Traffic fines should not go to the city

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby monroe » Dec 15th, 2017, 2:48 pm

^^ camera zones are definitely advertised in the uk but their fine structure is what keeps speeders in fear - and its just changed...

Band C speeding fine

A Band C speeding fine means that anyone speeding at 51mph or above in a 30mph limit - for example - faces a fine equivalent to 150% of their weekly income, and 6 penalty points on their driving licence, or disqualification from driving for up to 56 days. If you’re disqualified for 56 days or more, you must apply for a new licence before you're able to start driving again.

For anyone earning £25,000 a year, a speeding fine equivalent to 150% of their weekly income means handing over a minimum of £720 - no small amount.

Band B speeding fine

You might receive a Band B speeding fine for doing between 41-50mph, in which case you'd face a fine equivalent to 100% of your weekly income (£480), and 4 penalty points on your driving licence, or disqualification from driving for up to 28 days.

Band A speeding fine

A Band A speeding fine would be appropriate if you are caught speeding between 31-40 in a 30mph zone, and you can expect to receive a fine equivalent to 50% of your weekly income (£240), and 3 penalty points on your driving licence.

------------------------------

The speeding fine is to be capped at £2,500 for those caught speeding on the motorway, and £1,000 everywhere else. 

This means that anyone earning more than about £50,000 a year probably won’t be asked to pay any more than this, a situation that leaves poorer drivers disproportionately disadvantaged


Source : https://www.saga.co.uk/magazine/motorin ... -explained
Last edited by monroe on Dec 15th, 2017, 2:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
" ... Kind of weird but hey, weird is normal on castanet " - LANDM
User avatar
monroe
Übergod
 
Posts: 1875
Likes: 1086 posts
Liked in: 1231 posts
Joined: Nov 19th, 2005, 5:24 am
Location: Bubblegum Mountains?

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby Ken7 » Dec 15th, 2017, 2:49 pm

Jflem1983 wrote:Ya more enforcement. Thats the answer. Make people pay even more. Slow people down further. All in the name of revenue and F ing people over. Rite on


I have to disagree with you. I was involved in a Safety initiative in Saskatchewan as they determined seatbelts save lives. I do still agree with that as I had only ever had to unbuckle on dead man, who actually died of a heart attack and then hit a semi.

Saskatchewan as you know is flat, in many cases studies showed people who were not belted in and were in a roll over ended up crushed as the car rolled over then.

You can advertise till the cows come home about any safety matter. People tend to give you the old answer it will never happen to me. As long as there is no enforcement, there will be no compliance. We all started enforcing the seatbelt law, deaths in the province went down in time and the compliance was 98 % after about three years, that is great.

Why is it people still have not figured it out in this city that running amber/red lights is unsafe?

You have trouble going one week without seeing a T-bone accident where someone is clearing the intersection on a amber and they are stuck by a racing vehicle trying to beat the red light.

As long as we continue as we are with no enforcement, saving you a ticket, our vehicle insurance will only continue to rise. Yes it is not all drivers, but the ones causing injury or death cause you and I to pay more. Enforcing speeding and other laws tend to slow the stupid drivers down as sooner or later they get their licenses pulled.

As for speed this was funny. I was going over the bridge this am, doing 60 kms when a little blue Nissan truck with a white cap goes flying past me. I'm sure he had that junker floored. Well I continued doing the speed limit in the slow lane being passed time and time again. At BUTT Road, there I pass the little blue truck. It dose not pay to race on the highway. I only wish he would have been clocked on the bridge, as he likely would have lost his junker.
Last edited by Ken7 on Dec 15th, 2017, 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

3 people like this post.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6711
Likes: 3850 posts
Liked in: 2785 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby Ken7 » Dec 15th, 2017, 3:12 pm

fz6adventure wrote:
Okay ..... how about Section 8 of the Charter, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.


If you are going to site law, shouldn't you be well versed in it?

Public place, you have no right to privacy as far as being video taped.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6711
Likes: 3850 posts
Liked in: 2785 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby Ken7 » Dec 15th, 2017, 3:16 pm

HorganIsMyHero wrote:There are areas where the speed limit is unclear. Also, when there's a speed change from like 80 - 50 some people who don't slow down fast enough might be ticketed depending on the officer. I'd like to live in your world where everything is black and white.


You are stretching it, signage is quite clear in most all jurisdictions. Good example is coming into West Kelowna from Peachland, very well signed but people do not respect that at all.

IF you can't figure it out or just don't wish to comply, why should you not get a ticket?

Are you one of these Millenniums, or is it all about you?
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6711
Likes: 3850 posts
Liked in: 2785 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby fz6adventure » Dec 15th, 2017, 4:10 pm

Ken7 wrote:
fz6adventure wrote:
Okay ..... how about Section 8 of the Charter, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure.


If you are going to site law, shouldn't you be well versed in it?

Public place, you have no right to privacy as far as being video taped.


Not quite!

Mr. Radwanski (the former Privacy Commissioner of Canada) commissioned a report on the subject by former Supreme Court judge Gerard La Forest, who found that continuous video surveillance violates the Charter's Section 8, which guarantees a "broad and general" right to privacy. Mr. La Forest found that a strong legal case could be made against the camera in Kelowna.

"In the absence of compelling justification, we should all be free to move about without fear of being systematically observed by agents of the state,"

Jflem1983 likes this post.
fz6adventure
Board Meister
 
Posts: 531
Likes: 829 posts
Liked in: 558 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby Ken7 » Dec 15th, 2017, 7:25 pm

fz6adventure wrote:Not quite!

Mr. Radwanski (the former Privacy Commissioner of Canada) commissioned a report on the subject by former Supreme Court judge Gerard La Forest, who found that continuous video surveillance violates the Charter's Section 8, which guarantees a "broad and general" right to privacy. Mr. La Forest found that a strong legal case could be made against the camera in Kelowna.

"In the absence of compelling justification, we should all be free to move about without fear of being systematically observed by agents of the state,"


Now was that continuous on a individual or on a street corner? Note "broad and general" as stated.

Do you have a link please..
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6711
Likes: 3850 posts
Liked in: 2785 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby fz6adventure » Dec 15th, 2017, 7:59 pm

Ken7 wrote:
Do you have a link please..

Here is probably the most succinct one. A speech to the Kelowna Chamber in 2002

https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news ... _b_020206/
fz6adventure
Board Meister
 
Posts: 531
Likes: 829 posts
Liked in: 558 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby kelbear25 » Dec 15th, 2017, 8:04 pm

ne of the speeding problems in this town is how many as****es don't even know how to speed. Not a clue, at all, not even a little.
Ripping up narrow streets doing 90 km/h, tailgating when the light is so obviously red, pulling in front of fully loaded trucks at the last second as they come to a stop, and ......on and on. They have no clue about timing and flow, just how fast they can get the car to go. The same idiots who can't figure out a traffic circle, a yield, or how to back off the gas just a tad so someone can merge safely and easily.

[icon_lol2.gif] So True in Kelowna!!

dirtybiker likes this post.
kelbear25
 
Posts: 71
Likes: 3 posts
Liked in: 60 posts
Joined: Feb 19th, 2016, 11:55 am

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby Ken7 » Dec 15th, 2017, 8:59 pm

fz6adventure wrote:
Ken7 wrote:
Do you have a link please..

Here is probably the most succinct one. A speech to the Kelowna Chamber in 2002

https://www.priv.gc.ca/en/opc-news/news ... _b_020206/


In reading this article which is 2002 I'd suggest if the RCMP or any other Police agency was to be placing cameras it may be considered a violation. I am taking it the City is wanting to put these cameras up.

I investigated, as is my duty, and I found that the Privacy Act and your rights were in fact being violated. Systematically monitoring and observing the activities of vast numbers of law-abiding citizens as they go about their day-to-day lives is not a legitimate part of any RCMP operating program or activity.



Therefore I still disagree and believe I can video tape you or anyone I wish when they are in a public space.

We have a right to go about our lives - our lawful, peaceable business - without feeling that we're under the constant eye of agents of the state. So when you ask, "What's wrong with cameras?" My answer is that, for one thing, being watched changes the way we behave


As for the suggested cameras located around the City, don't believe they are "Agents of the state"..I think I'd be searching further on the illegal search and seizure argument.
User avatar
Ken7
Guru
 
Posts: 6711
Likes: 3850 posts
Liked in: 2785 posts
Joined: Sep 30th, 2007, 4:09 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby fz6adventure » Dec 15th, 2017, 9:10 pm

Ken7 wrote:As for the suggested cameras located around the City, don't believe they are "Agents of the state"..I think I'd be searching further on the illegal search and seizure argument.



You're right, the city is not an agent of the State - they are the State!

Applied to the photo radar issue, From family in Alberta I already have a canned Charter motion that only needs to be modified for the particular circumstances. Give me a photo radar ticket it gets filed in defence. Each time family uses it in Alberta, the Crown sees to it the ticket is withdrawn because they don't want to take on a fight they will lose. Most people are sheep and they grumble and pay the fine.

Jflem1983 likes this post.
fz6adventure
Board Meister
 
Posts: 531
Likes: 829 posts
Liked in: 558 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby my5cents » Dec 15th, 2017, 9:18 pm

The irony is that in Great Britain the citizens lobby for more cameras to be installed.

I have never agreed with the privacy commissioner that the camera proposed for Kelowna was a privacy infringement. The test IMO would be, if a police officer could legally be located standing and watching people from the location, then a camera would be legal as well.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"
my5cents
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3810
Likes: 790 posts
Liked in: 1227 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby fz6adventure » Dec 15th, 2017, 9:24 pm

my5cents wrote:I have never agreed with the privacy commissioner that the camera proposed for Kelowna was a privacy infringement. The test IMO would be, if a police officer could legally be located standing and watching people from the location, then a camera would be legal as well.


The beauty of freedom is that you are able to make that choice - pay the fine and get back to the office to make a little more for the next one. I'll choose a different path because I disagree with the process and believe the Charter is the overriding law of the land rather than the stop gap ones the government of the day thinks is palatable and a revenue generator.
fz6adventure
Board Meister
 
Posts: 531
Likes: 829 posts
Liked in: 558 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby my5cents » Dec 15th, 2017, 9:32 pm

I like the freedom to be safe on the roadway because the authorities have enacted efficient programs to curb dangerous driving.
"The power of accurate observation is commonly called cynicism by those who haven't got it"

youjustcomplain likes this post.
my5cents
Lord of the Board
 
Posts: 3810
Likes: 790 posts
Liked in: 1227 posts
Joined: Nov 14th, 2009, 3:22 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby fz6adventure » Dec 15th, 2017, 9:33 pm

my5cents wrote:I like the freedom to be safe on the roadway because the authorities have enacted efficient programs to curb dangerous driving.



Spent the $100 and buy a dash cam
fz6adventure
Board Meister
 
Posts: 531
Likes: 829 posts
Liked in: 558 posts
Joined: Feb 25th, 2007, 5:43 pm

Re: Traffic fines should not go to the city

Postby Relentless » Dec 15th, 2017, 11:47 pm

LivinginKelowna wrote: Far to many people do not care about being responsible members of society any more.
If taking away their licences is the only way to get dangerous people off of the road, and the only way to get that accomplished is to have more patrolling, then I think that is the solution.

Kelowna has some serious issues with drivers attitudes.
Poor driving habits are the result from a lack of ongoing traffic law enforcement.
Speeding is a major safety concern, the faster the speed, the more damage and greater chance for death to occur.
The number of accident claims are skyrocketing, causing insurance rates to rise to unreasonable levels.

When I have vehicles going down my street(a 50km/hr zone under ideal conditions)at 80,90 and 100kms/hr, what kind of people are these that do this? Highway speeds on a residential street! Really!

Rutland is full of speed humps now.
Speed humps because this is the way the City deals with the epidemic.
No money for enforcement, barely money for traffic calming.

We can't get traffic calming on our street because we are 140th on the list for these measures, and there is no money.
So the idea of speeders paying for traffic calming via traffic fines is the way it should be.
Why should residents fork out money for traffic calming in their neighborhood because of speeders?
I was informed that the roundabout that we need will cost over $20,000 to make our street safer and maybe save a life.

Speeders should pay for safety by paying fines, increased insurance rates and policing costs.
Bring back roving mobile photo radar, go hard like they do in Edmonton and get this City cleaned up once and for all!

Oh, and with the extra revenue, hire a bunch more officers to provide dedicated traffic law enforcement around the clock to catch the thousands of other idiots who feel they can do as they please.

Also, it's a given that those who don't want Photo radar are clearly part of the problem!
Safety costs money, if you speed, pay the price, laws are for everyone!
Relentless
Grand Pooh-bah
 
Posts: 2261
Likes: 410 posts
Liked in: 483 posts
Joined: Jan 22nd, 2009, 8:52 pm
Location: Okanagan

PreviousNext

Return to Central Okanagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CommonCrawl [Bot], Slack6970, voice of reason and 12 guests