Photo Radar "!101"

[Smurf]

Nedroj wrote:

3) During winter months, accidentally sliding through an intersection will result in a failure to stop ticket

I always thought that was called driving too fast for conditions. You do realize that if you were to cause an accident you would be at fault don't you.

[Nedroj]

Nedroj wrote:

3) During winter months, accidentally sliding through an intersection will result in a failure to stop ticket

I always thought that was called driving too fast for conditions. You do realize that if you were to cause an accident you would be at fault don't you.

This has come up many times before in Alberta and from the forums I've read anyone that disputes them and is not a *bleep* to the judge usually gets it thrown out. As long as you were not speeding and driving to the conditions of the road. For example say you were braking to a redlight and slide just over the crosswalk due to ice/black ice. Technically a red light camera would take your picture and you'll receive a 287$ ticket.

For everyone that is OK with Photo Radar Please keep in mind the following scenarios:

1) Driving at 3 kph over the speed limit will result in a speeding ticket from an automated radar van
I've never heard of a ticket that wasn't 10 KPH or more over

And to an actual RCMP/COP they wouldnt give you a ticket for that, but Photo Radar doesnt care, it gets activated whenever anyone goes over what ever speed the cop set it to. Radar results can fluctuate 5+/- kph, be out of calibration or in some cases a person speeding in the fast lane, passing a vehicle in the slow lane doing the speed limit but due to poor timing of the photo it looked like the slow vehicle was speeding.

2) Passing a vehicle for which a driver almost always has to speed a little will result in a speeding ticket
Only if you are going 10 or more over the limit.

Again same reasons as I previously stated

3) During winter months, accidentally sliding through an intersection will result in a failure to stop ticket
Did you fail to stop ?

My first statement explains this

4) Photo Radar cannot clearly indicate whom was driving so the ticket goes to the vehicles owner, not the actual driver
By design photo radar takes photo's of the rear of the vehicle so as to NOT show the occupant's faces

Sending a ticket to the registered owner does nothing to curtail the actual person speeding

5) If the license plate is covered in snow/mud, photo radar will not be useful at all
True

I've actually been fortunate enough to have this happen when I was driving into Calgary a few years ago after driving through the rogers pass. Snow covered plates saved me from a big fine.

6) Disputing tickets handed out by automated radar are more easily won in the courts and more are inclined to dispute them
I've never seen the stats on this, perhaps you could share

Statistically speaking disputing a traffic ticket in Sask used to take 3-6 months to deal with prior to photo radar, After photo radar was introduced its risen to 12-20 months which after 18 months the defendant can push to have it completely thrown out due to taking too long.

7) Photo Radar doesnt ticket other bad driving habits like not signalling, improper merging, aggressive lane changing, tail-gating, drinking and driving etc.
Correct, and certainly a flaw. A static piece of evidence gathered to prove a moving offense

8) Turning Left from a 2-way onto a 1-way is perfectly legal but a photo radar camera wont know the difference as its technically a red light
I strongly doubt that, are you "supposing" ?

More than supposing as the light is RED and you are proceeding over the crosswalk. but because we dont have them here its hard to say 100%. What I will say is I've been pulled over by rcmp for doing it and I had to inform the officer that it IS legal to turn from a 2 way onto a 1 way at a red light. He had to look it up before letting me go.

More RCMP officers out patrolling the roads are the best and most effective way to target and reduce aggressive/bad drivers.
Well, police officers, there are other jurisdictions with municipal police. Agreed

I stand corrected. "Police officers"

I guess my main issue with photo radar is I don't think general speeding from people commuting to and from work doing 5-15 kph over the limit needs the enforcement enhanced. Id rather that money go towards more police officers targeting aggressive and drunk drivers. I'm sure we all drive with the speed of traffic along HWY 97 and that generally is at least 10 kph over the limit at any given section if not more. And without adequate advanced left hand turn signals, people will be forced to continue to run yellow lights to make the turn.

[jimmy4321]

The right people who should get nailed with photo radar are the ones who go over the posted limit. I don't care if it's those hard working daily commuters or some dumb punks.
Don't try to make photo radar something that its not. It's a money maker, that makes its money on the backs of those who break the law, totally avoidable tax, fee, money grab, whatever.
I'm fine with that.

Leave it to the actual police to use their judgment on whether someones driving too fast for conditions or making dangerous manuvers, distractions etc

[Ken7]

Ken7...........funny you mention "safe distance"..............please tell me what it is if you know. And is it stated or written anywhere?

IF you are driving and do not know, you should turn it in your drivers license. Let google be your friend!

[Catsumi]

Municipalities are now having to hunt around for more $$$$ to offset the extra needed to cover medical as mandated by Horgan government.

Rather than raising the funds on taxpayers backs, Speeding ticket revenues could be the answer. That is, until the speeders slow down.

Just a thought.

Or you can just do what Edmonton did - keep lowering the tolerances to keep that cash cow coming in

Thanks for the reply Dizzy. I am unaware of what happened in Edmonton. Did they keep lowering the speed limit? It is hard to tell from your post what exactly happened there.

[my5cents]

3) During winter months, accidentally sliding through an intersection will result in a failure to stop ticket

This has come up many times before in Alberta and from the forums I've read anyone that disputes them and is not a *bleep* to the judge usually gets it thrown out. As long as you were not speeding and driving to the conditions of the road. For example say you were braking to a redlight and slide......

MVA offences are strict liability offences. "I accidentally slid through or into the intersection" doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

If the roads were icy, obviously, the driver was driving too fast for conditions, lucky they didn't get both.

For everyone that is OK with Photo Radar Please keep in mind the following scenarios:

1) Driving at 3 kph over the speed limit will result in a speeding ticket from an automated radar van

And to an actual RCMP/COP they wouldnt give you a ticket for that, but Photo Radar doesnt care, it gets activated whenever anyone goes over what ever speed the cop set it to. Radar results can fluctuate 5+/- kph, be out of calibration or in some cases a person speeding in the fast lane, passing a vehicle in the slow lane doing the speed limit but due to poor timing of the photo it looked like the slow vehicle was speeding.

The tolerance is set by a cop, and they have criteria 10 KPH minimum.

8) Turning Left from a 2-way onto a 1-way is perfectly legal but a photo radar camera wont know the difference as its technically a red light

More than supposing as the light is RED and you are proceeding over the crosswalk. but because we dont have them here (sure we do) its hard to say 100%. What I will say is I've been pulled over by rcmp for doing it and I had to inform the officer that it IS legal to turn from a 2 way onto a 1 way at a red light. He had to look it up before letting me go.

Although you get one photo there are more. The same could be said for turning right on a red light, you might not have stopped first. Heard anyone complaining of those ?

I guess my main issue with photo radar is I don't think general speeding from people commuting to and from work doing 5-15 kph over the limit needs the enforcement enhanced. Id rather that money go towards more police officers targeting aggressive and drunk drivers. I'm sure we all drive with the speed of traffic along HWY 97 and that generally is at least 10 kph over the limit at any given section if not more.

I was a cop in Vancouver, in Patrol (RCMP call it "general duty") the tollerance was generally at least over 16 over the limit of 50 KPH. When I was in Traffic Enforcement 15 was the tollerance. (Ie, 66 in a 50 zone)

Don't get me wrong I'm only in favor of photo enforcement under special circumstances. We also need to clean up RO charges.

[Catsumi]

^^^ And, I am in favor of anything, literally ANYTHING to get these boneheads to slow down so that my tail isn't flying skywards and my very life is hanging in the balance.

Why are they in such a screaming, hellbent fury to hurry to get from A to B? To hell with anyone else!

No wonder we have so many injuried, left lying on the roadsides to die while they speed off.....to WHAT??????

We see it every damn night on the news. This is not how it used to be but is common today.

All you Cruella deVille wannabees ....... SLOW DOWN TO POSTED SPEED LIMIT!! (Or somewhere close to it)

IMG_3395.PNG

[Smurf]

Nedroj wrote:

smurf wrote:

I always thought that was called driving too fast for conditions. You do realize that if you were to cause an accident you would be at fault don't you

.


This has come up many times before in Alberta and from the forums I've read anyone that disputes them and is not a *bleep* to the judge usually gets it thrown out. As long as you were not speeding and driving to the conditions of the road. For example say you were braking to a redlight and slide just over the crosswalk due to ice/black ice. Technically a red light camera would take your picture and you'll receive a 287$ ticket

.

As I said you will be 100% in the wrong if you hit someone in the cross walk or a car in the intersection and I will bet the reason will be driving to fast for conditions or hopefully dangerous driving which I believe would be a more severe fine. Instead of constantly making excuses why can't people just drive according to the law and conditions.

Nedroj wrote:
5) If the license plate is covered in snow/mud, photo radar will not be useful at all
True

I've actually been fortunate enough to have this happen when I was driving into Calgary a few years ago after driving through the rogers pass. Snow covered plates saved me from a big fine.

I would be totally embarrassed to brag about driving so badly that I considered myself lucky to get away with it and it sounds like it was even under bad conditions.

[lesliepaul]

Ken7...........funny you mention "safe distance"..............please tell me what it is if you know. And is it stated or written anywhere?

IF you are driving and do not know, you should turn it in your drivers license. Let google be your friend!

DIDN'T THINK YOU KNEW!

I know..........I just wanted to have you tell me. I'll give you a hint........it varies depending on vehicle.

[Dizzy1]

So what you are basically saying is you will break the law and push the limits whenever and however you feel like it. Seems like you feel it is your right to speed or whatever, whenever you wish. Sounds like a very poor attitude to me. Sorry but in my opinion you are a hazard on our roads. Just because someone else is an idiot it does not give us licence to be one.

I do break the law - I speed here and there - just like everyone else on the road and in these threads, yourself included. Its unfortunate that you feel that you are able to form an opinion on someones driving practices and behaviour on the road by refusing to stop and think about someones post and instead simply firing off a ridiculous assumption. But I'll give you a chance, please explain, with out making some crazy and wild assumption, to me what makes you think I am a "hazard on our roads" with the answer I gave you to your question ...

If the vehicle doesn't go back into the right lane, I'll give them a bit of time and distance and maybe flash my high beams as a friendly reminder. If they simply refuse to get into the right lane, or start to slow down more or do something stupid as a brake check - a quick shoulder and into the right lane I go, pass on the right with extra caution to make sure they don't change their mind and off I go minding my own business

I'm maintaining the big picture, understanding and processing whats going on why the slower vehicle is in the inappropriate lane. I give the other vehicle courtesy, time and space as I further process the situation. I then act accordingly and defensively to the conclusion I (as the driver) have determined is the best course of action is as far as I the driver am concerned.

[Dizzy1]

Like I said the government lawyer have ruled that they shouldn't take photo's of the driver's face for privacy reasons. (yes, I know it doesn't make any sense at all)

Just stating my views - thats all

[Dizzy1]

Sounds like you feel you are the traffic police. LOL.

Nah, its usually the self absorbed ones in the left lane driving slow to try to pretend and prevent people from speeding that think they're the traffic police

Do you know at what speed that law applies?

I sure do. For my next question, I'll take "Ancient Roman Cookery" for $500 please Alex

[Dizzy1]

double post

[Dizzy1]

No good taking pic of the front for Alberta cars; no license plates there.

Tough beans

But since we don't take the picture from the front - no need for a front plate - but we'll save that discussion for another thread

[Dizzy1]

Thanks for the reply Dizzy. I am unaware of what happened in Edmonton. Did they keep lowering the speed limit? It is hard to tell from your post what exactly happened there.

It wasn't the speed limit that was lowered, it was the tolerance limit. It started out at a certain speed over the limit and once revenue started to dwindle, the tolerance was lowered from 10-15km/h down to 6km/h over the limit. This happened the same time that the City itself took over the radar program and operating costs skyrocketed from just under $10 million a year to over $50 million a year.