Bring Back Photo Radar

Having got a couple of photo-radar tickets in BC, I was not a fan... of paying them. But, I liked photo radar, both on highways and city streets, it certainly slowed traffic down some. And yes, it's a cash grab... so what? As said, it's a tax on speeders.

Photo radar is there to make sure we follow the laws of the road. Why set a speed limit if no one is interested in actually checking if every body does? You might as well not set one at all, see how that works.

Well Yogi,
The claim of "cash cow" is irrelevant. Provincial lotteries are a cash cow. Should we ban them too? It's purely up to you whether you want to speed. In fact "cash cow" is a good thing as takes pressure off the taxpayer. You should be happy about that.

Of all the "criticism" raised on that site, only 1 concerns me (public safety - more on that below) the other claims are non-arguments (as above) or can easily be remedied through program design (i.e. camera maintenance). Driver behaviour can probably be modified by having the cameras placed at a permanent location and with clear signage, so everybody knows its a speed-enforced zone. As I said before, past practice foolishly was to use mobile hidden camera "traps" to ambush unsuspecting drivers. Obviously, if you don't know the camera's there, then you're going to speed. Even if driver behaviour can't be modified, at least we'll consistently enforce the law in those areas and those drivers won't be able to get away with it. Let them repeat offend and pay the escalating costs if the choose to do so.

Now, as I said above, the claim that cameras make roads less safe was a little unscientific. One study on that site claimed that traffic deaths fell after the camera was removed, from 1 to 0. It should be obvious why that's not valid research. Other studies on that site are similarly flawed; one simply shows that one town in Arizona had 7 more hit-and-run injury-crashes in the calendar year when cameras were installed and 3 more fatality crashes (all other types of crashes fell considerably). So...assuming those numbers are statistically significant and repeatable, are we to conclude that cameras cause people to speed away from crashes where they injure people? Or they cause fewer crashes but the crashes are deadlier for some reason? The website itself admits that it can't show cause and effect (i.e. prove that the camera was responsible for that small #). And perhaps their most central piece, alleges that cameras force drivers to look at their speedometers or brake hard when they see a camera. Well, guess what? You're supposed to glance at your speedometer once in a while, that's why it's mounted on the driver-side dashboard and not in the glove compartment. And don't drivers do that when they see a speed trap or posted speed limit sign, for that matter. I doubt cameras force drivers to stare for hours at their speedometer. If you knew that a highway had full photo radar enforcement and you didn't want to get caught, you wouldn't need to slow down with because you'd never let yourself get up to that speed.

Lemmy - I hear you where liberals stand philosophically, but I submit to you they've come to accept the level of surveillance posed by photo radar cameras. With Toronto police now putting crime surveillance cameras in downtown, and the other items I mentioned, I doubt most people would fear a ticket in the mail. I think the difference is that photo radar is (or should be) a picture of the car, not the driver. In Germany for instance, the vehicle's occupants are blacked out from any such photos before the ticket is issued. And, as I said, the camera doesn't take the picture unless you're speeding, and since the driver would know this will guarantee a photo radar ticket, we can assume they've given consent to have their vehicle's photo taken.

Here's one important part I should have added to my first post: If I were to implement photo radar, it would only catch those doing more that 15 over. No sense having universal enforcement for people doing 105 in a 100; 16 over is where you lose points, so I would enforce it at that level and I would deduct points. And if you're doing that speed, you're probably aware that you're speeding, as you're passing half the vehicles on the road.

Can you see people in your car?

Oh yes. On the picture you mean? Oh yes :lol:

Without a shadow of a doubt

Reason? I think, but don't hang me up on that one, that it is not always the owner of the car speeding, and in Germany, you lose points. In The Netherlands, you don't. Or didn't, I don't know if that has changed. So if you can prove it was not you speeding, you don't lose points, or money, and the driver has to pay.

So I'm driving down this road at 80k, this brick wall jumps out in front..thud I'm dead.

So I'm driving down this road at 160k, this brick wall.....thud...am I now twice as dead.