Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 LastLast
Results 901 to 1,000 of 1029

Thread: Petition Against Photo Radar Started

  1. #901
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    It's going toward traffic safety inititatives.
    A good-will gesture from the City would have been to announce a traffic safety initiative and inform the public that they were going to implement a zero-tolerance for speeding before they lowered the enforcement speed. A few weeks of television time announcing the initiative may have raised awareness in the general public that speeding was not okay.

    But they didn't.

    Instead they just lowered it and raked in the cash.

    That has all the earmarks of a revenue grab.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  2. #902

    Default

    C of E web-site explain the what's, why's and when's of photo radar. It does state that EPS got $18 + for safety initiatives and where other monies go. It does not actually say how much was collected say in the year 2015 on photo radar fines. That is pretty crafty they way they present their figures.


    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...radar-faq.aspx

    p.s. Last traffic ticket/photo radar I got was about 15 years ago so no horse in this race except I do think the C of E plays dirty.
    "The man who does not read has no advantage over the man who cannot read." ľMark Twain

  3. #903
    I feel in no way entitled to your opinion...

  4. #904

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nobleea View Post
    I've never seen it as a method to improve traffic safety. It's enforcement, pure and simple.
    It's a sin tax, similar to alcohol and cigarettes. Oddly, it becomes much more palatable when you think about it that way.
    But then you can't use deliberately disingenuous & absurdly reductionist fallacious arguments and paint yourself as a freedom fighter armed with a gas pedal instead of a Kalashnikov.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  5. #905
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,889
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  6. #906
    Administrator *
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Queen Mary Park, Edmonton
    Posts
    2,636

    Default

    I noticed they're installing permanent photo radar/red light camera on Gateway Blvd at Whitemud Drive.

  7. #907

    Default

    I'm down with red light cameras, though I'd much rather see demerit enforcement in addition to cash fines.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  8. #908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post

    some random facebook group? I'm not sure I get why you are sending this. I dont facebook so I'm not sure if I'm missing something or not.

  9. #909
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    I noticed they're installing permanent photo radar/red light camera on Gateway Blvd at Whitemud Drive.
    I see - photo radar on the strip with few pedestrians and lights that are timed for 10-15 km/h above the speed limit. Thanks, Edmonton.

    Why not 99 St and Saskatchewan drive, where the road transitions from being designed for a speed much higher than the speed limit to a stretch where 50 km/h is appropriate?

  10. #910
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2016
    Location
    Calgary
    Posts
    108

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Spudly View Post
    I think it'd be a good idea to expedite and encourage the development of apps and integrated systems that read texts to you and allow you to respond by voice. People are already willing to risk their own lives, the lives of others, and 3 demerits... so they wouldn't think twice of what is sure to be a simple evasion procedure of 'driving mode'.

  11. #911

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    I noticed they're installing permanent photo radar/red light camera on Gateway Blvd at Whitemud Drive.
    I see - photo radar on the strip with few pedestrians and lights that are timed for 10-15 km/h above the speed limit. Thanks, Edmonton.
    A location that has frequent serious injury collisions. The lights are timed for many different things, in many different directions, and change depending on flow/time of day.

    I am all for red light cameras.

  12. #912

    Default

    ^Hey we agree on something! Neat
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  13. #913
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by chrisvazquez7 View Post
    I noticed they're installing permanent photo radar/red light camera on Gateway Blvd at Whitemud Drive.
    I see - photo radar on the strip with few pedestrians and lights that are timed for 10-15 km/h above the speed limit. Thanks, Edmonton.
    A location that has frequent serious injury collisions. The lights are timed for many different things, in many different directions, and change depending on flow/time of day.

    I am all for red light cameras.
    I am in favor of red light cameras as well, but the city really needs to do something about the fact that you will hit every green between 34 Av and Whyte if you do 70 - 75 km/h, but not if you do the speed limit.

  14. #914

    Default

    I disagree with your findings. It's an illusion constructed by the beliefs that one should be able to speed at will. Whether you hit all greens or not really depends on traffic and time of day.

  15. #915
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    8,908

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards
    I disagree with your findings. It's an illusion constructed by the beliefs that one should be able to speed at will. Whether you hit all greens or not really depends on traffic and time of day.


    No, he's mostly correct. Light sequences on long stretches of arterial roads in Edmonton seem to be set for vehicles accelerating and traveling far slower than even a car traveling at the speed limit, for whatever reason. I don't pretend to know what formulas they use to set the sequencing, but it's pretty apparent. If you travel well above posted limits, like upwards of 15-20 over, you can skip ahead in the sequence. So if you travel the speed limit, you'll invariably hit a red light every few intersections.

  16. #916

    Default

    It's almost as if a speed limit is some sort of upper bound for how fast someone should be going & not some sort of mandatory minimum acceptable speed that entitles you to interruption-free driving.

    Whodathunkit.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  17. #917

    Default

    It really depends on the time of day.

  18. #918
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's almost as if a speed limit is some sort of upper bound for how fast someone should be going & not some sort of mandatory minimum acceptable speed that entitles you to interruption-free driving.

    Whodathunkit.
    That's what speed limits are supposed to be, but that is rarely how they are actually set - otherwise Scona road would be a 70 km/h zone and highway 2 would be a 130 km/h zone.

    Safety is improved when speed differentials are minimized. If the practice of including significant safety margins in speed limits is to continue, traffic light sequencing should encourage people to drive near the speed limit, and not significantly above or below it.

  19. #919

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    That's what speed limits are supposed to be, but that is rarely how they are actually set - otherwise Scona road would be a 70 km/h zone and highway 2 would be a 130 km/h zone.
    I love how everyone who brings up Scona Road somehow forgets that it runs directly through a residential neighborhood. Sorry, 30 seconds of your commute isn't worth sacrificing the 24/7 safety of the neighborhood.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  20. #920

    Default

    It is winter. On my recent trips down highway 2 as far as Leduc traffic was flowing at near the speed limit, and with the conditions it was about right.
    Since variable (day/night, remember those) speed limits are apparently too hard for drivers to understand the only responsible choice is to set the fixed speed limit at at speed that's safe for 99% of vehicles 99% of the time, not on what you can do in ideal summer daylight conditions.
    There can only be one.

  21. #921
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^^No, 99 St runs through a residential neighborhood. The 50 km/h speed limit between Saskatchewan Drive and Whyte Av is appropriate.

    ^ Lots of variable speed limit signs are being installed in BC.
    Last edited by Titanium48; 14-12-2016 at 11:15 AM.

  22. #922

    Default

    ^^^For Sure.
    It's like some people think that the only people who matter are the ones in cars.
    I agree with them that the design speed should match the speed limit, but it doesn't follow that the speed limit should be raised. The right way to do it is to design a street to match the speed that's acceptable for the location. If the city had done that when they promised the neighborhood that the limit would stay 50 then we would have narrower lanes, wider sidewalks and light poles and trees would have been between the sidewalk and the traffic lanes and not set way back from the curb.
    There can only be one.

  23. #923

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^No, 99 St runs through a residential neighborhood. The 50 km/h speed limit between Saskatchewan Drive and Whyte Av is appropriate.
    Clearly you're driving so fast you can't even notice houses.

    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  24. #924
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

  25. #925

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Connors road should probably be a 50 km/h zone, but 50 km/h on Scona road is too slow.
    Nope

    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...eetJan2016.pdf

  26. #926
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^ I did say that I thought 50 km/h on 99 St, including the intersection with Saskatchewan Drive, was appropriate. The speed limit should increase about 50 m north of the intersection, and the change should be enforced with a permanent camera at the intersection.

  27. #927

    Default

    The study area covered the area you're talking about:



    I'm gonna stick with the recommendations of two independent studies using two different methodologies over the gut feelings of some random forum member who I believe has a flawed understanding of the social contract & obligations involved with being a licenced driver.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  28. #928

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's almost as if a speed limit is some sort of upper bound for how fast someone should be going & not some sort of mandatory minimum acceptable speed that entitles you to interruption-free driving.

    Whodathunkit.
    That's what speed limits are supposed to be, but that is rarely how they are actually set - otherwise Scona road would be a 70 km/h zone and highway 2 would be a 130 km/h zone.

    Safety is improved when speed differentials are minimized. If the practice of including significant safety margins in speed limits is to continue, traffic light sequencing should encourage people to drive near the speed limit, and not significantly above or below it.
    Speed limits are set for all vehicles on the road. 18 wheel semis, small sports sedans and everything between. Larger heavier vehicles often have trouble getting up to those speeds, and its the difference in speeds that causes problems.

  29. #929
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^^ It's not surprising that a study would not suggest an increase in speed limit when 50 km/h is appropriate for 80% of the highlighted area. Consider only the stretch from the low level bridge to 93 Av and a different conclusion will likely be reached. Look at Connors Rd from the top of the hill to the traffic circle and there will likely be a recommendation to reduce the speed limit. These limits are based on history, not road geometry.

  30. #930

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    These limits are based on context & use, not simply road geometry.
    FTFY.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  31. #931
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^ When did I say that? Searches are coming up empty. Not denying that I might have said that at some point, just looking for context.

  32. #932

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^ When did I say that? Searches are coming up empty. Not denying that I might have said that at some point, just looking for context.
    It's a correction to the last sentence in your immediately preceding post, which I "fixed", hence the "FTFY".
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  33. #933
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^ So what is the difference in "context and use" between Scona road and Connors road that justifies a 60 km/h zone on a stretch with frequent intersections at odd angles and a sidewalk and a bunch of people's front yards right next to the road, but a 50 km/h zone on a stretch where the sidewalk is largely protected by a barrier, the houses are behind a wall and there are fewer intersections?

    Another example:
    What is the difference between this: https:[email protected]..7i13312!8i6656
    and this: https:[email protected]..7i13312!8i6656
    except for about 15 blocks and 10 km/h?

  34. #934

    Default

    All of your examples dead straight roads on predominately flat ground.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  35. #935

  36. #936

    Default

    I don't remember any cross streets with bus stops on both sides of the road on that stretch of Connors...

    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  37. #937

  38. #938
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^
    Quote Originally Posted by ALBERTA HIGHWAY GEOMETRIC DESIGN GUIDE
    Speed studies conducted on Alberta highways have shown that the 85th percentile driver generally exceeds the normal speed limit on high speed rural facilities by six to 10 km/h when weather and traffic conditions are favourable.
    Note: The 85th percentile speed is defined as the speed that is exceeded by 15 percent of the sample taken.
    Consequently, the normal speed limit on the finished roadway is an important consideration in selection of design speed. It is desirable that the design speed exceed the normal speed limit by a margin of at least 10 km/h. For example, because the normal speed limit on two-lane highways will be 100 km/h when paved, the appropriate design speed is 110 km/h.
    Cause and effect? Is it not likely that most people routinely speed because speed limits are routinely set substantially below highway design speeds?

  39. #939

    Default

    85% of people stay within the legal limit or in the traditional "fudge zone", while 15% exceed it.

    Seems like most people don't routinely speed & are instead good, law-abiding drivers for the most part.

    The 15% who exceed that are likely lost causes who think they know best & are rallying against an "unjust" law, believe themselves to be inherently superior drivers with superhuman senses than the norm, or naturally-gifted-but-completely-untrained traffic engineers.

    (But that's just my personal breakdown based upon the arguments employed by the people who continue to try and justify why they should be the exception to the rule & should not have to hold up their agreed-upon end of the deal when they took on the privilege of being a licenced operator.)
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  40. #940
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    85% of people stay within the legal limit or in the traditional "fudge zone", while 15% exceed it.
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    It's almost as if a speed limit is some sort of upper bound for how fast someone should be going & not some sort of mandatory minimum acceptable speed that entitles you to interruption-free driving.

    Whodathunkit.
    So which should it be, an absolute upper limit or a suggestion that you should stay close to? I'm OK with either, but we need to be consistent and choose appropriate enforcement tolerances. If we consistently set speed limits at the design speed (= upper bound), then a small (0-5 km/h) enforcement tolerance would be perfectly reasonable. If speed limits are supposed to have a built-in safety margin, then there should be an official tolerance of 10-15 km/h.

  41. #941

    Default

    There is tolerance. Especially since speedometers can be off just by changing tires.

    You don't get a photo radar ticket for doing 109 km/h on the henday. Do 111, and you get a ticket.

    Seems reasonable.

    in a school zone, you should be dragged out of your car and beaten to the point of hospitalization if you're more than 5 km/h above the posted limit.

  42. #942

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    So which should it be, an absolute upper limit or a suggestion that you should stay close to? I'm OK with either, but we need to be consistent and choose appropriate enforcement tolerances. If we consistently set speed limits at the design speed (= upper bound), then a small (0-5 km/h) enforcement tolerance would be perfectly reasonable. If speed limits are supposed to have a built-in safety margin, then there should be an official tolerance of 10-15 km/h.
    The speed limit is a limit, aka an upper bound. It should be enforced as such. It's not a suggestion, or a recommended speed. It's a limit.

    10-15km/h is in no way a reasonable variance for in-city, non-freeway driving.

    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  43. #943
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^^ I suppose I should have been more specific. The tolerance should match the built in safety margin - I was assuming a 10 km/h margin when I suggested a 10 km/h tolerance. For the Henday, substantial amounts of money were spent to ensure it met the standards for a 130 km/h design speed, yet the limit is set at 100 km/h. The tolerance does not match the built in safety margin.

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    in a school zone, you should be dragged out of your car and beaten to the point of hospitalization if you're more than 5 km/h above the posted limit.
    Yet the limit was 20 km/h higher just a few years ago.

  44. #944

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ I suppose I should have been more specific. The tolerance should match the built in safety margin - I was assuming a 10 km/h margin when I suggested a 10 km/h tolerance. For the Henday, substantial amounts of money were spent to ensure it met the standards for a 130 km/h design speed, yet the limit is set at 100 km/h. The tolerance does not match the built in safety margin.
    So what? Drive (up to) the limit. It's what you said you were going to do when you got your licence.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  45. #945
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^^^ If there should not be a tolerance, then the limit should be set at the design speed. Standard braking distances are used by civil engineers to develop the design speed standards. Those standards ensure that a driver will to be able to see a potential obstacle far enough ahead to react and stop in time.

  46. #946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^^ If there should not be a tolerance, then the limit should be set at the design speed.
    Why?
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  47. #947
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^ Because the design speed has been calculated to be the maximum speed at which a vehicle can be safely operated on that road, using the basic standards of road worthiness applicable to all vehicles as inputs. There are safety margins in that calculation (eg. coefficients of friction are based on wet roads), and additional safety margins as a result of the fact that most vehicles exceed the minimum performance standards. Why should something that is supposed to be an absolute maximum, and not a guideline, be set any more conservatively?

  48. #948

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^Because the design speed has been calculated to be the maximum speed at which a vehicle can be safely operated on that road, using the basic standards of road worthiness applicable to all vehicles as inputs. There are safety margins in that calculation (eg. coefficients of friction are based on wet roads), and additional safety margins as a result of the fact that most vehicles exceed the minimum performance standards. Why should something that is supposed to be an absolute maximum, and not a guideline, be set any more conservatively?
    Because roads are only for cars?

    I'm loathe to blockquote Wikipedia, but from their page on speed limits. (emphasis mine)

    Speed limits are usually set to attempt to cap road traffic speed; there are several reasons for wanting to do this. It is often done with an intention to improve road traffic safety and reduce the number of road traffic casualties from traffic collisions. In their World report on road traffic injury prevention report, the World Health Organization (WHO) identify speed control as one of various interventions likely to contribute to a reduction in road casualties. (The WHO estimated that some 1.2 million people were killed and 50 million injured on the roads around the world in 2004.) Speed limits may also be set in an attempt to reduce the environmental impact of road traffic (vehicle noise, vibration, emissions) and to satisfy local community wishes for streets usable by people out of cars. Some cities have reduced limits to as little as 30 km/h (19 mph) for both safety and efficiency reasons.
    Turns out there's more to why a given speed limit may be different from whatever design speed it may be capable of handling. Like Scona Road, which despite it being a wide, multi-lane road that feeds into the aborted, overbuilt, vestigial METS roadworks is actually a residential street & not a commuter arterial because it turns out people have the audacity to live adjacent to it & might actually want to exist in their neighborhood outside of a motor vehicle.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  49. #949

  50. #950

    Default

    While a road's design speed is sometimes used to determine an initial speed limit, it is an imperfect measure of the maximum speed at which a motor vehicle can be operated for reasons including:

    • It is only a theoretical or laboratory measurement created before a road is even built.
    • The highest design speed for a road or segment is the design speed of its least favorable part. For example, given a road segment with a 60 mph design speed except for a curve with a 45 mph design speed, the entire segment would have a 45 mph design speed. In reality, the road may have a 45 mph advisory speed on the curve and higher safe operating speeds elsewhere.
    • The design speed may be higher than legislated speed limit caps, so it would not be legal to sign some roads at their design speeds.[1][2])
    • It is based on the capabilities of vehicles and roadways that existed at or before the design speed was determined. Vehicular and roadway technologies generally improve over time. Therefore, as time elapses from when a roadway's original design speed was determined, it is increasingly likely that a design speed will underestimate the maximum safe speed.

    Recognizing the limitations on the use of the design speed for speed limit determination, "operating speeds and even posted speed limits can be higher than design speeds without necessarily compromising safety"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_speed

  51. #951
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Because roads are only for cars?
    I am all for reallocating space to non-automobile users in urban areas. Boulevards, trees, wider sidewalks and bike lanes are all good things. Reducing and/or narrowing traffic lanes and planting trees beside a road will also reduce traffic speeds, regardless of what is printed on the speed limit signs.

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Turns out there's more to why a given speed limit may be different from whatever design speed it may be capable of handling. Like Scona Road, which despite it being a wide, multi-lane road that feeds into the aborted, overbuilt, vestigial METS roadworks is actually a residential street & not a commuter arterial because it turns out people have the audacity to live adjacent to it & might actually want to exist in their neighborhood outside of a motor vehicle.
    Yes, there are many things in the urban environment that can affect the maximum safe speed. South of 93 Av, 99 St has narrower lanes, development and sidewalks immediately adjacent and occasional on-street parking, all good reasons for leaving the speed limit there at 50 km/h. Scona road north of 93 Av has wider lanes, no parking, and all of the development is either set well back or is behind a wall.

    How does setting the speed limit on Scona road artificially low allow increase the accessibility of that space to non-motorized users? If there is a need for space re-allocation, lets come up with a plan to diet the road and provide new amenities for non-motorized users. If that results in a reduction in the design speed, then so be it. That would certainly result in better compliance with and less complaints about the 50 km/h speed limit. However, you can't say Scona road / 99 St is not a commuter arterial when deciding on the best compromise between user groups. It is one of only a handful of roads connecting the south side to a river crossing. The situation is much like 97 St on the north side of the river. South of 118 Av it runs through a residential neighborhood immediately adjacent to houses and the speed limit is 50 km/h. North of 118 Av there are boulevards or service roads separating the residential development from the through lanes and the speed limit is 60 km/h. Why shouldn't Scona Road / 99 St be treated the same way?

  52. #952
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Turns out there's more to why a given speed limit may be different from whatever design speed it may be capable of handling. Like Scona Road, which despite it being a wide, multi-lane road that feeds into the aborted, overbuilt, vestigial METS roadworks is actually a residential street & not a commuter arterial because it turns out people have the audacity to live adjacent to it & might actually want to exist in their neighborhood outside of a motor vehicle.
    Your condescension makes me wonder if you're a sock puppet for a City Manager, or just puffed up with self-importance from posting on here so much.

    Because when Scona Road turns into 98th Ave by the Muttart Conservatory -- which is actually a residential street -- the speed limit is posted at 60. What about those citizens?

    Inconsistent speed policies like this just reinforce to me that safety is not the primary concern -- it's all about the money.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  53. #953

    Default

    they love to bicker and toot their own horns

  54. #954

    Default

    Have you seen your own posts mr westrich?

    anyways, scona road should be 60. The only reason its not is because of the community around it making noise. The road was originally going to be signed 60, it was designed to be 60.

  55. #955

    Default

    Iveson must be steaming over Drayton Valley and their Mayor's comments over photo radar:

    "I'm not sorry that it went to a vote," he said. "The community asked us to implement it and we wanted to do a check-in and see if that support still existed.
    "Anecdotally, of course we hear all sorts of things both for and against it. The only way to do it scientifically was by a vote and decisions are made by those who show up."

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...gram-1.4063796

    Take a look Iveson - some mayors listen to their communities.

  56. #956

    Default

    What programs would you want cut to replace the $18M in lost EPS funding? Or, alternatively, what areas of policing do you feel are currently overstaffed & could be cut without consequence to the service or the city?
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  57. #957

    Default

    Oh so it is a cash cow

  58. #958

    Default

    No, it's a revenue positive way of enforcing the rules & providing for traffic safety initiatives.

    Is it the revenue positive aspect, the rule enforcement or the traffic safety initiatives you're most against?
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  59. #959

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zims23 View Post


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...gram-1.4063796

    Take a look Iveson - some mayors listen to their communities.
    I support photo radar. Seems like Iveson is listening to communities. Vocal minority. silent majority.

    Drayton Valley probably doesn't have any where near the amount of traffic issues Edmonton does.

    Drayton Valley. Population 7,300

    Edmonton city proper: 900,000, Metro region 1,300,000.

    I'm sure what happens in Drayton Valley doesn't really apply to Edmonton... but go on, tell us why Iveson is going to be steaming?
    Last edited by Medwards; 11-04-2017 at 11:05 AM.

  60. #960

    Default

    I'm all for photo radar in the high risk areas and so think it's a great tool. Or where the most severe accidents occur as in intersections.

    I'm not so favourable towards using radar as a cash cow or for random reinforcement.

    My love for photo radar on overpasses on the Anthony Henday overlooking one way divided roadways, is not so great. Yes there's the on ramps further up but the biggest problem there is that arriving traffic doesn't speed up to match the speed of the existing traffic, thus causing people to swerve to the left - maybe in front of that speeding left lane driver. Pulling onto a freeway at 60 kph is unacceptable and it's endangering existing traffic. Improved signage on the on ramps is needed.

    So, here's a question: why do "traffic calming" devices work? Answer: because people naturally speed up and slow down according to their perception of risk. Hence they drive faster on open divided freeways and on empty side roads.
    Last edited by KC; 11-04-2017 at 11:32 AM.

  61. #961

    Default

    If Iveson could clone himself and run against his clone, and the only difference in platform was their stance on photo radar, I'm confident the no-photo radar Iveson would destroy the other. If a really good candidate came along that had the removal or complete reworking of photo radar as a piece of their platform, Iveson would be in for a rude awakening and a tough battle.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  62. #962

    Default

    Well if the only difference was their stance on automated enforcement of course the second guy would win: he'd be a literal wizard capable of pulling money out of thin air, because automated enforcement doesn't exist in a vacuum & the funding that it provides would need to be replaced elsewhere.

    Where do you envision your IveClone finding/cutting the $18M needed to fill the hole in EPS' budget?
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  63. #963

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Where do you envision your IveClone finding/cutting the $18M needed to fill the hole in EPS' budget?
    Not doing this, would mean fewer EPS would be needed - but in reality, it doesn't go into a special EPS fund, it goes into "general revenues" like every other tax and fee the city collects.

  64. #964
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    I'm all for photo radar in the high risk areas and so think it's a great tool. Or where the most severe accidents occur as in intersections.

    I'm not so favourable towards using radar as a cash cow or for random reinforcement.

    My love for photo radar on overpasses on the Anthony Henday overlooking one way divided roadways, is not so great. Yes there's the on ramps further up but the biggest problem there is that arriving traffic doesn't speed up to match the speed of the existing traffic, thus causing people to swerve to the left - maybe in front of that speeding left lane driver. Pulling onto a freeway at 60 kph is unacceptable and it's endangering existing traffic. Improved signage on the on ramps is needed.

    So, here's a question: why do "traffic calming" devices work? Answer: because people naturally speed up and slow down according to their perception of risk. Hence they drive faster on open divided freeways and on empty side roads.
    This. I don't have a problem with automated enforcement, I have a problem with the "rules are rules" approach to speed limits that sets limits artificially low and concentrates enforcement where it will produce the most revenue rather than where it will provide the most direct safety benefits. Things like hiding on Henday overpasses or in construction zones after hours when all the workers are at home. The Henday was engineered for speeds of 130 km/h under good conditions, but politics overrode engineering considerations to set the limit 30 km/h lower. That, I have a problem with.

  65. #965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    it doesn't go into a special EPS fund, it goes into "general revenues" like every other tax and fee the city collects.
    If you're going to lie through your teeth in an attempt to try and stir the pot as you are wont to do, please at least have the basic courtesy & respect to not spout falsehoods that are not only blatant but have actively been disproven previously in the thread.

    Revenue generated by photo enforcement does NOT go into general revenue. Revenue from photo radar can only be spent on traffic safety programs, not on general City expenses.
    Revenue covers operating costs of automated enforcement including a base allocation to Edmonton Police Service. In 2015, Edmonton Police Service received $18 million from automated enforcement.

    • 15% of the total fine is given to Victims Services
    • 16.67% goes to the Alberta Government
    • The remaining fine balance goes to the Reserve Fund and is used to fund safety and community projects at Council’s direction
    • Any late payment penalty attached to the fine goes to the province (amount of $20 or 20%, whichever is greater)
    • Speed infractions follow the specified penalties as listed in the Alberta Traffic Safety Act
    https://www.edmonton.ca/transportati...radar-faq.aspx
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  66. #966

    Default

    ^my bad. Its effectively the same though - given any EPS shortfall is funded by the City.

  67. #967

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^my bad. Its effectively the same though - given any EPS shortfall is funded by the City.
    And where do they get the money to cover the shortfalls from? The Traffic Safety & Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund. Which would also disappear if we got rid of Automated Enforcement, increasing the likelihood of needing to dip into other revenue sources to cover any unforeseen wrinkles in the EPS' budgets.

    For the record, these are the only places that can dip into the TSAERF:

    With the approval of policy C579, included as attachment 2 to this report, funding allocations from the reserve can be made to the following:

    a) The Office of Traffic Safety

    b) Edmonton Police Services

    c) Other traffic safety programs as approved by City Council in the capital or operating budget.

    d) Community infrastructure programs such as, but not limited to, the Community Facility Partner Capital Grant Program and the Community League Infrastructure Grant Program.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  68. #968

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Where do you envision your IveClone finding/cutting the $18M needed to fill the hole in EPS' budget?
    Not doing this, would mean fewer EPS would be needed - but in reality, it doesn't go into a special EPS fund, it goes into "general revenues" like every other tax and fee the city collects.
    fewer EPS would be needed? How do you arrive at this? It's not EPS sitting in the photo radar trucks. Further, traffic enforcement is still required, if we abolished photo radar, we would tie up more of EPS with traffic duties. Your proposal actually does the opposite of what you think it would.

    note: the people sitting in photo radar trucks are commisioners. Security Guards.

  69. #969

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    fewer EPS would be needed? How do you arrive at this? It's not EPS sitting in the photo radar trucks. Further, traffic enforcement is still required, if we abolished photo radar, we would tie up more of EPS with traffic duties.
    People only speed in Edmonton to "stick it to the man" & without "the man" "keeping people down" they won't need to maintain their lead-footed protests & as such the need for traffic enforcement will go down, freeing up cops.

    Simple, really.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  70. #970
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    YEG
    Posts
    1,498

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^my bad. Its effectively the same though - given any EPS shortfall is funded by the City.
    And where do they get the money to cover the shortfalls from? The Traffic Safety & Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund. Which would also disappear if we got rid of Automated Enforcement, increasing the likelihood of needing to dip into other revenue sources to cover any unforeseen wrinkles in the EPS' budgets.

    For the record, these are the only places that can dip into the TSAERF:

    With the approval of policy C579, included as attachment 2 to this report, funding allocations from the reserve can be made to the following:

    a) The Office of Traffic Safety

    b) Edmonton Police Services

    c) Other traffic safety programs as approved by City Council in the capital or operating budget.

    d) Community infrastructure programs such as, but not limited to, the Community Facility Partner Capital Grant Program and the Community League Infrastructure Grant Program.

    Personally I would prefer that the EPS have a funding shortfall due to automated enforcement being cut, and aligning the EPS with every other police force on the continent, where every car is equipped to pull over speeders and all officers are trained in traffic safety.

    I have sped past more marked cars without the officer so much as batting an eyelash that it isn't even funny, in the City of Calgary I never would have gotten away with that. Every car in the CPS and RCMP with the exception of the obvious few are equipped with radar technology.

    Being pulled over and given a warning to correct my behaviour at the time of incident or even a fine with demerits that potentially could cause me to loose my license to drive and increase my insurance premiums is a greater deterrent to speeding or stunting.

    I feel much safer knowing that a marked or unmarked car can pull over a dangerous driver to correct their behaviour before someone gets seriously hurt, whereas that photo that gets taken will be weeks waiting to arrive. By that time someone's child could have been hit while crossing the street or an entire family wiped out by that speeding/distracted driver.

  71. #971

  72. #972
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GranaryMan View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    ^my bad. Its effectively the same though - given any EPS shortfall is funded by the City.
    And where do they get the money to cover the shortfalls from? The Traffic Safety & Automated Enforcement Reserve Fund. Which would also disappear if we got rid of Automated Enforcement, increasing the likelihood of needing to dip into other revenue sources to cover any unforeseen wrinkles in the EPS' budgets.

    For the record, these are the only places that can dip into the TSAERF:

    With the approval of policy C579, included as attachment 2 to this report, funding allocations from the reserve can be made to the following:

    a) The Office of Traffic Safety

    b) Edmonton Police Services

    c) Other traffic safety programs as approved by City Council in the capital or operating budget.

    d) Community infrastructure programs such as, but not limited to, the Community Facility Partner Capital Grant Program and the Community League Infrastructure Grant Program.

    Personally I would prefer that the EPS have a funding shortfall due to automated enforcement being cut, and aligning the EPS with every other police force on the continent, where every car is equipped to pull over speeders and all officers are trained in traffic safety.

    I have sped past more marked cars without the officer so much as batting an eyelash that it isn't even funny, in the City of Calgary I never would have gotten away with that. Every car in the CPS and RCMP with the exception of the obvious few are equipped with radar technology.

    Being pulled over and given a warning to correct my behaviour at the time of incident or even a fine with demerits that potentially could cause me to loose my license to drive and increase my insurance premiums is a greater deterrent to speeding or stunting.

    I feel much safer knowing that a marked or unmarked car can pull over a dangerous driver to correct their behaviour before someone gets seriously hurt, whereas that photo that gets taken will be weeks waiting to arrive. By that time someone's child could have been hit while crossing the street or an entire family wiped out by that speeding/distracted driver.
    Agreed. The only way to enforce is with a constable catching the drunk,stoned,dangerous driver(excessive speed),disqualified,no insurance,stolen plates, ect ect.How does a camera do this again?? Photo radar=pay to speed with no repercussions for bad habits. Period.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  73. #973
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Strathcona - Mill Creek
    Posts
    4,635

    Default

    Just because you have photo radar doesn't mean you don't have constables pulling people over as well. The two can, and do, co-exist. AND, photo radar isn't tying up an EPS officer.
    They're going to park their car over there. You're going to park your car over here. Get it?

  74. #974

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Photo radar=pay to speed with no repercussions for bad habits. Period.
    If the fines aren't a stern enough penalty then perhaps we should look at increasing the penalties rather than scrapping the system entirely. No sense throwing away a revenue-positive way of funding traffic safety initiatives because some Edmontonians are too proudly belligerent to actually change their behaviours when punished.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  75. #975

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Photo radar=pay to speed with no repercussions for bad habits. Period.
    If the fines aren't a stern enough penalty then perhaps we should look at increasing the penalties rather than scrapping the system entirely. No sense throwing away a revenue-positive way of funding traffic safety initiatives because some Edmontonians are too proudly belligerent to actually change their behaviours when punished.
    I would only agree with this if it's tied to income like in some European countries. Handing some rich douche a $37,000 ticket for speeding is OK by me, but not handing the same ticket to a poor person. However, this is my issue with fines in general. They're only onerous to some. People with money can flaunt the rules. If we raise it so they sting the wealthy, it becomes increasingly biased on the poor (it already is). When it comes to driving, I prefer demerits on any infraction - that sting is universal.
    "Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction" - Blaise Pascal

  76. #976

    Default

    I agree. Fines based on the value of the vehicle could also work. Vehicle siezure could also be considered, and fines can escalate based on the number of infractions on the registered owner.

    Some fines are already too high, though. Rolling through a stop to turn right with no one around gets the same fine as blasting through without slowing down, and that doesn't make sense.
    There can only be one.

  77. #977

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I would only agree with this if it's tied to income like in some European countries. Handing some rich douche a $37,000 ticket for speeding is OK by me, but not handing the same ticket to a poor person.
    I guess if a rich person murders someone, they should spend longer in jail than a poor person as well? Since, per your brilliant logic, rich people are "douches" and poor people are "angels".

  78. #978

    Default

    ^You can't possibly be that stupid.
    There can only be one.

  79. #979
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,276

    Default

    ^^ You really don't see the difference between fines and incarceration? A $200 fine is major hardship for someone who can barely afford a car, but a minor annoyance for someone who makes enough money to regularly buy new cars. Spending time in jail is an equal hardship for anyone (except maybe for the poorest of the poor, for whom it may have some upside).

  80. #980

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chmilz View Post
    I would only agree with this if it's tied to income like in some European countries. Handing some rich douche a $37,000 ticket for speeding is OK by me, but not handing the same ticket to a poor person.
    I guess if a rich person murders someone, they should spend longer in jail than a poor person as well? Since, per your brilliant logic, rich people are "douches" and poor people are "angels".
    The logic does not quite stand up - going to prison is not a monetary penalty, so it is a deterrence to both poor and rich. In fact it might be more of deterrence to a rich person - someone who is homeless or poor may not be deterred by getting free heated accommodation with meals provided even if it is somewhat spartan.

    However a fixed monetary fine works the opposite way. A $300 speeding ticket might be a huge deterrence to a poor person, that amount may be no deterrence at all to a very wealthy person.

  81. #981

    Default

    A more apt comparison would be fines for the rich vs the poor compared to length of incarceration for young vs old, not rich vs poor. But moahunter isn't interested in apt comparisons, just stirring the pot.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  82. #982

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    ^^ You really don't see the difference between fines and incarceration? A $200 fine is major hardship for someone who can barely afford a car, but a minor annoyance for someone who makes enough money to regularly buy new cars. Spending time in jail is an equal hardship for anyone (except maybe for the poorest of the poor, for whom it may have some upside).
    How do you know the "rich" person, lets say measured on the basis of salary, or value of auto (which is a particularly poor measure as many wealthier people have more modest vehicles - I see more fancy autos often in "poor" neighborhood's than "rich ones"), doesn't have more financial hardship than the "poor" person? I have known plenty of supposedly rich people who can be toppled by one bill, because of expenses related to a costly house, a business obligation / loan, or whatever. By the logic in this thread, should we also charge rich people more for food, because supposedly they can afford more? How about for car registrations? Or for using a city swimming pool? At what point are you discriminating because you are hopelessly jealous?

  83. #983

    Default

    We're talking about the need to make the fine a deterrent. It needs to be enough to hurt, and it should hurt proportionally.

    That there are overextended people at all income levels doesn't matter. All else being equal, a $50 fine is just as likely to break someone with an average income as a $500 fine is to break someone with 10x the income.

    More so, actually, since the real basics cost the same no matter that your income is. Rich people can survive on the same crappy food as poor people can.

    There should be a minimum fine, though, no further discounts for an income less than say $40,000. People making less but still driving are more likely to be dependents with no base expenses, or be earning under the table, or living on savings.
    There can only be one.

  84. #984

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    We're talking about the need to make the fine a deterrent.
    I don't think the size of the fine is going to impact whether someone notices a particularly stupid reduction in speed for 100m's, on an arterial (which is where the speed camera traps are often set up - not where there are accidents, or safety issues, but where the most revenue can be taken from someone who hasn't been through the location before). Speed camera's aren't about deterance (there is no evidence they have lowed speeds in any city where they exist, the evidence is actually the opposite - they cause distraction / driver accidents), they are purely and simply about extracting the most revenue from people who make a mistake. As to people who do stupidly speed everywhere - you catch them with undercover EPS vehicles, and hit them through demerits which impact/hurt everyone rich or poor.
    Last edited by moahunter; 13-04-2017 at 11:22 AM.

  85. #985

    Default

    The size of the fine will affect whether he will slow down for the ones that he does notice. Or whether he starts driving slower in general to avoid riding on the edge.

    The city has installed a lot more of the instant feedback signs, more of them in those places where speed limits drop - they should be at all locations where the speed limits drop on an arterial without a massive change in design (like 97st southbound at 118ave). And guess what? they're installing those signs with photo radar money. In the past year they've installed them upstream of the most common photo-radar spots in my area. if they keep up that strategy your excuse will be gone soon.
    There can only be one.

  86. #986
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    185

    Default

    As I've said here before, in over 250,000 km's of driving in the last 15+ years I have only received 2 speeding tickets, both photo radar, and both in a zone that went from 60 to 50, and both shortly after the so called "fudge zone" had been decreased by the City without the benefit of a public announcement of the safety initiative. I don't consider myself heavy-footed in the least.

    The City has a spot along 106th Ave, near 73rd Street where they set up photo radar to catch speeders coming down the hill and crossing the bridge that spans Gretzky Drive, and to catch speeders coming off the off-ramp from WG. The 60 km signs have been replaced with the yellow versions. But the 2nd sign pictured below now specifies "Ramp 60 km".

    https:[email protected]..7i13312!8i6656

    If the City is really more concerned about safety than a revenue positive way of enforcing the rules they would have replaced the above pictured 60km sign with a 50km sign. At that point if a person comes off that ramp onto 106 Ave at 60 they should pay the price.

    It was announced this week on the TV News that distracted driving accidents have surpassed DUI accidents. For now... If the City wants to continue with their duplicitous photo radar policy, fine, but they should be forced to fund an EPS traffic detail designed specifically to target distracted driving, and DUI. I think it's especially appropriate since the Cannabis Act was tabled last week.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  87. #987
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Any one see this? https://www.facebook.com/FairAlbertaRoads/

    https://fairalbertaroads.ca/take-action

    And this link is my favourite! A heat map of collision sites versus Photo Radar sites:
    https://maps.fairalbertaroads.ca/col...form=hootsuite

  88. #988
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by David Jackson View Post
    Any one see this? https://www.facebook.com/FairAlbertaRoads/

    https://fairalbertaroads.ca/take-action

    And this link is my favourite! A heat map of collision sites versus Photo Radar sites:
    https://maps.fairalbertaroads.ca/col...form=hootsuite
    Thanks for the links.!!!
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  89. #989
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    South Beverly Heights in a small house with a large lot!!
    Posts
    1,889

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    The size of the fine will affect whether he will slow down for the ones that he does notice. Or whether he starts driving slower in general to avoid riding on the edge.

    The city has installed a lot more of the instant feedback signs, more of them in those places where speed limits drop - they should be at all locations where the speed limits drop on an arterial without a massive change in design (like 97st southbound at 118ave). And guess what? they're installing those signs with photo radar money. In the past year they've installed them upstream of the most common photo-radar spots in my area. if they keep up that strategy your excuse will be gone soon.
    Demerits and suspensions deter bad driving. Not a simple fine and some mickey mouse signage.
    Make the RIGHT choice before you take your last breath......

  90. #990
    C2E Stole my Heart!!!!
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    8,908

    Default

    Isn't that heat map linked above a bit, well, intellectually dishonest? Correct me if I'm wrong, but no collisions show up on the Henday, because it's a provincial road and the CoE wouldn't collect stats on them. That being said, it's absolutely no surprise to see that the top deployment and revenue locations are on the Henday or incoming highways, typically on exit ramps or deceleration lanes, and in locations where it is virtually impossible for a driver to spot the photo radar as it is located on a bridge structure above. Because it's about generating revenue. So put it on the highest volume roads in locations where people will be transitioning between speed limits. Bam, tens of millions of dollars of revenue that does very little to actually reduce accident rates. Because accident rates on modern highways/freeways/expressways like the Henday and 16/2 are already extremely low as compared to arterial roads and intersections with lights.
    Last edited by Marcel Petrin; 18-04-2017 at 10:43 AM.

  91. #991
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,847

    Default

    ^Plus the heat map is mostly intersections, where photo radar isn't going to have an impact anyways.

    Actual studies show photo radar (automated enforcement) leads to a decrease in collisions with the largest decrease in severe collisions. People like to say only demerits and suspensions work, but it's factually not true. They may be MORE effective, but they're not the only effective thing. Automated enforcement works and more than pays for itself.

  92. #992

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Channing View Post
    Automated enforcement works and more than pays for itself, including EPS & a panoply of other safety initiatives like speed reader boards & intersection modifications.
    Elaborated on your excellent point.
    Giving less of a damn than everů Happily ignoring the ignorant rather than getting in a battle of wits with unarmed opponents. Proudly banned from SSP.

  93. #993

    Default

    ^^ Not only is it intersections, it appears to be just 40 locations, and we all know that there have been crashes in far more locations than that. I know I've witnessed crashes or the aftermath in other location just is the past couple months.

    One interesting point that the maps tells me is that our highest crash locations seem to be at intersections on 60km/hr or faster arterial roads. Far fewer reported crashes on narrower arterials with 50km/hr speed limits. Maybe that's something that they should look at?
    There can only be one.

  94. #994
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    1,847

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Highlander II View Post
    ^^ Not only is it intersections, it appears to be just 40 locations, and we all know that there have been crashes in far more locations than that. I know I've witnessed crashes or the aftermath in other location just is the past couple months.

    One interesting point that the maps tells me is that our highest crash locations seem to be at intersections on 60km/hr or faster arterial roads. Far fewer reported crashes on narrower arterials with 50km/hr speed limits. Maybe that's something that they should look at?
    Actually I'm wrong, it's half intersections, half mid-block. All the midblock are on freeways though, except the High level, with six of the locations on the Whitemud and three on the Yellowhead. it's almost like the roads that have the most volume will have the most collisions.

    The heatmap thing doesn't really tell you, or me, or anyone anything. It's just data shown in a format to try and prove a point. But it's only confrontational bias proof. It's basically useless, not statistically valid. It's comparing apples and oranges. And only for the 'top' of the lists, not full actual heatmaps.

  95. #995

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cnr67 View Post
    Demerits and suspensions deter bad driving. Not a simple fine and some mickey mouse signage.
    Speeding fines deter fast driving.

    Mickey Mouse signs eliminate excuses for bad drivers when they get caught for fast driving.

    Car issues like bad brakes, dark tints, bumper heights and failed lights should be dealt with at registration, which should cost twice as much and include an annual safety inspection. With no warning, just you don't get your renewal if you don't pass.

    That would leave police to deal with only the actual bad or criminally negligent driving - failure to yield, distracted or impaired driving, stunting, whatever. Which would keep us all safer.
    There can only be one.

  96. #996

    Default

    Its not about safety (which would target people well over the limit), its purely about money (as targeting innocent mistakes).

    When the police led the program, the guideline for handing out a ticket was to those drivers who went 15 km/h or more over the speed limit, White said. But when the city took over, that threshold dropped to 10 km/h in location after location. Not all of our roads have been dropped to the 10 km/h threshold, White said, but that’s in the works.

    “Fifteen (km/h over) was fair,” White said of the police department’s guideline. “You’re speeding … You get your ticket the first time, you pay your ***** tax.

    “But 10 (km/h over), it is so easy to go 10 over … It just didn’t seem fair.”

    If operators did not get high numbers of violations, they were directed to go to sites where more speeders would be caught, White said. “That’s not about safety anymore. That’s about, ‘Let’s get the numbers up.'”

    One other issue is that the radar equipment is old and inconsistent, White said. A plus or minus two km/h variance is tolerated, which means people are now getting tickets for eight km/h over the speed limit, he said. “There are certain radars, we all knew they were low, so it was like, ‘I got (radar gun) 0052, watch my numbers. They’re going to be skyrocketing.'”

    What to make of White’s allegations?

    Traffic experts say that when it comes to speed, most accidents are caused by drivers going way over or way under the speed limit. However the speed limit is set, the vast majority of drivers drive safely with the flow of traffic, based on road and weather conditions. The city’s photo radar crackdown did not coincide with any major drops in accidents. Jurisdictions such as Sherwood Park, which have axed photo radar note operated by police, haven’t experienced chaos on the streets.
    http://edmontonjournal.com/news/loca...former-insider
    Last edited by moahunter; 18-04-2017 at 01:12 PM.

  97. #997

    Default

    You are a pretty bad driver if you cant keep to the posted speed limit.

    going 60 in a 50 zone is 20% over the limit

  98. #998
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You are a pretty bad driver if you cant keep to the posted speed limit.

    going 60 in a 50 zone is 20% over the limit
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    Police don't need to follow speed limits... its written in the traffic act.
    So a policeman driving 60 in a 50 zone is not a bad driver... But if he's off duty then he is a bad driver?

    But what if he's late for work and he's rushing to get there? Is he a bad driver or a good driver?
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

  99. #999
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Edmonton
    Posts
    1,337

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You are a pretty bad driver if you cant keep to the posted speed limit.

    going 60 in a 50 zone is 20% over the limit
    Oh get off your high horse. If you claim you've never had your speed creep up on you, then I don't want to be anywhere near you, since your attention is so focused on the spedometer, and not on the road.

  100. #1000
    Becoming a C2E Power Poster
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Forest Heights
    Posts
    185

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lobbdogg View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Medwards View Post
    You are a pretty bad driver if you cant keep to the posted speed limit.

    going 60 in a 50 zone is 20% over the limit
    Oh get off your high horse. If you claim you've never had your speed creep up on you, then I don't want to be anywhere near you, since your attention is so focused on the spedometer, and not on the road.
    Lobbdogg, you do realize that you risk alienating people when you insist on using logic as a basis for your replies.
    ˙
    ...From this ragged handful of tents and cabins one day will rise a city...

Page 10 of 11 FirstFirst ... 67891011 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
  •