Photo Radar - 2 Vehicles in Photo

[undercoverbrother]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Just BS, take a look at the ticket it likely has a lane # in the description, they know exactly which vehicle is which

Edmonton, it's gross

Save yourself some keystrokes next time.

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Fleury’sOTGoalCelebration

I just received one in the mail, I’m usually pretty cautious of my speed on this road as it goes 70 to 60 back to 70. There was a car in front of me but I’m sure I’m still SOL as I can’t prove I wasn’t doing 80

Originally Posted by GordonBlue

thievery? you were 17km/hr over the limit. just maybe you deserve the ticket. no way you were not aware you were that much over the speed limit.

The speed limit there is set artificially low. It's a three lane road on a stretch that was 70km/h for about 15km, then it slows down to 60km/h for 25 meters at this camera directly preceding a merge onto Deerfoot where you have to get up to 100km/h. It is the assholiest camera in all of Calgary and it gets people all day long. It's very clear the flow of traffic doesn't warrant slowing down to basically residential speeds here.

[GordonBlue]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The speed limit there is set artificially low. It's a three lane road on a stretch that was 70km/h for about 15km, then it slows down to 60km/h for 25 meters at this camera directly preceding a merge onto Deerfoot where you have to get up to 100km/h. It is the assholiest camera in all of Calgary and it gets people all day long. It's very clear the flow of traffic doesn't warrant slowing down to basically residential speeds here.

I wasn't talking about the one in the picture, but the guy in the OP who was slagging edmonton in hopes of cheap likes complaining about his ticket for 17 over.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The speed limit there is set artificially low. It's a three lane road on a stretch that was 70km/h for about 15km, then it slows down to 60km/h for 25 meters at this camera directly preceding a merge onto Deerfoot where you have to get up to 100km/h. It is the assholiest camera in all of Calgary and it gets people all day long. It's very clear the flow of traffic doesn't warrant slowing down to basically residential speeds here.

You’d have to pull accident stats for the intersection to back the idea that traffic flow doesn’t warrant slowing down. It could be poor road design has led to excessive speed and a high accident intersection. Now the proper solution would be fix the design rather than ticket but the lower speed may be warranted

[RichieRich]

Speeding awards are typically a voluntary tax. Tell me I'm wrong... and why.
And I say that even though I've had several "awards" myself.
Do "they" sometimes create unfair situations/stings to take advantage of poor road/intersection designs? yes certainly, but that's the fuzz for ya.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Speeding awards are typically a voluntary tax. Tell me I'm wrong... and why.
And I say that even though I've had several "awards" myself.
Do "they" sometimes create unfair situations/stings to take advantage of poor road/intersection designs? yes certainly, but that's the fuzz for ya.

Don't bring me into this.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Don't bring me into this.

baited. hook line and sinker taken.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

Speeding awards are typically a voluntary tax. Tell me I'm wrong... and why.
And I say that even though I've had several "awards" myself.
Do "they" sometimes create unfair situations/stings to take advantage of poor road/intersection designs? yes certainly, but that's the fuzz for ya.

Well, so long as it's understood that we're going to use countermeasures against them when they're used for such a purpose.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by Mull

I love people crying about speeding tickets to be honest. Entitlement at its finest. It is frustrating, but you have no one to be pissed at other than yourself.

As a speeder myself, do I get frustrated when I get a ticket? Oh for sure.

Do I fairly quickly come back to reality and realize the only person I should be frustrated at is myself? Yup

Want to use the court system to reduce your ticket - no judgment from me, just don't cry about how unfair a speeding ticket is, if you were indeed speeding.

I disagree. Why do we ticket people for speeding? To slow them down. Photo radar doesn't do that. I needs to go away as it's strictly a cash grab

[Mull]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

I disagree. Why do we ticket people for speeding? To slow them down. Photo radar doesn't do that. I needs to go away as it's strictly a cash grab

You disagree that that if you get a photo radar ticket, you have no one to blame but yourself?

Are the rules around photo radar and how NOT to get tickets not clear to you?

Here: along roads there are speeding limit signs. They say "maximum x amount", yet photo radar cops generally gives you a 10km/hr bonus amount.
If you speed in excess of the maximum amount on the sign, you risk a ticket.

There, now that the rules are clear to you, you have no one to blame but yourself.

If you don't want to risk a ticket, you know what not to do!

The "why" we have photo radar is a good debate, but it doesn't change the fact that right now the rules of the road are clear, you understand them, and choose to ignore them (just like me). You have no one to blame but yourself for photo radar tickets.

[TorqueDog]

You completely ignored their point, well done.

[mrkajz44]

Originally Posted by Sliver

The speed limit there is set artificially low. It's a three lane road on a stretch that was 70km/h for about 15km, then it slows down to 60km/h for 25 meters at this camera directly preceding a merge onto Deerfoot where you have to get up to 100km/h. It is the assholiest camera in all of Calgary and it gets people all day long. It's very clear the flow of traffic doesn't warrant slowing down to basically residential speeds here.

Originally Posted by GGG

You’d have to pull accident stats for the intersection to back the idea that traffic flow doesn’t warrant slowing down. It could be poor road design has led to excessive speed and a high accident intersection. Now the proper solution would be fix the design rather than ticket but the lower speed may be warranted

They've recently changed the intersection there, which I'm hopeful will remove the drop to 60 immediately before the onramps to Deerfoot. There used to be a single lane yield onto that southbound stretch (basically the top right of the photo in this thread), which was likely the reason for the slow down to 60 since yielding at anything higher than that could be tough/dangerous. It is now a double turn light (yes, a light to turn right) that you can't turn on the red. I'm thinking this was done to remove the potentially dangerous yield and allow the limit to stay higher.

[Sliver]

Yeah, I noticed that, too. I think the new measure completely solves any problem that may have been there. Wouldn't surprise me if that camera makes too much money for them to want to take it down, but one can hope.

[Mull]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

You completely ignored their point, well done.

??
I don't know how one can be accused of ignoring something when you directly note it and dismiss it.

You may think the reason I dismissed it is over simplified and not justified, sure, but that isn't the same as ignoring something.

Refer to the last 2 lines in my post

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Mull

??
I don't know how one can be accused of ignoring something when you directly note it and dismiss it.

You may think the reason I dismissed it is over simplified and not justified, sure, but that isn't the same as ignoring something.

Refer to the last 2 lines in my post

No you're just arguing something completely different than what you're quoting

[Mull]

Originally Posted by btimbit

No you're just arguing something completely different than what you're quoting

No. A user responded to me saying they disagree.

They didn't say what they disagreed with, but the main point in my post was that if you get a radar ticket you deserve it.

The user used the argument that the reason the photo radar tickets exist is flawed as the reason why one doesn't deserve a ticket.

My point is the that isn't relevant if you deserve a ticket, the rules of the road are known.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Mull

??
I don't know how one can be accused of ignoring something when you directly note it and dismiss it.

You may think the reason I dismissed it is over simplified and not justified, sure, but that isn't the same as ignoring something.

Refer to the last 2 lines in my post

I am swinging as though I'm about to punch you in the face right now. I'm not hitting you, but I'm coming within an inch or two. I might hit you one of these times, especially if you change position.

Now I'm sure that you recognize this as risky behavior that should be put to a stop.

Do you want someone to stop me now, or send me a letter about it in two weeks? Which timeframe -- in your view -- is the appropriate intervention if you think something that poses a risk is occurring now?

[Mull]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

I am swinging as though I'm about to punch you in the face right now. I'm not hitting you, but I'm coming within an inch or two.

Now I'm sure that you recognize this as risky behavior that should be put to a stop.

Do you want someone to stop me now, or sent me a letter about it in two weeks? Which timeframe -- in your view -- is the appropriate intervention if you think something that poses a risk is occurring now?

I feel this is addressed in my most recent post to btimbt, its not relevant to if you deserve a ticket or not

[btimbit]

My mistake then, you're not missing the point.

You're deliberately ignoring it

[Sliver]

Originally Posted by Mull

No. A user responded to me saying they disagree.

They didn't say what they disagreed with, but the main point in my post was that if you get a radar ticket you deserve it.

The user used the argument that the reason the photo radar tickets exist is flawed as the reason why one doesn't deserve a ticket.

My point is the that isn't relevant if you deserve a ticket, the rules of the road are known.

In university, I took a course on the sociology of crime. On literally the first day, the lesson was about deviant behaviour as they relate to laws. Laws just form the little rule book society makes up as they go along. Sometimes the rules are determined to be bad and that can be illuminated by deviant behaviour - basically enough people break the law to the point where it becomes apparent the law shouldn't exist.

Obviously everyone gets your point that you break the law = you take your punishment. We're all taking it one step further than your black and white view, though, and saying, should that camera be there enforcing a speed limit that is set too low, though, evidenced by a bunch of reasonable people doing reasonable speeds getting ticketed all day long? Seriously, that camera is practically a strobe light the way it tickets people there.

So, if the rule there is unfair at its core, then we're saying it makes the ticket unfair. Kind of like in some states how water fountains were not for black people. Or how black people couldn't sit at the front of a bus. Enough people rebelled against the laws and they were changed. By your logic, your position on those water fountains would have been, ticket the black people because they broke the law for drinking out of a "whites only" fountain. No, some laws are unfair and it makes the punishment for breaking them unfair, too.

You can disagree with our point, but just make sure you understand the point being made because you really don't seem to.