1  2  3  4  5  6  Next

We're all familiar with the complaints against photo radar, namely that it's a cash cow that does nothing to deter speeding. However, I recently read an article in the Calgary Herald that reminded me of what drives me nuts about photo radar complaints:

I can get the complaints of people who get a ticket for driving six or seven kilometres over the limit, but what I can't fathom is how anyone can justify screaming down a street-especially in a school zone or a residential area-more than twice the posted speed limit. This is what makes me lose sympathy for people who complain about photo radar, and pushes me into the "if you don't speed, you won't get ticketed" camp.

So now I ask the question to all the photo radar haters out there-what do you propose as a solution to the people who go ripping down public roads as though they're their own personal property, when they're putting everyone else on the road in danger? The critics of photo radar are always happy to vent about the police padding their budgets with photo radar tickets, but when it comes to commenting on reckless speeders they seem to have little, if anything, to say.

So, what would you do about the reckless speeders who create the rationale for photo radar in the first place?

   

I like photo radar and would love to see it back.

   

I hate photo radar. But, I believe it's effective, and there really isn't a good reason to be against it.

It's effective in slowing traffic where the photo radar is installed, not in reducing speeds in the general area. Put it in places where there are many speed related accidents. Police patrols are much more effective in reducing speeding in the general area, as they cover that area, rather than being static.

I guess there is one argument against photo radar. You can moving be with traffic that is exceeding the speed limit and everybody gets a ticket. Try going the speed limit in traffic like that it actually creates a hazard as people tailgate you, then swing around and cut you off.

Since the question is about excessive speed, set the photo radar limit say 20kph higher than the speed limit, to only catch the serious speeders.

   

Of course people hate it, you get caught doing something illegal and lets face it, everybody hates that.

   

I think photo radar cameras should be permanently installed in school zones and playground zones, with a strict limit. While I believe kids need to learn from their own mistakes, A person in a speeding car that can't stop in time robs them of that opportunity. Learning not to run out onto the road because a car almost hit you is a far better lesson than because you or your playmate get run over by someone doing 30 over.

I'm also cool with mobile photo radar in residential zones that tickets people doing 10 or more over.

As for highways and high speed avenues (60+kph), I think it's up to the police and photo radar shouldn't be allowed.

For the most part, freedom is about being able to break the laws you disagree with and get away with it. None of us are truly free, but we all have freedom in this regard to some degree.

   

I'm sure that burglars don't agree with some of our laws, either... neither do rapists and murderers. I guess that they should have the freedom to break the law they disagree with and get away with it too.

   

We ain't got photo radar here in Ontario (damn good thing, too. I'd have to drop out of "warp".)

   

As pointed out, how do the murderers and kiddy diddlers fit into this philosophy?

   

The part where I said none of us are truly free. You have the freedom to do whatever the hell you want. But at some point the consequences become so severe and the likelihood of getting caught become so high that exercising that freedom becomes detrimental. It's up to the individual to determine when the consequences of exercising the freedom to break rules outweighs the consequences and likelihood of getting caught.

   

Hmmm....I find that a bit simplistic. Generally those with severe behavioral disorders aren't exercising them in order to test the bounds of perceived freedom. Comparing Joe Douche doing 80 in a 50 zone in his jacked up F250 because he's testing the bounds of freedom with a Vince Lee on a ultra violent schizophrenic episode is like comparing apples to a Lincoln.

   

There is a difference between a cognisant & competent person choosing to break the law and someone who has no control of themselves acting impulsively with no ability to evaluate the consequences of their action. I figured that'd be a given.

   

I will support photo RADAR under a few conditions.

1: The jurisdiction that is operating the PR may not profit from it. They can only recover operating costs, all extra funds will be turned over to the federal government for use in funding foreign aid.

2: Because their is no indication of a ticket being made until weeks later, you may only be issued a single ticket from a single location within the period of time between the first issuing and the court date. Courts will be responsible to punish repeat offenders abusing this exemption.

3: A reckless speed will be reported to the police in real time to dispatch a patrol car to stop the vehicle.

4: Locations will be selected for risk to the public, not likeliness of violations.

   

I prefer that real police officers pull speeders over. Photo-radar, as already stated, might slow traffic down in one spot, but does little for the rest of the road. It also, as already stated, can't take actual conditions into account. Like traffic flow.

The douche bags that are doing 150 on the freeway aren't gonna slow down because of a photo radar ticket. The guy doing 115 in a 100 zone because it's 4 in the morning... he might slow down, but more than likely he's already slowing down for the over passes and any suspicious vans on the side of the road, and then doing 120 to make up for it.

   

All good ideas. Especially #4. So frustrating to get tickets when you're just staying with the flow of traffic on a clear dry freeway.

   

I like all these points. My only counter to foreign aid would be to send the money to social programs or charity that benefits Canadians.

   

1  2  3  4  5  6  Next