# Hey Ontario.....it's your turn.



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Ontario government clears way for municipalities to install speed cameras on local roads


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

It’s not like we didn’t have them before. They were around for a while and then they weren’t.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

You mean "revenue cameras". If they gave a toss about safety they'd be stopping people while doing it not just sending for a speed fee.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Great, focus on how fast accidents happen rather than why.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I can't speak to other municipalities, but what has started sprouting up like dandelions around the city are speed warning displays. These are standalone solar-powered radar+LED displays on their own pole that tell you how fast you're going. The specifics of what the display shows vary fro unit to unit, by virtue of their programming, but they generally show your speed in green when sufficiently below the posted limit, and in red when above it. Yellow/amber is often used for you're-almost-too-fast, soe will flash the almost-too-fast speed at you, and some will actually have smiley-face displays when speed is desirably below the limit. They most often show up in school zones, but one also sees them on other roads where residents may have complained about high-speed traffic. The street our crescent connects to is regularly used by commuters as a shortcut to get around the lights at a nearby major intersection. Not only is that street a school zone (with an elementary school on it), but the residents were sick and tired of drivers gunning it for several hours a day. I don't know how generally effective the displays are, but can only assume there is evidence for their effectiveness, given how omnipresent they are quickly becoming.

Speed cameras are for "catching" speeders. Punishment _after_ the fact is seldom a productive shaper of behaviour. More effective is showing the person or animal what you want them to do, rather than only what you don't want them to do. The ideal is really to provide drivers with feedback that they ARE speeding, so that they reduce speed. I'm a pretty conscientious driver, but can easily find myself looking at the road, getting used to a certain thrum of the engine, and neglecting to look at the speedometer. The sign flashes, and I think "Jeez, didn't realize I was going that fast". I slow down, and drivers behind me do as well. That's a useful outcome.

That said, few if any municipalities can afford, or are willing to afford, the size of police force required to assure civil behaviour in the populace. The choice becomes one of either shelling out for more officers, accepting some form/degree of lower-cost-but-less-thoughtful-automation to substitute for police oversight, or putting up with people behaving irresponsibly in dangerous ways on a more regular basis.

I have no idea if such radar/display units are also coupled with speeding cameras.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

I think more focus is needed on the root cause of most accidents and that is distraction.

People need to freaking pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing, not staring at phones.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Milkman said:


> I think more focus is needed on the root cause of most accidents and that is distraction.
> 
> People need to freaking pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing, not staring at phones.


Agreed. I also agree that the LED speed signs are probably more effective at reminding the more conscientious drivers to mind their speed. Of course that would be viewed as a cost to a municipality rather than a revenue generator that the speed camera is. Like I suggested before, safety isn't a primary concern but that's how they sell it. 
Perhaps if they married the two and at least give the visual warning to slow down by showing your speed and only if unheeded does the camera come into play that might be a fair compromise.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Is this new to you guys? Been around here for years now. mhammer nailed how it works for myself, and milkman is right on about the 'other' issues. Basic driving principles like indicating which way you are turning with a signal, who has the right of way, and common traffic courtesy seem to have gone the way of the DoDo here in Edmonton. I'd imagine parts of the Eastern provinces, particularly Ontario (TO) are 'something special to behold' as well. Drive safe folks. My daughter just got her license and I'm shitting bricks every time she leaves in her car because of the dingbats out there.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

How about all those who roll through stop signs? I seldom see drivers coming to a complete stop.

And it's shocking how many brand new cars seem to have no working turn signals.

But hey yeah, it's all about speed.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

There’s a sign on the highway that says 20km over is a 110$ fine. I set cruise control to 18km over the limit exactly on the highways and pass through speed traps without issue.


----------



## KapnKrunch (Jul 13, 2016)

I love cruise control and always use it except when the road is slippery.

I also like the speed lights that display your speed.

I am dead against cameras, which fine the vehicle instead of the driver.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

They keep increasing fines for distracted driving. Now there's demerit points involved.


Is it working?


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> I think more focus is needed on the root cause of most accidents and that is distraction.
> 
> People need to freaking pay attention to what they're supposed to be doing, not staring at phones.


Or trying to spot hidden cameras 

I like the warning signs - they work for me ....................... but I do think this is all about money, wrapped up in a noble justification.


----------



## johnnyshaka (Nov 2, 2014)

Easiest way to beat the cameras...don't speed...don't run red lights...come to a complete stop at a red light before turning right...just like the law says you should do.

The best way to get back at the gov't for this crap is to show them that it isn't a revenue making machine by not speeding, etc...and then we can rake them over the coals for wasting taxpayer dollars on cameras that don't take a single picture!


----------



## bw66 (Dec 17, 2009)

Our region has decided to install them and I'm not sad about it. Our township just completed a study on my street. It is a residential street posted at 50 km/h that empties onto a main artery. One car in eight is traveling over 60 km/h and half of those are doing more than 80. And based on my observations most of those are staring at phones while doing so. I would love to see the police actually stopping people, but I'll happily take cameras over nothing at all.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

johnnyshaka said:


> Easiest way to beat the cameras...don't speed...don't run red lights...come to a complete stop at a red light before turning right...just like the law says you should do.
> 
> The best way to get back at the gov't for this crap is to show them that it isn't a revenue making machine by not speeding, etc...and then we can rake them over the coals for wasting taxpayer dollars on cameras that don't take a single picture!


Except that they'll have to get the revenue somehow.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Another example of the aggressive conservative party putting cash over people.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Imagine that a bill arrives in the mail and says in the past month that cameras caught you here, and here, and here, and here - all 3 - 5 kms over the limit, all places that you may or probably have driven but believed you were driving under the limit as best as you can recall. Here's your fine or here's your court date. Remember to bring your evidence proving you weren't speeding or weren't there.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

Imagine the next election and the Liberal and NDP parties promise to take the cameras out. Goodbye Drug Ford.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> That said, few if any municipalities can afford, or are willing to afford, the size of police force required to assure civil behaviour in the populace. The choice becomes one of either shelling out for more officers, accepting some form/degree of lower-cost-but-less-thoughtful-automation to substitute for police oversight, or putting up with people behaving irresponsibly in dangerous ways on a more regular basis.


Generally in Canada, while the number of police officers per population has been declining slowly but steadily for almost a decade, the cost of policing has been rising steadily. One factor, not easy to nail down, is that more and more sworn officers are driving desks in the increasingly-bureaucratic and -political activities of police forces rather than preventing crime and enforcing the law.

Which means that yes, many "municipalities can [not] afford, or are [not] willing to afford" more officers on the ground to reduce crime, but the reason for that is not that municipal or regional governments are getting cheap on us. Follow the money.


----------



## colchar (May 22, 2010)

So the vehicle owner gets a ticket, not the driver? That will never stand up in court. Isn't that why they binned them the last time?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

colchar said:


> So the vehicle owner gets a ticket, not the driver? That will never stand up in court. Isn't that why they binned them the last time?


Nope. In the early 1990's the Ontario NDP government did a *massive* overhaul of the Highway Traffic Act and a stack of other legislation to permit them to run photo radar. The owner of the vehicle gets the ticket regardless of who is driving, and that is "justice" the NDP way.

Ontario photo radar was yanked by the Harris Conservative government just a few years later in 1996 because most people didn't want it or its injustices, and because it had not proven to be effective at reducing speeds on the roads.

It's back in a somewhat-limited way thanks to enabling legislation by the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government which allows municipalities to install photo radar in (I forget the language) high-risk areas such as school zones and high-accident areas. I don't believe we'll see it on highways again, but I could be wrong about that... these things have a way of growing.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Lane jumpers on the highway are just as big a issue. But those idiots are usually the ones speeding excessively . Nail them.


----------



## jb welder (Sep 14, 2010)

Auto-driving cars will soon fix all these problems. Via their skills, attitudes, and priorities, the populace is just begging for them.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

boyscout said:


> Nope. In the early 1990's the Ontario NDP government did a *massive* overhaul of the Highway Traffic Act and a stack of other legislation to permit them to run photo radar. The owner of the vehicle gets the ticket regardless of who is driving, and that is "justice" the NDP way.
> 
> Ontario photo radar was yanked by the Harris Conservative government just a few years later in 1996 because most people didn't want it or its injustices, and because it had not proven to be effective at reducing speeds on the roads.
> 
> It's back in a somewhat-limited way thanks to enabling legislation by the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government which allows municipalities to install photo radar in (I forget the language) high-risk areas such as school zones and high-accident areas. I don't believe we'll see it on highways again, but I could be wrong about that... these things have a way of growing.


It's not "NDP law", nor is it just Ontario. In the early-to-mid '70s, in Montreal, my dad had a small machine shop and a pickup truck for pickup/deliveries. He got plowed into as a pedestrian (ironically, in front of a hospital), and while he was in traction in hospital with two fractured legs for several months, one of the two people he employed decided to use the truck as his personal vehicle, and racked up a mountain of parking tickets. The first we knew of it was a months after he went into hospital, when a court summons for unpaid parking tickets appeared in the mail. My dad knew it was a lost cause, but decided to let me go to court to fight it, as a learning opportunity. The judge heard me out but said that, as the registered owner of the vehicle, my dad was on the hook for all the tickets. If we wanted to pursue the now-former employee for the value of the tickets and the tools he stole, that was ours to pursue in civil court, and not his to decide on. Gavel slam, "Next! Prochain!".

I don't say this is fair, but at the same time, just how would the owner, or the police, be able to prove uncontestably, who the person behind the wheel was at the time of the infraction? For parking infractions, of course, they are issued when there is no one in the vehicle, so the ticket _must_ go to the registered owner, and wouldn't go to the teenage son or relative who borrowed the car to run a few errands. If speeding tickets are ONLY issued by officers who pull a car over and ascertain the identity of the driver, it would be technically possible to issue the ticket to the actual driver, whether they are the registered vehicle owner or not. But once you move into the area of things like Virtu-Cars or other rental vehicles, and use photo-radar to identify speeders, the connection between owner and driver starts to evaporate, and positive identification of the driver at the time becomes near impossible. The propensity for people to have those blasted tinted windows doesn't help, either. Like I say, it isn't fair sometimes, but the only thing the police are left with is knowing the registered owner of the vehicle whose plate number they have. The alternative is to throw up your hands and say "I can't tell who was driving, so I'll let it slide". If you have a better idea, let's hear it.

I can't speak for the GTA, but in Ottawa, cops with radar guns, and photo radar, tends to crop up at intersections where there have been a spike in collisions, or on streets where residents have said they sick and tired of worrying about their families leaving the house and being anywhere near the street, or are sick and tired of bozos doing 70 and 80 in a school zone or other residential street. Typically, the location of such measures is announced on local radio. Driver impatience is as contagious as the flu. And unfortunately, we're never going to be able to wipe it out like smallpox.


----------



## sulphur (Jun 2, 2011)




----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

And this is coming next. http://www.cnn.com/2019/12/01/australia/cell-phone-detection-camera-australia-intl-scli/index.html
Every year we have at least 2000+ cars that have been impounded for 1 week to however long in the lower mainland.
And we should not forget there are people out there more important then the rest of us so smarten up guys its just to bad that they can't only hurt them self's and hurt so many others. Just watched a video of a SUV that speed by several cars and further up the road struck a 11 year old little girl who is now brain damaged for the rest of her life and why because he could ( In Victoria BC ) a couple of years back I think.
When going to pick up the wife I see a least 20-30 grown ups on their phone ( almost all new cars have blue tooth ) and while waiting for a green light get beeped and they are busy on their hand held phones.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

mhammer said:


> I can't speak to other municipalities, but what has started sprouting up like dandelions around the city are speed warning displays. These are standalone solar-powered radar+LED displays on their own pole that tell you how fast you're going. The specifics of what the display shows vary fro unit to unit, by virtue of their programming, but they generally show your speed in green when sufficiently below the posted limit, and in red when above it. Yellow/amber is often used for you're-almost-too-fast, soe will flash the almost-too-fast speed at you, and some will actually have smiley-face displays when speed is desirably below the limit. They most often show up in school zones, but one also sees them on other roads where residents may have complained about high-speed traffic. The street our crescent connects to is regularly used by commuters as a shortcut to get around the lights at a nearby major intersection. Not only is that street a school zone (with an elementary school on it), but the residents were sick and tired of drivers gunning it for several hours a day. I don't know how generally effective the displays are, but can only assume there is evidence for their effectiveness, given how omnipresent they are quickly becoming.
> 
> Speed cameras are for "catching" speeders. Punishment _after_ the fact is seldom a productive shaper of behaviour. More effective is showing the person or animal what you want them to do, rather than only what you don't want them to do. The ideal is really to provide drivers with feedback that they ARE speeding, so that they reduce speed. I'm a pretty conscientious driver, but can easily find myself looking at the road, getting used to a certain thrum of the engine, and neglecting to look at the speedometer. The sign flashes, and I think "Jeez, didn't realize I was going that fast". I slow down, and drivers behind me do as well. That's a useful outcome.
> 
> ...


Most of them are. I got a ticket in a change speed zone where there was no photo radar set up or a van., just a portable.....small trailer.....sign that told you your speed. The pic showed the speed limit sign and the rear of my bike with a readable plate. In Alberta with each ticket you could get points....2 to 6 depending on how fast you were going and where.....school zones for example. Get enough points and this happens.

Here is a breakdown of the penalties for demerit points in Alberta :


*Accumulate 8 demerit points :* You will be mailed a notice.
*Accumulate 15 demerit points :* If you accumulate 15 demerit points within a 2-year period, your licence will be automatically suspended for one month.
*Two demerit point suspensions in one year :* You will lose your driver’s license for three months.
*Three or more demerit point suspensions within two years :* Your license is suspended for six months. You may be required to appear before the Alberta Transportation Safety Bo*ard .*
*I* think BC is about the same....they used to be


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

allthumbs56 said:


> Imagine that a bill arrives in the mail and says in the past month that cameras caught you here, and here, and here, and here - all 3 - 5 kms over the limit, all places that you may or probably have driven but believed you were driving under the limit as best as you can recall. Here's your fine or here's your court date. Remember to bring your evidence proving you weren't speeding or weren't there.


Or someone else was driving and be ready to prove it.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It's not always clear which vehicle the you-are-driving-THIS-fast displays are referring to. Obviously, if you're the only vehicle on the road, it's referring to you. But I've dropped my speed down many a time, well below the limit, only for the display to give me a speed reading a good 10-15 kmh above my speed, when there are cars behind me. And when the display is for a roadway that has 2 lanes going in each direction, you also wonder if the radar is ONLY for the (right-hand) lane closest to the sidewalk/shoulder where the radar is, or for both lanes.

But I would agree with yourself and allthumbs that "automated justice" tends not to be very precise, and as a result, not always very just.

Will autonomous vehicles conveniently sidestep this problem? I doubt it. They will continue to coexist with driver-operated vehicles for some time to come. Those drivers will likely take steps to pass the autonomous vehicle, and in so doing, speed up. Impatience is not likely to go anywhere anytime soon, and it is generally the basis for most infractions.


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

boyscout said:


> Nope. In the early 1990's the Ontario NDP government did a *massive* overhaul of the Highway Traffic Act and a stack of other legislation to permit them to run photo radar. The owner of the vehicle gets the ticket regardless of who is driving, and that is "justice" the NDP way.
> 
> Ontario photo radar was yanked by the Harris Conservative government just a few years later in 1996 because most people didn't want it or its injustices, and because it had not proven to be effective at reducing speeds on the roads.
> 
> It's back in a somewhat-limited way thanks to enabling legislation by the Kathleen Wynne Liberal government which allows municipalities to install photo radar in (I forget the language) high-risk areas such as school zones and high-accident areas. I don't believe we'll see it on highways again, but I could be wrong about that... these things have a way of growing.


Over the years, both in Western Canada and the States I've seen signs saying "Aircraft Patrolled" on various highway and have seen RCMP marked planes following the highways. Can't outrun a radio and you'll have a hard time outrunning a plane.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

with Virtu cars ( like rentals ) the main outlet gets the ticket ... they then ding your credit card to pay for the ticket.

I'm OK with the photo radar in school zones / hospital zones / etc ... remember the kids.

photo radar on the highways ... nope 

ottawa is trying to drop the speed limit in town to 30KPH ... and 30 for any street that has been worked on recently ... ( satellite communities )

reason they don't deduct demerit points ... they can't prove who was actually driving ( tinted windows / costumes / etc )

straight up cash cow 

alberta is banning the use in the province 

and stats show they don't reduce accidents / or slow people down ...so the deterrent doesn't work ... 
and the cities usually factor in the estimated revenue into their budgets each year .... definition of a cash cow .


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

I doubt it would be any sort of cash cow. Maybe for those private-sector businesses that help you fight tickets, but likely not for the city. I'm sure it defrays the administrative costs, but I doubt much more than that. 

The proposed municipal 30KPH limit is naive, in my view. You can't have such a big chunk of the populace commuting the sorts of distances they do, in order to afford home purchase, and ask them to do it slower. Like I said above, impatience is not going anywhere. If anything, it is increasing. We live in a culture that encourages impatience as a virtue. And yes, the proposed limits is for a subset of streets. But remember those drivers are coming off major thoroughfares where they have been bumper to bumper for 5km, or taken 6 light-changes to get through an intersection. It's not like they come off those roads thinking "Phew, glad _that's_ over with. Now I can relax and take my time leisurely." They may not have an urge to drive 100KPH, but 30 is going to feel like one is driving via the idler, rather than the gas pedal. Especially for SUVs or any vehicle where the driver sits higher up. That's why I refuse to own one. It distorts one's sense of velocity. Sit higher and the visual angle makes the visual horizon farther away, and feel like it is approaching more slowly. Drive in a smaller car, lower to the ground, and 40 feels like breakneck speed.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> It's not "NDP law", nor is it just Ontario.


In Ontario - the subject of this thread - the changes to reams of legislation to enable photo radar, and make it legal to charge the owner of the vehicle rather than the driver of it for a moving violation, *IS* NDP law! The various pieces of legislation and massive changes to regulations were passed by the NDP government.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Electraglide said:


> Over the years, both in Western Canada and the States I've seen signs saying "Aircraft Patrolled" on various highway and have seen RCMP marked planes following the highways. Can't outrun a radio and you'll have a hard time outrunning a plane.


I was caught speeding by an aircraft over 40 years ago; it may have been my last speeding ticket. The patrol car pulled me over on the highway and a grizzled graying veteran cop walked up to my window. He nodded at me genially, didn't say a word, just double-clicked on the send button of his radio which then hissed to life. I forget the exact details, but I think it was miles per hour at the time. This is what I heard.

"Confirmed subject vehicle. Three clocks. First clock XX miles per hour, second clock XX miles per hour, third clock XX miles per hour, charge the driver, XX miles per hour."

The cop at my window looked at me almost apologetically, shrugged as though god had spoken and there was nothing he could do, and asked for my drivers license. How could I argue?!

I've always remembered it as a great performance; an experienced veteran at work.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

For those of you who don't think it'll become a cash cow, think again. Last summer in Edmonton our City Council passed a bylaw for 30Km/h in School zones and Playground zones. These zones start at 7AM (maybe 8, not sure) and run until, get this, 9:30PM. Every day, all year, school in or not. They put up 30Km signs in all of those areas. The kicker is that the entire field that a school or playground is in, fenced or not, is a 30 zone. In North Edmonton we have an entire major Avenue (144th) that is basically a friggin 30 zone for close to 50 blocks. Guess what? People just skirt around in the residential areas where it's 50 and speed there, where there are waaay more children playing and such. 1 coucillor who watched his friend die in a residential area while walking with her because of a speeder wants to also run ALL residential areas down to 30. 

It's my belief that this is actually causing people to drive more aggressively to make up lost time, and for pedestrians to be more unaware of what's around them because they feel "safer" in the 30 zones. It's totally a money grab. Don't believe the BS the Politicians are feeding you.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Maybe I’m part of the problem but 30 kmph? Are you shitting me?

Freaking E-bikes will be passing you.

I struggle with 40. 

30 will simply be ignored by most and you can’t give _every_one a ticket.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Milkman said:


> Maybe I’m part of the problem but 30 kmph? Are you shitting me?
> 
> Freaking E-bikes will be passing you.
> 
> ...


Double post.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

Milkman said:


> Maybe I’m part of the problem but 30 kmph? Are you shitting me?
> 
> Freaking E-bikes will be passing you.
> 
> ...


Pretty much is by most everyone, including the cops. Except for around School Zones mostly. They took a few down in a few areas where it was totally messing with the city bus routes though. People were even being passed by Yellow School Buses at one point on this "little journey into the hell of Edmonton".


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

If they want me to terrify kids by rumbling through school zones in first gear that’s the city’s fault. 30 was a very strictly enforced speed in school zones in bc when I was learning to drive.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

Milkman said:


> 30 will simply be ignored by most and you can’t give _every_one a ticket.


you obviously don't know ottawa very well ... they just hired 20 new recruits ...

BTW , they are also gonna increase the snow removal for bike lanes (on the regular roads) in winter .... 
who in the heck rides a bike in deep snow with traffic wizzing around beside you ?
( brain dead cyclists , last one to try that slipped and fell under a SUV on the 60 KPM parkway , last winter )


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> and you can’t give _every_one a ticket.


You can if you automate it.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Motor Mouth: What you need to know about Australia's cell phone detection cameras

 _Australia just rolled out cameras that can detect cell phone usage behind the wheel — and you may have to snitch out your kid _
_
Similar in concept to photo radar and red light cameras, Australia’s cell phone detection cameras use automatic high definition lens to peer inside your car. What’s different about iPhone detectors, however, is that the resultant images are then reviewed by artificial intelligence (AI) to ascertain whether you have a cell phone — or, at this initial stage, anything remotely iPhone-ish — in your hands while driving. If Big Brother determines there’s a possibility that you were indeed texting/surfing/hands-on calling, your file is then passed off to a human inspector who then confirms that the object AI detected you were holding — or indeed, under Australian law, just touching — was indeed a communications device. If so, the owner of the car is automatically found guilty.
_
_*If you’re not guilty, you might have to snitch out your wife*_

_Or you kid. Like all such automatic fine systems, the problematic legality here is that there is no proof that the registered owner of the vehicle is behind the wheel; the angle of the camera makes it difficult to capture the faces of all but the shortest driver. Such “guilty until proven innocent” jurisprudence, of course, rankles constitutional experts and civil rights activists._

_The Australian government’s solution — and guys, if this doesn’t convince you that Big Brotherism is truly upon us, nothing will — is to let you rat out someone else. Officially, Australian legalese calls it “nominating” as in, “the legislation allows the registered operator (owner) of the vehicle to nominate the person responsible for the offence.”_

_Methinks “Honey, were you driving my car last Thursday?” just became grounds for divorce._


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

Autonomous vehicles will start a civil war.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Wardo said:


> Autonomous vehicles will start a civil war.


Maybe a Civic war.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

mhammer said:


> I can't speak to other municipalities, but what has started sprouting up like dandelions around the city are speed warning displays. These are standalone solar-powered radar+LED displays on their own pole that tell you how fast you're going. The specifics of what the display shows vary fro unit to unit, by virtue of their programming, but they generally show your speed in green when sufficiently below the posted limit, and in red when above it. Yellow/amber is often used for you're-almost-too-fast, soe will flash the almost-too-fast speed at you, and some will actually have smiley-face displays when speed is desirably below the limit. They most often show up in school zones, but one also sees them on other roads where residents may have complained about high-speed traffic. The street our crescent connects to is regularly used by commuters as a shortcut to get around the lights at a nearby major intersection. Not only is that street a school zone (with an elementary school on it), but the residents were sick and tired of drivers gunning it for several hours a day. I don't know how generally effective the displays are, but can only assume there is evidence for their effectiveness, given how omnipresent they are quickly becoming.
> 
> Speed cameras are for "catching" speeders. Punishment _after_ the fact is seldom a productive shaper of behaviour. More effective is showing the person or animal what you want them to do, rather than only what you don't want them to do. The ideal is really to provide drivers with feedback that they ARE speeding, so that they reduce speed. I'm a pretty conscientious driver, but can easily find myself looking at the road, getting used to a certain thrum of the engine, and neglecting to look at the speedometer. The sign flashes, and I think "Jeez, didn't realize I was going that fast". I slow down, and drivers behind me do as well. That's a useful outcome.
> 
> ...


We call those displays high score signs.


----------



## player99 (Sep 5, 2019)

More of the man trying to control me. I am a free man. At 30km per hr.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

cboutilier said:


> We call those displays high score signs.


LMAO, yeah they go up to a certain number and then just give up and say “too fast” or “slow down”.

People who want 30 kmph speed limits need to move to car free zones.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

cboutilier said:


> We call those displays high score signs.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

Until they change the tinted windows laws in Ontario I don’t think automated distracted driving tickets will be a thing. Nobody can see into my truck and nobody needs to lol


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Dorian2 said:


> For those of you who don't think it'll become a cash cow, think again. Last summer in Edmonton our City Council passed a bylaw for 30Km/h in School zones and Playground zones. These zones start at 7AM (maybe 8, not sure) and run until, get this, 9:30PM. Every day, all year, school in or not. They put up 30Km signs in all of those areas. The kicker is that the entire field that a school or playground is in, fenced or not, is a 30 zone. In North Edmonton we have an entire major Avenue (144th) that is basically a friggin 30 zone for close to 50 blocks. Guess what? People just skirt around in the residential areas where it's 50 and speed there, where there are waaay more children playing and such. 1 councillor who watched his friend die in a residential area while walking with her because of a speeder wants to also run ALL residential areas down to 30.
> 
> It's my belief that this is actually causing people to drive more aggressively to make up lost time, and for pedestrians to be more unaware of what's around them because they feel "safer" in the 30 zones. It's totally a money grab. Don't believe the BS the Politicians are feeding you.


Some laws and by-laws are passed more for rhetorical and symbolic reasons than for being thought out to have the surgical impact needed on the problem at hand. And voters elect such people because they grasp the symbolism but don't think deeply enough about the issues to know whether the "solutions" pitched actually fix the problem without undesired spinoff effects. They like the sense that some politician or government is "on their side", by virtue of the symbolic aspects of what that person/government pitches. This is too-often true regardless of the political leanings of the voters; voters simply don't think deeply or analytically enough. It's like someone running in to a doctor begging for a prescription and not caring whether the prescribed drug will cause hair loss, birth defects, cancer, rashes, kidney malfunction, or tooth decay. That said, we underestimate how difficult smart and effective public policy development is. That's why it seldom satisfies. Even the folks tasked with drafting it, at any level of government, from town reeve on up, underestimate the difficulty. Good intentions don't automatically translate into good policy.

But now I have ventured into an area I'd like to avoid: politics. This is a thread about management of driver speed when it becomes potentially dangerous.

As for Edmonton drivers taking extreme steps to circumvent 30kph zones, I've said it earlier in this thread and will continue to say it: driver and societal impatience is not going anywhere; whether soon or in the long run. You can ask a _little_ bit of patience from them, but more than that and you're asking for trouble rather than patience. Any sort of bylaws or legislation has to anticipate that reality.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

There are 3 ways to leave my neighbourhood. All 3 go past schools with 30k zones. It really doesn't bother me, and I rarely go more than 2-3 over. And I'm a guy who likes to go go go on the highway. Even some small towns out in the country have 30k school zones. It's just part of life.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

keto said:


> There are 3 ways to leave my neighbourhood. All 3 go past schools with 30k zones. It really doesn't bother me, and I rarely go more than 2-3 over. And I'm a guy who likes to go go go on the highway. Even some small towns out in the country have 30k school zones. It's just part of life.


I like your attitude.


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

mhammer said:


> I like your attitude.


I mean, when some kid not paying attention walks out from behind a parked car, or someone just ahead of you opens their car door to go help their kid to school just as you approach, you get a new appreciation for 30k.

The only part I don't like is the late hours. It's 9pm, and other than a few basketballers in the summer, there aren't kids running around the school yards or even their own yards at that time of day any more. Kids don't really do that. Yeah, the odd soccer or softball game goes on. But doing 30k in pitch black at 7pm in Feb at -30 is a little eye rolling.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

30 kmph in a school zone is fine, no complaints here and I will comply.

30 or 40 in a zone with no schools seems ridiculously slow to me.


----------



## Ship of fools (Nov 17, 2007)

Going that slow makes me wonder what about the so called pollution factor then. I think most new cars operate at higher speeds to keep gas consumption at a reasonable level.
And as for school zones yesterday I watched an idiot drive around me while I was going 34KM and all of a sudden I saw a kid step out from in front of a school bus and thought that kid is going to die the guy swerved at the last moment scarring the hell out of the kid and the bus driver even though he had his flashers going. But it was a bus with camera's in it just for that very purpose so he be getting a ticket and a call from the RCMP.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> 30 kmph in a school zone is fine, no complaints here and I will comply.
> 
> 30 or 40 in a zone with no schools seems ridiculously slow to me.


I wonder if requiring a driver to slow to a speed that is essentially crawling at idle for a brief span will actually cause a driver to focus more on his dashboard and less on his surroundings.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

allthumbs56 said:


> I wonder if requiring a driver to slow to a speed that is essentially crawling at idle for a brief span will actually cause a driver to focus more on his dashboard and less on his surroundings.



Exactly,

To maintain a speed that slow most people will be staring at the speedometer, not at their surroundings.

Why not make it 6 kmph?


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

School zones do deserve special considerations. In the states the speeds are strictly controlled in school zones with flashing lights and so on, but only during the appropriate times of day (start up and finish).

Get caught speeding while those lights are on and let me know how you fare. Seems like they really want to solve a problem.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

Milkman said:


> Why not make it 6 kmph?


ARGHHHHHHHH
there you go ... giving them ideas !
next week I'll be driving around ottawa at 6 KMPH as hover boards whizz past me .... heck even bicycles can't go that slow without falling over.
people with a walker will be blowing past me and laughing .


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Except in a few cases (particularly school zones), most speed limits are artificially slow, dumbed down for the low standards required to get a driver's license. In most driving situations, someone going 10kph over the limit and paying attention is much safer than someone going 10kph under and distracted by cellphone or whatever. We need to focus more on the real problems and less on the simple solutions that just make easy money. But it's like this with so many political solutions - logic has become a superpower that maybe 1% of the general pop possess. 

I have bigger issues with bad dog owners (the owners, not the dogs) letting their mutts run wild in on-leash areas (oh, he's never bit anyone before). That's a law that is never upheld and the most scofflawed issue I'm aware of, as someone who tries to enjoy our paths and other outdoor spaces without intrusion. But I digress ..........


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Milkman said:


> Exactly,
> 
> To maintain a speed that slow most people will be staring at the speedometer, not at their surroundings.
> 
> Why not make it 6 kmph?


Our school zones are 40km and are dependent on flashing lights to tell you it's in force. So you're driving along at 50 - 55 and see some flashing lights, you register what the sign is telling you, you hit the brakes/coast while looking at your speedo until it says 40 and by the time you've done that you're out of the zone. Were you actually looking around for kids?


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Milkman said:


> 30 kmph in a school zone is fine, no complaints here and I will comply.
> 
> 30 or 40 in a zone with no schools seems ridiculously slow to me.


That it does, but - sensible darkness considerations aside - see Keto's comment about kids running out into the street. Kids do not live at school, so residential neighbourhoods have justifiable concerns about faster traffic. We can't complain about them being glued to screens all day, getting fat and unfit, without taking positive steps to making outdoor play more feasible. That said, 9PM can be overkill, part of the year in Edmonton. The problem is that 9PM _IS_ reasonable during peak summer months in Edmonton, when you can read a newspaper/book outside until 10:15 or so, and kids with no school tomorrow are fine to play outdoors until at least 9:30. Could a speed-limit intended to provide greater safety for kids be imposed that says 30kph until 5PM for Sept-April and, say, 9PM for May-August? Practically speaking if one is trying to engrain a good habit in drivers, you tend to get poorer results when the habit is only required _sometimes_. Regardless of the clear illogic and unfairness on _rational_ grounds, you have to plan policy on _behavioural_ grounds; that is, one has to ask "What do I have to insist on to make sure that when I_ really_ need people to behave this way, they are likely to do so?"

It may be better now, but I recall only too well the state of sidestreets in residential Edmonton when we lived there. The unplowed snow would get packed down until it formed ice ruts that you couldn't steer out of. Heaven forbid a kid jumps out chasing a ball, because there is no way to stop in time or steer out of the way.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> Except in a few cases (particularly school zones), most speed limits are artificially slow, dumbed down for the low standards required to get a driver's license. In most driving situations, someone going 10kph over the limit and paying attention is much safer than someone going 10kph under and distracted by cellphone or whatever. We need to focus more on the real problems and less on the simple solutions that just make easy money. But it's like this with so many political solutions - logic has become a superpower that maybe 1% of the general pop possess.
> 
> I have bigger issues with bad dog owners (the owners, not the dogs) letting their mutts run wild in on-leash areas (oh, he's never bit anyone before). That's a law that is never upheld and the most scofflawed issue I'm aware of, as someone who tries to enjoy our paths and other outdoor spaces without intrusion. But I digress ..........


That's another subject worthy of discussion (breed specific laws). Personally I support banning some breeds.

But yes, I would prefer a more root cause oriented countermeasure to the speed issue.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Milkman said:


> That's another subject worthy of discussion (breed specific laws). *Personally I support banning some breeds.*
> 
> But yes, I would prefer a more root cause oriented countermeasure to the speed issue.


But if it's policed and enforced as much as leash laws (that is to say, not at all), then it will just be another pointless law put on the books to make the politicians feel good about themselves, while accomplishing SFA. Just another law with no teeth (pun intended).


----------



## Mooh (Mar 7, 2007)

There are likely places where cameras will not only save lives but reduce the cost of policing. The speeding on Ontario's Bruce Peninsula has become an epidemic. I rarely drive the worst of it anymore as there is an alternative for me, but even there speeders are increasing. 

Stunt Driving Problem Persists on Highway 6 on Bruce Peninsula

I'd rather society do without more cameras on roads, but as long as it keeps raising assholes, I'm not sure it can.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> But if it's policed and enforced as much as leash laws (that is to say, not at all), then it will just be another pointless law put on the books to make the politicians feel good about themselves, while accomplishing SFA. Just another law with no teeth (pun intended).


It seems to have severely curtailed the number of pit bulls I see in my community so I think it has had some effect.

Nature vs nurture?

If you raise a baby tiger what does it become as an adult? A tabby?

Generations of selective breeding can't be completely overcome by kindness and love.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Milkman said:


> It seems to have severely curtailed the number of pit bulls I see in my community so I think it has had some effect.
> 
> Nature vs nurture?
> 
> ...


And ultimately easier to police than the leash laws, which require boots on the ground and is just ignored. You stop the breed at the source - the breeders, puppy mills and pet stores. Hard to get the grandfathered animals off the streets though, I would think.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

High/Deaf said:


> And ultimately easier to police than the leash laws, which require boots on the ground and is just ignored. You stop the breed at the source - the breeders, puppy mills and pet stores. Hard to get the grandfathered animals off the streets though, I would think.



Attrition takes care of the existing dogs. I would never suggest that anyone's pets be seized.

Just stop making them.

Any breed can bite, but the characteristics for which these ones have been selectively bred for generations makes their bite MUCH more dangerous.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

mike_oxbig said:


> Until they change the tinted windows laws in Ontario I don’t think automated distracted driving tickets will be a thing. Nobody can see into my truck and nobody needs to lol


Their is a fine for dark tint but it is nothing compared to the distracted driving penalty. Also a fine for tinted headlight covers. Friend got one many years ago.Ontario Window Tint Laws | Car Tinting Laws


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Milkman said:


> Attrition takes care of the existing dogs. I would never suggest that anyone's pets be seized.
> 
> Just stop making them.
> 
> Any breed can bite, but the characteristics for which these ones have been selectively bred for generations makes their bite MUCH more dangerous.


And you have to consider the bite style -- latching/ratcheting vs nipping/snapping. Some dogs are just more dangerous by nature.

But we've probably beaten this dead pooch and sidetracked the thread enough, eh? Back to those horrid people going 11 kph over the limit.


----------



## Milkman (Feb 2, 2006)

Meh, I need to mellow out. I AM an impatient person (not just an impatient driver), however, I drive carefully and take my responsibility as a driver VERY seriously. I don't think it's my car's responsibility to ensure that I don't rear end the car in front of me using some new technology. That's MINE.

And going 50 kmph in a normal residential area, I can react quickly enough should a child dart out. When I approach an area where there are concealments that could hide a child I slow down. I don't need a freaking sign or law to provide common sense.

Sadly, what has only been touched on in this thread is the reality that the laws we're talking about are geared to the lowest common denominator and that's pretty low.


----------



## 10409 (Dec 11, 2011)

Distortion said:


> Their is a fine for dark tint but it is nothing compared to the distracted driving penalty. Also a fine for tinted headlight covers. Friend got one many years ago.Ontario Window Tint Laws | Car Tinting Laws


Pretty sure there’s an exception if it comes factory tinted. I’ve never been hassled about it but I probably would have issues out of province. Came off the lot like this


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

even factory tinting is fair game in some provinces .

now if only , everybody drove as though their life depended on it ( because it does ) , we'd see a lot less accidents.
and a lot more attention paid .


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

High/Deaf said:


> And you have to consider the bite style -- latching/ratcheting vs nipping/snapping. Some dogs are just more dangerous by nature.
> 
> But we've probably beaten this dead pooch and sidetracked the thread enough, eh? Back to those horrid people going 11 kph over the limit.


Indeed. I don't want to get into that argument ever again. People get angry when I start bringing facts into arguments. My wife has a B.Sc in Animal Science and runs Halifax's #1 dog daycare. 


As for speed limits. I like them to be science based as well, which they never are. They are based on stopping distances of 4000lbs cars with 4 wheel drum brakes in the 1950s. My local 2 lane highway just had its limit lowered to appease the soccer moms, after the government paid for a engineering study to be conducted. The expensive study concluded against lowering the limit, so they spent more money to do it anyways.


----------



## Dorian2 (Jun 9, 2015)

I don't think people are reminded very often, if at all anymore, that a vehicle IS a deadly weapon. They typically get the hint when it's too late.


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

mike_oxbig said:


> Pretty sure there’s an exception if it comes factory tinted. I’ve never been hassled about it but I probably would have issues out of province. Came off the lot like this


Likely tinted at the lot and at least it’s not a Dodge.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

oldjoat said:


> even factory tinting is fair game in some provinces .
> 
> now if only , everybody drove as though their life depended on it ( because it does ) , we'd see a lot less accidents.
> and a lot more attention paid .


The provincial govts are complicit in this. I think, as you suggest, they should also take issuing drivers licenses as if people's lives were at stake - because they are.

But licenses aren't awarded based on one's ability to drive. They are based on one's ability to memorized road rules and remember them for 1 day, and then forget them for the rest of their lives. There should be actually testing of technical driving abilities, braking in emergencies, being able to back up around a corner, etc. I see people all the time not able to operate a motor vehicle in the most basic of circumstances. And the provinces just keep lowering he bar - I know for a fact that a decade ago, ICBC made it easier to get a license so they didn't look racist (as quite a large number of test failures were in immigrant communities). Does that make any sense to anyone?

And people, everyone - you, me, 18 years old, 78 years old - should be retested every 5 years. If you are capable, competent driver, this should be a problem for you. Driving is serious business and yet very few people treated it as such.


----------



## Lincoln (Jun 2, 2008)

before my wife retired, she was the senior traffic annalist for the city of Edmonton. They did a study years ago that was never made public of course. They had speed monitoring equipment set up before and after known photo radar locations.
It showed that the only time people slowed down was just before a known photo radar location, and then they sped up right after. Every case, every location they studied was the same result. It does nothing to slow traffic or make the roads safer. 
But what a cash-grab!!!!!!


----------



## Electraglide (Jan 24, 2010)

Lincoln said:


> before my wife retired, she was the senior traffic annalist for the city of Edmonton. They did a study years ago that was never made public of course. They had speed monitoring equipment set up before and after known photo radar locations.
> It showed that the only time people slowed down was just before a known photo radar location, and then they sped up right after. Every case, every location they studied was the same result. It does nothing to slow traffic or make the roads safer.
> But what a cash-grab!!!!!!


There's a couple of places in Red Deer where there is photo radar vans set up at the same time and same spot in the parking lot almost every day. They were on my way to work and you could tell a lot of people, including myself, knew exactly where the cameras could see and not see. When I was on the bike I didn't worry about it. Another spot was at the bottom of a hill near a house we rented. They parked the car where it could be seen all the time. If you could see the cop standing at the bottom of the hill you were Ok. If you couldn't then you might get a ticket. Where I live now there are school zones all around. Because it's an older area a lot of the streets are narrow. Trying to do more than 30kph at the best of times in a regular car or truck is kinda difficult. Just enough room. 
@High/Deaf......The driver license/racial thing has been going on for a lot longer than a decade. Vancouver was/is bad for that. So were Surrey and Langley. When I finally got stopped and had to take my class 6 I did it in Langley. More or less if you could ride your bike there you got your 6. That was 74. 
From what I understand both here and BC, after my license expires after my 75th birthday this happens.

*Alberta Driver’s License Renewal For Seniors*

Driver’s license renewal for seniors is the same process. It does not change until you reach 75. At 75 you will require a medical report signed by your doctor. Once you reach 80, you will be required to renew every two years.

*Alberta Driver’s License Renewal Medical Form*
Alberta drivers license renewal at age 75 requires to you provide a completed medical exam form. You will also need to provide a medical form if :


You have a medical condition that could impact your ability to drive.
You have a class 1, 2, or 4 driver’s license.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

A bit of a tangent but I noticed this in our local paper the other day regarding the RIDE program. I think the stats the past couple of years were not providing the correct narrative and noticed that they are now using a stat called "Impairment Incident" in comparisons. I didn't think it was such a big deal until I got to this _"Through all of 2018, RIDE stops conducted by the NRP led to 431 impaired incidents — *charges weren't necessarily laid, but officers were suspicious enough to bring in a breathalyzer technician*."_ and _"Last year's holiday RIDE program led to (a grand total of) three arrests, three licence suspensions and 111 roadside tests administered." _What's missing from the article is the total number of vehicles stopped - in order to lay 3 impaired charges and 3 warnings.

The conclusion I draw is that we're are using a ton of resources - for little impact (of course proponents might counter "look - it's working!"). The article, by virtue of measuring a new statistic uses it to cite that the numbers are up - implying the need for more resources yet again.

Niagara Regional Police launch holiday RIDE campaign​Sadly, we have been crying out for more foot patrols in our downtown core but now I see why we couldn't possible afford them - they're needed to keep 3 otherwise fine citizens (that can at least afford a car) off the streets.


----------



## Jimmy Fingers (Aug 17, 2017)

As always... speed limits, photo radar, red light cams, RIDE programs, are about politics. Keeps the squeaky loud minority quiet. Gives the impression that these issues are being addressed. 60KM zones that should be 80. Drunks caught driving again, and again even while suspended. London Ontario radio stations running ads warning drivers about 200+ people last year piling into the back of other people at red lights because the guy in front slams on their breaks for fear of a $300 ticket. Politicians think nothing through. I got a photo radar ticket years ago in Toronto on the 407 for going 110 in 100KM zone. Really? How does that help anyone? That is why it was dismantled. It was a money grab not a worthwhile speed reducing en-devour.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

allthumbs56 said:


> A bit of a tangent but I noticed this in our local paper the other day regarding the RIDE program. I think the stats the past couple of years were not providing the correct narrative and noticed that they are now using a stat called "Impairment Incident" in comparisons. I didn't think it was such a big deal until I got to this _"Through all of 2018, RIDE stops conducted by the NRP led to 431 impaired incidents — *charges weren't necessarily laid, but officers were suspicious enough to bring in a breathalyzer technician*."_ and _"Last year's holiday RIDE program led to (a grand total of) three arrests, three licence suspensions and 111 roadside tests administered." _What's missing from the article is the total number of vehicles stopped - in order to lay 3 impaired charges and 3 warnings.
> 
> The conclusion I draw is that we're are using a ton of resources - for little impact (of course proponents might counter "look - it's working!"). The article, by virtue of measuring a new statistic uses it to cite that the numbers are up - implying the need for more resources yet again.
> 
> Niagara Regional Police launch holiday RIDE campaign​Sadly, we have been crying out for more foot patrols in our downtown core but now I see why we couldn't possible afford them - they're needed to keep 3 otherwise fine citizens (that can at least afford a car) off the streets.


The kicker is most police forces always have a couple of their finest on desk duty because they have no license due to being convicted of impaired driving. I never got the fact they are convicted of a criminal offence but they can carry on being a police officer. Hmmm.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

Distortion said:


> I never got the fact they are convicted of a criminal offence but they can carry on being a police officer. Hmmm.


Same as other incompetent civil service employees. Strong unions.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

or the ones convicted of serious crimes and they still get to keep their jobs and can't be fired ( only demoted )

then you get judges in court asking joe average who they should believe , him or the police ... hint: it ain't the guy without a union backing him.


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Ever watch TV 11 news out of Hamilton ? The regional media officer stepped in some Doo Doo. Hamilton officer charged with impaired driving - CHCH


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

and the cop shooting another cop at the scene of an accident ... all charges later dropped .


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

oldjoat said:


> and the cop shooting another cop at the scene of an accident ... all charges later dropped .


 Niagara . Lots of corruption


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

rampant in all provinces ... every cop is a criminal , every sinner a saint.


----------



## laristotle (Aug 29, 2019)

sorta like when Dick Cheney blasted buddy in the face with a shotgun?


----------



## Distortion (Sep 16, 2015)

Niagara cop acquitted of sex assault I hope you don't get this breath analyzer this Ride Season.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Distortion said:


> The kicker is most police forces always have a couple of their finest on desk duty because they have no license due to being convicted of impaired driving. I never got the fact they are convicted of a criminal offence but they can carry on being a police officer. Hmmm.


We've got that thing where one cop shot another nine times in self defense happening here right now. Most recently they have dropped all charges against the shooter. The "shootie's" trial is yet to commence. Both are suspended with pay.

Oops - I see this was referenced already.


----------



## oldjoat (Apr 4, 2019)

similar stuff right across the country .... 
drunk driving
resisting arrest
stalking 
unlawful use of computers and databases 
lying under oath
unlawful discharge of fire arms 
abuse of power
discreditable conduct 

and yet they keep their jobs , when most of us would be terminated for "just cause".


----------



## keto (May 23, 2006)

oldjoat said:


> similar stuff right across the country ....
> drunk driving
> resisting arrest
> stalking
> ...


2nd in about 6-7 yrs canned here recently. Lots of pretty egregious stuff in the papers, where they keep their jobs.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Lincoln said:


> before my wife retired, she was the senior traffic annalist for the city of Edmonton. They did a study years ago that was never made public of course. They had speed monitoring equipment set up before and after known photo radar locations.
> It showed that the only time people slowed down was just before a known photo radar location, and then they sped up right after. Every case, every location they studied was the same result. It does nothing to slow traffic or make the roads safer.
> But what a cash-grab!!!!!!


When I did my M.Sc. in animal learning and memory at U of A, I spent a LOT of time reading about learning theory and the basis of associative learning. And one of the truisms about punishment is that it all too often does nothing to establish desirable behaviour, but more often simply entrenches the successful avoidance of future punishment. So that unpublished report does not surprise me in the least.

Most people will behave appropriately if they believe they are being seen/surveiled. Indeed, one of the major strategies for reducing crime in a downtown core is to increase the number of people living there, so that there is always someone around to see an untoward behaviour. Of course, people have to _think_ they are being seen. So if they begin to simply habituate to cameras or whatnot, they don't think of themselves as seen and their actions and misdeeds as witnessed.

At a community association meeting last year, our city councillor attended, and concerns were expressed about speeding on the residential streets by folks trying to use them as shortcuts around the lights at the major intersection (which CAN take 4-6 light changes to get through on many mornings). The first suggestion was speed bumps, which he rejected outright because it slows down ambulances and other first responders. What we got were the you're-driving-THIS-fast displays. We could really use a full 3-way stop at a T-intersection, instead of just a stop for the "stem" of the T. When the plows start to pile up the snow at the corners, it gets hard to see the oncoming cars on the cross street, who don't seem especially mindful when they're in a hurry to beat the light.

I was in Toronto yesterday for a cousin's funeral, and the 401 drivers....well, I'm sure you know. You can be gunning it at 140 in the left-hand lane, and somebody is tailgating you, eager to pass you on the right at 150+. And there's no shortage of them.

There are few panaceas for fostering responsible and patient driver behaviour. It's simply one of those human activities that caters to our worst inclinations.


----------

