Speed-camera threat — Doug Ford shows he's the irresponsible driver's best friend
-
No, he’s driving a normal speed in a residential zone (40) and then the limit suddenly changes to 30 because a school is nearby but he doesn’t know that because he’s a food delivery driver who doesn’t know the area, so he gets a ticket instantly when the speed limit changes.
In so many words, he’s speeding through a school zone, so hopefully he’ll eventually learn to pay attention to school zone signs. If the school zone sign is occluded or for some reason not visible, he should take that to the city and easily use that to dispute the ticket.
The fines can’t scale with income because the city doesn’t know your income (no city income tax).
That’s not really an impediment. The city can know your income, even if they currently don’t.
has a conflict of interest between changing behaviour and collecting revenue
This is very easily fixed via policy, i.e. by forcing via legislation that automated enforcement revenue has to be dedicated to traffic calming projects.
This is very easily fixed via policy, i.e. by forcing via legislation that automated enforcement revenue has to be dedicated to traffic calming projects.
It could be, but it isn’t and it never will be. Governments never do this. They never accept limits on their own power. They always look to expand their power and fight against checks on it.
Whenever you think “maybe a government program for this would be great” you should follow up with “what if bad actors got elected?” and then recognize that bad actors are more likely to get elected due to the personality traits that politics select for.
-
This is very easily fixed via policy, i.e. by forcing via legislation that automated enforcement revenue has to be dedicated to traffic calming projects.
It could be, but it isn’t and it never will be. Governments never do this. They never accept limits on their own power. They always look to expand their power and fight against checks on it.
Whenever you think “maybe a government program for this would be great” you should follow up with “what if bad actors got elected?” and then recognize that bad actors are more likely to get elected due to the personality traits that politics select for.
I understand where you’re coming from but I’ll disagree that it’s more relevant than the already existing and very real risk of people dying in traffic. Even if the city just absorbs ticket revenue and use that for another gym equipment for a bro mayor, I’ll happily support more and widespread enforcement of traffic violations. I also have some privacy concerns with having surveillance everywhere, but again, people die because of driver negligence all too often and we’re not going to rebuild these roads any time soon so until then yeah tax the shit out of speeders - promotional to income would be ideal but won’t wait for it either.
-
I don’t tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?
Aren’t residential streets lower speeds too, so unless you’re speeding there you’re going slower on purpose?
And if you don’t speed, why do you avoid areas with cameras?
It’s when they drop more arterial roads to low speeds like 50km/h or even less that taking shortcuts through residential roads becomes more enticing. And doing 55km/h or 60 in 50 zones is pretty normal when there’s no camera. Yes it’s technically speeding, but very common.
-
It’s when they drop more arterial roads to low speeds like 50km/h or even less that taking shortcuts through residential roads becomes more enticing. And doing 55km/h or 60 in 50 zones is pretty normal when there’s no camera. Yes it’s technically speeding, but very common.
Sure but you haven’t actually answered either question
-
Sure but you haven’t actually answered either question
I think the reference to ‘shortcut’ explains the first. And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?
-
Frankly, at the fundamental root of the problem, is the fact that it is far too easy to ‘speed’ in a car. The basic design of the control system and the speedometer is to completely give the driver a completely erroneous feedback of the estimate of the speed of the car, and completely inadequate information on when and by how much the peed limit is being exceeded by. Not to mention the design of the road. Some roads are designed to give completely faulty feedback on the actual speed you are going. A driver should not have to completely keep watch on a sometimes inconspicuous speed indicator to know how fast they are going. That is why my suggestion for far more automatic radar signage that gives direct feedback on the speed the car is going at, compared to the established speed limit. especially in high-risk zones.
I do think highly of good road design, as some countries in Europe have shown, can reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities greatly. I think road design has a far greater impact than automatic radar signage.
Vehicles controlled by humans will always have to tend with the fact that humans make mistakes. One of the first things learned in drivers ed is that the ability to balance focus on multiple variables: signage, road conditions, other drivers, etc. . . is vital to the skill of driving. So, if people will make mistakes, maybe rarely or maybe often, I would put automatic radar signage somewhat low on the list of speed prevention measures, as it is employed often enough, but isn’t as strong as a deterrent as a fine for speeding.
A crime is a crime, and a crime unpunished will be repeated for lack thereof, because humans are imperfect. I do think the larger issue is the reliance on cars in Ontario, but that’s a larger issue, that Doug Ford will never address with any depth.
-
I think the reference to ‘shortcut’ explains the first. And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?
And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?
Yes please, because “going a few km/h over the limit” doesn’t trigger those cameras, there’s quite a generous threshold (manufacturers give it a healthy margin to not have it within measurement error variances). Generally you need to be 10km/h or more above the limit to get a ticket.
So if you are not speeding, there’s no reason to avoid routes with cameras. So do spell it out why would you prefer going 30 to 50km/h through a residential zone instead of going 50km/h through a normal arterial just because there are cameras.
-
And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?
Yes please, because “going a few km/h over the limit” doesn’t trigger those cameras, there’s quite a generous threshold (manufacturers give it a healthy margin to not have it within measurement error variances). Generally you need to be 10km/h or more above the limit to get a ticket.
So if you are not speeding, there’s no reason to avoid routes with cameras. So do spell it out why would you prefer going 30 to 50km/h through a residential zone instead of going 50km/h through a normal arterial just because there are cameras.
There are reports of tickets for 2km/h over. penalties start at 1km/h over.
Whatever - you do you. I’ll stick to the smaller roads away from the cameras. No risk to me then. -
There are reports of tickets for 2km/h over. penalties start at 1km/h over.
Whatever - you do you. I’ll stick to the smaller roads away from the cameras. No risk to me then.Cameras here don’t work that way. The usual implementation is that nothing within 10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher, because the sensor doesn’t have that accuracy, so you’re making your life harder for no reason
-
Cameras here don’t work that way. The usual implementation is that nothing within 10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher, because the sensor doesn’t have that accuracy, so you’re making your life harder for no reason
10% of 30km/h is 3km/h. So by your metrics if you’re 3km/h over you can get a fine. And if it’s accuracy is so bad, then it might give you a ticket for 31km/h even if it’s threshold is set to 10%
-
10% of 30km/h is 3km/h. So by your metrics if you’re 3km/h over you can get a fine. And if it’s accuracy is so bad, then it might give you a ticket for 31km/h even if it’s threshold is set to 10%
10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher
In practice, it usually means near or above 10 km/h beyond the speed limit, because the accuracy isn’t high enough to give tickets for 1 to 3 km/h differences. Those would be easily disputed and annulled in the courts.
