Quote:
Originally Posted by TorqueDog
I know you were going for a strawman there, but sorry, I'm not going to defend an imaginary position. Do you think photo radar actually makes a permanent change to people's behavior in a large enough sample (aside from Saint MoneyGuy up there)?
I'll give you a hint as to the correct answer:
Municipalities with photo radar programs demonstrate a reliance on not just steady but increasing revenues year-over-year from photo radar. Look at Edmonton for the perfect example of this.
It's even better than that, they don't get the notification of the fine, it goes to the rental company. Then the rental company pays the ticket and charges it back to the customer. So the ticket doesn't even have a chance of getting contested. It's shooting fish in a barrel.
|
On the other hand the increase in rear end collisions and reduction in cross traffic collisions at red light photo radar positions does show that their is a permenant change in behaviour and a reduction in overall risk at an intersection. So the use of photo radar in municipalities does have positive impacts despite a revenue focus in some areas.
Now do municipalities use these as honey pots and put them in areas with bad design? Absolutely. In my opinion there should be requirements around the implementation of photo radar to evaluate pre and post speed and collision reductions so that accident reduction rather than revenue