|
Hold on to your wallets! McGuinty bringing back photo radar! (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jayx1 |
under the NDP, people were getting nailed for 104.
And you are right, they should upgrade streches of ontario highway. But, most people go 120 as it is and ontario highways are among the safest in the world. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
Elmo-on-XTC, do you actually drive? Because honestly you're posting some extremely ignorant comments here.
Photo-radar may take some weight off the shoulders of the police but the problem is it won't make people slow down! How could it possibly succeed in doing that if people don't know where they'll have to slow down? Photo-radar is, was, and always will be an "undercover" way of dealing with speeders. Slapping people with a fine 2 or 3 weeks or more after the incident - how does that accomplish anything in terms of safety? It's meant to CATCH people, but not to DETER them which is the real aim when you're talking about SAFETY. It's simply a cash grab and nothing more - another tax on drivers who already have to pay SO MUCH for their privilege.
Not to mention that courts everywhere have ruled that it is blatantly unconstitutional to lay a charge on someone with no human witness, just a photo and a number as evidence, 3 weeks after the incident occurred when it is nearly impossible for any reasonable person to remember precisely what happened on that time & day. AND ALSO not to mention that there is no law requiring people to open their mail, which makes it a violation of people's civil rights to issue a conviction on them when they might not have even known that there was a charge standing (what if the mail never got delivered?).
There's not even any guarantee that the photo radar is working properly, because they don't turn them off in heavy rain or fog when it is WELL KNOWN that radar cannot function normally by sheer scientific principle. Radar law states that the device is supposed to be tested and calibrated BEFORE AND AFTER EVERY TICKET IS ISSUED - with photo radar that is hardly done at all, maybe a calibration once in the morning and sometimes not even that.
If they do bring this bull back, I sincerely hope that the same lobby group that crushed photo-radar last time will go forward this time with its class-action suit and expose this "safety" fraud for what it really is. The government has NO right to tax people arbitrarily like that. If the provincial government has proven one thing to us about road safety, it's that they don't understand ANYTHING about it!
Fortunately, these ramblings about bringing photo radar back have been going on for a while with no progress, so this news isn't really that new. Sounds like the cities are really pushing it though - I'll bet that ing Peel municipality is one of them, they're the same people that spend billions of dollars on marauders for the police force and military-grade radar technology. Sure, sex offenders are still running loose but at least the traffic cops have EVEN MORE cushy jobs! |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
Mcguinty has been a huge disgrace to ontario. Sadly we have to put up with this weasel for at least 4 more years.
I dont know if my wallet will survive the lieberals |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
photo radar may be really annoying and all the stuff aaron said is true but i think it might at least get some people to slow down. that and a lot of nagging wives. :)
i agree 100 percent to place photo cameras in school zones not on the highways tho. If people are going 150-160 on the highway they should be busted by a huge mother ing cop and dealt with properly! |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| they better not put them on the 407!!! :whip: :whip: |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by StereoPrincess
photo radar may be really annoying and all the stuff aaron said is true but i think it might at least get some people to slow down. that and a lot of nagging wives. :)
i agree 100 percent to place photo cameras in school zones not on the highways tho. If people are going 150-160 on the highway they should be busted by a huge mother ing cop and dealt with properly! |
Getting people to slow down isn't always desirable though. As Jay mentioned, sometimes you get the morons slamming on the brakes every time they see something on the side of the road. And I can think of several instances where I've been on the 401 and some tasteless sadist is driving a white Chevy Impala - suddenly the traffic everywhere slows down to 80 - and when somebody in the left lane suddenly drops to 80 when the guy behind him is going 115 (which is a perfectly reasonably speed), you could be looking at a serious accident!
Cameras put people into "panic mode" - even moreso than a speed trap does, because at least with a speed trap you know instantly whether you got busted or not. And when people panic on the road, the results are generally not good. You end up with traffic jams and "near misses" at best - at worst, you might end up with people driving WAY too slow, not paying attention, and getting into accidents.
Speeding isn't always *dangerous* - photo radar doesn't discriminate, but cops do (unless they're being jerks). If a cop sees someone going 125 passing a car going 115 they usually won't do anything. But if they see someone going 120, weaving in and out of traffic in a bottleneck where everyone is going 70, then they are definitely going to get busted. People can drive fast and safely or they can drive slow and dangerously. Speed alone is only half the problem, with the other half being traffic conditions. If you have too many people driving too slow, or worrying more about getting their picture taken than concentrating on the road, you're creating very dangerous conditions.
When it comes to school zones, I can agree with you Margs - but only if they set reasonable limits. That is, say, for people going 70, not 50 (on a 40 road), and also having a big sign right above the speed limit sign which says point-blank that the area is monitored by photo-radar. I can only support this if it is made absolutely clear that the intent is not to catch speeders but to stop them from driving too fast.
EDIT: believe it or not, the most effective form of speed control I have seen so far are those massive signs on the 401 near Napanee/Kingston that list the fine amounts ($100 for 120, $350 for 140, etc.). I almost never see anyone going above 120 on those stretches, even though I've never seen anyone get pulled over there either. It really just goes to show you that tickets work much better as a deterrent than a punishment. |
|
|
| girllovingtvibe |
| arg - would somebody please smack this man... |
|
|
| USMC_Greg |
| quote: | | Several G.T.A. municipalities are urging Queen’s Park to give them permission to bring back the technology. “We could ... put in speed bumps … and it will cost a lot of money,” warns Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion, who’s spearheading the movement. “We can hire more policemen, which is not acceptable. The only answer is photo radar.” |
The best answer is to fix the god damned streets so that traffic can actually flow.
Instead of trying to make people stop at every god damn post for a piss, they should let traffic flow so people don't get frustrated.
Just let people drive!!!
...and then the wonder why people get into accidents. It's because they get fed up with waiting every 15 feet for the light to change. |
|
|
| dEsidEL |
speed bumps > photo radar
|
|
|
| Elmo-On-XTC |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
Elmo-on-XTC, do you actually drive? Because honestly you're posting some extremely ignorant comments here. |
oh ..your right I knew I forgot something (yes I drive, thank you)
you make some good points though. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by dEsidEL
speed bumps > photo radar
|
Seriously. You want to see a city that has actually thought this through and done its homework, check out Portland: http://www.trans.ci.portland.or.us/.../streamline.htm
That's how it SHOULD be done. If speeding is a problem, first they send in a few traffic cops. If it's still a problem, then the street has to go through an entire system of regulations and points to determine whether or not they can start annoying people with speed bumps.
| quote: | - The street surface must be to current City standards, and maintained by the City.
- Traffic speeds must generally be at least 5 mph over the posted speed limit.
- Traffic volumes must be between 400 and 2,000 vehicles per day.
- The street must meet design requirements for installing speed bumps.
|
They have to be careful though, because speed bumps can interfere with emergency response. That's why the city has a classification system and any street that is designated as an ER route cannot have speed bumps, ever.
Too bad it's only about money and complaining over here. Even speed bumps have their problems but at least they actually work. |
|
|
| tw1tch |
| If it means less speed traps I'm all for it. :) At least it's only a fine and nothing against your Insurance/Demerit points. |
|
|
|
|
