New Calgary Police car?

[getbak]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Construction zones are in place for more reasons than just worker safety, you do realize?

Sure, some are, if they've closed or reduced lanes to accommodate the construction (like the flyover right now), or the quality of the road surface is reduced, but there are a lot of construction zones where the road is only changed from its normal operation while work is actively being done.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

Ah yes, playground zones are speed-reduced therefore they require no enforcement because people abide by the limit. My point is obviously that people are not abiding by the speed limits in those areas. If you don't believe that slowing down traffic in a playground zone has a bigger impact on safety than slowing down traffic in the middle of nowhere on Airport Trail then I don't know what else to tell you; I already conceded the point that there will be a massive decrease in revenue.

The only reason we ever got to this point was a highly irresponsisble deployment of photo radar by muncipalities like Calgary who pretended it was about safety by identifying playground and school zones, but deploying them only at fishing holes.

If, instead of sitting on Airport Trail 180 days a year, they occasionally would hit a playground zone or two... then maybe Albertans would not have developed such hatred for the program and feverishly complained to the extent that your beloved idiot tax is now gone.

The very thing you love so much about photo radar is what killed it.

More strawmen, eh? What’s so difficult about this topic that you can’t have a straightforward conversation about it?

I never said playground zones require no enforcement.

I also never said Airport Trail has a bigger safety impact than a playground zone (but it’s also not the only site cut).

I also don’t “love” the idiot tax. I’m unaffected by it, because I don’t drive like an idiot.

Once again, I’ll ask: explain how reducing the budget and restricting the areas photo radar can be deployed makes us safer. Don’t make up some nonsense strawman to argue against, don’t give any sort of “well if they do this instead and add this and then…” thing, just answer the question straight up. In your world, the roads are safer if the police have a smaller budget and can enforce less ways in less places: how?

Here’s another question, for fun: Memorial Drive during rush-hour, tight road with moderate/heavy traffic, pedestrian crossing, and merges vs. a random playground zone at 8:00 PM in winter… which road/situation would you focus enforcement on to have the bigger safety impact?

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

They did not reduce the budget by 10 to 20 percent. The 2023 annual statement for CPS indicates that revenue from all fines and penalties was under 6% of total revenue. Fines and penalties were budgeted at around 8% for 2024.

You’re right, I was looking at the total Alberta number against the Calgary budget. My mistake.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Here’s another question, for fun: Memorial Drive during rush-hour, tight road with moderate/heavy traffic, pedestrian crossing, and merges vs. a random playground zone at 8:00 PM in winter… which road/situation would you focus enforcement on to have the bigger safety impact?

Is that not a hypothetical strawman? No #### Memorial would be better in that scenario. Is there actually a really busy spot on Memorial that they don't sit half the days year while an empty playground zone in the middle of winter sits plastered with DRIVE SAFE vehicles? Meanwhile, in the real world, they do sit on Airport Trail for half the days of the year and hundreds of designated sites at playground zones see nearly nothing.

To answer your question, we are not safer... everyone will die; but again the only reason we ever got to this point was a highly irresponsisble deployment of photo radar by muncipalities like Calgary who-overdeployed photo radar at fishing holes.

At no point have I denied that the outgoing fishing holes are the primary source of revenue.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Once again, I’ll ask: explain how reducing the budget and restricting the areas photo radar can be deployed makes us safer.

Aside from not having claimed this to be true, it's a dumb question. Without knowing the extent of reduction of deployment that will come from the reduced revenue, it is impossible to answer... you'd also need crash data from an extended period of photo enforcement in a given area and a long period of data after, for each site.

From driving the stretch daily, I have personally seen over the years about 6 rear-end collisions on Airport Trail caused by people slamming on their brakes as they see the radar. I've never gotten a photo radar ticket in Calgary, despite your hints that the only people who could be annoyed at fishing holes are people who drive like idiots. For the fourth time, the problem with constantly generating revenue from the same areas over and over and over and over again where it has little impact on safety is that you create an overwhelming perception that the enforcement exists solely to generate revenue, and now you end up with nothing.

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

I also don’t “love” the idiot tax. I’m unaffected by it, because I don’t drive like an idiot.

Did you not say it benefits us all? Regardless of the fishing holes being gone, I'm willing to pay higher tax for increased manned enforcement in playground zones. Are you?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by Acey

Is that not a hypothetical strawman? No #### Memorial would be better in that scenario.

It’s not a strawman, it’s a hypothetical.

But since you agree that Memorial would be a better choice than the empty playground zone, you agree that it’s probably stupid to ban them from making the better choice, right?

Originally Posted by Acey

Aside from not having claimed this to be true, it's a dumb question. Without knowing the extent of reduction of deployment that will come from the reduced revenue, it is impossible to answer... you'd also need crash data from an extended period of photo enforcement in a given area and a long period of data after, for each site.

It’s not a dumb question. You claimed safety was your concern and you are celebrating the changes (remember, “Acey won”) so I’d expect you to have a better answer than “it’s impossible to answer.” You called it a win, so why is it a win for safety?

Originally Posted by Acey

Did you not say it benefits us all? Regardless of the fishing holes being gone, I'm willing to pay higher tax for increased manned enforcement in playground zones. Are you?

I am. And that could have been accomplished without reducing the amount resources and enforcement available. Seems pretty counter intuitive to say you want more enforcement and you’re willing to pay while celebrating less enforcement and an unnecessary stripping of the budget.

[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.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by Acey

From driving the stretch daily, I have personally seen over the years about 6 rear-end collisions on Airport Trail caused by people slamming on their brakes as they see the radar. I've never gotten a photo radar ticket in Calgary, despite your hints that the only people who could be annoyed at fishing holes are people who drive like idiots. For the fourth time, the problem with constantly generating revenue from the same areas over and over and over and over again where it has little impact on safety is that you create an overwhelming perception that the enforcement exists solely to generate revenue, and now you end up with nothing.



Did you not say it benefits us all? Regardless of the fishing holes being gone, I'm willing to pay higher tax for increased manned enforcement in playground zones. Are you?

Hold on… you personally have seen 6 rear end accidents on that one road…?!

I get you drive it daily but… 6?! That’s insane.. I call BS on that claim.

[You Need a Thneed]

Originally Posted by Acey

Explain to me how photo radar sitting 24/7 on Airport Trail is more beneficial to safety than somebody giving a damn about the utter disregard for playground zones when kids are constantly around.

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

The seemingly permanent set up there is absolutely ridiculous.

Come on now, this is actually a great spot to get photo radar money without taking it from citizens. Think of it as a tourism tax.

[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.

[Brendone]

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.

If we’re increasing speeding fines when workers are present, can we also create a fine for construction signs when work is not present? Maybe if signs were only out when required people would take them seriously and slow down? The construction sign union has nothing on the boy who cried wolf.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Brendone

If we’re increasing speeding fines when workers are present, can we also create a fine for construction signs when work is not present? Maybe if signs were only out when required people would take them seriously and slow down? The construction sign union has nothing on the boy who cried wolf.

Many of the Hazards in construction zones are independent of the presence of people. Rougher roads, narrower lanes, inconsistent line painting, regular changes.

Not all but many warrant a reduced speed when no workers are present.

[GGG]

nm

[Mr.Coffee]

The construction zones on Deerfoot are total BS. Holy don’t even get me started. So ridiculous.

[Acey]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

Hold on… you personally have seen 6 rear end accidents on that one road…?!

I get you drive it daily but… 6?! That’s insane.. I call BS on that claim.

Yeah I'd say about 6 since 2012, it's kind of an oddly congested area at peak hours with the left turn onto southbound Deerfoot from westbound Airport Trail getting really backed up. They've made it better now by making the turn from eastbound Airport to northbound Deerfoot protected only, and finally giving enough green time to the westbound turn.

I've seen the rear-endings only twice or 3 times that I can remember, a couple more were already over on the shoulder when I drove past (with radar present) and another was a coworker. Really not that many over 10 years, and none were serious.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

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!"

“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.

The hypothetical I presented, which isn’t a strawman (learn the difference, sounds stupid to just throw the word around), illustrated my point, which is that the UCP’s changes are too arbitrary and too rigid. It’s how you can tell they aren’t done with safety in mind, because it’s a nonsensical way to increase safety.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

The idea that anyone is banning them from making the better choice is hilarious.

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

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

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.

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.

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

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.

You’re probably confused because you’re more interested getting that “dub” than actually just entertaining the an idea that isn’t yours.

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.

The strange part, if you want one, is that the idea of approaching these problems in a way that doesn’t start with eliminating photo radar is apparently taboo. Or you can’t think of a single better idea, which is terrifying.

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.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Acey

I'm curious to see the actual reduction in revenue caused by the bright neon signs on the vehicles, because the one always parked westbound Airport Trail before Deerfoot is still lighting people up like a Christmas tree.

If you manage to drive by that thing and still pull off a speeding ticket it seems like Darwinism in full effect.

[Brendone]

Originally Posted by GGG

Many of the Hazards in construction zones are independent of the presence of people. Rougher roads, narrower lanes, inconsistent line painting, regular changes.

Not all but many warrant a reduced speed when no workers are present.

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.

[GranteedEV]

Originally Posted by Locke

When are we getting some of those driverless Teslas as Police Cars?

I mean...that'll come with some problems of it's own...

When are we getting WayPoPo® you mean

[Locke]

Originally Posted by GranteedEV

When are we getting WayPoPo® you mean

They can paint them brown and give their doors these little red bands...

[butterfly]

Originally Posted by Acey

It is. The limit on Airport Trail is 80, westbound it drops to 60 for the diamond interchange... no jurisdiction in North America would keep Airport Trail at 80 through that interchange.

The speed drop is fine and logical, but setting up photo radar there is a cash grab due to the proximity of the airport and thus it will be abolished.

It would be less slimy if the limit lowered sooner, if anything.

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

[DoubleF]

Originally Posted by Brendone

If we’re increasing speeding fines when workers are present, can we also create a fine for construction signs when work is not present? Maybe if signs were only out when required people would take them seriously and slow down? The construction sign union has nothing on the boy who cried wolf.

The point is to get those guys out of playground zones and issuing fines when there's basically no kids at those playgrounds. It's a compromise, suggest a reasonable give to get.

Isolate them to construction, then I think it's also legit that complaints be made to the construction company to finish work ASAP.