|
Red Light Cameras in TO. (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| rabbitjoker |
| quote: | Originally posted by DigiNut
No points. But they don't set it up that way to go easy on people, they do it because the cameras can't prove who was driving the car.
...
But unlike going a few km/h over the speed limit, what these people are doing is really dangerous. I've had so many close calls on left turns. I'd also like to see cops handling it instead of cameras, but I don't think that's very realistic... we really do need to do something about the situation. It's almost $200, which is a lot of money, so I think people will be a little more careful. |
I agree it is dangerous - but you pointed out the problem: what the DRIVER is doing is dangerous, the camera's CAN'T prove who is driving the car, NO points for the DRIVER, cash-cost for the OWNER.
This is a cash grab by our dollar-hungry gov't (regional and provincial).
Quite honestly - most people can afford 3 or 4 of these a year (not on TA due to the # of students, young people, etc - but in general). $540 to $720 is less than $50 per month, so for those who really do run red lights frequently - it is more than affordable.
What should be done (if we're REALLY concerned about safety here) is give the red light runners points so their insurance doubles or they get their liscense suspended.
At 6 points you have a meeting with a majistrate and "explain" why you should keep your liscense.
----
This is a cash grab - the gov't is not really concerned about safety - otherwise they'd do something about getting the drivers off the road as opposed to getting auto owner's money. |
|
|
| MarkT |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
im never one for cameras making decisions about law. Put real cops on patrol and ticket the drivers, not the car owners. |
Agreed. This is blind "rule worship" with no subjective analysis of the situation at all...and won't deter people with money either. |
|
|
| aarontrance |
| quote: | Originally posted by MarkT
Agreed. This is blind "rule worship" with no subjective analysis of the situation at all...and won't deter people with money either. |
I disagree. I'll agree with having people view these cameras after they target a red light runner to confirm it was exactly that, but cops at EVERY intersection is far from practical. At the same time, $190 is $190, I don't have that kind of money to burn, and I don't think you do either. That would sure as hell deter me from running reds (not that I do, I'm actually a pretty cautious driver in my parents cars.) Insurance costs WAY too much to get in any accidents at red lights, and my YD discount is null on the first ticket/accident. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| Justice shouldnt be based on cost efficiency. It should be based on justice. Sending a $190 ticket to someone who may or may not have committed an offense is NOT justice. |
|
|
| MarkT |
Aarontrance, sure it will deter you and me...but my point is that it's not an effective and equal economic deterent for everyone. And Jayx1 is right...when the application of the law is shaped MAINLY by economics, I have a problem with it.
Cops on every street corner IS impractical, I agree...but cameras are not the answer to too few cops on the road. I'm saying that it's the DANGEROUS drivers who need to be caught and punished. EVERYONE who runs a stale yellow or red is not equally "dangerous" and deserving of equal punishment (eg. 4am, no traffic vs. rush hour with lots of traffic and pedestrians everywhere). This is a blanket cash grab application of the law and I wish the police and gov't would cut the "safety" bull and at least admit that much.
Like I've said before...if this was truly mainly about safety, we'd have cameras or cops in school zones, at crosswalks, etc. Why don't we? Traffic volume is lower there...ie. not as much REVENUE is taken in.
With cameras, insurers will never know either because there are no demerit points and these types of tickets won't show on your driving abstract (as far as I understand it).
I don't think cameras are a "bad" idea...they WILL result in a reduction of people running reds at THOSE intersections. I have problems with the setup itself (ticketing the plate owner vs. the driver, not factoring in any mitigating circumstances, etc). |
|
|
| Rodrico |
| quote: | Originally posted by Chinaman
Ass much as these are an absolute pain in the ass, I think it's a good idea. |
Someone had something else on his mind when writing their post. |
|
|
| TranceGeek |
The government is going about this the wrong way. They should be solving the traffic congestion first, then there would be no need for these red light cameras (unless they're just used as a cashcow).
The real problem are actually all the traffic lights in the city, I mean, it's insanse really. You have a traffic light virtually every 50m or so, yet there is absolutely no need for that, it just creates a traffic havoc! I won't even mention all those annoying stop signs in the residential areas.
The real solution to reduce the amount of accidents (which I hope is the purpose of these red light camera), is to get the traffic flowing!
There's a couple of ways all of this can be done. Firstly, reduce the amount of traffic lights in the city, and replace them with roundabouts. This will effectively reduce the congestion as the merging of the traffic and the flow will be greatly improved. Secondly, reduce the amount of 2-way streets in the downtown core and replace them with 4 lane one way streets, like richmond, wellington, addelaide, etc... Also, raising the speed limits on open highways. While many will argue this point, the fact is today's cars are capable of travelling at much greater speeds with shorter stopping distances and overall improved safety. The greater speeds also highten the driver's awareness, so you won't have as many people talking on the cellphones, or eating, or whatever while driving, which will again reduce accidents!
There are long term solutions for traffic congestion problems available! |
|
|
| Crazy Serb |
| ^^^ yea, if only the people in charge of all that thought the same way... |
|
|
| Swamper |
| lol.. this city has so many bad drivers that roundabouts would be a disaster |
|
|
| tw1tch |
| quote: | Originally posted by Swamper
lol.. this city has so many bad drivers that roundabouts would be a disaster |
This could be a good way to rid the streets of bad drivers. Keep the roundabouts around long enough, anyone who isn't fit to drive will surely get into an accident, insurance rises, so they either A) learn to drive and pay up or B) can't afford the insurance and don't drive at all. :) |
|
|
| StereoPrincess |
| quote: | Originally posted by tw1tch
This could be a good way to rid the streets of bad drivers. Keep the roundabouts around long enough, anyone who isn't fit to drive will surely get into an accident, insurance rises, so they either A) learn to drive and pay up or B) can't afford the insurance and don't drive at all. |
or they die. |
|
|
|
|
