Welcome Guest!
In order to take advantage of all the great features that Waterloo Region Connected has to offer, including participating in the lively discussions below, you're going to have to register. The good news is that it'll take less than a minute and you can get started enjoying Waterloo Region's best online community right away.
or Create an Account




Thread Rating:
  • 9 Vote(s) - 4.33 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
General Road and Highway Discussion
(03-22-2017, 10:53 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 10:24 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: You're missing the point.  I have no sympathy for people who drive dangerously either, but I do have sympathy for people who receive an effectively harsher punishment for the same offence simply because they are less wealthy.

Or if you prefer, I object to the concept that some people are wealthy enough not to have to worry about following the law.
Someone who has worked hard and made thier wealth should not have to pay a higher fine. That is just absurd.  The law is the law. It doesn't distinguish between whether someone is wealthy or not very dangerous territory to advocate for that   by your definition  someone who is wealthy should have longer sentences in jail too

Their wealth *DOES* make the punishment different, because the fine means less to them, because they have more money, because they're wealthy.

The law is the law, and it shouldn't discriminate against poor people, but that's what flat fines do. It isn't dangerous territory.

Wealthy people (by in large, in this country at least) should not live longer than poor people.  Therefore, the years of their life have the same value as the years of the life of any other person.

When it comes right down too it, the "punishment" that a fine represents is not a dollar value, it's lost work, lost wages.  Wealthy people are paid more per hour, thus a fine of the same value represents less lost work than it does for a lower income person.  You're actually the one arguing for sentences to be shorter for wealthy people.
Reply


(03-22-2017, 10:53 AM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 10:24 AM)danbrotherston Wrote: You're missing the point.  I have no sympathy for people who drive dangerously either, but I do have sympathy for people who receive an effectively harsher punishment for the same offence simply because they are less wealthy.

Or if you prefer, I object to the concept that some people are wealthy enough not to have to worry about following the law.
Someone who has worked hard and made thier wealth should not have to pay a higher fine. That is just absurd.  The law is the law. It doesn't distinguish between whether someone is wealthy or not very dangerous territory to advocate for that   by your definition  someone who is wealthy should have longer sentences in jail too

Bizarre illogic. Somebody who is wealthier doesn’t have more lifetime. Somebody who is wealthier does have more money.

What is absurd is pretending that a multi-millionaire paying a $100 fine has been penalized in any meaningful way. A minimum-wage job holder paying a $100 fine definitely has been penalized.

This is not to say that wealth-contingent fines are a simple matter: to start with, do you measure wealth, or income, or a combination? And how? But to dismiss them as presumptively unfair is not reasonable.

“In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”
Reply
(03-22-2017, 12:04 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(03-20-2017, 04:28 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: 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.

No, those who object photo radar hope there is less of a chance of getting caught by a real officer, and don't want to get caught.  But their voices were loud enough to win a provincial election based on cancelling photo radar.  Red lights snuck in there, but I don't know of any politician willing to risk the chance of getting booted based on that issue anytime soon.

As for buying your way out of a ticket, I stand by this statement.  If I get a $150 ticket for speeding every day I travel into work this week by photo radar, I will owe $750.  Lets say I have a good job and can afford that, I can keep doing it.  If I get pulled over by a police officer every day, I will have the same $750 in fines, but will have accumulated 15 demerit points.  At this point I will have my licence suspended.  The ticket you get now is called a Part 1 Offence Notice, and has a maximum fine of $500.  On day 3 or 4, the police officer will see the pattern, and likely issue a Part 3 Offence Notice (Summons to court) and the JP can issue fines up to $5000.  [Back when I worked the smoking by-law, I had issued two Part 3's... one for a repeat offender, one for a subject who pretended they were deaf (I know sign language, so I knew they were faking) and walked out without identifying themselves.... in both cases JP issued a $5000 fine + court costs .... JP's hate when there is strong evidence for contempt of the system]  This is very similar to Purolator/UPS who collect and pay parking tickets as the cost of doing business.  If there was a demerit system, they would find other places to park.

Coke

That only applies to habitual offenders, in the face of reliable enforcement.  It doesn't apply to the fine as a deterrent in the face of very occasional enforcement.

We can only get reliable enforcement through automated means (where we apparently cannot apply demerits), I don't believe we have anywhere remotely close to reliable enforcement of the HTA through live officers.

In any case, I admit, income geared fines may not be the *only* answer.  But I believe they're better than non-income geared fines which we have for red light cameras now.
Reply
(03-22-2017, 12:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:04 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: No, those who object photo radar hope there is less of a chance of getting caught by a real officer, and don't want to get caught.  But their voices were loud enough to win a provincial election based on cancelling photo radar.  Red lights snuck in there, but I don't know of any politician willing to risk the chance of getting booted based on that issue anytime soon.

As for buying your way out of a ticket, I stand by this statement.  If I get a $150 ticket for speeding every day I travel into work this week by photo radar, I will owe $750.  Lets say I have a good job and can afford that, I can keep doing it.  If I get pulled over by a police officer every day, I will have the same $750 in fines, but will have accumulated 15 demerit points.  At this point I will have my licence suspended.  The ticket you get now is called a Part 1 Offence Notice, and has a maximum fine of $500.  On day 3 or 4, the police officer will see the pattern, and likely issue a Part 3 Offence Notice (Summons to court) and the JP can issue fines up to $5000.  [Back when I worked the smoking by-law, I had issued two Part 3's... one for a repeat offender, one for a subject who pretended they were deaf (I know sign language, so I knew they were faking) and walked out without identifying themselves.... in both cases JP issued a $5000 fine + court costs .... JP's hate when there is strong evidence for contempt of the system]  This is very similar to Purolator/UPS who collect and pay parking tickets as the cost of doing business.  If there was a demerit system, they would find other places to park.

Coke

That only applies to habitual offenders, in the face of reliable enforcement.  It doesn't apply to the fine as a deterrent in the face of very occasional enforcement.

We can only get reliable enforcement through automated means (where we apparently cannot apply demerits), I don't believe we have anywhere remotely close to reliable enforcement of the HTA through live officers.

In any case, I admit, income geared fines may not be the *only* answer.  But I believe they're better than non-income geared fines which we have for red light cameras now.

We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture.  Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car...

Coke
Reply
"We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture."

I still don't really understand why we can't add demerit points w/o identifying the driver. It could even be a separate system where the points are tied to the car and not the owner/driver. Too many points on the car, and it needs to be removed from the road for some period of time. There might need to be some practical rules (like you can only add so many points before verifying that the owner has been notified of the previously applied points) but ultimately I don't have a problem with the owner of a vehicle being responsible for the people that drive it.

"Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car..."

You clearly don't understand what the the objections to the parking camera were. So not much point replying to that part aside from saying that my same 'requirements' for the parking system would need to apply to the photo radar system.
Reply
(03-22-2017, 12:36 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: That only applies to habitual offenders, in the face of reliable enforcement.  It doesn't apply to the fine as a deterrent in the face of very occasional enforcement.

We can only get reliable enforcement through automated means (where we apparently cannot apply demerits), I don't believe we have anywhere remotely close to reliable enforcement of the HTA through live officers.

In any case, I admit, income geared fines may not be the *only* answer.  But I believe they're better than non-income geared fines which we have for red light cameras now.

We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture.  Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car...

Coke

I will exit this conversation. I can't ever support the above claims.  When we start placing fines based o income we have become a socialist country. I will have no part of that.  Why do people have such disdain for people with wealth. I am an average middle income earner. I don't care what the wealthy do as long as they pay fair share of tax. That's it peiod. I am out.
Reply
(03-22-2017, 12:36 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:21 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: That only applies to habitual offenders, in the face of reliable enforcement.  It doesn't apply to the fine as a deterrent in the face of very occasional enforcement.

We can only get reliable enforcement through automated means (where we apparently cannot apply demerits), I don't believe we have anywhere remotely close to reliable enforcement of the HTA through live officers.

In any case, I admit, income geared fines may not be the *only* answer.  But I believe they're better than non-income geared fines which we have for red light cameras now.

We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture.  Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car...

Coke

I will exit this conversation. I can't ever support the above claims.  When we start placing fines based o income we have become a socialist country. I will have no part of that.  Why do people have such disdain for people with wealth. I am an average middle income earner. I don't care what the wealthy do as long as they pay fair share of tax. That's it peiod. I am out.
Reply


I just have to say, reading "I don't care what the wealthy do as long as they pay fair share of tax." right after "When we start placing fines based o income we have become a socialist country", made my day.

Edit: I guess I also 'have' to say, that it comes down to what you think the purpose of speeding tickets are.  If its a revenue generation tool and we think its ok for people to speed as long as they pay this extra charge every so often - then I'm completely with you.  Wealthy people shouldn't have to pay more.

But if the purpose of the speeding fine is to punish and deter - its just absolutely common sense that adjusting the fine to the circumstances of the individual would be more effective (although, far from simple or even necessarily worth doing).
Reply
(03-22-2017, 01:02 PM)Rainrider22 Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:36 PM)Coke6pk Wrote: We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture.  Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car...

Coke

I will exit this conversation. I can't ever support the above claims.  When we start placing fines based o income we have become a socialist country. I will have no part of that.  Why do people have such disdain for people with wealth. I am an average middle income earner. I don't care what the wealthy do as long as they pay fair share of tax. That's it peiod. I am out.

Since when does socialism mean punishing wealthy people less than poor people (assuming fines are a punishment).  This has nothing to do with distain for wealth, this has to do with treating people equally under the law.  You can exit the conversation if you want, but it's clear you're not even trying to understand the point being made.

Also, what is "their fair share"....we have progressive taxation in this country where wealthy people pay more.  That to me is fair.  Why do you object so strongly to income progressive fines?
Reply
(03-22-2017, 12:57 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: "We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture."

I still don't really understand why we can't add demerit points w/o identifying the driver.  It could even be a separate system where the points are tied to the car and not the owner/driver.  Too many points on the car, and it needs to be removed from the road for some period of time.  There might need to be some practical rules (like you can only add so many points before verifying that the owner has been notified of the previously applied points) but ultimately I don't have a problem with the owner of a vehicle being responsible for the people that drive it.

"Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car..."

You clearly don't understand what the the objections to the parking camera were.  So not much point replying to that part aside from saying that my same 'requirements' for the parking system would need to apply to the photo radar system.

Lets take a small business owner with some vehicles on the road.  3 vehicles run a red in a day, and they lose their CVOR rating, and shut the company down for a month?

If my wife is a bad driver, should I have my licence suspended?  And if we add "limited liability" offences (ie. Red Light Camera), then we might as well demerit others (ie. parking)

My second quoted comment was made purely tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if you were offended in any way.

Coke
Reply
(03-22-2017, 03:37 PM)Coke6pk Wrote:
(03-22-2017, 12:57 PM)SammyOES2 Wrote: "We can add demerit points if we can confirm the identity of the driver... so forward facing cameras to take a picture of the driver, and confirmed against Registered Owner's D/L picture."

I still don't really understand why we can't add demerit points w/o identifying the driver.  It could even be a separate system where the points are tied to the car and not the owner/driver.  Too many points on the car, and it needs to be removed from the road for some period of time.  There might need to be some practical rules (like you can only add so many points before verifying that the owner has been notified of the previously applied points) but ultimately I don't have a problem with the owner of a vehicle being responsible for the people that drive it.

"Now I will sit back and enjoy the popcorn while those who don't want the City of Waterloo to take pictures of your plate will allow the provincial government (who loves outsourcing to private companies) to access pictures of the occupants and inside of your car..."

You clearly don't understand what the the objections to the parking camera were.  So not much point replying to that part aside from saying that my same 'requirements' for the parking system would need to apply to the photo radar system.

Lets take a small business owner with some vehicles on the road.  3 vehicles run a red in a day, and they lose their CVOR rating, and shut the company down for a month?

If my wife is a bad driver, should I have my licence suspended?  And if we add "limited liability" offences (ie. Red Light Camera), then we might as well demerit others (ie. parking)

My second quoted comment was made purely tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if you were offended in any way.

Coke

I don't pretend to understand CVOR or commercial vehicle registration.  But that clearly can be treated differently.

As for your wife being a bad driver, sure, why not.  If your wife can't drive safely, and cannot get her own car as a result, don't enable her to continue endangering people's lives by giving her your car.

I am playing devils advocate a bit here, but I don't see a problem with holding a party responsible for allowing a person access to a car.  We would do the same for other dangerous items.  

And we already do this with fines.  Just not demerit points.  I don't think it's entirely cut and dry.
Reply
"Lets take a small business owner with some vehicles on the road.  3 vehicles run a red in a day, and they lose their CVOR rating, and shut the company down for a month?"

This is why I tried to add the caveat about waiting for notification.  The idea being that while I think the small business owner is ultimately responsible for his employees and his vehicles - he needs to be given opportunities to address the problem.  So, I agree, 3 vehicles running a red in one day shouldn't shut his company down.  His vehicles running red lights consistently month-after-month certainly is (imo).



"If my wife is a bad driver, should I have my licence suspended?"

Sort of the same answer.  As a married couple you take certain responsibilities for each other.  Ideally, your wife would admit to the infractions or you'd address the issue before it gets to license suspension.  But if you both stayed quiet and all we know is that the vehicle was repeatedly breaking the law - I don't really see why we should shrug our shoulders and let it keep happening.

I knew when growing up that if I did something wrong in my parents car, I wasn't getting to drive the car again anytime soon.



"And if we add "limited liability" offences (ie. Red Light Camera), then we might as well demerit others (ie. parking)"

I, personally, lean towards just doing this for safety related offense - which parking rarely is.  But, in the times when it is safety related, then yes I'd have no problem with that.  Again, look at what we do with the big shipping companies.  They pay parking fines just as a cost of business.  And ultimately they're either doing something that's not that bad and we're fine with just having them pay for "special parking" places, or we should step up our punishment so that it's actually effective.


"My second quoted comment was made purely tongue-in-cheek, and I apologize if you were offended in any way."

I'm never offended. Big Grin But I didn't realize it was purely tongue-in-cheek.  So no worries.
Reply
(03-22-2017, 04:05 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: As for your wife being a bad driver, sure, why not.  If your wife can't drive safely, and cannot get her own car as a result, don't enable her to continue endangering people's lives by giving her your car.

And don't forget to register the vehicle in your spouse's name if he/she has a much lower income as it will result in much smaller fines!
Reply


It seems the Hwy 8 ramp to the EB 401 has had the merge point move even further back. It was too dark to see what compelled the change, unfortunately.
Reply
Was just about to post that! Smile Over the last few days, it's transitioned upstream a hundred metres or so, just as the curve ends. Today, there was a concrete barrier up.
Reply
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »



Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 8 Guest(s)

About Waterloo Region Connected

Launched in August 2014, Waterloo Region Connected is an online community that brings together all the things that make Waterloo Region great. Waterloo Region Connected provides user-driven content fueled by a lively discussion forum covering topics like urban development, transportation projects, heritage issues, businesses and other issues of interest to those in Kitchener, Waterloo, Cambridge and the four Townships - North Dumfries, Wellesley, Wilmot, and Woolwich.

              User Links