[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

... whoa, f-ckin' rude, motherf-cker. You don't see me going around calling you Mel. Jesus.

It was such a dirty comment, I know. But you have to admit it was a great pull.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Sure, in the same way a law banning all people who devoutly call themselves vegans from eating meat does, or prohibiting lesbians from dating Piers Morgan... actually, that last one... he was the pigeon lady in Home Alone 2, so maybe... eh, nah, it counts.

I get what you’re saying if you look at it strictly through the lens of Airport Trail vs a busy playground zone, but I think there’s a lot of grey area and I have zero faith in the UCP to properly evaluate that grey area.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

If I'm reading the changes correctly, cities can apply to add sites outside the three exemption areas to the photo enforcement program provided they have enough evidence that there is a safety issue there that needs addressing. So again, with the time between the announcement date and the new laws, they should be gathering data that justifies these sites being added back. Acey can correct me if I'm wrong.

Reiterating above a bit, but that’s part of the issue I have. Instead of undertaking an evaluation and then removing sites that don’t fit the criteria, they’re removing all sites outside the few selected areas regardless of if there is a safety case on not, and then putting the onus on the municipalities to prove the case for each one and go through an approval process (at the UCP’s discretion) to re-add any with a safety case.

Don’t you think it would be better for the government to identify sites that they feel don’t meet the criteria and remove only those ones (or, even better, evaluate why those sites are so ripe for predatory policing and change the limits/road design to solve the issue).

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Financially motivated policing at the expense of effective measures being implemented elsewhere are with what I have a problem. Photo radar isn't the traffic version of chasing tax evaders.

I think concealed photo radar is also a genuinely awful way to improve safety and reduce speeding. Making them bright, obnoxious, and in-your-face is a better way to slow people down in areas where safety is a concern. Limiting governments and police organizations from enforcing laws in needlessly predatory ways is also important.

I agree with “at the expense of” being an issue. But I think a better solution is to mandate the policing of more effective areas. If the province were to say, “do whatever, but here are the areas that must be enforced, figure it out” that then actually compels them to enforce those areas. Saying “we don’t care where you actually enforce as long as it isn’t in these areas” doesn’t compel them to add enforcement anywhere. Whether that’s saying 80% of all enforcement time must be spent in these zones, or there must be enforcement in these zones at this time, whatever. That actually has the impact on safety these rules pretend to have. That’s also why I don’t think the “anywhere they add is going to improve safety” statement holds water. Nothing is stopping them from setting up photo radar in a playground zone in the evening.

And I also think the brightly coloured vehicles and proper signage warning of speed enforcement are a good thing. They definitely shouldn’t be sneaky. The warnings encourage people to slow down, and makes it even more of an “idiot tax” for those that don’t.

I’ve always been a proponent of the demilitarization of the police. Brightly coloured vehicles, hi-visibility outfits, etc. End of the day, laws and limits are what they are. If they’re a problem? change them. But I just can’t find any sympathy for people who break the law right in front of obvious police presence and then suggest it isn’t fair.