[zang]

Compliance through enforcement is driven by two factors: probability of being caught in an infraction multiplied by the penalty for being caught. Fines are set high to offset the general lack of enforcement. Perhaps the reason why people are so upset with the speed cameras is that we are applying a fine set in the context of broadly non-existent enforcement (so on the higher side) and applying it, with little margin of grace, in a place where the probability of enforcement is nearly 100%. Maybe the answer is to have the cameras generate lots of warnings, and reduced fines, and only the frequent/flagrant offenders should get the full whack of fines.

Except that the camera system can't issue demerit points. So, drivers are already getting a "discount" over being caught by an officer. The question is though, why should anyone be given a margin of grace? Everyone driving on the road (legally) has been tested on and issued a license based on their ability to follow the rules of the road. A single warning first maybe, by email, automated phone call and mail seems more than reasonable. But why reduce fines? If someone commits theft under $1000, I don't personally think they should be allowed to keep some of it for themselves. The maximum speed limit is also not simultaneously the minimum. Even by driving the exact maximum, people know that is the maximum.

 

[afransen]

Except that the camera system can't issue demerit points. So, drivers are already getting a "discount" over being caught by an officer. The question is though, why should anyone be given a margin of grace? Everyone driving on the road (legally) has been tested on and issued a license based on their ability to follow the rules of the road. A single warning first maybe, by email, automated phone call and mail seems more than reasonable. But why reduce fines? If someone commits theft under $1000, I don't personally think they should be allowed to keep some of it for themselves. The maximum speed limit is also not simultaneously the minimum. Even by driving the exact maximum, people know that is the maximum.

Police generally never enforce speeding within a certain margin of the maximum.

You can wall yourself off in an absolutist position, but if you try to understand and empathize with those who might not be so happy with these cameras, we might arrive at a solution that has more social license and is less likely to spark a backlash. This attitude is what will lead to Ford outright prohibiting speed cameras.

I want safer streets. Cameras are an inferior way to make streets safer. I'd rather solutions that actually worked rather than just angering a lot of people. Cameras have a place, which is deterring a small percentage of people egregiously breaking the speed limit despite the design of the roadway. If the design speed of the street results in a fine, that's unjust.

It's like putting a pull handle on a door that's actually a push and fining people for pulling on it, even if it says push in writing. If users are being punished for poor design, I don't think that's right.

 

[zang]

Police generally never enforce speeding within a certain margin of the maximum.

That is a problem with the police, not with cameras. And even the cameras have a margin of grace.

You can wall yourself off in an absolutist position, but if you try to understand and empathize with those who might not be so happy with these cameras, we might arrive at a solution that has more social license and is less likely to spark a backlash. This attitude is what will lead to Ford outright prohibiting speed cameras.

The reason people are not happy with the cameras is the same reason that a child throws a fit when he gets caught stealing from his sibling. As a driver, you learn the rules and have to prove you know them to get a license. You can choose to disobey those rules all you want, but you don't have a right to complain that the government has found a more efficient way to ensure you're following those rules (for the safety of everyone on the road, I might add). I think what many take issue with is that the government is making money on it. Howabout we take away the fines and issue only demerit points progressively? I'm fine with that.

I want safer streets. Cameras are an inferior way to make streets safer. I'd rather solutions that actually worked rather than just angering a lot of people. Cameras have a place, which is deterring a small percentage of people egregiously breaking the speed limit despite the design of the roadway. If the design speed of the street results in a fine, that's unjust.

Parkside Drive is not a stroad. It has curbside parking, driveways all along its route, relatively narrow (3.1-3.3m) lanes and side streets every 100m or so. So what's enticing people to drive insanely fast there? Is it the park? Is it the fact there are very few westbound turns? How finely are we to micromanage street design in order to get people to follow clearly marked rules? Drivers aren't without responsibility.

It's like putting a pull handle on a door that's actually a push and fining people for pulling on it, even if it says push in writing. If users are being punished for poor design, I don't think that's right.

But speed limits are clear directions. There are signs everywhere. There is no ambiguity in it; it's willful driver ignorance leading to the problem. Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

[afransen]

You're going to tell me that this reads as a 40 kph street?

I would suggest, if we want a 40 kph design, the street should redesigned with 1 lane per direction, perhaps a median, definitely pedestrian refuges, and parking bays slightly raised from the street with a different paving treatment and turning lanes at intersections.

Street View of Amsterdam · Google Maps

Netherlands

maps.app.goo.gl

 

[zang]

You're going to tell me that this reads as a 40 kph street?

That section, with no cars parked on the curb? Maybe not. Does it read as a 100kph street? Tickets have been issued for speeds in excess of that.

I would suggest, if we want a 40 kph design, the street should redesigned with 1 lane per direction, perhaps a median, definitely pedestrian refuges, and parking bays slightly raised from the street with a different paving treatment and turning lanes at intersections.

Which is almost word-for-word what was recommended to and endorsed by council. That said, the project hasn't had an update in ten months. Jon Lorinc even complained about the lack of movement the other day.

In the meantime though, until construction is started (let alone complete), the cameras appear to be working spectacularly. It doesn't mean people won't continue to shuck their own responsibility in calling it "unfair" and a "tax".

Yes, we need better street design. However, unless we want a monotone city, there will be streets that people feel they're allowed to speed on, and there'll be the idiots who think it's completely within their rights to ignore all laws of the road.

 

[thettctransitfanatic]

Ontario Liberal Leader Bonnie Crombie has barely survived her leadership review this afternoon, with 57% voting no to a leadership contest and 43% voting yes to a leadership contest.