ION - Waterloo Region's Light Rail Transit

[ijmorlan]

I think straight through would be permitted, but the driver would have been facing a red light. My guess is that he tried to make a left/u-turn.

Illegal left is much more common than outright running a long red light without even bother to look for cross traffic.

I don’t see how someone turning left could end up in that position. But maybe.

Agreed that most red light running is “around the edges” so to speak — very few people will just simply blow through a solid red without any mitigation of any kind.

[danbrotherston]

I think straight through would be permitted, but the driver would have been facing a red light. My guess is that he tried to make a left/u-turn.

Illegal left is much more common than outright running a long red light without even bother to look for cross traffic.

I don’t see how someone turning left could end up in that position. But maybe.

Agreed that most red light running is “around the edges” so to speak — very few people will just simply blow through a solid red without any mitigation of any kind.

Someone turning left from King into the alley (which is not a permitted turn) could end up in that position if their vehicle was dragged a significant distance.

I do agree that it'd be surprising to see a vehicle dragged that far, it's not that an LRV doesn't have the momentum to do it, but I'd expect it to be pushed away rather than dragged.

But maybe I'm wrong. Honestly, nothing surprises me anymore...a driver blowing through a red light without even glancing for a train...sure. Totally on brand.

[ijmorlan]

I don’t see how someone turning left could end up in that position. But maybe.

Agreed that most red light running is “around the edges” so to speak — very few people will just simply blow through a solid red without any mitigation of any kind.

Someone turning left from King into the alley (which is not a permitted turn) could end up in that position if their vehicle was dragged a significant distance.

I do agree that it'd be surprising to see a vehicle dragged that far, it's not that an LRV doesn't have the momentum to do it, but I'd expect it to be pushed away rather than dragged.

But maybe I'm wrong. Honestly, nothing surprises me anymore...a driver blowing through a red light without even glancing for a train...sure. Totally on brand.

Yes, sorry, I’m not sure what I was thinking. A northbound vehicle turning left wouldn’t (probably, I think) end up like that, but southbound or even eastbound might.

[neonjoe]

No front plate? Was the driver from out of province?

[ac3r]

Maybe the collision knocked it off?

[ijmorlan]

Maybe the collision knocked it off?

Who says they have a back plate?

[nms]

No front plate? Was the driver from out of province?

Doug Ford promised to do away with them in 2019, but I don't know if he actually made it a thing yet (or at all)

[ijmorlan]

No front plate? Was the driver from out of province?

Doug Ford promised to do away with them in 2019, but I don't know if he actually made it a thing yet (or at all)

How stupid. Cars should have more mandatory identifying information on them, not less. If it were up to me, they would be subject to the similar rules as airplanes.

[allknowing2012]

No front plate? Was the driver from out of province?

Doug Ford promised to do away with them in 2019, but I don't know if he actually made it a thing yet (or at all)

I believe the Police said no to the idea and it was scrapped.

[ijmorlan]

Doug Ford promised to do away with them in 2019, but I don't know if he actually made it a thing yet (or at all)

I believe the Police said no to the idea and it was scrapped.

I’m not sure what I think of that. On the one hand, I’m opposed to further reducing the amount of identifying information on cars; on the other, I don’t really want democratic governments giving up on ideas because the police don’t like them. On the third hand, though, sometimes the police will have useful things to say about a policy based on their experience and not on their own self-interest and they should be heard, just as doctors should be heard when they express an opinion about the medical system.

[danbrotherston]

I believe the Police said no to the idea and it was scrapped.

I’m not sure what I think of that. On the one hand, I’m opposed to further reducing the amount of identifying information on cars; on the other, I don’t really want democratic governments giving up on ideas because the police don’t like them. On the third hand, though, sometimes the police will have useful things to say about a policy based on their experience and not on their own self-interest and they should be heard, just as doctors should be heard when they express an opinion about the medical system.

Frankly, I'm not sure why police care. They don't really do any road enforcement anyway.

FWIW...I'm kind of indifferent. I think there are more important issues, and Quebec already has only rear plates. Last vehicle I drove was from Quebec actually.

[tomh009]

Frankly, I'm not sure why police care. They don't really do any road enforcement anyway.

Automated speed and red light enforcement is far simpler if cars have front plates.

[ac3r]

Red light cameras are just a big scam anyway.

[plam]

Red light cameras are just a big scam anyway.

Perhaps one could Google "effectiveness of red light cameras".

[ac3r]

Red light cameras are just a big scam anyway.

Perhaps one could Google "effectiveness of red light cameras".

Out of curiosity, I did, as I was unsure whether you were disagreeing with me.

The first result from Scientific American talks about how they don't tend to make anything safer. They lower the number of those who do run lights (since they know about the camera) but may cause increases in rear ending. Additionally, the author of the article writes:

In a study I co-authored with economist Paul J. Fisher, we examined all police-recorded traffic accidents for three large Texas cities over a 12-year period – hundreds of thousands of accidents. We found no evidence that red light cameras improve public safety. They don’t reduce the total number of vehicle accidents, the total number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital.otal number of individuals injured in accidents or the total number of incapacitating injuries that involve ambulance transport to a hospital."

A link to his paper can be found here: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?...id=3078079

Additionally, Scientific American ran a small study in Huston. They write:

Our study showed no evidence that cameras reduce the total number of accidents. We estimate that total accidents are reduced by a statistically insignificant 3 percent after the cameras are turned off.

Likewise, there’s no evidence that the camera program reduced the number of traffic-related injuries or the likelihood of incurring an incapacitating injury.

A mouse scrollwheel down on the search results shows a page about how they are more about money than safety (which is expanded on in the video link below).

Another link in the search results goes to a paper from the Traffic Injury Prevention Journal that shows that while they appear to often prevent the running of reds and help safety, they found methodological flaws and could not come to any conclusion other than "we need to study this more".

And it's indeed true. Road Guy Rob recently released a video about how they're mostly useless, often unethical and are more about making profit for the companies that sell them to cities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pH9dnJ8BmY0

They can work, maybe, but they're very flawed in how we acquire them from companies and how/where they're used and more which is why the USA's second largest city took all of theirs out.