rd on Whyte. Thanks for the correction
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  45. #245

    Default

    ^
    The above transition points would additional examples of good spot for the speed limit/indicator boards I posted upthread. Another series of spots would be dropping from 90 to 70 to 60 to 50 heading north on Gateway between the Henday and Whyte Avenue.

  46. #246

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Post 149 was probably the source. Repeat offenders with 4 or more photo tickets were involved in 6000 collisions. That's not a large majority, though.
    There were 51922 collisions in the years 2010-2011. That makes it a hair under 13% of collisions caused by chronic AE recipients.

    That's definitely an eye opening stat, but it's not a large majority. Or a majority at all. I'm not surprised that there's a large overlap between the two groups & we certainly need to try and get that number down, though.

    What's interesting about that stat is it directly disputes the evidence in the transportation site that Channing posted. Also 13 percent of traffic accidents in a 2 yr period by a small demographic of speeders is concerning to me. It shows drivers are unaffected by radar and won't change habits. It also shows the city isn't using photo radar to it's full potential in trying to curb dangerous driving. They keep pretending it's all about safety but when presented with hard data they do nothing with it.

    You could justify photo radar to any nut very easily if your dragging high risk drivers caught multiple times on radar into classes.

  47. #247

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    What's interesting about that stat is it directly disputes the evidence in the transportation site that Channing posted. Also 13 percent of traffic accidents in a 2 yr period by a small demographic of speeders is concerning to me. It shows drivers are unaffected by radar and won't change habits. It also shows the city isn't using photo radar to it's full potential in trying to curb dangerous driving. They keep pretending it's all about safety but when presented with hard data they do nothing with it.

    You could justify photo radar to any nut very easily if your dragging high risk drivers caught multiple times on radar into classes.
    No, it doesn't. All of the information & data I pulled to get those numbers were numbers used in the statistical analysis linked in Channing's post. They've all been taken into account, by University-trained statisticians.

    If you can find some errors with the statistical analysis presented in the two papers linked by Channing, I'm sure the City of Edmonton would be more than happy to hear it so they're operating under the correct assumptions.

    As it stands, the people who are cherrypicking data points are you & the Strathcona County councillor you linked, not the people writing the reports.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  48. #248

    Default

    Andrew Grose interviewed Ward 3 Councillor David Loken on CHED today about photo radar and the upcoming council inquiry photo radar. He stated the inquiry was a direct result of the pole, and some more details of the cities goals.

  49. #249

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by highlander View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    *Snip*
    It's also been shown that the flash boards that show the speed a driver is going are also just as effective as photo radar. If it is not about money why are these not implemented more. They are less expensive to run and the effect is the same.
    And they look like crap and block visibility. I wouldn't want to see them in regular use on normal streets, but maybe on freeway off-ramps or places where the speed limit drops as roads enter the city?
    ............and a radar vehicle on a normal street does not block visibility. Those big flash boards do not have to be used. Surely they can design them the size of a 30ins. TV and mount them on lamp posts on residential main streets.

    You mean something like the speed limit sign/ current speed indicator sign below?

    From Google Maps:



    The sign shows the speed in a constantly lit number if you're below the limit, and flashes the speed multiple times if you're above the limit.

    I probably would accept photo radar if they:
    • raised the grace speed to 6 km/h over the speed limit
    • added the above signs at key transition points along routes using the photo radar money
    • either increase the speed limit on certain roads to match the road design, or change the road design to naturally decrease the speed limit.


    For the second point, examples of where I'd put the speed limit/indicator signs are on coming onto Stony Plain road from 149th street and 142 street, dropping from 100 km/h to 80 km/h on the Yellowhead at 50th street, and at school zones along busy roads

    For the third note, an example would be that they should either raise the limit on the Scona Road to match the 60 km/h of 98th avenue, as it's a natural extension of it as is, or add a nice looking, landscaped, big arse boulevard in the middle to narrow the lanes and naturally slow down traffic.
    Those signs would be a first class solution in a lot of areas. It would also be prudent to put the actual speed for that area on a couple of posts previous to the flash boards. I think what will happen if Iveson keeps up his 1 mile over the limit rant is that he will have to get a couple of tickets himself to realize just how rigid his stance is. Or, if your average Martha and Henry start getting radar tickets while off to the Olive Gardens and start raising chit something will have to give. If it's all about safety as Don is saying let's get ride a at least half the manned photo radar vehicles and start putting up flash boards. Let's face it, the people who are chronic speeders that constantly go way over the limit should be dealt with in a different manner than someone who gets tickets for going 5 miles over.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  50. #250

    Default

    Yeah, let's toss out the economies of scale we spent all that money building, kneecap our ability to spread the fixed costs over as many infractions as possible & go back to losing money on every ticket written...

    Hell, hide cameras in the flashing boards.

    Why scale back the statistically-proven-to-be-working program we've already paid for? Just because some irresponsible a-holes are too stubborn to learn & likely take pride in their flaunting of the rules?

    Give me a break.
    Last edited by noodle; 09-10-2014 at 04:26 PM.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  51. #251
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    edmonton
    Posts
    4,237

    Default

    Re. Those flash boards seem to be flickering speeds over a wide range much of the time. Case in point: I'm travelling south on QE2 this morning through the 80 km/h zone where the new 41st. Ave. interchange is going in. There's a flashboard there which is fluctuating (as I passed through) between 66 and 87 km/h. The traffic flow was pretty heavy, three lanes full, and, judging by my own speed of 75 km/h, the other vehicles were within 5 km/h of that. Sort of made a mockery of the flashboard.

    The other thing is, which vehicle is being specifically 'measured' by the sensor on the flashboard, given three lanes of traffic? Bit of a joke, really.

    I can accept the board's message on a single lane road, maybe. Even then, in a flow of traffic we still don't know which vehicle is being 'measured'. Seems these flashboards are too much hit and miss.
    Nisi Dominus Frustra

  52. #252

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ustauk View Post
    Andrew Grose interviewed Ward 3 Councillor David Loken on CHED today about photo radar and the upcoming council inquiry photo radar. He stated the inquiry was a direct result of the pole, and some more details of the cities goals.
    yep. Don's flushed his career down the John on this one. but hey, he stopped Grannie Smith from speeding at 55kmh. I feel safe.

  53. #253

    Default

    ^I often think that on red light tickets. Say you go through the intersection a second before it turns red. You did not speed to get to the light, in fact you covered your brake and had slown down a bit. Now, if someone sped up in the next lane just so they could get through the light who's to say who is going to get the 'speeding on red' ticket?. As for flashboards, they would be perfect for residential roads were traffic is lighter and cars are only in one or two lanes.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  54. #254

    Default

    This is like many debates over semantics, however, here goes... at the maximum speed "limit" there will be some error in the vehicle speedometer caused by factory issues, tire size, tire wear, etc.

    I would expect that the speed cameras may also have some error in their measurement of speed, right? Or wrong?

    So could two wrongs in the wrong direction provide enough measurement error to trigger a fine?

    Now, a more sensible discussion might revolve around the analysis of historic collision rates along some roads and the setting of rational speed limits.

    Lastly, I've never bought the overly simplistic line that "speed kills". (Note how few officials spewing the "speed kills" mantra actually lobby for reduced speed limits, and even fought against lower limits around schools etc, and instead they lobby for enhanced revenue generating enforcement.) Intersections likely kill too. Bigger heavier vehicles or those with poor brakes, poor visibility, pitted windshields, lack of headlight washers and headlight wipers, poor tires, etc also kill.

  55. #255

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    This is like many debates over semantics, however, here goes... at the maximum speed "limit" there will be some error in the vehicle speedometer caused by factory issues, tire size, tire wear, etc.

    I would expect that the speed cameras may also have some error in their measurement of speed, right? Or wrong?

    So could two wrongs in the wrong direction provide enough measurement error to trigger a fine?

    Now, a more sensible discussion might revolve around the analysis of historic collision rates along some roads and the setting of rational speed limits.

    Lastly, I've never bought the overly simplistic line that "speed kills". (Note how few officials spewing the "speed kills" mantra actually lobby for reduced speed limits, and even fought against lower limits around schools etc, and instead they lobby for enhanced revenue generating enforcement.) Intersections likely kill too. Bigger heavier vehicles or those with poor brakes, poor visibility, pitted windshields, lack of headlight washers and headlight wipers, poor tires, etc also kill.
    I'd say you're right KC

    There are a ton of factors that go into fatality reduction beyond speed.

    Take a look at just the change in vehicle design and manufacture in the last decade...

    Generally
    - Try and find even a base model car with out ABS and Traction control
    (both were not the norm a decade ago)

    - Brake size and materials have also come a long ways in less than a decade.

    - The proliferation of AWD and the last few years auto splitting (% front/rear)

    - Improvements in tire size, even econoboxes are on at least 15" rims with low profiles and compounds that were considered mid performance 10 years ago.

    - Improvements in tire design, particularly adverse weather design (ice etc)

    - Air bags, ten years ago you had front, now you have side and seat mounted as well.

    - Improvements the structures of crush zones and overall impact disbursement.

    That's just to name a few, there are more.

    In Alberta thanks to our booming economy...

    - Anecdotally it appears the average age of vehicles is much newer
    (also confirmed by the automotive shops I still frequent) than a decade ago.

    - Proliferation of the much hated big SUVs and Pickups with AWD and all the toys (yes size does matter in a collision even now).

    So just in the automobile and driving technology a lot has changed.

    In my highly biased personal opinion

  56. #256

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    As it stands, the people who are cherrypicking data points are you & the Strathcona County councillor you linked, not the people writing the reports.
    How does a city Councillor take Edmonton's data and come to a different conclusion then the study the city of Edmonton paid for in channings post?

    This data comes straight from the COE

    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.

    The post from channing's link says:

    There is a fact, deeply rooted in enforcement theory, that over time the presence of automated enforcement saves lives. As people get photo radar tickets in the mail and learn about automated enforcement, their behaviour changes behind the wheel, they slow down and collisions are reduced.


    How does that website skew the truth to speak in absolute certain terms when what we have before us shows that the habitual speeders who we should be most worried about aren't getting the msg. I am very confused. The stratchona Councillor hit it bang on.. Habitual speeders don't get dealt with when they get a photo radar ticket in the mail. Their driving habits don't change and the data proves it.

  57. #257
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Sherwood park
    Posts
    2,261

    Default

    Vehicles that get too many tickets should be taken off the road. Make the owners of these vehicles take some responsibility for how they are being driven. That might increase safety.

  58. #258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    As it stands, the people who are cherrypicking data points are you & the Strathcona County councillor you linked, not the people writing the reports.
    How does a city Councillor take Edmonton's data and come to a different conclusion then the study the city of Edmonton paid for in channings post?

    This data comes straight from the COE

    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.

    The post from channing's link says:

    There is a fact, deeply rooted in enforcement theory, that over time the presence of automated enforcement saves lives. As people get photo radar tickets in the mail and learn about automated enforcement, their behaviour changes behind the wheel, they slow down and collisions are reduced.


    How does that website skew the truth to speak in absolute certain terms when what we have before us shows that the habitual speeders who we should be most worried about aren't getting the msg. I am very confused. The stratchona Councillor hit it bang on.. Habitual speeders don't get dealt with when they get a photo radar ticket in the mail. Their driving habits don't change and the data proves it.
    and thats why we need to employee many different types of enforcement in combination with photo radar... which we already do.

    moral of the story: Photo radar is just one of the many tools that should be used.

  59. #259

    Default

    ^ Yeah, that's basically it. Automated Enforcement isn't the be-all-end-all, but it has been shown to be an effective & revenue-positive method of enforcement that can supplement other methods, be expanded quickly & efficiently (now that the migration is done & the one time cost overruns for the project are taken care of) while providing extra revenue for other Traffic Safety intiatives.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  60. #260

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    ^ Yeah, that's basically it. Automated Enforcement isn't the be-all-end-all, but it has been shown to be an effective & revenue-positive method of enforcement that can supplement other methods, be expanded quickly & efficiently (now that the migration is done & the one time cost overruns for the project are taken care of) while providing extra revenue for other Traffic Safety intiatives.
    The other traffic initiatives that do nothing to target the high risk drivers getting 4,5,6+ photo radar tickets. Great! Sounds like they are executing their vision perfectly and making our streets that much safer.

    Oh wait that's only what they want us to think. Weird

    Here are some interesting links:


    Not once is speed related to the top reasons our crashes happen. You can also see the top intersections where accidents happen. Most likely from turning at a busy intersection.

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

    You can read all the previous years reports here on collisions in Edmonton.

    http://www.edmonton.ca/transportatio...d-reports.aspx

    Whats the #1 cause for accidents? Following too closely. How will photo radar help this? What the #2 cause. Hitting a parked vehicle. Oh my! Photo radar can't help with this. Next on the list? Improper lane changes. And it goes on and on.
    Last edited by gwill211; 10-10-2014 at 11:26 AM.

  61. #261

    Default

    So when the police due regular radar? That does nothing? weird.

  62. #262

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Whats the #1 cause for accidents? Following too closely.
    You can't figure out how speeding & following too close are related? REALLY!?



    Turns out, stopping distance is determined by speed! WHAT A REVELATION! And therefore what is and isn't "too close" is a function of the speed the stopping object is travelling!
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  63. #263
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^ In other words, trying to drive faster than everyone else on the road and tailgating to try to bully them out of the way is dangerous, but going with the flow and leaving a minimum 2 second following distance is not. This still applies if "the flow" is going faster than the speed limit. Strict enforcement of speed limits in these situations does nothing to improve safety, but is a great way to generate ticket revenue. You may think that is a good alternative to taxes, but many of the rest of us do not.

    I would happily support full time photo radar on Scona road with a zero enforcement tolerance if the speed limit was raised to 70 km/h. A 10 km/h tolerance with a 60 km/h limit would also be reasonable. Setting an unreasonably low speed limit then taxing drivers for traveling at the design speed is not.
    Last edited by Titanium48; 10-10-2014 at 12:05 PM.

  64. #264

    Default

    Hitting everyone in a "flow" is impractical from a manual enforcement perspective but is an ideal situation for Automated Enforcement & one of the reasons I support it.

    I don't see "flow" as an excuse to let people off the hook & why 500 people breaking the law is OK, but 1 isn't. Using other people's poor behaviour to excuse your own is childish & petulant.

    If you're speeding, you're speeding & violating the rules you agreed to abide by when you took up the responsibility & privledge of driving. Nobody controls your gas pedal but you. Nobody is responsible for you getting a ticket but you.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  65. #265
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    I don't consider driving at or slightly below the design speed of a road in good conditions to be bad behavior, regardless of whether it is illegal or not. When there is a mismatch between the enforced speed limit and the design speed, the law is the problem and the law should be changed.

  66. #266

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    Whats the #1 cause for accidents? Following too closely.
    You can't figure out how speeding & following too close are related? REALLY!?


    Turns out, stopping distance is determined by speed! WHAT A REVELATION! And therefore what is and isn't "too close" is a function of the speed the stopping object is travelling!

    I have a friend who has been rear ended 5 times in the last year and a half. Do you think any of us that know her think its other peoples driving? I caught a car rear ending lady at a green light the other day.. she thought the driver would move when the light turned green but no. Pretty sure these all fit into the following too closely category and happen more often then not.

    Interestingly enough if you believe following too closely always relates to speeding how is photo radar helping this? Based on the study Don Iveson is staking his career on it says photo radar changes drivers behaviors yet every year for the past few years ive looked at following too closely is the leading cause of accidents. In 2011 it accounted for 36% of all of our accidents yet in 2013 it went up to 40%. Doesn't seem like any msg is becoming clearer but don's study says it does!!

    The worst offender for accidents every year are accidents at intersections. They account for 50-60% of our accidents per year every year and in 2011 accounted for 55% of the deaths on the road. The number of crashes and injuries are not going down thanks to photo radar at intersections.

    One stat that's interesting is that pedestrian injuries by cars actually went up in 2013 when our photo radar enforcement was kicked into high gear. If the focus was on safety how could this be? We had more photo radar trucks and more red light cameras then ever before.

    I've only taken a quick glance at the numbers over a few years but i don't see crazy improvements. I am curious why isn't the city utilizing the data before them? Why collect it if you won't use it to your advantage.

  67. #267

    Default

    It's not "Don's study". It's an academic statistical analysis of data collected in Edmonton. Citing it doesn't make it his any more than me citing it makes it mine.

    Automated Enforcement isn't the fix for all of our traffic safety issues & nobody is claiming it is. It is one part of an expanding effort to ameliorate the wide ranging issues that affect Edmonton roads. One part.

    Asking why Automated Enforcement doesn't help pedestrian issues is like asking why the carpenters didn't plumb your toilets. It's not their job. Doesn't mean plumbers are better than carpenters, it means they're different & have different jobs & areas of focus.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  68. #268

    Default

    lol @ "staking his career on."

    This thread wins the internet today.

  69. #269

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    lol @ "staking his career on."

    This thread wins the internet today.
    A little over dramatic? haha.. Like i said i find it interesting the data doesn't show what Don's claiming or the study the city paid for.

  70. #270

    Default

    There's a lot of things funny on this thread,, and a little over dramatic isn't quite how I would put it, but if I was to explore my feelings out loud here, I'm sure Admin would remove my post as a personal attack.

    Have a good weekend.

  71. #271

    Default

    More articles disputing the city claims of safety with red light cameras.

    http://globalnews.ca/news/1640250/ho...light-cameras/

  72. #272
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Crawford Plains, Millwoods since 1985
    Posts
    2,687

    Default

    Now, if we wanna talk about a cash grab, look no further than the red light ticket.

  73. #273
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    Unlike speeding running a red light is dangerous a very high percentage of the time. Speeding through a green traffic light could be dangerous.

  74. #274
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^Agreed, although in some cases an insufficient yellow period results in a lot of red light violations, but little danger as most of the light runners have already entered the intersection when the light for opposing traffic turns green.

    Not surprised that 97 St and 122 Av is at the top of the list for light violations, I've almost missed it a couple of times after losing it in the clutter generated by all the lane reversal lights. I always remind myself to look for the traffic light between the arrows and X's when I go that way now. Interestingly, it is also one of the few red light camera locations that is not at the intersection of two major arterial roads.

  75. #275

    Default

    It was interesting to read that red light cameras actually increased accidents at many intersections as people slam on their breaks to avoid running the light.

    There is also one light that doesn't automatically change over at the same time each time. The walk signal can end and the light will stay green for another 10 secs while other times it automatically changes to red when the flashing walking sign ends. I've literally stopped at a green light to avoid a ticket not knowing what the light will do.

  76. #276
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    9,542

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    Unlike speeding running a red light is dangerous a very high percentage of the time. Speeding through a green traffic light could be dangerous.
    Yeah, I have less of an issue with redlight and speed on green cameras. Intersections are where most dangerous accidents happen. If it's a matter of trading some additional rear-enders in order to reduce the number of perpendicular crashes, then so be it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48
    ^Agreed, although in some cases an insufficient yellow period results in a lot of red light violations, but little danger as most of the light runners have already entered the intersection when the light for opposing traffic turns green.
    As far as I understand it, so long as your vehicle does not enter the intersection on the actual red, you can't get a photo ticket. So even people pushing their luck on a yellow where it turns red as they're halfway through the intersection shouldn't get a ticket. Unfortunately it seems a lot of people think you can get a ticket for exiting the intersection as it turns red, and will slam on their brakes even when proceeding through the yellow would have been safe and prudent.

  77. #277
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    City of Champions
    Posts
    7,135

    Default

    And the others who refuse to do a right turn at a red light when safe, or a left turn on red light when both are one way streets (both are legal after coming to complete stop and when safe to do so).

    Edmonton's focus on double red on left turns is also mostly misguided, in some intersections it is necessary because of traffic volume, in other areas it might be needed only at either morning, evening or both rush hours. Edmonton should also start some traffic signals change to a flashing red/amber at 9 PM others at 11.

    But to get more on point about photo radar, I personally don't have a problem with photo radar mounted at the traffic signals, supposedly they are placed at high accident intersections so there could be a justification.

  78. #278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gwill211 View Post
    It was interesting to read that red light cameras actually increased accidents at many intersections as people slam on their breaks to avoid running the light.

    There is also one light that doesn't automatically change over at the same time each time. The walk signal can end and the light will stay green for another 10 secs while other times it automatically changes to red when the flashing walking sign ends. I've literally stopped at a green light to avoid a ticket not knowing what the light will do.
    Castledowns Rd at 153 Ave was like that. The countdown timer hits 0, and I'm braking to stop... at a green light for another 5 seconds. It worked right the other day, so maybe it's been fixed. There isn't any photo radar at that location, however it was set up wrong.

    I'm fine with red light cameras. Unlike hidden photo radar for speed that doesn't slow traffic as intended, you know where every red light is, the cameras are clearly visible all the time, and that you're not supposed to go through when it's red.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  79. #279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    And the others who refuse to do a right turn at a red light when safe.
    Most cities in N. America and Europe it's illegal to turn right on a red, perhaps they received driver education abroad or taking extra care. I've seen many drivers making left turns and immediately swinging into the outside lane. There's also pedestrian safety too. You're right 'when safe', stop at the red, look once, look twice, look thrice for that driver who's gunning-it and on the phone turning left, immediately into the lane that you intend with signals to use.

  80. #280
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    6,397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Wilson View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sundance View Post
    And the others who refuse to do a right turn at a red light when safe.
    Most cities in N. America and Europe it's illegal to turn right on a red, perhaps they received driver education abroad or taking extra care. I've seen many drivers making left turns and immediately swinging into the outside lane. There's also pedestrian safety too. You're right 'when safe', stop at the red, look once, look twice, look thrice for that driver who's gunning-it and on the phone turning left, immediately into the lane that you intend with signals to use.
    I was almost sideswiped on Stony Plain Rd last night in exactly this situation. I was turning right onto Stony Plain Rd from 178 Southbound. Stopped at the light, looked every direction twice, proceeded into the curb lane (with signal on, of course), and while I'm turning I had to slam on the brakes because a minivan turning left from 178 NB onto SPR West decided to swing to the outermost lane instead of any of the other 4 lanes there.

    Infuriating.

  81. #281

    Default

    ^Hey now, it's hard to learn all the rules when you buy your license.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  82. #282
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,343

    Default

    ^^^ Other than Montreal, where in North America is it illegal to turn right on a red unless specifically prohibited by a sign?

  83. #283
    highlander
    Guest

    Default

    New York.

  84. #284

    Default

    Photo Radar to help cover expected 5.3% rise in C of E spending.

    EDMONTON - The city intends to spend an extra $118 million next year, using higher property taxes, more fees and an additional $10.9 million in photo radar fines.

    If we think photo radar is there for safety this ^ statement blows that out of the water. They are not spending extra money on safety the are just throwing it into the pot. Another thing, can they see into the future and predict how much more they will make in fines?.

    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...320/story.html
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  85. #285

    Default

    ^Of course they can see into the future. They can predict exactly how many more hidden traps they'll need to generate the required funds while doing nothing to slow down traffic.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  86. #286

    Default

    City deep thinkers planning on photo radar as a real alternative to raising cash.

    ----------------


    EDMONTON - The city is looking at creating a special fund to handle part of the $10.9-million gusher of extra photo radar money expected next year.
    Revenues from photo enforcement are anticipated to jump to $41 million in 2015, up from the $30.1 million budgeted this year.
    The roughly 30 per cent increase is expected because actual revenue this year is likely to hit a similar amount, chief financial officer Lorna Rosen says.
    That growth is partly the result of Edmonton’s booming population and large number of visitors, she told council’s initial operating budget hearing Wednesday.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...869/story.html

    It seems the C of E have a couple of physic on their payroll who can predict how much they are going to fleece from people next year through photo radar, the money has already been allotted as to where its going to go. This sounds like a gleeful rubbing of hands and not a safer roads initiative. The initiative is milking photo radar for more money. Then the have the gonads to say the results of this largesse will be from a large number of visitors. Here's a new slogan for the C of E 'The Photo Radar Capital of Canada - We hope you enjoyed your stay - Suckers'. They aught to be ashamed of themselves.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  87. #287
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Gemini View Post
    City deep thinkers planning on photo radar as a real alternative to raising cash.

    ----------------


    EDMONTON - The city is looking at creating a special fund to handle part of the $10.9-million gusher of extra photo radar money expected next year.
    Revenues from photo enforcement are anticipated to jump to $41 million in 2015, up from the $30.1 million budgeted this year.
    The roughly 30 per cent increase is expected because actual revenue this year is likely to hit a similar amount, chief financial officer Lorna Rosen says.
    That growth is partly the result of Edmonton’s booming population and large number of visitors, she told council’s initial operating budget hearing Wednesday.
    http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/...869/story.html

    It seems the C of E have a couple of physic on their payroll who can predict how much they are going to fleece from people next year through photo radar, the money has already been allotted as to where its going to go. This sounds like a gleeful rubbing of hands and not a safer roads initiative. The initiative is milking photo radar for more money. Then the have the gonads to say the results of this largesse will be from a large number of visitors. Here's a new slogan for the C of E 'The Photo Radar Capital of Canada - We hope you enjoyed your stay - Suckers'. They aught to be ashamed of themselves.
    If this doesn't convince the handful of city hall apologists on C2E, nothing will.

    This is definitive proof that photo radar has nothing to do with safety. If it was about safety, the goal should be reducing the speed of traffic. Instead all they do is come up with clever new ways to get people to speed past photo radar cameras.

    Imagine how much smoother traffic would be in this city if these clowns didn't rely so much on photo radar. Imagine being able to go the speed that the roads were designed for! Imagine that. Picture how nice it would be to not have to choose between going the SAFE speed (the speed of traffic) and getting a ticket, and avoiding tickets by going a DANGEROUS speed (becoming an obstacle in traffic).

    I'll say it again and again: we need evidence based policy. If the goal is to improve traffic safety, then make policies that improve traffic safety. Currently, we have the opposite.

  88. #288

    Default

    I like how they claim putting the cash generated into a different fund makes photo radar any less a cash cow. When the city knows this money is sitting in a different fund they will use whatever excuse they have to take the money from it.

    They can stop funding other areas within communities knowing now there are large sums of money sitting aside they can fund them with afterwards.

  89. #289

    Default

    ^Yes, and they are doing this all under the banner of 'Safer Roads'. It seems they have become addicted to the drug know on the streets as 'photo radar'. It's very similar to other street drugs as it's there but the peddlers of it are often hidden in plain sight and they a not too discriminate who buys just as long as they buy. Can you imagine visiting Edmonton then getting home and three weeks later finding a speeding ticket in the mail because you have gone 4 miles over the limit. Cripes, I should imagine you would be livid.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

  90. #290

    Default

    I don't think photo radar tickets are sent out of province...

    And...

    Photo radar doesn't catch people going 4 over the speed limit, unless you are speeding in a school zone, which if you are, you deserve a paddlin.

    Photo Radar is still set to over 10 km/h in 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 km/h zones. Only the 30 zones are 4+ over.


    and again... If you don't speed, you don't get ticket, no matter how they choose to enforce the speed limit.

  91. #291
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't think photo radar tickets are sent out of province...

    And...

    Photo radar doesn't catch people going 4 over the speed limit, unless you are speeding in a school zone, which if you are, you deserve a paddlin.

    Photo Radar is still set to over 10 km/h in 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 km/h zones. Only the 30 zones are 4+ over.


    and again... If you don't speed, you don't get ticket, no matter how they choose to enforce the speed limit.
    In many places if you don't speed, you are negatively impacting traffic safety.

    Collisions happen when people depart from the speed of traffic. If you are going 20km/h below the speed of traffic, you are equally (and in some cases more so) a danger than going 20km/h above the speed of traffic.

    This is a serious issue when you have a transportation department that purposefully overengineers roads. You have roads engineered for 100km/h where the speed limit is 80km/h. You have roads engineered for 120km/h where the speed limit is 100km/h.

    What does this mean? 95% of the traffic goes the speed they feel safe going, which is the speed the road was engineered for. 5% is thus a danger on the road.

    Of course this is extremely beneficial for the money grubbers at city hall, because they can collect income from safe drivers. Why do you think photo radar trucks are almost always at the most overengineered sports where you can't see them? On the sections of the Henday with the flattest, widest embankments. On the least busy, widest parts of the whitemud. On the avenues with the largest lanes and the least sidewalks/houses. Because those are the places where the speed limits are lower than the safe speed.

  92. #292

    Default

    Anyone who uses "flow of traffic" or "natural speed of the road" to justify their speeding habits is a pig-headed, ignorant doofus & I thank you & your ilk for being so obstinate about going the "right" speed rather than the legal speed that the City of Edmonton now more money than they know what to do with.

    Driving is a privledge, not a right. Obey the rules of the road & you won't get busted for infractions.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  93. #293
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Parkdale - Goldbar - Downtown
    Posts
    5,182

    Default

    ^ It can go both ways too, you know Noodle.

    If road conditions warrant people going 20 kph under the limit, and most people are doing that, and a few people are driving at the posted speed limit, who's the ignorant doofus in that case ?
    Parkdale

  94. #294
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Anyone who uses "flow of traffic" or "natural speed of the road" to justify their speeding habits is a pig-headed, ignorant doofus .
    Funny, that is exactly what I say about people too moronic to pay attention to evidence and research when talking about policy.

    Pig-headed, ignorant doofuses.

  95. #295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 240GLT View Post
    ^ It can go both ways too, you know Noodle.

    If road conditions warrant people going 20 kph under the limit, and most people are doing that, and a few people are driving at the posted speed limit, who's the ignorant doofus in that case ?
    I said justify their speeding habits, implying that I was referring to the people who use these sorts of excuses when they are exceeding the limit.

    Because this is the photo radar thread, not the "bad winter drivers" thread, I chose my words carefully.

    You should always drive within the limit & as road conditions warrant.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  96. #296
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    I said justify their speeding habits, implying that I was referring to the people who use these sorts of excuses when they are exceeding the limit.

    Because this is the photo radar thread, not the "bad winter drivers" thread, I chose my words carefully.

    You should always drive within the limit & as road conditions warrant.
    That is really a total cop-out. We are talking about policy. This doesn't exist in isolation. It isn't just people choosing to speed and excusing it however they can.

    The simple fact is that traffic behaves in a certain way, and certain actions by states can either improve or reduce safety based on this.

    If we choose to ignore this behaviour and the evidence as to how to improve safety, we are part of the problem.

    - Fact: drivers on average go the speed they feel safe going.

    - Fact: going too far above OR below the speed of traffic is dangerous.

    - Fact: roads in Edmonton are overengineered, making the speed people feel safe going far higher than the speed limit.

    These are the facts. I suggest we take them and come up with a solution, rather than sit around spewing self-righteous garbage about following the letter of the law.

  97. #297

    Default

    Oi, I wasn't talking to you.

    Don't take my response to someone else, conflate it with your own idiocy & then rant at me.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  98. #298
    C2E Hard Core Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    2,591

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Oi, I wasn't talking to you.

    Don't take my response to someone else, conflate it with your own idiocy & then rant at me.
    Wow, you're really pulling at strings. Nice try, but go read through the last 10 or so comments again.

    I talked about the flow of traffic and natural speed, and you responded with an emotional response garnered with exactly zero attempts to educate yourself on the research.

    You then conflated the next respondent's comment and mine, suggesting that you were all along talking about "speeding habits" and "excuses". I brought it back to the original comment that started this particular strain of the discussion, which was distinctly about policy.

    But good job avoiding the evidence again!

  99. #299

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    I don't think photo radar tickets are sent out of province...

    And...

    Photo radar doesn't catch people going 4 over the speed limit, unless you are speeding in a school zone, which if you are, you deserve a paddlin.

    Photo Radar is still set to over 10 km/h in 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 km/h zones. Only the 30 zones are 4+ over.


    and again... If you don't speed, you don't get ticket, no matter how they choose to enforce the speed limit.
    This isn't true. Many users here have posted they got a ticket for going 5-6km over as have many others online. The cities stance is 1km/hr over is too many. They deny any buffet exists so let's not pretend like the city has a set policy when they have stated this many times.

  100. #300

    Default

    Even if a road was engineered to feel safe going at 160 mph the vehicle you are driving is not engineered to take a collision at that speed. You have to consider the vehicles capabilities when driving plus the skill of the driver.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." –Mark Twain

Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... 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
  •