New Calgary Police car?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by butterfly

Why so slow? I just looked it up on Google Maps. That would easily be 50-55 mph here (80-90 km).

Where is here?

[Ryan Coke]

Fun thread. Too many quotes of Pepsi’s stupidity, but whatever.

I’ll only argue that they’re at the airport road fishing hole more than 180 days a year. I drive that road at all hours, early mornings and late at night, and everything in between, and they are there over 50% of the time I go by. So in the couple of minutes I go by it’s over 50%, but that leaves another close to 24 hours in the day to be there on the days I don’t see them.

They may as well just make a short section of highway one 50kph, and continuously nab people from out of town. It generates revenue, does nothing for safety, but it makes money! And apparently PF would be happy.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Fun thread. Too many quotes of Pepsi’s stupidity, but whatever.

I’ll only argue that they’re at the airport road fishing hole more than 180 days a year. I drive that road at all hours, early mornings and late at night, and everything in between, and they are there over 50% of the time I go by. So in the couple of minutes I go by it’s over 50%, but that leaves another close to 24 hours in the day to be there on the days I don’t see them.

They may as well just make a short section of highway one 50kph, and continuously nab people from out of town. It generates revenue, does nothing for safety, but it makes money! And apparently PF would be happy.

I’d be opposed to them arbitrary changing a speed limit strictly to drive revenue, actually. As I’ve said, if there are areas where the speed limit doesn’t make sense, the correct action is changing the speed limit.

But you’re welcome for the fun thread. And I forgive you for the unnecessary insult.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

“Losing the argument”? relax Mel, this is just a conversation, you’re not “getting the dub” or “dishing out L’s” lol. My position is pretty straightforward and unemotional, so you can keep making up narratives about what’s going on in my head until it makes you feel better, but I’m pretty nonplussed about it.

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

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

But literally true, in exactly the scenario I laid out.

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.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

They don’t, as they remove at least some of the right areas for the right reasons, and leave other areas that aren’t right or could be deployed for the wrong reasons, which calls into question whether that’s something you actually care about.

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.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Policing in the name of revenue is not inherently bad to me, so long as the resources generated substantially outweigh the resources spent and there’s no discrimination and the police treat people well. Photo radar checks all those boxes. You speed, you get a ticket; you don’t, you won’t. It increases revenue they can use to police and, more importantly, it means law abiding citizens have to pay less for it. I get you think all of that is bad, no confusion there. I’m just rejecting some of the reasons presented, because it’s clear people are just glomming onto some that make their position sound more righteous.

And I get that too, saying you’re against “predatory, exploitative policing!” and “safety first! right areas! right reasons!” sounds way cooler than “I just hate photo radar.” But it kind of falls apart as soon as you look at the changes and realize… oh yeah, those changes are a genuinely terrible way to accomplish those things you care about.

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.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

And conveniently not mentioned here, is that they’re also forcing the removal of speed on green cameras. Care to explain how that helps… anyone? That’s not exactly a fleet car they just move around.

Do you know what the top 2 SoG sites are as of May 2024?

In first with 19,175 tickets issued is this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/ccSE48tTMhhN7ySE7
Beddington Trail and Country Hills Boulevard N.W.
- Expressway-type limited access roadways at this particular section
- Zero pedestrian movements at the intersection
- No right-hand turns from the intersecting roadway (theres a free-flow merge ramp to join southbound)


Second place with 16,814, this one: https://maps.app.goo.gl/9GDZPbAFwyyTbyEx5
16th Avenue and 68th Street N.E. (eastbound)
- Targeting the direction of traffic entering the highway portion of the roadway, signed at 80 but immediately increases to 90 after.
- No right-hand turns from the intersecting roadway (theres a free-flow merge ramp to join eastbound)
- Note that the westbound direction (entering the city) isn't nearly as busy snapping pictures because people are slowing down to enter the city

These two are the SoG version of the Airport Trail photo radar truck. Oh, and Airport Trail is THE top PR earner by a MASSIVE margin with 22,311 tickets issued. Next site is the fenced-in playground on 12 Ave SW between 11 St and 10 St with a measly 4,824.
[source]


As for the reason SoG wasn't mentioned, it's because this thread was started to talk about the new 'ghost' decals on regular police cruisers to which I made the argument that this is a bad thing because visibility is itself a crime deterrent. But then Johnny Makarov flew in like a thread-crapping seagull and just had to go bring up bloody photo radar which has been debated to death and isn't what the thread was about in the first place, but here we are, debating what is already a done deal.

Aside, I know taking shots at calgarygeologist is a fun passtime, but there is some significance to what he mentioned WRT the ABNDP. When the UCP implemented the first wave of their photo radar rollbacks, the ABNDP at the time insisted that it didn't go far enough and that an outright ban and dismantling of the automated camera enforcement program was in order. So the two biggest parties in the province both happened to agree that how PR was being used in this province is a bad thing, one just happened to roll it back gently versus a full scale shutdown.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

Fun thread. Too many quotes of Pepsi’s stupidity, but whatever.

I’ll only argue that they’re at the airport road fishing hole more than 180 days a year. I drive that road at all hours, early mornings and late at night, and everything in between, and they are there over 50% of the time I go by. So in the couple of minutes I go by it’s over 50%, but that leaves another close to 24 hours in the day to be there on the days I don’t see them.

They may as well just make a short section of highway one 50kph, and continuously nab people from out of town. It generates revenue, does nothing for safety, but it makes money! And apparently PF would be happy.

Oh I goto Ace Casino whenever I drop my kids off for Kungfu and Piano and there were more than a few times where it wasn't photo radar but an actual cop there with a speed gun. I would have gotten busted but he caught the guy ahead of me.

[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.

[woob]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Do you know what the top 2 SoG sites are as of May 2024?

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.

[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.

[woob]

Sorry I missed your source link! And I’d totally love to see some badass police wagons!

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Brendone

Altered traffic patterns (not caused by the signs) and road conditions, absolutely. Month long speed reductions and lane closures on Stoney at every overpass while a single dirt crew rotates from spot to spot modifying the grade at the top of the retaining wall under the bridge? Pretty sure they were on site intermittently for a collective two days during the month of restrictions at the Stoney/22x overpass. Nobody slowed down after the first week if they didn’t spot activity.

Any construction zone that lacks a shoulder (on either side), will have speed restrictions for the duration of the construction.

This one weird trick...

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Any construction zone that lacks a shoulder (on either side), will have speed restrictions for the duration of the construction.

This one weird trick...

Which is fair, but they have a shoulder, closed most of the turn lane as well, all to do some slope modification to the grass area above the retaining wall. Guessing there was some sort of ice build up or something, so they’ve added a cutback at all of these. One day with a bobcat and dump truck based on what it looks like today? Probably some retaining fabric and a bit of backfill coming in the spring, which will “require” another 1 month reduction and closure.

[Shazam]

Yeah that was the one thing the NDP's legislation missed that all the construction companies now take advantage of.

[Ryan Coke]

So the airport trail fishing spot was being used again last night at midnight as I came home, which doesn’t surprise me at all but stuck out after this thread. Watched the poor guy in front of me get caught who was doing between 70-80, of course the PR is just past the 60km speed limit sign….the speed is 80 prior to that. I was just to the right of the photo radar truck taking the northbound exit doing 130, but I was fine, because the camera doesn’t point that way. (JK).

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Ryan Coke

So the airport trail fishing spot was being used again last night at midnight as I came home, which doesn’t surprise me at all but stuck out after this thread. Watched the poor guy in front of me get caught who was doing between 70-80, of course the PR is just past the 60km speed limit sign….the speed is 80 prior to that. I was just to the right of the photo radar truck taking the northbound exit doing 130, but I was fine, because the camera doesn’t point that way. (JK).

Was it f-cking filthy to the point that the high-vis "DRIVE SAFE" vinyl wasn't even illuminating? They've been doing that a lot, especially the Crowchild Trail one. PR vehicles used to be spotless until it was mandated they started putting signage on them.


We need some of the PR antagonists from Edmonton down here. Maybe they could pull over and start cleaning the dirt off the decals with a rag and some foaming cleaner.

"Sir, stop touching the vehicle."

"This is a government vehicle financed by the public, I'm just washing it so as to maintain it and ensure the investment of our tax dollars in this equipment is protected."

[PaperBagger'14]

Originally Posted by DoubleF

I wonder if a compromise is possible. Introduce a speed fines triple when workers are present, increase presence at construction zones and reduce presence in stupid areas like playground zones etc.

Yep great ideas here. Speeding fines remain at 100% for construction zones with no workers present, triple if workers present. I’d also like to see laws that do not allow for construction zone signage to extend way past where the actual work is being performed. This happens a ton especially towards the completion of the work where you’ll have a few km of construction zone for something with a work area of a few car lengths.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Acey

Where is here?

California.

We don't have anything like Airport Trail leading directly out of the airport and to a freeway but those type of wide open arterial roads are all over the suburban areas connecting people to get to/from a freeway.

[Shazam]

Getting into and out of LAX is a torturous experience from hell.

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Getting into and out of LAX is a torturous experience from hell.

If you use Sepulveda, it can be. It's usually fine on Century.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Getting into and out of LAX is a torturous experience from hell.

I've done it twice, both times were pretty boring and uneventful.

Step 1. Drop vehicle off at Avis/Hertz lot.
Step 2. Hop on shuttle bus.
Step 3. Arrive at terminal.

I don't recall anything being particularly arduous about the process.

[Shazam]

Last time I flew into there it took about 30 minutes to get to the rental car dropoff area once I got off the freeway. Of course no one knows what the hell they're doing so that just adds to the time.

It just surges sometimes. Holidays being the worst, which is usually when I'm there.