Anybody else notice increased photo radar in Calgary??

[VladtheImpaler]

I am sure I can find this out, but way too lazy to check , so what happens if the photo radar catches me doing 250 in a 90?

[Huntingwhale]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

It isn't BS, at least in the sense that getting pulled over allows for education and consequences to be given immediately.

Educating and/or punishing someone days or weeks after the event doesn't quite have the same effect---it is like getting told in your annual review in December that you did something wrong in February. It isn't particularly helpful and is clearly more of a "check the box" method of enforcement.

But, hey, if photo radar reduces the need to have actual police officers and thus reduces overall salary and pension obligations, then maybe the populace should be for it and it is the police (and their union) that should be against the program.

If you need a cop to educate you when you are caught speeding, then you shouldn't be driving in the first place. I get my 'education' on how fast I should be driving by

a) noticing the posted speed limits
b) noticing the speed on my speedometer and ensuring I don't go 9+ over

I just love when people try to justify ways that photo radar is useless. Personally I don't care if isn't helpful, a check the box method, or a way to them to reach their quota. It's nobody else's fault if you speed. It's 100% your own and very controllable.

If the cops are saying photo radar improves safety, when in reality it doesn't....well why does it even matter? If CPS held a press gathering and made a statement saying they use using it as a cash grab and not for public safety, would people suddenly change the way they drive? Let's be realistic; people are upset about photo radar because they are caught speeding by a method that often isn't seen, are forced to pay a fine, and to give their hard earned money to the government. That's why photo radar sucks. Let's not pretend the big issue about photo radar is that it's not a method of educating someone when they speed. It's a sneaky way to catch people doing something wrong, and nobody likes it when someone does something sneaky to them.

I think everyone knows it doesn't do anything to actually improve safety. But to say that getting pulled over is an educational experience that helped you become a better driver is just wrong. I've never in my life heard a story of someone getting pulled over and telling me they learned something by the cop doing that. But I have heard stories about people telling others that certain roads are hot spots for radar, so they shouldn't speed in that area. In that respect, perhaps photo rader is educating people after all

In the end we don't make roads safer by depending on cops to pull us over and tell us what we did wrong, or by getting photo radar tickets in the mail. We make the roads safer by each of us deciding to obey the speed laws, share the roads with each other, and actually trying to be safe and courteous drivers.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

My only issue with photo radar is that they tend to set it up in spots that provide the most tickets and revenue instead of places where speeding is a problem but with less traffic.

It's designed around catching the maximum number of people for $$ purposes, not focusing on areas where speeding needs to be curtailed.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

If the cops are saying photo radar improves safety, when in reality it doesn't....well why does it even matter? If CPS held a press gathering and made a statement saying they use using it as a cash grab and not for public safety, would people suddenly change the way they drive? Let's be realistic; people are upset about photo radar because they are caught speeding by a method that often isn't seen, are forced to pay a fine, and to give their hard earned money to the government. That's why photo radar sucks. Let's not pretend the big issue about photo radar is that it's not a method of educating someone when they speed. It's a sneaky way to catch people doing something wrong, and nobody likes it when someone does something sneaky to them.

I think everyone knows it doesn't do anything to actually improve safety.

In the end we don't make roads safer by depending on cops to pull us over and tell us what we did wrong, or by getting photo radar tickets in the mail. We make the roads safer by each of us deciding to obey the speed laws, share the roads with each other, and actually trying to be safe and courteous drivers.

If you believe that photo radar does nothing to improve safety than you should be outraged at its use. The speed limits only purpose is safety so if it's enforcement does nothing than you are enforcing it wrong.

We make roads safer by having the proper incentives for people to obey the speed limit. These include good road design, a proper speed limit, enforcement, and education.

All school zones which have high rates of non compliance should have digital speed signs installed to display your speed to get better compliance. Then enforcement can also assist.

Some enforcement definately reduced speed. The wholesale elimination of photo radar likely decreases speed limit compliance and higher average speed leads to more accidents. But the locations selected should be based on stats not the best place to get tickets.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I am sure I can find this out, but way too lazy to check , so what happens if the photo radar catches me doing 250 in a 90?

Nothing, you get a ticket like normal. But it might be delivered to your house by police instead of in the mail. Since they can't prove who was driving it can only be a monetary penalty.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

My only issue with photo radar is that they tend to set it up in spots that provide the most tickets and revenue instead of places where speeding is a problem but with less traffic.

It's designed around catching the maximum number of people for $$ purposes, not focusing on areas where speeding needs to be curtailed.

Well I would expect it to be designed to catch the maximum number of people. It would be pretty poor planning if they didn't set that at their baseline.

That being said, they 100% respond to requests for photo radar in specific places if it is a problem. They even have a web form:

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Traf...-Requests.aspx

We had a problem on our street, which is a playground zone, with people ripping through it, and a couple of close calls with small kids. I put in a request, got a call back in a couple of days to ask a couple of questions, and then a couple of weeks later I got a call back from the enforcement officer who reported the number of tickets, and the fastest he clocked (I recall it being over 60km/h)

So they will respond where they are needed, but if you don't have complaints to follow up on, why would you not go to the place where you can shoot fish in a barrel?

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Originally Posted by gasman

Well I would expect it to be designed to catch the maximum number of people. It would be pretty poor planning if they didn't set that at their baseline.

That being said, they 100% respond to requests for photo radar in specific places if it is a problem. They even have a web form:

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Traf...-Requests.aspx

We had a problem on our street, which is a playground zone, with people ripping through it, and a couple of close calls with small kids. I put in a request, got a call back in a couple of days to ask a couple of questions, and then a couple of weeks later I got a call back from the enforcement officer who reported the number of tickets, and the fastest he clocked (I recall it being over 60km/h)

So they will respond where they are needed, but if you don't have complaints to follow up on, why would you not go to the place where you can shoot fish in a barrel?

I think my post was pretty clear. Volume does not equal safety. Just because a lot of people speed in a particular area doesn't make it less safe compared to an area where there's less cars but a higher percentage of those cars speed and/or the area is much less safe when cars speed.

Think a residential street vs stoney trail. Which one is more dangerous to do 20km/h over the speed limit?

I've also heard of the ability to report problem areas but, anecdotally, have heard it is essentially useless unless they think they can make it worth their while.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by VladtheImpaler

I am sure I can find this out, but way too lazy to check , so what happens if the photo radar catches me doing 250 in a 90?

Then you'll need a good lawyer.

Do you know one?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by gasman

Well I would expect it to be designed to catch the maximum number of people. It would be pretty poor planning if they didn't set that at their baseline.

That being said, they 100% respond to requests for photo radar in specific places if it is a problem. They even have a web form:

http://www.calgary.ca/cps/Pages/Traf...-Requests.aspx

We had a problem on our street, which is a playground zone, with people ripping through it, and a couple of close calls with small kids. I put in a request, got a call back in a couple of days to ask a couple of questions, and then a couple of weeks later I got a call back from the enforcement officer who reported the number of tickets, and the fastest he clocked (I recall it being over 60km/h)

So they will respond where they are needed, but if you don't have complaints to follow up on, why would you not go to the place where you can shoot fish in a barrel?

Because the spot to shoot fish in a barrel might not cause any accidents.

They should look at the previous years accident stats where speed was a factor in the collision and focus on reducing speed in those areas than the following year evaluate ifnit was successful. It should be a combined effort of the police and roads department to reduce accidents and consequences.

Using a honey pot and then punishing the bear is bad policy.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

My only issue with photo radar is that they tend to set it up in spots that provide the most tickets and revenue instead of places where speeding is a problem but with less traffic.

If you're concerned about speeding in your neighbourhood you can call the police and they'll set up a speed trap. We did that with the playground zone near our place and the police set up radar for a week, and then called me to share the results. It was pretty gratifying.

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

My only issue with photo radar is that they tend to set it up in spots that provide the most tickets and revenue instead of places where speeding is a problem but with less traffic.

It's designed around catching the maximum number of people for $$ purposes, not focusing on areas where speeding needs to be curtailed.

Yep. It's always been a cash grab. I don't mind it set up in playground zones to get residents to evaluate their speeds in areas like this but they usually like to place it in intersections that are traffic heavy but not necessary the ones that see a lot of accidents like McKnight Blvd and Edmonton trail as they make a ton of money when people start speeding up coming down the hill to merge on to deerfoot and I haven't seen an accident for the past 11 years I've been taking that daily. I've seen plenty of accidents on a Barlow Trail intersection though and that one never gets photo radar likely because the volume of traffic is lower.

I take offense to photo radar being an idiot tax and I'm a person that hasn't been ticketed in years and there's not a single person here that hasn't exceeded the local limits numerous times on almost a daily basis. The speed limits are set low for safety margins but they are ridiculous in some areas to which nobody follows them because if you did you would be obstructing traffic flow such as John Laurie which has a ridiculous 70 km/hr limit between Shaganappi and Center street. Sure idiots do speed just like idiots weave in and out of their traffic while looking at their cell phones or idiots that don't realize their vehicle came equipped with signal lights. Speeding is just an easy target as even the police don't follow the limits in most areas because they are too low so you just pick and choose high volume intersections and roads to send out those supplemental tax bills.

[gasman]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

I think my post was pretty clear. Volume does not equal safety. Just because a lot of people speed in a particular area doesn't make it less safe compared to an area where there's less cars but a higher percentage of those cars speed and/or the area is much less safe when cars speed.

Think a residential street vs stoney trail. Which one is more dangerous to do 20km/h over the speed limit?

I've also heard of the ability to report problem areas but, anecdotally, have heard it is essentially useless unless they think they can make it worth their while.

I think we are arguing two different things. I don't believe that the purpose of the photo radar is solely safety, I would say some benefits to safety may be a byproduct (some people will be more diligent after receiving a ticket in the mail, or most people, after spotting the photo radar will reduce speed) but the primary purpose of photo radar is obviously revenue generation. On this I think we agree.

My argument is that I am 100% okay with that. The only way you pay the tax is if you speed AND you aren't paying enough attention to see the photo radar vehicle. it is completely voluntary. So if the main purpose is revenue generation then I completely get why they set up on the honey holes, rather than some residential back alley where there is one or two speeders.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

If you're concerned about speeding in your neighbourhood you can call the police and they'll set up a speed trap. We did that with the playground zone near our place and the police set up radar for a week, and then called me to share the results. It was pretty gratifying.

No, they really don't give a F about safety, when it comes to speed traps. I lived in the middle of a playground zone for 5 years and requested them to patrol it a few times. I explained very carefully the direction and time that it needed to be patrolled, and the first time they sent out a photo radar, they put it in the right spot, and the completely wrong time of day. When I told them that, they sent out a second one, that was also at the wrong time of day, and also in the wrong direction.

Unbelievable incompetence on the part of the cop operating the photo radar, and on the part of the person who dispatched him. And when I emailed a third time to tell them again that they did it wrong, they told me that the spot didn't warrant patrolling because of their scientific research (ie, they didn't make enough money on their two attempts).

But you know what they never fail to do? Set up in their fishing holes. Yeah, busting people coming off the QEII and going east on Stoney at Metis. Been doing that since forever, and yet I never hear of any accidents there. Probably because people are just cruising by at a reasonable speed (120), and paying an "idiot" tax to the CPS.

The attitude of a lot of people really GMG. The speed limit is ridiculous in so many of these places, and the CPS simply capitalize on people that are driving to conditions. And when someone dares to question it, all the do gooders come out of the woodwork to say stuff like 'don't speed, don't get a ticket'. Yeah? Nice attitude. Just put up with BS because the cops say so. Don't question something that is ridiculous.

[kevman]

Photo radar leaving the city on westbound 16th. 80km/hr speed limit. 90km/hr limit on the eastbound side of the road. 110km/hr limit at the top of the hill. No exits, no turns, no houses, no playgrounds.

How is that making the roads a safer place? And no, I've never been ticketed there - you can see them from a mile away.

The traffic it creates as everyone slams on their brakes serves no purpose but to generate income. I'd even go as far as arguing it makes the road a more dangerous place due to the resultant increase in aggressive passes leaving the city following the back up.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

If you need a cop to educate you when you are caught speeding, then you shouldn't be driving in the first place. I get my 'education' on how fast I should be driving by

a) noticing the posted speed limits
b) noticing the speed on my speedometer and ensuring I don't go 9+ over

I just love when people try to justify ways that photo radar is useless. Personally I don't care if isn't helpful, a check the box method, or a way to them to reach their quota. It's nobody else's fault if you speed. It's 100% your own and very controllable.

If the cops are saying photo radar improves safety, when in reality it doesn't....well why does it even matter? If CPS held a press gathering and made a statement saying they use using it as a cash grab and not for public safety, would people suddenly change the way they drive? Let's be realistic; people are upset about photo radar because they are caught speeding by a method that often isn't seen, are forced to pay a fine, and to give their hard earned money to the government. That's why photo radar sucks. Let's not pretend the big issue about photo radar is that it's not a method of educating someone when they speed. It's a sneaky way to catch people doing something wrong, and nobody likes it when someone does something sneaky to them.

I think everyone knows it doesn't do anything to actually improve safety. But to say that getting pulled over is an educational experience that helped you become a better driver is just wrong. I've never in my life heard a story of someone getting pulled over and telling me they learned something by the cop doing that.

I got pulled over once in Oklahoma, going probably around 60 in what I suspect was a 45 mph zone (or 75 in a 60). I was out in a very rural area, totally lost, and was looking at a map while trying to figure out where I was. In the midst of looking back and forth at the map and the road, I lost track of my speed and I suppose the speed limit.

The cop pulled me over, asked what I was doing, and I explained to him what had happened. He was very kind and gave me a warning and then told me how to get to where I wanted to go.

In short, getting pulled over was educational in realizing that trying to drive and look at a map is foolish, that it is very easy to loose track of how fast you are going, and that being a white male in rural Oklahoma reduces one's chance of getting shot by a cop.

Had I simply received a photo ticket, I probably would not have learned any of that and simply wondered how I was speeding.

And, for the record, I did receive a photo ticket once coming back from Banff coming into Calgary---for allegedly going 3 Kmh over the speed limit, which, quite frankly, is within the margin of error of my (and probably everyone's) speedometer. What did I learn from that? Well, I guess I learned that traffic enforcement in Calgary is staffed by a bunch of money grubbing jerks.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by kevman

Photo radar leaving the city on westbound 16th. 80km/hr speed limit. 90km/hr limit on the eastbound side of the road. 110km/hr limit at the top of the hill. No exits, no turns, no houses, no playgrounds.

How is that making the roads a safer place? And no, I've never been ticketed there - you can see them from a mile away.

The traffic it creates as everyone slams on their brakes serves no purpose but to generate income. I'd even go as far as arguing it makes the road a more dangerous place due to the resultant increase in aggressive passes leaving the city following the back up.

That's certainly another favorite place that does very little good to improve safety. Going WB I'm not sure how ticketing someone going 90 on a 4 lane divided highway is making things safer. And headed EB they are arguably making the situation more dangerous since they sit just over the crest of the hill and people don't see anything until they crest the hill and see a line of vehicles in front of them slamming on brakes.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by Huntingwhale

I'm the same way. Plain and simple, it's an idiot tax. If you get caught speeding, it's 100% your own fault. I easily blame the 'victim'. ...

Totally, love this logic!

If you choose to ski/snowmobile in the back country and get avalanche'd - that's 100% your idiotic choice and your idiotic risk. Why should the taxpayers cover millions of dollars in helicopter ambulance and hospital recovery costs?

If you choose to gamble, do drugs, have twelve children in a family without any means of supporting them, live in a remote community, which cannot be feasibly serviced with clean water and modern utilities - these are all seemingly idiotic choices, no?

Speed traps and photo radars are absolutely a cash grab that is simply less difficult for politicians to get popular support. There is no other justification for it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by gasman

I think we are arguing two different things. I don't believe that the purpose of the photo radar is solely safety, I would say some benefits to safety may be a byproduct (some people will be more diligent after receiving a ticket in the mail, or most people, after spotting the photo radar will reduce speed) but the primary purpose of photo radar is obviously revenue generation. On this I think we agree.

My argument is that I am 100% okay with that. The only way you pay the tax is if you speed AND you aren't paying enough attention to see the photo radar vehicle. it is completely voluntary. So if the main purpose is revenue generation then I completely get why they set up on the honey holes, rather than some residential back alley where there is one or two speeders.

How can you be okay with a restriction and fine that provides no public benefit. If there is no public safety benefit it's bad speed limit and bad enforcement. That shouldn't be encouraged.

If there is no safety bonus it's like fining people for wearing shorts. I mean you don't have to wear shorts it's completely voluntary. And we can generate revenue off of people who forget to wear long pants.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

My only issue with photo radar is that they tend to set it up in spots that provide the most tickets and revenue instead of places where speeding is a problem but with less traffic.

It's designed around catching the maximum number of people for $$ purposes, not focusing on areas where speeding needs to be curtailed.

Another way of saying it is designed for revenue generation not to increase safety or improve traffic flow. Being pulled over is definitely more of a deterrent because you get demerits, and a public shaming.

[DownInFlames]

I speed, probably too much, but I never speed in playground zones. Your stopping distance nearly doubles going 40 compared to going 30.

You know where you definitely need to slow down? Construction zones. And no, I'm not talking about roadwork, but building construction. Those morons cross the road without looking all the time. I clipped a guy with my mirror who came out from behind a covered walkway. Good thing I was only doing 30.