Speed Cameras

[Bsuds]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/200730 ... e-speeders

They have had these in Europe for years. (Netherlands for sure). I think they are a good idea and we should have them everywhere.
Another good use for cameras would be at intersections to catch red light runners and idiots on their cell phones.

[lightspeed]

https://www.castanet.net/news/BC/200730/Spycams-to-eye-speeders

They have had these in Europe for years. (Netherlands for sure). I think they are a good idea and we should have them everywhere.
Another good use for cameras would be at intersections to catch red light runners and idiots on their cell phones.

They're a revenue grab and they don't change overall driving behaviour.

[What_the]

And it takes away officer discretion. Resounding no from me.

[OldIslander]

Speed cameras are one of those things that really rankle the good folks of this (and any other) province -- they seem like an unfair, unfeeling, money generator. Almost like a hidden tax.

Remember the 'photo radar' vans parked all over the province back in the 90's? The program was implemented by the NDP, and was one of several reasons that they lost to the Libs under Gordon Campbell, who'd promised during the election to kill them. True to his word, it was one of his first acts when he became the Preem.

So the NDP with their razor thin grasp on survival, will be extremely 'gun shy' about resurrecting this hugely unpopular turkey.

[spooker]

Since this seems to be so unpopular I'll guess that people just want to do whatever they want to, damn the consequences ...

The only reason that this is evening being bandied about is because people always think they know better ... and for an individual that's more than likely true ... but we don't operate in a vacuum so everything we do has to be integrated into the environment ... impatience creates collisions ...

Just like people tell me to get the law changed if I want to use the "Idaho stop" as a cyclist, why don't I hear people saying to speeders that they should get the speed limit raised if they want to go faster?

No, cameras won't stop people from speeding ... but maybe some people will think twice about it ...

As for the argument that it's a cash grab ... shouldn't there be consequences when you break the agreement you signed when getting your license? the alternative is chaos isn't it?

[LTD]

its a cash grab plain and simple and I'm okay with the Idaho stop bs as long I can do it in my car to

[GordonH]

Those who want to speed there is track in Oliver, go nuts speed as much as you want.
On roads & highways of BC stay within posted speed limits, depending on road conditions of course.
I don't have problem with these cameras, if I get ticket it's my own damn fault for speeding.
Usually when I hear tax grab it means people (in this case drivers) just want to get away with something i.e speeding.

impo every highway in BC should get these cameras

[Dawggss]

How is it a "tax grab" if you only get fined when breaking the law / posted speed limits?
When driving within the law / posted limits, there is no tax / fine.
Logic is lacking with this flawed thinking.

Will it reduce speeding? I can say from personal experience that receiving a ticket does change behavior. Whether the ticket comes from an officer immediately, or from a machine after the fact - both cause reflection, with the intention of changing behavior.
I could even argue the machine ticket is more effective as one doesn't 'see the police car' as a warning, and is aware that avoidance is less likely.

As for 'officer discretion' - I have not heard of a camera that creates tickets based on +1 kph speeding. There is a tolerance factor (generally + 5 kph at 50 kph limit and so on), which I can only assume is the same concept as 'officer discretion'.
Complainers of this idea have little to stand on.

BTW - my understanding is this proposal is being presented by municipalities specifically regarding residential areas due to excessive speeding (playgrounds, housing, park areas) and the problem of limited resources to police these areas.
If that is in fact the case - I think we all might be winners.

[What_the]

How is it a "tax grab" if you only get fined when breaking the law / posted speed limits?
When driving within the law / posted limits, there is no tax / fine.
Logic is lacking with this flawed thinking.

Will it reduce speeding? I can say from personal experience that receiving a ticket does change behavior. Whether the ticket comes from an officer immediately, or from a machine after the fact - both cause reflection, with the intention of changing behavior.
I could even argue the machine ticket is more effective as one doesn't 'see the police car' as a warning, and is aware that avoidance is less likely.

As for 'officer discretion' - I have not heard of a camera that creates tickets based on +1 kph speeding. There is a tolerance factor (generally + 5 kph at 50 kph limit and so on), which I can only assume is the same concept as 'officer discretion'.
Complainers of this idea have little to stand on.

BTW - my understanding is this proposal is being presented by municipalities specifically regarding residential areas due to excessive speeding (playgrounds, housing, park areas) and the problem of limited resources to police these areas.
If that is in fact the case - I think we all might be winners.

When they know regardless of enforcement most everyone speeds and municipalities want the revenue, it becomes a cash grab. Your logic didn't take that into account. And apparently, you've never received a warning citation. There are too many variables for a machine to consider.

Want people to slow down? Just park a cruiser unmanned there, watch people slow down.

Makes no sense to correct your dog for bad behavior 3 weeks after the fact.

[GordonH]

^^^ comparing a dog (that does not know better) to a human that does know better, just wants to be an as hole.

[neilsimon]

A visible presence, even if it is a camera, is much more effective than a fine weeks later. This has been demonstrated time and again in places like the UK, where they generally have signs up to alert you to the camera ahead. These areas are shown to have higher levels of compliance than hidden cameras.

Additionally, the speed limits should be the fastest speed that the road can be safely driven by a good driver, in a good car, in ideal conditions. It is a limit and not a target and people should not be penalised for driving safely, no matter how fast they are driving.

Cameras might make most sense in areas of unusual death or accident rates and not in areas in which those rates are very low. Putting a hidden camera in a high-traffic area with a low accident rate really does look like being a revenue generator rather than a behaviour enforcement tool.

BTW, we should also encourage higher standards of driving by making training cheaply available to the public in much the same way that the IAM do in the UK.

[What_the]

^^^ comparing a dog (that does not know better) to a human that does know better, just wants to be an as hole.

It was a metaphor for behaviour correction, not a comparison. It generally only works when caught in the act not at some distant time later.

Back when we had photo radar I was commuting from chilliwack to Vancouver and got one of these. It just rolled out so it was a "warning" but I was hard pressed to remember exactly when and where the photo occured. It stated in the vicinity, just like an officer issued does, but, was I passing? Was I in a hurry? I had no idea. It didn't correct me, just made me leery.
As I recall, the threshold was 10 k over limit but then there's people arguing that the law IS the posted limit. Illogical. Ive had cops passing, me doing 90, in 80 zones.

[What_the]

Additionally, the speed limits should be the fastest speed that the road can be safely driven by a good driver, in a good car, in ideal conditions.

I believe that's known as the 80 percentile theory, which I agree and subscribe.

[GordonH]

^^^ if you're okay with more tax dollars spent on having more officers on traffic patrol, I would not have problem with that either.

[Bsuds]

Makes no sense to correct your dog for bad behavior 3 weeks after the fact.

Exactly, but a Dog has no idea 3 weeks later what he is being punished for. Hopefully a driver is smart enough to know why he is being punished. (some on here might have a hard time figuring out why)

As to it not changing peoples behaviors then I suggest that those who think that are mistaken. After driving with a professional driver in Holland I know from his comments when he pointed out the cameras to us that it slows people down.