[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by woob

I'm surprised I haven't been nailed by the Beddington trail one. It's not in my brain vault as a known SoG location, because I don't drive that road often. Though, I do tend to watch for the signs.

Where did you pull this list from? I want to see if that one at JLB and 53rd NW is on there.

I linked the source in my post, it was a CBC article, but unfortunately the statistics were provided by CPS to CBC itself, and there's no link in the article to a full list -- if one even exists for public viewing. They mentioned the top 3 red light camera locations, top 3 speed on green locations, and top 3 mobile photo radar locations.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

I don't give the UCP much faith in anything either, but I also have a difficult time putting my faith in municipalities and police services that have shown they have no qualms about choosing spots that are financially lucrative and methods that are predatory and serve little to no benefit otherwise. Edmonton uses pretty much every PR technology they can get their hands on with the slimiest of tactics to squeeze as much financial gain out of the program as possible. If there is one city on which you could lay blame for the resulting gutting of the camera enforcement program by the UCP for all the other cities, Edmonton is it. Fun bit of trivia, virtually every radar detector manufacturer that builds devices for North America uses Edmonton as their proving ground for new units because no other single jurisdiction uses quite the variety of radar technologies they do.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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).

There's definitely a punitive angle to these changes. Cities and police services abused the program, so now they're going to remove all the sites outside of the exempted ones and you'll have to re-apply for approval with actual justification. [shrug] I just haven't come across many that I say "Yeah, that location makes sense", so I'm not particularly bothered by it.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

The argument I hear is that "kids still go to playgrounds in the evening", though that doesn't pass the sniff test in the dead of winter. And there's an argument to be made that some of the playground zones are excessive in length too.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

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.

I vote that we convert our police service vehicles to look like the ones in London. White with blue and high-vis yellow stripes. AWD family wagons, no more pickup trucks and SUVs.