Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-01-2016, 11:40 AM   #81
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acey View Post
Except it doesn't. Best way in practice is to pull people over and give them demerits, not send them tickets in the mail 3 weeks after the fact. That does nothing.
If getting tickets in the mail means nothing, why do people who get them complain so much about photo radar?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 11:44 AM   #82
Acey
Franchise Player
 
Acey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
If getting tickets in the mail means nothing, why do people who get them complain so much about photo radar?
It does nothing to change behaviour or increase safety. Surprisingly, the main group isn't just a bunch of speed demons - they're advocating for more real police enforcement with demerits as opposed to mobile radar. That's how you change behaviour. The complaint is how and where radar is done, not the fact that they're doing it.
Acey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 11:47 AM   #83
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
If getting tickets in the mail means nothing, why do people who get them complain so much about photo radar?
They complain and then they pay them and vow to pay more attention next time.

Thats all that happens. No changes in behaviour other than committing more resources to watching out for Photo-Radar than paying attention to the road.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 12:03 PM   #84
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
That argument is hilariously naive.
And extremely insulting. The police service actually wants us to believe photo radar is there to improve safety.
zamler is online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 12:15 PM   #85
puckedoff
First Line Centre
 
puckedoff's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Exp:
Default

I'm guilty of looking for the camera boxes as I approach an interection, which probably isn't the safest thing in the world. And its not that I plan to run a light, but I want to know if I need to be ready to jam on the brakes or slow down in case its a radar light as well.
puckedoff is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 12:24 PM   #86
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
They complain and then they pay them and vow to pay more attention next time.

Thats all that happens. No changes in behaviour other than committing more resources to watching out for Photo-Radar than paying attention to the road.
So you'd be in favour of the approach used in the UK, where devices like dummy photo boxes and average speed sensors mean you could be caught speeding pretty much any time? They make it pointless to be watching out for radar, since it could be anywhere. They've proven very effective at reducing collisions and traffic fatalities.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.

Last edited by CliffFletcher; 11-01-2016 at 12:28 PM.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 12:32 PM   #87
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
So you'd be in favour of the approach used in the UK, where devices like dummy photo boxes and average speed sensors mean you could be caught speeding pretty much any time? They make it pointless to be watching out for radar, since it could be anywhere. They've proven very effective at reducing collisions and traffic fatalities.
Its better than the current system and probably cheaper.

So if it were one or the other then I'd probably choose the camera boxes, but in a huge place like Canada that presents its own practical challenges.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 12:51 PM   #88
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post

If the purpose is behaviour modification then why be sneaky about it? There should be a 10 foot tall camera with a big sign that says: "SPEED BY HERE AND YOU'LL GET A TICKET!"
Isn't that what the speed limit sign is for? If they posted a sign the same effect would happen, everyone would just slow down at that sign.
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 01:01 PM   #89
Locke
ness Monster
 
Locke's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Income Tax Central
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
Isn't that what the speed limit sign is for? If they posted a sign the same effect would happen, everyone would just slow down at that sign.
Thats the desired effect.

You want people to go a certain speed in this certain area, with just the limit sign theres no stick so people will not always vigilantly adhere to the desired behaviour.

What you dont want is having people's head on a swivel looking out for photo radar rather than paying attention to where they're going and what they're doing because this location is presumably more dangerous than most.

So if you're into Safety and Behviour modification then a static camera will do the trick but it wont make you much money because everyone would know its always there.
__________________
- "Somebody may beat me, but they're going to have to bleed to do it."
- Steve Prefontaine
This Post Has Been Distilled for the Eradication of Seemingly Incurable Sadness.
Locke is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 01:10 PM   #90
CaramonLS
Retired
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
So you'd be in favour of the approach used in the UK, where devices like dummy photo boxes and average speed sensors mean you could be caught speeding pretty much any time? They make it pointless to be watching out for radar, since it could be anywhere. They've proven very effective at reducing collisions and traffic fatalities.
Perhaps if we start adjusting roads to the speeds they are calculated for, then yes, that is something we can start discussing.

There is no excuse for Stoney Trail to slow down to 80kms per hour in sections or parts of crowchild dropping to 50 in the "construction zone", aside from the cops putting photoradar at those locations. Those speed limits do nothing to improve road safety.
CaramonLS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 01:51 PM   #91
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

The way it's currently enforced is cash grabby.

I'm much more of a fan of the red light enforcement. They looked at statistics of high collision areas, posted very obvious camera structures, and reviewed the results showing decreased speed and collisions through these intersections.

On the speed side they should follow the same methodology. Identify locations with high speed related collisions, put in cameras and announce it, review accident statistics. There also should be a radius at speed changes where they cannot place cameras.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 02:22 PM   #92
mrkajz44
First Line Centre
 
mrkajz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Deep South
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS View Post
Perhaps if we start adjusting roads to the speeds they are calculated for, then yes, that is something we can start discussing.

There is no excuse for Stoney Trail to slow down to 80kms per hour in sections or parts of crowchild dropping to 50 in the "construction zone", aside from the cops putting photoradar at those locations. Those speed limits do nothing to improve road safety.
Speaking of which - why is the limit down to 50 there still? The overpass is now complete and people are using it, and I don't see any more workers there either.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
mrkajz44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 03:04 PM   #93
Flash Walken
Franchise Player
 
Flash Walken's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Exp:
Default

Police Forces also need to justify their budgets which is a big reason for deploying manpower into these situations.

They know they won't get the dollars they want without taxing the population with tickets and citations so they go about it in other means.

I wonder if the average Albertan puts 2 and 2 together on these sorts of things when reflecting on the effectiveness of the flat tax.

These kind of things get clawed back in all sorts of different ways that aren't explicitly labelled a 'tax'. The BC government does this with MSP premiums, which are paid into general revenue and account for roughly the same amount of income for the province as corporate taxes. They get to crow about lowering taxes without having to mention increasing MSP premiums year on year.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoJetsGo View Post
How does the number of playoff games the Bruins won *this last season* have anything to do with their number of draft picks in the last three calendar years?
https://streamable.com/dcxaz
Flash Walken is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 07:28 PM   #94
iggy_oi
First Line Centre
 
iggy_oi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Locke View Post
Thats the desired effect.

You want people to go a certain speed in this certain area, with just the limit sign theres no stick so people will not always vigilantly adhere to the desired behaviour.

What you dont want is having people's head on a swivel looking out for photo radar rather than paying attention to where they're going and what they're doing because this location is presumably more dangerous than most.

So if you're into Safety and Behviour modification then a static camera will do the trick but it wont make you much money because everyone would know its always there.
To be honest, the best approach would be to simply have hidden speed trap cameras, if no one knew where they were they would just drive the limit instead of keeping their head on a swivel.

Edit: I'm pretty sure there is some law against them being hidden but I'm not sure what it is exactly
iggy_oi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 07:45 PM   #95
Acey
Franchise Player
 
Acey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
I'm pretty sure there is some law against them being hidden but I'm not sure what it is exactly
In Edmonton and Lethbridge... no chill.



A few years back a dude in Lethbridge shot at one with a shotgun as he drove by.

Quote:
CALGARY – A Lethbridge man charged with shooting a gun at a portable photo radar box has pleaded guilty.

In mid-February, police say 42-year-old Adolph Reimer fired several shots, one of which hit the box while another hit a passing truck, barely missing a 12-year-old boy riding inside. The bullets caused approximately $50,000 in damages.
http://globalnews.ca/news/150376/let...oto-radar-box/
Acey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 09:01 PM   #96
jayswin
Celebrated Square Root Day
 
jayswin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

I guess not so much a thread about the Calgary Police Service anymore.
jayswin is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jayswin For This Useful Post:
Old 11-01-2016, 09:06 PM   #97
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash Walken View Post
Police Forces also need to justify their budgets which is a big reason for deploying manpower into these situations.

They know they won't get the dollars they want without taxing the population with tickets and citations so they go about it in other means.

I wonder if the average Albertan puts 2 and 2 together on these sorts of things when reflecting on the effectiveness of the flat tax.

These kind of things get clawed back in all sorts of different ways that aren't explicitly labelled a 'tax'. The BC government does this with MSP premiums, which are paid into general revenue and account for roughly the same amount of income for the province as corporate taxes. They get to crow about lowering taxes without having to mention increasing MSP premiums year on year.
The Police service does not get the money from tickets. It goes into general city revenues. The police budget is determined independant of the amount of ticket revenue brought in.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-01-2016, 09:08 PM   #98
chemgear
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Exp:
Default

A long time ago, but one of the things I remember about a TV show called Seaquest was how the future would have automated popup turrets that would catch people speeding. Would immediately message the dashboard of the driver of the car that they were speeding and that $200 had been deducted out of their bank account (and demerits too perhaps?)

Honestly, I don't see why we can't do this today.
chemgear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 10:09 AM   #99
undercoverbrother
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Sylvan Lake
Exp:
Default

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...ence-1.3831238

Quote:
"You're talking about a culture of policing that is decades and decades old, and we're redirecting the ship but it doesn't happen overnight," Chief Roger Chaffin said during a news conference Tuesday.

"There's work to be done, but these things are happening."
...
__________________
Captain James P. DeCOSTE, CD, 18 Sep 1993

Corporal Jean-Marc H. BECHARD, 6 Aug 1993
undercoverbrother is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-02-2016, 10:16 AM   #100
Huntingwhale
Franchise Player
 
Huntingwhale's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Best part of this article.

Quote:
Brand, who was charged in 2012, has been relieved of duty, but with pay.
Wow. He's been getting paid for the last 4 years to not work while being 'investigated'.

4 years.

He also had a firearm stolen from his vehicle back in 2006.

Quote:
n January 2006, police charged Brand with two Criminal Code offences dealing with unsafe storage, handling and transportation of a firearm. The officer’s loaded service pistol was stolen from his car while he attended the Calgary Folk Music Festival the summer before.

He admitted to failing to comply with regulations and received an absolute discharge. He does not have a criminal record.
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/ca...954/story.html

Last edited by Huntingwhale; 11-02-2016 at 10:20 AM.
Huntingwhale is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:13 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016