ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[danbrotherston]

I would say that 2 things are needed for red light cameras to have a positive impact on safety: (1) they need to be run with that as the goal and (2) everybody needs to know and believe that (1) is true.

A necessary but not sufficient condition is that the vendors must only supply equipment. For example, the camera company sells cameras; the cable company sells cables; the signpost company sells signposts; and so on, possibly up to a systems integration company which puts the pieces together and installs them. The municipality must be responsible for implementing the legal policies by programming the systems.

Next, the policies must support safety. This means fines that progressively increase based on the severity of the offense, and start at nothing at all for events which are just barely an offense. For example, slightly mis-judging a yellow and exiting the intersection 0.1s after the light turns red shouldn’t attract a fine. However, it might make sense for it to attract a warning notice, so the driver knows they were a little over the line. The purpose should be education and compliance after all.

I was about to say that it would be OK for fine revenue to pay for the system itself, but I’m not even sure of that. Whatever the fine revenue is used for, it must be something whose funding situation cannot affect the enforcement system. In the event revenue drops, possibly partially as a result of implementation of the system, there must be no resulting political pressure back on the system to change its behaviour. I’m not sure what this should be, but I wonder if sending the money to the Bank of Canada to be destroyed would work (note: I don’t mean withdrawing it as cash and then burning the cash, because that would be stupid, but simply cancelling the money — the opposite of the money creation that the Bank sometimes does).

Also, I don’t think there is a need to individually sign intersections with red light cameras. If they are properly configured to encourage safe driving, all they are doing is monitoring for illegal behaviour. So a simple way to avoid being fined is to drive legally, as one is already obligated to do. Signs at the border of the municipality advertising the policy and linking to a website that explains the goals and setup of the system would make sense.

I think you are setting a pretty high bar here. Certainly all those things would absolutely help. But I also think there is a massive interest here, in painting red light cameras in a bad light.

Certainly there are places which have done corrupt things with red light cameras. Maybe those actions have reduced their effectiveness in improving safety.

But leaving that aside, the data is pretty clear. Our program and programs like ours are wildly effective even lacking many of the features you highlight.

This data is generally subverted and confused, I'd argue intentionally, because there is an aggressive and pervasive demographic which believes they have an inalienable right to break the law without consequence. These are often "law and order" folks which gives you a window into what law and order means to them--largely that it is a tool used to oppress the "other" while protecting "them". That being said, I believe the belief in the right to break traffic laws exceeds that particular problematic demographic which is why there is such aggressive opposition to red light cameras (and other automated enforcement) despite its proven effectiveness at both improving safety and also improving equity (red light cameras don't discriminate) unlike cops.

There is also a fairly strong interest from police in subverting these. While it's not 100% aligned, more automated enforcement is a threat to police budgets.

[panamaniac]

Yes, I'd rather have a red light camera than a cop on the corner. And the municipality absolutely should not be getting the revenue from the red light cameras.

Who should get the revenue?  The municipality incurs all the expenses.

[danbrotherston]

Yes, I'd rather have a red light camera than a cop on the corner. And the municipality absolutely should not be getting the revenue from the red light cameras.

Who should get the revenue?  The municipality incurs all the expenses.

Burn it? It doesn't matter. The point is to remove a perverse incentive. Enforcement is an expense.

[ijmorlan]

I think you are setting a pretty high bar here. Certainly all those things would absolutely help. But I also think there is a massive interest here, in painting red light cameras in a bad light.

Certainly there are places which have done corrupt things with red light cameras. Maybe those actions have reduced their effectiveness in improving safety.

But leaving that aside, the data is pretty clear. Our program and programs like ours are wildly effective even lacking many of the features you highlight.

This data is generally subverted and confused, I'd argue intentionally, because there is an aggressive and pervasive demographic which believes they have an inalienable right to break the law without consequence. These are often "law and order" folks which gives you a window into what law and order means to them--largely that it is a tool used to oppress the "other" while protecting "them". That being said, I believe the belief in the right to break traffic laws exceeds that particular problematic demographic which is why there is such aggressive opposition to red light cameras (and other automated enforcement) despite its proven effectiveness at both improving safety and also improving equity (red light cameras don't discriminate) unlike cops.

There is also a fairly strong interest from police in subverting these. While it's not 100% aligned, more automated enforcement is a threat to police budgets.

Yes, I suppose I was really taking it to the extreme. In my mind I’m thinking of the clearly corrupt and fraudulent arrangements in some US jurisdictions (company controls the system, including the timing of lights, and receives a cut of fine revenue; no surprise, they optimize for fine revenue, not for safety) and how to prevent them.

With ours, my belief is that they are timed appropriately so one is unlikely to be caught by them if one drives properly. I get the impression they are argued for as a revenue source, when they should be argued for only on the basis of safety, but that doesn’t mean their operation is completely corrupt.

Totally agreed about the people who just seem to want to be able to violate the law without repercussions. Also I’m not impressed by people who argue that the camera can’t see who is driving. Owners must be responsible for their vehicles; they should have the legal right to transfer the penalty to their authorized drivers but not the right to avoid having to deal with it at all (unless the vehicle is stolen, of course).

[danbrotherston]

I think you are setting a pretty high bar here. Certainly all those things would absolutely help. But I also think there is a massive interest here, in painting red light cameras in a bad light.

Certainly there are places which have done corrupt things with red light cameras. Maybe those actions have reduced their effectiveness in improving safety.

But leaving that aside, the data is pretty clear. Our program and programs like ours are wildly effective even lacking many of the features you highlight.

This data is generally subverted and confused, I'd argue intentionally, because there is an aggressive and pervasive demographic which believes they have an inalienable right to break the law without consequence. These are often "law and order" folks which gives you a window into what law and order means to them--largely that it is a tool used to oppress the "other" while protecting "them". That being said, I believe the belief in the right to break traffic laws exceeds that particular problematic demographic which is why there is such aggressive opposition to red light cameras (and other automated enforcement) despite its proven effectiveness at both improving safety and also improving equity (red light cameras don't discriminate) unlike cops.

There is also a fairly strong interest from police in subverting these. While it's not 100% aligned, more automated enforcement is a threat to police budgets.

Yes, I suppose I was really taking it to the extreme. In my mind I’m thinking of the clearly corrupt and fraudulent arrangements in some US jurisdictions (company controls the system, including the timing of lights, and receives a cut of fine revenue; no surprise, they optimize for fine revenue, not for safety) and how to prevent them.

With ours, my belief is that they are timed appropriately so one is unlikely to be caught by them if one drives properly. I get the impression they are argued for as a revenue source, when they should be argued for only on the basis of safety, but that doesn’t mean their operation is completely corrupt.

Totally agreed about the people who just seem to want to be able to violate the law without repercussions. Also I’m not impressed by people who argue that the camera can’t see who is driving. Owners must be responsible for their vehicles; they should have the legal right to transfer the penalty to their authorized drivers but not the right to avoid having to deal with it at all (unless the vehicle is stolen, of course).

Yeah, owner vs operator is an issue. I agree with you but many don’t. The province has explicitly carved out for red light cameras, parking, and automated speed enforcement the right to fine the owner but because they are special carve outs automated enforcement cannot be done generally.

I like the UKs policy. The owner of the vehicle must identify the driver of a vehicle at a certain time and refusal to do so is it’s own pretty significant fine.

[SF22]

Yes, I'd rather have a red light camera than a cop on the corner. And the municipality absolutely should not be getting the revenue from the red light cameras.

Who should get the revenue?  The municipality incurs all the expenses.

Earmark all red light camera money to be used for road calming/safety projects within the areas that are covered by the red light cameras. If the spot is bad enough to warrant the camera, then it obviously needs a rework. May as well throw a few thousand extra dollars per year at improving those intersections. There's a sort of poetic justice to having the people who make the road dangerous pay to make it safer.

[ijmorlan]

I like the UKs policy. The owner of the vehicle must identify the driver of a vehicle at a certain time and refusal to do so is it’s own pretty significant fine.

I did not know that. Makes a lot of sense! The only people who benefit from a different policy are bad drivers.

It’s pretty obvious that a lot of the arguments are really just from scofflaws. Sometimes there are legitimate concerns mixed in, which makes it more complicated and sometimes hard to separate out the different parts of the argument.

[Rainrider22]

Another great article by Ouhitt....

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...demic.html

[taylortbb]

Another great article by Ouhitt....

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...demic.html

He really specializes in the context-free numbers genre of articles. Of course LRT ridership fell more, it has more choice riders. One of the major points of the LRT was to attract choice riders.

Also, the last image, showing that GRT is used far less per-capita than the TTC or OC Transpo. It comes right after the chart showing that GRT also has far less subsidy than them. Perhaps the takeaway is that we should go to OC Transpo-levels of subsidy, and massively increase service. Ridership might just increase to OC Transpo levels.

At least he acknowledges the costs aren't comparable, though he then goes on to compare them anyways:

In part, this is because buses run on roads shared with drivers. Road costs, unlike separated LRT tracks and overhead wires, are not included in the calculation of transit costs.

[Rainrider22]

Another great article by Ouhitt....

https://www.therecord.com/news/waterloo-...demic.html

He really specializes in the context-free numbers genre of articles. Of course LRT ridership fell more, it has more choice riders. One of the major points of the LRT was to attract choice riders.

Also, the last image, showing that GRT is used far less per-capita than the TTC or OC Transpo. It comes right after the chart showing that GRT also has far less subsidy than them. Perhaps the takeaway is that we should go to OC Transpo-levels of subsidy, and massively increase service. Ridership might just increase to OC Transpo levels.

At least he acknowledges the costs aren't comparable, though he then goes on to compare them anyways:

In part, this is because buses run on roads shared with drivers. Road costs, unlike separated LRT tracks and overhead wires, are not included in the calculation of transit costs.

But his data is always dated too.  He always uses Stats Canada most recent Census data which is already unreliable to the current situations in most cases.  Plus he is so biased against certain subjects, ie  LRT, Airport etc...  I cant believe he has won awards for his reporting.  The bar must be set very low.

[ac3r]

Not that I read The Record but whenever I click a link and see that idiots name, I don't even bother reading. He's so disingenuous.

[dtkvictim]

I cant believe he has won awards for his reporting.  The bar must be set very low.

Sorry, but it pains me to see people believing that 99% of awards across nearly every industry are anything but inauthentic propaganda - and this is especially true in corrupt and nepotistic fields like modern "journalism".

There may be other awards you are referring to, but the first result for Jeff Outhit was from the Ontario Newspaper Awards, so I'll use it as an example.

1) Their awards are only open to their 26 member newspapers. I only did a quick search of each, but it appears that 25 out of 26 members are owned by either TorStar or Postmedia (the seemingly sole exception being The Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal).

2) There is no readily available information (at least that I could find without spending more than 10 minutes on this entire post) about who runs the ONA, how winners are decided, etc.

3) Of the ONA's 4 listed sponsors, two are - you guessed it - TorStar and Postmedia. The other two are Labatt and University of Toronto.

4) Only 2 authors have posted on the ONA website. The first, Lori-Anne Hill, is a current UofT employee (one of the sponsors), and - you guessed it - was an HR Director at Postmedia for 11 years... and held various positions are Metroland, part of Torstar, for 7 years. The second author isn't really suspicious, but was a freelance writer for a Torstar paper, and worked for the National Newspaper Awards.

In the most recent year's awards, 1/3 of The Record's employees were nominated for, or, won an award. Do this for a few years and suddenly your newspaper is entirely staffed by award winning journalists! They can now plaster it all over their profiles and social media pages and make people feel better about reading their drivel. The few other newspapers I checked had a similar situation.

I might have missed something that lends credibility to this award, so call me out if I did, but I've seen this pattern across so many industries. Even ones far more trustworthy than journalism dominated by the Torstar/Postmedia duopoly.

[danbrotherston]

Wow. Great expose. You could be a staff writer for John Oliver.

[ijmorlan]

Wow. Great expose. You could be a staff writer for John Oliver.

Now that guy (and his staff) actually deserves an award. Actually multiple awards: for comedy, and for journalism.

[nms]

1) Their awards are only open to their 26 member newspapers. I only did a quick search of each, but it appears that 25 out of 26 members are owned by either TorStar or Postmedia (the seemingly sole exception being The Thunder Bay Chronicle Journal).

2) There is no readily available information (at least that I could find without spending more than 10 minutes on this entire post) about who runs the ONA, how winners are decided, etc.

3) Of the ONA's 4 listed sponsors, two are - you guessed it - TorStar and Postmedia. The other two are Labatt and University of Toronto.

4) Only 2 authors have posted on the ONA website. The first, Lori-Anne Hill, is a current UofT employee (one of the sponsors), and - you guessed it - was an HR Director at Postmedia for 11 years... and held various positions are Metroland, part of Torstar, for 7 years. The second author isn't really suspicious, but was a freelance writer for a Torstar paper, and worked for the National Newspaper Awards.

In the most recent year's awards, 1/3 of The Record's employees were nominated for, or, won an award. Do this for a few years and suddenly your newspaper is entirely staffed by award winning journalists! They can now plaster it all over their profiles and social media pages and make people feel better about reading their drivel. The few other newspapers I checked had a similar situation.

I might have missed something that lends credibility to this award, so call me out if I did, but I've seen this pattern across so many industries. Even ones far more trustworthy than journalism dominated by the Torstar/Postmedia duopoly.

The awards were established in 1953 at which time we did not have a duopoly in Ontario.  I suspect that the ONA membership became equally concentrated just as the Brewer's Retail became an equally concentrated entity.