[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Here’s another question, for fun: Memorial Drive during rush-hour, tight road with moderate/heavy traffic, pedestrian crossing, and merges vs. a random playground zone at 8:00 PM in winter… which road/situation would you focus enforcement on to have the bigger safety impact?

Is that not a hypothetical strawman? No #### Memorial would be better in that scenario. Is there actually a really busy spot on Memorial that they don't sit half the days year while an empty playground zone in the middle of winter sits plastered with DRIVE SAFE vehicles? Meanwhile, in the real world, they do sit on Airport Trail for half the days of the year and hundreds of designated sites at playground zones see nearly nothing.

To answer your question, we are not safer... everyone will die; but again the only reason we ever got to this point was a highly irresponsisble deployment of photo radar by muncipalities like Calgary who-overdeployed photo radar at fishing holes.

At no point have I denied that the outgoing fishing holes are the primary source of revenue.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Once again, I’ll ask: explain how reducing the budget and restricting the areas photo radar can be deployed makes us safer.

Aside from not having claimed this to be true, it's a dumb question. Without knowing the extent of reduction of deployment that will come from the reduced revenue, it is impossible to answer... you'd also need crash data from an extended period of photo enforcement in a given area and a long period of data after, for each site.

From driving the stretch daily, I have personally seen over the years about 6 rear-end collisions on Airport Trail caused by people slamming on their brakes as they see the radar. I've never gotten a photo radar ticket in Calgary, despite your hints that the only people who could be annoyed at fishing holes are people who drive like idiots. For the fourth time, the problem with constantly generating revenue from the same areas over and over and over and over again where it has little impact on safety is that you create an overwhelming perception that the enforcement exists solely to generate revenue, and now you end up with nothing.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I also don’t “love” the idiot tax. I’m unaffected by it, because I don’t drive like an idiot.

Did you not say it benefits us all? Regardless of the fishing holes being gone, I'm willing to pay higher tax for increased manned enforcement in playground zones. Are you?