[TorqueDog]

Just to add, my last photo enforcement ticket was in 2016 in Saskatchewan, and I wasn't even the one driving. My girlfriend at the time cruised past one of their stationary photo enforcement cameras on highway 1. I can't remember the last time I got one in Alberta. (EDIT: 2021: SoG camera, Memorial Drive, driving 65 toward downtown where they drop the speed limit from 80 to 50.)

Originally Posted by woob

Put the photo radar in playground zones at 7:30pm all winter long. They’d make a killing.

This is a hallmark of the 12 Ave SW playground zone in Connaught near my apartment.


You can always tell when Pepsi realizes he's losing the argument because his posts start to devolve into this weird sort of 'gotcha' ad hom. snark. "This one strawman edge case I dreamed up in rebuttal is clearly stupid so their argument is worthless! Morans!"

The idea that anyone is banning them from making the better choice is hilarious; when given the option, it was proven time and time again that they'd rather pick neither and go for the areas that make the most money.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Perfect. See, then it’s “safety” so it’s exactly what TorqueDog and Acey can pretend they wanted. “Every site added or photo radar set up after April 1 will increase safety!”

Genius, really.

I can almost hear the spongecase. The blanket changing of 'school zones' into 'playground zones' due to what amounted to a clerical error in ordering new signage (if I remember the story correctly) is an entirely separate issue, and I still have far less issue with that than policing for revenue generation.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Instead of inventing strawmen because your safety argument fell apart why give it another go and explain how restricting photo radar only to areas that are already speed-reduced and removing a large portion of the budget (you know, the thing that pays for all that enforcement) makes us “safer.”

If these programs aren't designed with the hope and intent of the program being so effective to the point of becoming a loss-leader, then they're being used for the wrong reasons. If a zone is a high-risk area, fewer tickets being issued and less revenue being generated Y-o-Y means fewer people are speeding in the monitored area, that's an easy measure of the program's success. That they've become dependent on the revenue is a problem. Corsi put it best when he said that increased reliance on the revenue of such a program will become exploitative, and that's exactly what's happened.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Going for the triple post score here but…. they effectively reduced the police budget by anywhere from 10-20% with this move (based on the budget, revenue from photo radar, sites reduced, etc.). Tell me again how I’m the one who fails to understand while you’re the one who thinks they’ll magically maintain the exact same service level with tens of millions of dollars shaved off their operating budget?

“They can just move em all over!”

Come on man lol

A small reduction of the 6-8% of the budget (not 10-20% and we don't know by how much that 6-8% line item will be reduced). I said every vehicle in the fleet, whatever the size of that fleet is. When enforcement is being done, I care about the enforcement being done in the right areas for the right reasons, and the changes coming into effect April 1 support that.

The strangest thing about all this is how out-of-character this position is for you; you're typically the type of guy who I would think would have a problem with exploitative, predatory policing in the name of revenue. Not sure I like this bootlicker cosplay you've got going on.