Bring Back Photo Radar

Why not bring back photo radar? At least on major highways, and areas where speed is known to be a problem or poses a substantial risk (eg. school zones). The real reason people are opposed to it is because they want to break the law and get away with it, which is not a valid reason at all.

- Conservatives should like it because it is a pure choice: You speed and pay the fine, or you can obey the speed limit and not get a fine

- Liberals should like it because it generates revenue for public services

- Safety advocates should like it because if done properlyit reduces speeding.

- Everyone should like it because police officers can focus more ton other activities, rather than writing speeding tickets and spending all that time in court.

"Properly" means the following:

- Areas where photo radar is in use should be clearly marked with prominent signage, and photo radar devices should openly displayed, such on overhead posts, rather than concealed in unmarked vehicles behind bushes.

- Trafic police are not taken off the street, but can spend more time patrolling for other types of dangerous driving and pursuing more dangerous crimes

This is not 1994 any more, people aren't as hysterical about cameras, least of all conservatives, who were the most vocal critics of photo radar and had Mike Harris scrap it here in Ontario but tend to champion the security state and the use of public surveilance nowadays.

They have red light camera's too, so I don't see the problem.

You don't see the problem as you're believing the bullshit.
They NEVER put more than the odd token photo-radar in a school zone. When they had it in BC they never put it anywhere except for a two lane stretch of highway where they could ticket every single person passing and collect as much revenue as fast as possible.
Driving 20 km over on an empty highway or exceeding the limit when it's safe to pass has nothing to do with safety.
Just like BC pre-pay for gas law has nothing to do with worker safety but pretends to.

Here ya go Beaver. Chew on this for a while. IF you're able to digest it, I'll find ya more!

Crash statistics do not support photo radar
Now that it's canned, let's get on with new and more effective police measures

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carte Blanche - by Jim Kenzie © THE TORONTO STAR, Saturday, July 8, 1995, p. G11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's get one thing straight.

Despite what you may have read in an editorial in this very paper on Thursday, June 29, or in an even more pathetic Globe and Mail feature the week before, there isn't a shred of evidence to support the hypothesis that photo radar has saved lives in this province.

Which is why incoming premier Mike Harris canned the experiment this past Wednesday.

The Star editorial pointed out that traffic deaths in Ontario, as counted by the Ontario Provincial Police, decreased 16 per cent in 1994 over 1993. (Transport Canada, using a broader-based counting system, measured a 13 per cent decline for Ontario.)

The Star editorial said the decrease "can't be tied conclusively to photo radar -- yet", implying that sooner or later, it will be.

Guess again, dear editorial-writing colleagues.

First, the decrease in Ontario coincided with a very similar decrease Canada-wide. We did worse than some provinces, like Quebec, Newfoundland and New Brunswick, and better than others, such as Alberta. None launched photo radar campaigns during 1994; Alberta, interestingly, had one going in.

If the rest of Canada did nothing new and got a decrease, and Ontario did something new and got a similar decrease, it's pretty hard to conclude that the "something new" had any impact at all.

Second, results for the first six months of 1994 showed a 13 per cent decrease in Ontario -- and nationwide, too (see Wheels, June 17, 1995). So we were already on a steep downward trend prior to photo radar's introduction in August 1994.

Third, the 16 per cent applies across the province, not solely to areas where photo radar was used. Again, the most populous parts of the province -- Metro Toronto and environs -- were the main sites of the photo radar experiment, and would have a major influence on the provincial results.

But when we look at regional data, an interesting story emerges. Apart from notorious fishing holes near Million and Cobourg, the majority of photo radar operation took place in the Ontario Provincial Police's No. 5 District, comprising Aurora, Beaverton, Caledon, Downsview, Port Credit and Whitby detachments.

In the first six months of 1994, 5 District was enjoying a 44 per cent decrease in traffic deaths compared to 1993, significantly better than the 13 per cent average in the province as a whole.

But in the last six months, while the rest of the province improved enough to bring the provincial total to a 16 per cent decrease, 5 District recorded 38 deaths, an alarming 42 per cent more than 1993. Need I reiterate that photo radar was introduced during the last half of 1994?

Worse still, in the first full four months of photo radar -- namely, the last four months of 1994 -- 5 District had 29 deaths, 21 more -- a stunning 262 per cent increase over the same period in 1993.

Our editorial writers might like to rethink their suggestion that photo radar had a positive impact on traffic deaths in this province.

And when John Bates, president of Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), complains that Harris's decision to drop photo radar puts an election promise ahead of saving lives, well, I wonder whose lives he's talking about? Apparently not the 21 extra people who died in 5 District during the first four months of photo radar.

I'm not saving now, I have never said, I likely will never say, that photo radar contributed to the increase in deaths, even though a similar pattern transpired in Calgary when photo radar was launched there.

All I have ever said is that speed limit enforcement, in and of itself, is irrelevant to highway safety.

The Star editorial notes that Ministry of Transportation speed surveys suggest that we are going slower, that there are fewer speeders out there, and they credit photo radar. Given the death statistics, I'd suggest that with friends like that, photo radar hardly needs enemies like me.

The editorial is apparently quoting a flimsy ministry survey (see Wheels, April 8, 1995) conducted at just six sites across the province, which showed, among other things, that the only material speed reductions occurred on our freeways -- statistically, our safest roads.

Terrific: we go slower; we kill ourselves more frequently. This is progress?

At the photo radar cancellation announcement, Harris said, "The goal is to do more than control speed - it is to combat those driving practices that photo radar was helpless to stop. These include drunk driving, aggressive driving, improper lane changing, and following too closely."

All right Mike!

He may not be aware that Germany, whose roads aren't as well engineered as ours (really), and whose cars aren't as safe over all as ours (yup, really), gets roughly the same safety results on their autobahns as we do on our freeways, despite average speeds some 30 km/h faster.

One more time: Speed does not kill. Speed isn't the problem; speed is the objective. If we weren't in a hurry, we wouldn't need freeways. We'd walk.

The question Harris has posed to Al Palladini, his new minister of transportation, and the OPP is: what next? We drop photo radar, but what do we replace it with that will improve traffic safely?

The OPP suggested the formation of three more dedicated traffic squads, like the R.I.D.E. patrol I rode with last November (see A Night On The Town With OPP, Wheels, Nov. 26, 1994). Harris says these will be implemented as "a temporary measure" in areas where photo radar had been in effect. Can't hurt.

The Caledon detachment of the OPP is relaunching aircraft patrols, whose major target won't be speeders per se, but lane swappers, tailgaters, and other aggressive drivers. No arguments from me.

The ministry is no doubt scrambling around, as we speak, trying to come up with something. To its credit, it has already taken a major step with graduated licensing, which I feel will have an effect, although the program will take a few years to produce benefits.

One possibility, and certainly the most economical, is: do nothing. We got a 13 per cent decrease in traffic deaths in the first half of last year doing just that.

In the United States, the number of speeding tickets issued has dropped steadily in the last five years, as police resources are increasingly allocated to drug law enforcement. What's happened to traffic deaths in that time? They've dropped, almost in exact parallel.

If they wrote no speeding tickets at all, would they have no traffic deaths? Even I won't try to sell you that one. But the reality sure supports my contention that speed limit enforcement doesn't affect the death rate.

If you ask me -- nobody has, but that's never stopped me before -- I'd take clues from places that do better than we do. Germany, for example. The most remarkable thing about German traffic, apart from the speed -- and I get this from everybody I talk to who's driven there -- is their lane discipline.

Why? Germans are taught to drive right, pass left. They're punished if they don't. And driving over there is a treat: fast, disciplined, safe.

So, Monday morning, I'd send the line painting trucks out to eliminate every case where the right lane disappears, whether it's to magically change into an off-ramp, or to reduce the number of lanes available for traffic. (Roads should "grow" lanes to the left, and drop lanes from the left. Surely, by definition, the "driving lane" can never disappear.)

I'd put big signs on every freeway overpass, reading "Drive Right! Pass Left!", or, "Not passing? Then move over", or, "Hey, you in the blue Tempo -- this means you!"

I'd back it up with a massive media campaign, pointing out that left-lane banditry is irresponsible, impolite, unsafe, and illegal. (No need to tell Minister Palladini about the effectiveness of clever advertising.)

Then I'd take those photo radar trucks - hey, we've already paid for them, haven't we? - set them out in the medians of our highways, and have the attendant snap pictures of every left-lane bandit they see.

I won't guarantee any immediate death reductions, Mr. Palladini. But if it works, we'd at least have traffic that moves more smoothly, and causes less aggravation.

And that'd have to be an improvement, wouldn't it?

Rev: 1998.09.29

So, Yogi, what you are saying is this (or more, what the article you posted says, and I assume you agree with it...):
First, let's teach our fellow countrymen how to drive properly, and then punish them for the mistakes they make.

I AGREE!! Learn how to f*cking drive, because seriously, Canadians SUCK at driving.

I used to be dead against photo radar. My argument is why not pay a real live cop to do it. But seeing as the cops in BC these days can't interact with anyone without beating the snot out of them, perhaps photo radar would be better.

Money grab.

When photo radar was in effect in Ontario for about three or so months before Harris removed it, I use to drive about 200 km to a fro from Toronto each day. What I noticed was that the insane passing ceased, and driving was suddenly a pleasure. A lot of tension was removed in driving to and from work.

It was not a matter of speeding, but a general feeling of safety. Utilized properly photo radar is probably a wonderful instrument.

Cops hiding the bush with a radar gun at the bottom of a hill on a curve certainly makes people view cops in a bad light. This type of behavior has little to do with safety, but with the attitude that I am going to get you. The image of cops suffer, and lord knows the image needs a boost.

With the extensive funeral of the cop that got struck by a snowplow in Toronto, the Globe and Mail is afraid to allow comments. May I suggest this is fear of adverse public comments regarding police. Maybe approaching a case of them and us, and destruction of trust.

Well Yogi,

You can't use a few months of experience with poorly-implemented new technology 16 years ago as proof of anything. In 1994!!! Come on! There are a number of things Ontario did very poorly: they hid mobile cameras in unmarked vehicles and ambushed drivers. What I would do is put it on all 400-series highways, and those big electronic signs you see over the highway that just say "DRIVE DEFENSIVELY" most of the time would instead say something like "PHOTO RADAR IN USE NEXT 25 KM". The cameras themselves would be conspicuously mounted instead of hidden. And I would not use them in the middle of Butfuck nowhere where its not needed, they would be in targeted areas with high rates of speed-related accidents, school zones, etc.

Lemmy, I think a picture of your vehicle's license plate sent to you in the mail is not an invasion of privacy. Your picture is already taken hundreds of times a day by private security cameras and there are already red light cameras, etc. There are already traffic cameras that simply monitor congestion and broadcast it on the internet and TV news. There are far worse things already out there. Drive on the 407 ETR, for example. If you think you're protecting privacy, that ship sailed along time ago, at least in this area.

As for the "cash-grab" argument..so what? Don't want your cash grabbed, then don't speed. Besides, every dollar "grabbed" is a dollar less that they have to tax.

Really, if you're not intending to speed, your picture doesn't get taken, your cash doesn't get grabbed, what problem could you really have with it? Really, what? Admit it, you all want to break the law and get away with it, don't you?