Waterloo Region Connected
General Road and Highway Discussion - Printable Version

+- Waterloo Region Connected (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com)
+-- Forum: Waterloo Region Works (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Transportation and Infrastructure (https://www.waterlooregionconnected.com/forumdisplay.php?fid=25)
+--- Thread: General Road and Highway Discussion (/showthread.php?tid=335)



RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 09:21 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: For example, I don't really understood the opposition to photo radar - ESPECIALLY in pedestrian heavy areas, school zones, and other low speed areas.  It seems like that would be pretty effective in controller drivers (or giving us enough information to remove the bad drivers from the road) w/o a lot of the downsides of things like speed bumps / super narrow roads / etc.

Photo radar (as previously implemented here) doesn't really do much more than a conventional police speed trap, other than generate more revenue: it's in one spot on the side of the highway, and catches people speeding in that spot.

Now, if we're talking about speed cameras (as implemented in many countries in Europe), it's a different thing.  There will be camera boxes liberally scattered over the larger highways, and drivers don't know which ones are active so they tend to drive slow for all of them.  It provides much more of a slowing down effect than the former method, but it does have an infrastructure cost of installing camera boxes.

The camera boxes could be implemented in cities (such as school zones, as you suggest), but cost is likely prohibitive to have them in all the city neighbourhoods.  And I don't know how well they cope with urban traffic in dense downtown areas.

My fearless prediction is that speeding will start to become much less of an issue in the 2020s with the advent of autonomous vehicles.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SammyOES2 - 03-20-2017

If it was "cost prohibitive" to have a photo radar box set up in a location - then I'd be skeptical of the claim that speeding is a problem in that area.

I know other jurisdictions have them in cases like I'm talking about, so they can definitely function, but I don't the overall effect. The biggest thing to me is that it has to be combined with long-term consequences and not just one-time fines. Add something like demerit points to speeding in pedestrian areas for less than 16 over. 16 over on a 400-series highway isn't that big of a deal. 16 over in a school zone is a lot worse.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - tomh009 - 03-20-2017

Demerit points are a challenge with photo radar -- same as red-light cameras -- as the driver cannot be reliably identified (sometimes yes, sometimes no) so the fines are levied against the owner of the car.

One camera may not be expensive once the infrastructure is in place, but blanketing a neighbourhood (say, Mount Hope, for example) would be fairly costly.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SammyOES2 - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 10:02 AM)tomh009 Wrote: Demerit points are a challenge with photo radar -- same as red-light cameras -- as the driver cannot be reliably identified (sometimes yes, sometimes no) so the fines are levied against the owner of the car.

One camera may not be expensive once the infrastructure is in place, but blanketing a neighbourhood (say, Mount Hope, for example) would be fairly costly.

For the first part, that's fine with me.  It's not ideal, but it has the desired effect in the end.  Don't let bad drivers drive your car.

As for the second part, I don't think you can have it both ways.  What's the break even point on one of these cameras?  I found one thing saying a red light camera costs $100,000.  Let's assume the photo radar costs are the same.  Let's give it a life of 5 years.  And say half the tickets it generates goes towards other costs (processing, judicial system, maintenance, etc.).  That means we'd need to generate ~$100 in tickets/day.  If you can't do that, you don't have a speeding problem.

And like you said, there are really simple tricks to make this even cheaper to implement.  Build a bunch of places to put the camera but only actually have a camera in a small number of them that changes somewhat-regularly.  Blammo, better coverage for not much extra money.

And on top of all of this, it still seems a lot cheaper and more efficient than the other measures we use to calm traffic.


Edit: And let's not kid ourselves.  The reason we don't have photo radar has nothing to do with cost/implementation details.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Viewfromthe42 - 03-20-2017

I believe they already do have the "many boxes, few cameras set up" in place.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - ijmorlan - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 09:21 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: I think people exaggerate the badness of drivers (I'm as guilty as anyone else), but I agree there are some obvious changes necessary.

For example, I don't really understood the opposition to photo radar - ESPECIALLY in pedestrian heavy areas, school zones, and other low speed areas.  It seems like that would be pretty effective in controller drivers (or giving us enough information to remove the bad drivers from the road) w/o a lot of the downsides of things like speed bumps / super narrow roads / etc.

I think it’s the same people who think there is something shady about police hiding behind a sign. Apparently police are supposed to announce exactly where they are ticketing at any given moment so people can slow down there (but not anywhere else). These are also the people who are annoyed that radar detectors are illegal, again because apparently it is their god-given right to speed anywhere that is not currently being enforced (side note: the real fix is to use non-detectable alternatives to actual radar). There is probably overlap with people who think government is out to get as much of our money as possible for taxes (to be spent on what? well, mostly what people demand, obviously, so if people don’t like their taxation level, they should explain what government services should be terminated, and I don’t mean whining about the small amount spent on needle exchange programs or whatever the scapegoat of the day is, but actually explaining how to cut say 20% off of government expenditures in a way that will be acceptable to their fellow citizens).

Having said that, if we’re going to have photo radar, we need to decide what the rules really are. People need to be clear on what the actual speed limit is — is it the number on the sign? A bit faster? Significantly faster? Only ticket people going significantly faster than traffic?

I don’t really care too much what we decide — a 100km/h limit on the 401 with no tickets below 120km/h, or a 120km/h limit with tickets starting at 121km/h, or something else — but it needs to be clear and unambiguous.

Also, with pervasive enforcement, a different approach should be taken. Everybody should get a certain number of free warnings for minor violations. For example, maybe everybody gets 1 incident at 5km/h over the limit per month. Again, I don’t know what the exact rules need to be, but there is a big difference between automated pervasive enforcement of exact rules and judgement-driven occasional enforcement conducted manually.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SammyOES2 - 03-20-2017

I agree completely about actually have a very clear definition of what is and isn't acceptable.



"Also, with pervasive enforcement, a different approach should be taken. Everybody should get a certain number of free warnings for minor violations. For example, maybe everybody gets 1 incident at 5km/h over the limit per month. Again, I don’t know what the exact rules need to be, but there is a big difference between automated pervasive enforcement of exact rules and judgement-driven occasional enforcement conducted manually."

My gut reaction is that if its appropriate to give somebody something like 1 exemption/month, then your rules aren't set properly. If we're saying "You can't go > 40km/hour because its too dangerous", it doesn't seem right to then say "You can do 45km/hour, but only once a month". I'd have to think about it a bit though to see if there are cases where it does make sense.

Although, this is different than something like an educational period. Where you're not charging people because the level of ignorance is too high and you need some period of time to set the new expectations.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Canard - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 11:51 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Photo radar (as previously implemented here) doesn't really do much more than a conventional police speed trap, other than generate more revenue: it's in one spot on the side of the highway, and catches people speeding in that spot.

Now, if we're talking about speed cameras (as implemented in many countries in Europe), it's a different thing.  There will be camera boxes liberally scattered over the larger highways, and drivers don't know which ones are active so they tend to drive slow for all of them.  It provides much more of a slowing down effect than the former method, but it does have an infrastructure cost of installing camera boxes.

That's not how they work in the UK - they take a picture of your plate (just like the 407/ETR) at a check-in and a check-out point.  If your average speed exceeds the speed limit, you get a ticket.  It's frickin' brilliant, because it allows for the normal ebbs and flows of traffic (it's a dynamic and organic thing, after all).


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - SammyOES2 - 03-20-2017

Hey, I didn't write that! Big Grin

I like the average speed thing. Although I care much less about highway speeding then about speeding in high-pedestrian areas. And I'm not sure average speed would work as well for the slower and more stop-and-go nature of urban driving.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - timio - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 11:54 AM)Canard Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 11:51 AM)SammyOES2 Wrote: Photo radar (as previously implemented here) doesn't really do much more than a conventional police speed trap, other than generate more revenue: it's in one spot on the side of the highway, and catches people speeding in that spot.

Now, if we're talking about speed cameras (as implemented in many countries in Europe), it's a different thing.  There will be camera boxes liberally scattered over the larger highways, and drivers don't know which ones are active so they tend to drive slow for all of them.  It provides much more of a slowing down effect than the former method, but it does have an infrastructure cost of installing camera boxes.

That's not how they work in the UK - they take a picture of your plate (just like the 407/ETR) at a check-in and a check-out point.  If your average speed exceeds the speed limit, you get a ticket.  It's frickin' brilliant, because it allows for the normal ebbs and flows of traffic (it's a dynamic and organic thing, after all).

They have both point in time and average speed cameras.  *source - drove around England/Scotland for two weeks in the fall extremely paranoid of getting a ticket.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - MidTowner - 03-20-2017

Hey, danbrotherston: when I asked "Isn't being given a driver's license a protected right in Canada?" I was being facetious.

To answer your other question, my use of the word "protected" was implying it's a charter right. But I was being facetious, I assure you.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 12:50 PM)MidTowner Wrote: Hey, danbrotherston: when I asked "Isn't being given a driver's license a protected right in Canada?" I was being facetious.

To answer your other question, my use of the word "protected" was implying it's a charter right. But I was being facetious, I assure you.

Ahh, my mistake, sorry.  I probably should have figured Smile.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Coke6pk - 03-20-2017

The problem with photo radar is it is perceived as a money grab, with no safety benefits.

A wealthy person can speed as much as they can afford the fines. There is no repercussions for repeat offences. (ie. Demerit points).

Once the camera flashes, the driver can continue the illegal behaviour, therefore no safer than before.

An actual police officer in a "speed trap" can issue a ticket to a person observed committing the illegal behaviour, and in turn demerit points will be issued to monitor the situation. The offender is also stopped in the commission of the act, and is educated in the behaviour. This is to stop him/her hitting the bus full of kids, something a camera wouldn't stop.

Now this really is no different than a photo red-light camera, but the masses have accepted those... photo radar is a political nightmare in Ontario.

Coke


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - danbrotherston - 03-20-2017

(03-20-2017, 04:00 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: The problem with photo radar is it is perceived as a money grab, with no safety benefits.  

A wealthy person can speed as much as they can afford the fines.  There is no repercussions for repeat offences. (ie. Demerit points).  

Once the camera flashes, the driver can continue the illegal behaviour, therefore no safer than before.

An actual police officer in a "speed trap" can issue a ticket to a person observed committing the illegal behaviour, and in turn demerit points will be issued to monitor the situation.  The offender is also stopped in the commission of the act, and is educated in the behaviour.  This is to stop him/her hitting the bus full of kids, something a camera wouldn't stop.

Now this really is no different than a photo red-light camera, but the masses have accepted those... photo radar is a political nightmare in Ontario.

Coke

I really doubt very much that the majority of those who object to photoradar have thought this deeply about it.

The impression I get from the comments is that they feel entitled to break the law, and unless caught in the act by an actual person, they shouldn't be punished for doing so.

As for the idea that you can purchase your way out of a ticket, this applies to officer issued speeding tickets as well, 3 demerit points on my license means nothing, so I can speed as long as I have points, and am willing to pay tickets and insurance.

The real solution is to have income based fines.


RE: General Road and Highway Discussion - Viewfromthe42 - 03-20-2017

Red light cameras need for a car to be fully into the intersection to trigger. Plenty of unsafe behaviour nearly but does not trigger punishment. So build the photo system the same way. Come out with a proposal for photo radar, but clarify that it only triggers at 20kph above posted limits for posted limits of 80+, and at 10kph above posted limits below that (heck, make it down to 5kph trigger for limits of 40 and below). This doesn't change current acceptable standards (e.g. doing 120 on the highway), and shouldn't alarm most people.