New Calgary Police car?

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

We should have two different limits, one for summer one for winter but it could be confusing for most idiots I mean people.

Even if that wasn't confusing, when our roads are bare and dry and we get highs of 10° for a week straight in January it understandably becomes tempting to disregard the "winter" speed limit. Ideally you'd have variable signs on all major thoroughfares that the operations centre controls based on conditions, but that would rightly fail any kind of cost-benefit analysis.

That said, there is already a provision for the fact that the posted speed limit might not be achievable at all times based on weather, the ole "too fast for conditions" that is seldom enforced.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If resources are an issue, aren’t “cash grabs” helping the issue rather than hurting it?

Only if the number of sites deployed is directly correlated to the revenue generated by existing sites, which the Calgary chief made clear that they are not in his 30 minute rant against the province for calling the sites cash cows.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

If resources are an issue, aren’t “cash grabs” helping the issue rather than hurting it?

You’re not this naïve. Cities *haven’t* being using these “extra” resources to enforce in the right areas, that’s the whole problem. They’ve been using it to deploy more enforcement in fishing holes to generate more revenue while ignoring locations where safety is actually a concern but aren’t lucrative enough.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think he is saying they should deploy to those non lucrative safety based areas while still keeping the fishing holes to make money. Which if you're fine with traffic enforcement as a means of raising revenue, like, money as a primary goal of it, that seems like bad policy to me as that's not a predictable revenue stream and when it gets leaned on, it will become increasingly exploitative.

[Sr. Mints]

I would 100% support photo radar every 100 metres on Northmount Drive on M-F between 2-4pm.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think he is saying they should deploy to those non lucrative safety based areas while still keeping the fishing holes to make money.

Well yes, but adding additional sites while keeping the existing cows would cost more money. So you could keep total deployment the same but move the cash cows to safety-based areas, which would similarly cost more money given the revenue shortfall, but also stop public distrust and hatred of photo radar which is the reason given by the minister for the cash cows being axed in the first place.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

Only if the number of sites deployed is directly correlated to the revenue generated by existing sites, which the Calgary chief made clear that they are not in his 30 minute rant against the province for calling the sites cash cows.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You’re not this naïve. Cities *haven’t* being using these “extra” resources to enforce in the right areas, that’s the whole problem. They’ve been using it to deploy more enforcement in fishing holes to generate more revenue while ignoring locations where safety is actually a concern but aren’t lucrative enough.

Alright, so deployment to these “fishing holes” is not correlated with deployment to “the right areas,” so that makes these two separate issues and arguments against these “cash grabs” using other areas as reasons for why they shouldn’t exist irrelevant.

So I go back to the fact that it’s easy not to get tickets if you don’t speed. And if these set ups are catching speeders in areas notorious for having them, it’s an idiot tax (or usage tax, if you want to be nice) that benefits all the rest of us.

A different, unrelated issue is that there is not enough enforcement in playground zones. Something we can all agree with, but isn’t actually connected to this issue.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by indes

EXACTLY! I mean sure photo radar sucks, but at least its police funding you can make a choice not to pay. Now the shortfall will just be tacked on to property taxes. So instead of Joe "I have to speed everywhere" Blow paying the bill, we're all on the hook.

Google maps shows you where the radar is....you deserve to shell out the money, its like a stupid tax.

Just to be clear, I've definitely gotten a photo radar ticket - but who gets pissed off? You were speeding...

Let's not forget the Alberta NDP were the ones that started these police funding cutbacks by restricting the usage of photo radar.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

Let's not forget the Alberta NDP were the ones that started these police funding cutbacks by restricting the usage of photo radar.

Yes, it’s important in these discussions that we find a way to bring up the government that hasn’t been in power for six years.

[Acey]

If the city chooses to deploy their limited number of photo radar vehicles at fishing holes instead of playground zones, I am at a loss for understanding how the lack of photo radar presence in playground zones has no relation to the massive presence of photo radar at fishing holes.

Again, I fully understand that removing radar from westbound Airport Trail will cause a massive decrease in revenue. Raise my already wild property tax, I don't care. I'd rather it be sitting in my playground zone.

[Brendone]

Photo radar should not be deployed to locations that aren’t a problem, regardless of speeding.

“Oh, this straight run of Stoney gets a lot of speeders, we better set up traps.”

“Has it been causing accidents?”

“No.”

“Has Pre-crime determined there will be accidents?”

“No, that’s not a thing.”

“Ok, then why don’t you set up somewhere that needs it?”

Crazy talk.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think he is saying they should deploy to those non lucrative safety based areas while still keeping the fishing holes to make money. Which if you're fine with traffic enforcement as a means of raising revenue, like, money as a primary goal of it, that seems like bad policy to me as that's not a predictable revenue stream and when it gets leaned on, it will become increasingly exploitative.

Yep, and you just described the City of Edmonton’s use of photo enforcement.

[btimbit]

Didn't the rules just change again anyway? I haven't seen that airport trail one in months

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I’m fine with them having both. Why aren’t you?

Because speed limits in many ways are arbitrary and detached from the safe operating speed of a road.

So putting speed limits in fishing holes in many ways is taking advantage of human perception and bad design.

All traffic enforcement should improve safety if it isn’t improving safety what’s the point?

I hate to get all freedom but the role of government isn’t to enforce arbitrary laws. It’s to enforce law that improve the loves/safety etc of its citizens.

[Shazam]

Just have traffic cops stop speeders and pull them over.

That stops speeding dead in those locations.

Oh but maybe that's not the point...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by GGG

All traffic enforcement should improve safety if it isn’t improving safety what’s the point?

Raising revenue is the point and his view is that raising revenue is a separate and also acceptable goal, independent of safety, for traffic enforcement. That is the argument being made here.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by GGG

Because speed limits in many ways are arbitrary and detached from the safe operating speed of a road.

So putting speed limits in fishing holes in many ways is taking advantage of human perception and bad design.

All traffic enforcement should improve safety if it isn’t improving safety what’s the point?

I hate to get all freedom but the role of government isn’t to enforce arbitrary laws. It’s to enforce law that improve the loves/safety etc of its citizens.

Sure, but then you get into the argument of what is an arbitrary law and what isn’t. The solution here is exceedingly simple: you know where the photo radar is, so don’t speed through the photo radar. Few issues are that braindead easy to navigate.

If the speed of the road is an issue, put some effort into having them review the speed of the road.

If prioritizing safety is the issue, put some effort into having them focus on dangerous areas.

Complaining about photo radar doesn’t actually accomplish anything. And it’s so easy to avoid that I imagine most people don’t actually care about reasons for not liking it beyond “I don’t like getting tickets.” Which is totally valid, but also… easy to solve.

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Raising revenue is the point and his view is that raising revenue is a separate and also acceptable goal, independent of safety, for traffic enforcement. That is the argument being made here.

Yup. And I think safety is a better/more important goal and would support exchanging one for the other, but I have a hard time buying that as the primary motive for most people’s issue when it comes to the “cash grab” spots considering it was over 20 posts before it was brought up.

The main issue seems to be somewhere around “I just don’t like it” or “it doesn’t seem fair.” If the issue is that there aren’t enough resources to police all the playground zones, then I’m not sure removing a handful of “cash grabs” is the best or really even one of the ways to fix that. Seems like an entirely separate issue.

[Acey]

Somehow my incredibly simple point is not getting across. There is a photo radar SUV sitting on Airport Trail right now. I just drove by it. He should instead go to a playground zone. Same dude in that same SUV should move from his currently useless position on Airport Trail and go stop people from speeding past the playground zone outside my window. He'll still make money. Everybody wins.

Originally Posted by btimbit

Didn't the rules just change again anyway? I haven't seen that airport trail one in months

It's there right now. Blue SUV.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Complaining about photo radar doesn’t actually accomplish anything.

Actually it accomplished getting photo radar removed from all fishing holes in the province of Alberta as of April 1, 2025, in case you missed that memo.

School zones, playground zones, construction zones... and that's it.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

Actually it accomplished getting photo radar removed from all fishing holes in the province of Alberta as of April 1, 2025, in case you missed that memo.

School zones, playground zones, construction zones... and that's it.

Sorry, it doesn’t accomplish anything meaningful.

In case you missed the same memo, they reduced the number of radar sites by 70%, they didn’t add any. So unfortunately you haven’t actually solved what was supposedly your main issue with it.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Sorry, it doesn’t accomplish anything meaningful.

In case you missed the same memo, they reduced the number of radar sites by 70%, they didn’t add any. So unfortunately you haven’t actually solved what was supposedly your main issue with it.

They reduced the number of sites not the enforcement capacity. They will have the same amount of officers, vehicles and hours but will monitor fewer sites.