Photo Radar at Traffic Lights [MRG]

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by ken0042

However this "dangerous driving" topic is a little silly. Part of dangerous driving is subjective, and I don't think an officer looking at a still photo can make that determination.

Little nit pick: careless driving is not the same as dangerous driving. The former is a charge under the Traffic Safety Act, the latter is a charge under the Criminal Code and is generally a lot more serious.

I think CPS's response to your concerns is that speeding through a red light is inherently careless and if those two elements are proven then you are driving carelessly. And oh, by the way, here's a picture of you doing both. QED. Mail the cheque.

[ken0042]

So, let's say I'm approaching a stale green light. It turns amber and I do have enough time to stop if I do it quickly. I start to brake and I look in my rear view mirror; and I see a gravel truck behind me, driver yapping on the cell phone and not paying attention. At that point the "careless" thing to do would be continue to brake hard, and the safer course of action is to clear the intersection before the opposing traffic has time to begin their advancement on green.

Now in the above example it turns out the gravel truck is empty, the driver sees the light and skids to a stop. So no picture of him also running the light.

I don't have much of a problem with either red light cameras, nor photo radar. I object to both being used to make a judgement call.

[burn_this_city]

I'm glad the province is telling them to pound sand over the careless driving charge. How can they determine that with a crappy snapshot? I dont mind the use of cameras, it just means they wont patrol those streets and I can speed between the intersections.

[Boblobla]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'm glad the province is telling them to pound sand over the careless driving charge. How can they determine that with a crappy snapshot? I dont mind the use of cameras, it just means they wont patrol those streets and I can speed between the intersections.

That is not true, I have been issued speeding tickets on McKnight going both directions of the road just N of Edmonton Trail.

[burn_this_city]

Hmm... I just assume the already terrible patrolling of the streets would get worse on roads where the camera can replace real police work.

[4X4]

My own driving habits: when driving through a playground zone that's known for multanova enforcement, once I spot one, I'm constantly staring at my speedometer and using peripheral vision to keep my ride going straight.
When driving through a playground zone that's known for police enforcement, I get my truck down to 30 and constantly scan the area (I admit, for cops and kids), and glance down periodically to make sure I haven't drifted up to 35.

Tell me which is better for public safety? And then apply it to intersections. If you are going through an intersection that you know has a photo radar up on a pole, are you going to be doing the usual intersection scan or are you going to be staring at your speedometer?

I think this scheme is bogus. This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with taxing people that drive the road instead of constantly driving a bit under the limit to make sure they never get a ticket.
There's no way you can convince me that going 60 through a light on, say, Elbow Dr, on a sunny afternoon is more dangerous than going 45, but constantly staring at the dashboard instead of observing the intersection and the dozens of possible dangers.

Case and point: which is more dangerous to you: a guy going 60 in a 50 and scanning the area for cops and kids, or a dum dum going 40 in a 50 and texting? I know you've all seen the idiot text-drivers that are going under the limit and jerking back and forth to keep their car straight every few letters. Just as distracted as someone staring at the dash.

[fredr123]

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Tr...686/story.html

Arizona implemented speed on green cameras a while ago. It has reduced speeding and dangerous collisions but has increased rear-end collisions.

But when other jurisdictions ask for advice on the equipment, Porell warns it can increase the amount of rear-end collisions as people stop suddenly to avoid speeding through intersections, only to be rear-ended by an inattentive driver.


Rear-end crashes are less dangerous than angle crashes so it's a trade-off, said [Arizona traffic engineer Paul] Porell.

[Cscutch]

News release from the City and some interesting stats from the trial.

http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/citybea...114049_26831_0

Intersection Safety Cameras have been capturing vehicles
speeding through two city intersections since the beginning
of March. As a result of these cameras, over 700 Calgary
motorists were issued warning letters – a key element of the
awareness campaign. The average speed of those who were
issued warning letters was 24 km over the designated speed
limit.

[jar_e]

Originally Posted by Cscutch

News release from the City and some interesting stats from the trial.

http://www.gov.calgary.ab.ca/citybea...114049_26831_0

And some more noteworthy quotes from the press release...

As of Wednesday, April 1, 2009 the Calgary Police Service
will begin enforcing their new ‘Speed on Green’ initiative,
and Calgary motorists captured speeding through green and
yellow lights could receive a fine of up to $351 or an
appearance in court before a judge.

Of the 44 intersections in Calgary that are equipped to
capture speed, less than ten will be used during the initial
stages of the campaign.

A full list of Intersection Safety Camera locations is
available on the Calgary Police Service website at
http://www.calgarypolice.ca/sections...locations.html

[Draug]

Does anyone know which 10 intersections they are using?

[SteveToms]

Tomorrow is the day, and I plan to challenge any yellow ticket I may get.