Photo Radar "!101"

[hobbyguy]

Photo radar has zero to do with safety and everything to do with revenue.

If the revenue went into something constructive such as road maintenance, lower car insurance, etc. I'd be more open to it - but seeing that most extra revenue doesn't trickle down to us mere citizens - I'm strongly against it

Yup, and as I alluded to earlier, it is the political equivalent of shooting yourself in the foot. It cost the BC NDP dearly at the polls before - so there is an upside

Red light cameras are a different kettle of fish. Those seem to have more effect on actual traffic safety.

[Dizzy1]

Please explain how it can be a cash grab if they are catching people breaking the law.

They may be breaking the law (just as every single one of us does behind the wheel at one time in our daily drives, even the self proclaimed Castanet Road Gods) but someone doing 10 km/h over the limit on a highway or 60km/h down Harvey is hardly a serious endangerment to public safety.

So, if something is put in place and generates more revenue than becoming an effective tool in helping preventing what its advertised to do, it becomes a cash grab.

[Dizzy1]

Red light cameras are a different kettle of fish. Those seem to have more effect on actual traffic safety.

Agreed

[Dizzy1]

[Smurf]

Dizzy1 wrote:

They may be breaking the law (just as every single one of us does behind the wheel at one time in our daily drives, even the self proclaimed Castanet Road Gods) but someone doing 10 km/h over the limit on a highway or 60km/h down Harvey is hardly a serious endangerment to public safety.

So, if something is put in place and generates more revenue than becoming an effective tool in helping preventing what its advertised to do, it becomes a cash grab.

Disagree totally! The speed laws are set for a safe speed for the average driver on the road. The second someone speeds even 10 kM they are throwing the whole thing out of whack the same as someone driving slow. I'll bet you are one that screams blue murder when someone is driving 10 km's under the limit. I have a fit both ways and in 99% of cases there is no real reason for it other than a bunch of made up excuses.

I agree we all break the law once and a while but some of us accept that fact and work to be sure we don't do it again, not complain and make excuses like a little baby. If I get a ticket for breaking the law I will be mad at myself for doing it I will not be mad at the system which I was totally aware of. The problem here is people and there are away too many who do it continuously/knowingly because the think "someone doing 10 km/h over the limit on a highway or 60 km/h down Harvey is hardly a serious endangerment to public safety." If it does not fix the problem as has been said after a few tickets, take their car or license for 90 days and keep escalating from there until they either get the hint or can't drive at all any more. Somehow we have to get through to the many dense drivers on the road and if we make some extra revenue off their foolishness so be it. Break the law, pay for it and then man up and smarten up or pay some more.

EDIT TO ADD:

We can't cure stupid so we might as well make some money off it.

[Dizzy1]

Disagree totally! The speed laws are set for a safe speed for the average driver on the road.

In theory yes - in practice, not always.

So, explain to me if I'm driving 10km/h over the limit, or if someone is driving 10km/h under the limit (in the appropriate lanes) - exactly what is thrown out of whack?

[Smurf]

Nothing is perfect Dizzy1 but we live in a society and should try to be part of that society, not fight it constantly. If it is seriously bad we should work to change it. Do you feel that either you or I have the knowledge to say what is right or wrong especially for the average person. I will guarantee you if we put 5 people in a room we would probably get 5 different opinions. You and I would probably be different but who knows. I just believe quite strongly in following laws and or rules or changing them, never deliberately breaking them because "I" think it is okay.

As a safety officer and a union rep I was involved it a lot of negotiations during which I had my mind changed a lot and I changed others a few times but in the end we always tried to end up in the best position for all involved. You certainly learn the problems in trying to find the best for everyone when you have to throw your personal feelings aside and try to work for all. I'm sure it is not easy to try and make up satisfactory laws of the road that best covers all scenarios. I would love to get a shot at it as it would be a challenge. I would imagine there would be a lot of give and take for all involved.

[techrtr]

It's about time. I would bet that once someone gets one ticket for blowing through a red light, they'll think about it the next time they approach an intersection with a stale light. People just don't care anymore. They see a yellow light, and they speed up because they don't want to have to waste a minute or two waiting at a red light. I've almost been t-boned several times trying to make a left turn because some @$$h@+ didn't want to stop for a red light.

[Bsuds]

So, explain to me if I'm driving 10km/h over the limit, or if someone is driving 10km/h under the limit (in the appropriate lanes) - exactly what is thrown out of whack?

What is the result when the slower car changes lanes (without looking) because he needs to make a turn? This happens way too often.

I will admit I drive 10k over quite often and am passed by cars doing way more than that. These excessive speeds I think are more the problem.

[Smurf]

Dizzy1 wrote:

In theory yes - in practice, not always.

So, explain to me if I'm driving 10km/h over the limit, or if someone is driving 10km/h under the limit (in the appropriate lanes) - exactly what is thrown out of whack?

You are illegally pushing traffic to go too fast while "someone" is holding up traffic. Either one of you will be irritating people who are obeying the law and quite possibly causing irrational behavior. One of the big complaints I have heard on these threads is someone traveling too slow in the left lane holding up traffic. That is even when they are driving the legal limit meaning that the people complaining must be breaking the law. In reality who is in the wrong??????? I agree with driving in the right lane unless you are passing but if you are just driving down the road speeding in the left lane, breaking the law, you are the wrong just as much as the one driving slow. If the someone in the right lane is under the speed limit and I am passing the line of traffic in the left lane at the speed limit I might be holding you up but I am 100% in the right and you are driving illegally by speeding. Things go much smoother when everyone drives properly, there are no surprises.

[Smurf]

techrtr wrote:

It's about time. I would bet that once someone gets one ticket for blowing through a red light, they'll think about it the next time they approach an intersection with a stale light. People just don't care anymore. They see a yellow light, and they speed up because they don't want to have to waste a minute or two waiting at a red light. I've almost been t-boned several times trying to make a left turn because some @$$h@+ didn't want to stop for a red light.

How many times have you seen someone blow through a stale light because they were 10 KM's over and that made the difference between being able to stop and not being able to. In an emergency like that in the lower speeds 10 km's is actually a lot. Lights etc are timed for 50 km's not 60 km's and that is a good example of the dangers of speeding.

[Smurf]

Bsuds wrote:
What is the result when the slower car changes lanes (without looking) because he needs to make a turn? This happens way too often.

I will admit I drive 10k over quite often and am passed by cars doing way more than that. These excessive speeds I think are more the problem.

Good example. Someone even checks and is doing the speed limit not expecting some dummy (although they should be) to be speeding up behind them and causing a problem. The speeder is probably mad because the person ahead of them is following the law. "All" these poor driving habits have to be cured somehow or at least people have to work at it instead of being privileged and doing what they personally feel is right. .

[Ken7]

Photo radar has zero to do with safety and everything to do with revenue.

If the revenue went into something constructive such as road maintenance, lower car insurance, etc. I'd be more open to it - but seeing that most extra revenue doesn't trickle down to us mere citizens - I'm strongly against it

Tell me this if you are on the highway speeding 20 -30 over the limit and someone going the other direction flashes their headlights, signal for POLICE ahead of you. Do you slow down or speed up?

Reality is, it slows people down on the streets it is know to be used. Let be honest, no one like a ticket! I've given many out and can tell you story upon story!

[Ken7]

It's about time. I would bet that once someone gets one ticket for blowing through a red light, they'll think about it the next time they approach an intersection with a stale light. People just don't care anymore. They see a yellow light, and they speed up because they don't want to have to waste a minute or two waiting at a red light. I've almost been t-boned several times trying to make a left turn because some @$$h@+ didn't want to stop for a red light.

I know this for fact, without enforcement there is no consequences for bad driving.

There will be no compliance! It is that simple and the enforcement in this City is poor.

End of story.

[Smurf]

In the end would photo radar not cause tickets, possible points and driving restrictions not work similar to enforcement. Is it not a type of enforcement that can be used when actual enforcement is lacking. What would be the difference between receiving the penalties from and officer or photo radar? In the end the resulting penalties should be the same. We are getting closer and closer to self driving vehicles which presumably will be law abiding, why can't we have machines doing enforcement? What about robot cops, would that be more acceptable?