Photo Radar "!101"

[Smurf]

Time to change the law. Anyone interested should write their MP. I've made more than a few suggestions about distracted driving, impaired driving etc. If enough of us do it they "might " pay attention and do something that is reasonable but forceful enough to make those drivers change their habits..

[GordonH]

That is why we need to include points, loss of license etc for repeat offenders. Take them off the road for a long time, forever if necessary.

Yes but if the law remains as it is, that won't happen with photo enforcement.

So my5cents would be okay with your taxes (for more police members) being raised to help cover the cost of charging those who violate traffic laws.

[Hurtlander]

People should think twice about who they let drive their car.

Rubbish. The car nor the owner are breaking the law - the driver is and is the only one who should be held accountable.

Then again, the person caught speeding through an intersection, or running a red light might actually be the registered owner of the car..
It would be interesting to see the statistics about how many people involved in intersection collisions were borrowing someone else's car.

[my5cents]

So my5cents would be okay with your taxes (for more police members) being raised to help cover the cost of charging those who violate traffic laws.

I'd like to see more efficient use of our police coupled with laws that assist in prosecution.

[GordonH]

So my5cents would be okay with your taxes (for more police members) being raised to help cover the cost of charging those who violate traffic laws.

I'd like to see more efficient use of our police coupled with laws that assist in prosecution.

So you are saying Kelowna has enough officers on traffic (currently) to monitor all traffic violation in their coverage area.

Okay more efficient in what ways

[Dizzy1]

You just answered exactly why you should be careful who you let drive your car. Make good and sure it is someone responsible.

Oh please, this is such a lame argument. Whats the big deal of taking the picture from the front so the driver is clearly visible and justice is served to the operator of the vehicle. What is it you're afraid of?

The owner can only be responsible so much, but they can't be held responsible for the actions of the driver - it simply doesn't work that way. Its one thing to ban someone from driving your car because they got a ticket, but you can't guarantee they'll get you a ticket in your car no matter how much you trust them. You cannot control their actions, period.

[Dizzy1]

I was commenting on your statement about driving in "the appropriate lanes". Are you trying to tell me that when you come up behind someone in the right lane when you are 10 K over that you don't get close "push them" and expect them to get out of your way even if they are driving the speed limit. Do you just stay back and drive the limit. I'm willing to bet not as few if any chronic speeders do that,

What the heck are you talking about? If someone going slower than me is in the right lane, why would I come close to them when I have a lane to the left of me designed specifically to pass them with?

[Dizzy1]

That is why we need to include points, loss of license etc for repeat offenders. Take them off the road for a long time, forever if necessary.

And how do you suggest we do this with photo radar if the driver isn't being held accountable but rather the registered owner? Put points on the owners licence because he/she should be responsible for the actions of someone else driving their vehicle?

[Smurf]

Dizzy1 wrote:

Smurf wrote:


You just answered exactly why you should be careful who you let drive your car. Make good and sure it is someone responsible.

Oh please, this is such a lame argument. Whats the big deal of taking the picture from the front so the driver is clearly visible and justice is served to the operator of the vehicle. What is it you're afraid of?

The owner can only be responsible so much, but they can't be held responsible for the actions of the driver - it simply doesn't work that way. Its one thing to ban someone from driving your car because they got a ticket, but you can't guarantee they'll get you a ticket in your car no matter how much you trust them. You cannot control their actions, period.

I agree 100% but you never said on word about taking pictures from the front in your comment that I quoted. In fact nothing was said in Hurtlanders original statement. I can't read your mind.

Dizzy1 wrote:

Hurtlander wrote:
People should think twice about who they let drive their car.

Rubbish. The car nor the owner are breaking the law - the driver is and is the only one who should be held accountable.

I would agree they should be able to get a good picture but you know as well as I do that no matte what you will not always get a good picture for any number of reasons such as the glare of sunlight. The owner can and should be totally responsible for knowing who is driving their car as they are the one licensing and insuring it. When you take out your license and insurance you assume responsibility unless it is stolen.

Also I would think anyone would want a responsible driver in their car.

[Smurf]

Dizzy1 wrote:

Smurf wrote:

I was commenting on your statement about driving in "the appropriate lanes". Are you trying to tell me that when you come up behind someone in the right lane when you are 10 K over that you don't get close "push them" and expect them to get out of your way even if they are driving the speed limit. Do you just stay back and drive the limit. I'm willing to bet not as few if any chronic speeders do that,

What the heck are you talking about? If someone going slower than me is in the right lane, why would I come close to them when I have a lane to the left of me designed specifically to pass them with?

Sorry my bad I mixed up my lanes. I meant to say left lane. Assuming the right lane is even slower and occupied. Hopefully you wouldn't pass on the left even if it was empty.

[jimmy4321]

When a massive piece of metal is speeding and bullets through an intersection. It should be responsibility of the registered owner who forked out the cash to register an insure it.
Maybe in the future that owner won't let their dumb kid or friend borrow the vehicle. This is a completely avoidable tax grab if you wanna call it that.

Honestly even if ICBC did not exist i'd be in favour of the gov implementing photo radar, whatever it takes to keep them content and not raise taxes or add some stupid fee to something.

[Smurf]

Dizzy1 » Yesterday, 11:24 pm

Smurf wrote:
That is why we need to include points, loss of license etc for repeat offenders. Take them off the road for a long time, forever if necessary.

And how do you suggest we do this with photo radar if the driver isn't being held accountable but rather the registered owner? Put points on the owners licence because he/she should be responsible for the actions of someone else driving their vehicle?

By identifying the actual driver and seeing to it the ticket is transferred to them. Again making sure it is a responsible person driving the car that would immediately step up and take the responsibility. As I said earlier you are responsible for the car when you take out the registration so make sure who is driving your vehicle or better yet don't lend it out.

[Smurf]

I agree jimmy4312. It is your responsibility to know who is driving the car you registered and that they will drive it responsibly and according to the law the same as if you were driving it. Otherwise don't lend it out.

[Smurf]

This could go a lot further than a minor speeding infraction. What if you lend it to someone and they get in an accident and run before they can be identified. The police will come straight to you and it will be up to you to prove who as driving. Lending a vehicle you are responsible for is a huge responsibility and can come with headaches and frustrations.

[my5cents]

So you are saying Kelowna has enough officers on traffic (currently) to monitor all traffic violation in their coverage area.

Okay more efficient in what ways

Like I said mobile video patrol cars and change in the way we deal with Registered Owners.

We've already seen that we are implementing digital traffic ticket generation.

With the capture of video evidence for traffic violations an expected reduction in time taken up by court.

The problem with the current photographic evidence gathered is that we are capturing still photographs of moving violations.

I'm not opposed to gathering video evidence of violations, I'm opposed to, the RO charges, and placing radar at locations of frequent speeding instead of frequent collisions.

The problem with stationary monitoring, again we are capturing a moment in time of a vehicle that is mobile.

Lets say we have an aggressive driver, they've tailgated, cut off other vehicles, drove very aggresive, gets picked by photo radar and gets a simple RO speeding ticket. Mobile video police car, actions are observed (all of them) required to have actions reviewed. That's enforcement.