[wopchop]

Except there was a problem with them when the Rae government instituted photo radar in the 1990s, before speed limits changed.

The old photo radar situation is a bit different. Photo radar was being used by police on the 400-series highways. I don't believe it was used on any local roads at all.

If you had speeding cameras right now on the 400-series, and people were getting tickets for 10kph over, I suspect that the public polls would not be in support of it at all. The cameras wouldn't last a month.

However, our current situation is that speed cameras are being used in residential/school/special zones, and I believe that most locals do in fact support the use of the speed cameras for this purpose.

 

[rbt]

Wait.....the problem is 'bad/criminal' behavior..............and the answer is to make that behavior legal, so its not a crime/bad anymore?

That sometimes happens; Cannabis use being an obvious recent example.

NOTE, I'm not saying cannabis should be illegal, I'm saying it was made legal because it was popular despite being illegal. If the number of Canadian cannabis users was single digits during the early 2000's it never would have been legalized.

 

[Northern Light]

That sometimes happens; Cannabis being an obvious recent example.

NOTE, I'm not saying cannabis should be illegal, I'm saying it was made legal because it was popular despite being illegal. If the number of Canadian cannabis users was single digits during the 1990's it never would have been legalized.

I agree.

However, deaths/serious injuries caused by cannabis are quite rare; deaths caused by speeding/reckless driving, are considerably more common.

So with cannabis, I think you could say a case was reasonably made, not that the behavior is harm-free, but that them majority of the harm is to one's self.......and that the harms/costs from it being criminal reasonably exceeded any benefits (deterrence)

I don't think the data would point in the same direction with speeding (which in any event is mostly non-criminal, but is illegal)

 

[zang]

wThe old photo radar situation is a bit different. Photo radar was being used by police on the 400-series highways. I don't believe it was used on any local roads at all.

Different speeds, for sure. But they were entirely removed because of excessive driver complaint. Not because they were deemed "unfair" by law. If you want to take the risk of speeding, that's up to you. Speed cameras just force responsibility in those who do, which is the ultimate problem. People don't want to take responsibility for their risk to the public.

It's the ultimate in libertarian government funding (user fees), and yet Neo-liberals and conservatives hate it. I wonder why.

If you had speeding cameras right now on the 400-series, and people were getting tickets for 10kph over, I suspect that the public polls would not be in support of it at all. The cameras wouldn't last a month.

But again, that's entitlement. People have gotten away with speeding for so long that they think it's some kind of unwritten rule that you shouldn't get a ticket for doing 10km/h over the speed limit. I'm sure the belief stems from the idea that speedometers aren't as accurate as they should be. Which is absolutely ridiculous, as if you're clocked going 10k over, your speedometer possibly said an even higher number.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure your car's speedometer is accurate anyway?

In addition, there're even more accurate ways to now gauge your own speed. Most phones can do it better; dedicated SatNavs, likewise. It's not an excuse anymore to allow (or expect) such a large margin of "gimme".

Unless you're driving an emergency vehicle, no one should have any given expectation in being allowed to speed.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

Different speeds, for sure. But they were entirely removed because of excessive driver complaint. Not because they were deemed "unfair" by law. If you want to take the risk of speeding, that's up to you. Speed cameras just force responsibility in those who do, which is the ultimate problem. People don't want to take responsibility for their risk to the public.

It's the ultimate in libertarian government funding (user fees), and yet Neo-liberals and conservatives hate it. I wonder why.



But again, that's entitlement. People have gotten away with speeding for so long that they think it's some kind of unwritten rule that you shouldn't get a ticket for doing 10km/h over the speed limit. I'm sure the belief stems from the idea that speedometers aren't as accurate as they should be. Which is absolutely ridiculous, as if you're clocked going 10k over, your speedometer possibly said an even higher number.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure your car's speedometer is accurate anyway?

In addition, there're even more accurate ways to now gauge your own speed. Most phones can do it better; dedicated SatNavs, likewise. It's not an excuse anymore to allow (or expect) such a large margin of "gimme".

Unless you're driving an emergency vehicle, no one should have any given expectation in being allowed to speed.

In fact one can argue photo radar is probably the fairest way to enforce speed limits - putting aside the distribution of the cameras - since there is no discretion by the officer. If there is a need to provide some flexibility, tune the issuing of fines to violation of limits by say 5 or 10 kph.

AoD

 

[evandyk]

Self-driving cars will solve this, because they will be programmed not to speed.

 

[Monarch Butterfly]

Self-driving cars will solve this, because they will be programmed not to speed.

Which will add to the traffic congestion. Two tonnes of metal, glass, plastic, and rubber using up more real estate.

 

[wopchop]

Different speeds, for sure. But they were entirely removed because of excessive driver complaint. Not because they were deemed "unfair" by law. If you want to take the risk of speeding, that's up to you. Speed cameras just force responsibility in those who do, which is the ultimate problem. People don't want to take responsibility for their risk to the public.

Yes, exactly. And that is why I'm saying these two situations are different from a public opinion perspective.

For photo radar, the complainers were likely a majority view. For these speed cameras in special zones, that seems like it is not the case and polls are showing people do in fact support their implementation.

But again, that's entitlement. People have gotten away with speeding for so long that they think it's some kind of unwritten rule that you shouldn't get a ticket for doing 10km/h over the speed limit. I'm sure the belief stems from the idea that speedometers aren't as accurate as they should be. Which is absolutely ridiculous, as if you're clocked going 10k over, your speedometer possibly said an even higher number.

And who's responsibility is it to ensure your car's speedometer is accurate anyway?

In addition, there're even more accurate ways to now gauge your own speed. Most phones can do it better; dedicated SatNavs, likewise. It's not an excuse anymore to allow (or expect) such a large margin of "gimme".

Unless you're driving an emergency vehicle, no one should have any given expectation in being allowed to speed

Not sure what this is about? You seem to be putting words in my mouth. I never said that speeding was OK.

Although I do believe that speed limits on the 400-series highways are too low.
I think the majority view about going 10-20km/h or so over has nothing at all to do with speedometer accuracy and entirely to due with the public feeling like the speed limit should be faster because the road is designed that way.

 

[zang]

Which will add to the traffic congestion. Two tonnes of metal, glass, plastic, and rubber using up more real estate.

The faster a vehicle moves, the more road space it requires, for both safety as well as logistically.

 

[picard102]

Which will add to the traffic congestion. Two tonnes of metal, glass, plastic, and rubber using up more real estate.

Cool, and until public transit can match getting into a vehicle at your door and being transported directly to your destination, it will continue to take up real estate.

 

[Northern Light]

In his Bsky thread, @AlexBozikovic highlights a couple of things.

1) That several washrooms with good architectural features are proposed to be demolished, and he, understandably thinks that's awful and they should be restored instead.

2) That there is an intent to bundle all of the washroom work into one mega contract which will limit the bidders to some of the large corporate firms, and its too big a job for the smaller ones.

He's right on that last point, moreover, too few bidders tends to erode value-for-money as well. So you can have lesser design for more $$

****

It would make sense to be to do a bulk, large bid for the pre-fab washrooms, since you want standardized spare parts etc.

But the free standing buildings should be broken out into smaller contracts, with high profile sites, going on their own so you can attract the best firms.

The better architectural washrooms of the past should be retained wherever feasible; and if that isn't due to alterations required for year-round use or modern building code, then they should be recreated as closely as possible.

@AlexBozikovic has a follow up on his thoughts above in a new piece in the Globe that is currently not paywalled:

Is Toronto’s public design in the toilet?

The city’s plan to repair and replace 125 public washrooms is a rushed, one-size-fits-all approach that misses an opportunity to showcase design

www.theglobeandmail.com

Its a good piece, I don't disagree with a single word.

What we need at this point is to get someone to get Olivia on record as to why this contract can't be split, as I discuss above.

I think that's really key to getting this right.