evandyk
Senior Member
They should reinstall it with a sign at the base that says “if we have to reinstall this camera again, the ticket threshold for all cameras in the city will be set to 1 km/hour over the speed limit”.
|
|
|
- Thread starter salsa
- Start date
evandyk
Senior Member
But I imagine it should actually be fairly trivial to catch whoever is doing this, just put surveillance cameras there, then match up the footage to drivers license photos of the people getting the most tickets.
Mind_the_gap
Active Member
^ I think some of this has to do with our overly-litigious HTA...
Finland has had speed cameras for over twenty years on highways. They figured out that you need to install dummies/shells for 8-9/10 cameras every 1-2km to create speed limit adherence artificially by never knowing which speed camera is actually real.
Nokia used to map reported real ones.
Of course this is mostly moot now because of people's insurance apps following their driving.
Finland has had speed cameras for over twenty years on highways. They figured out that you need to install dummies/shells for 8-9/10 cameras every 1-2km to create speed limit adherence artificially by never knowing which speed camera is actually real.
Nokia used to map reported real ones.
Of course this is mostly moot now because of people's insurance apps following their driving.
ShonTron
Moderator
Another type of speed camera, used in Britain, is a set of two on a major highways and motorways that would measure how long a vehicle took to pass between them. The cameras are mounted on overhead gantries so they’re especially difficult to interfere with.
I see a lot of deep-tinted license plate covers; I really do wonder how effective they are at avoiding traffic cameras and 407 gantries. They’re illegal but not really enforced, just like deep tint front windows or modified mufflers.
crs1026
Superstar
I'm pretty unsympathetic to drivers on this topic, and would like to see better enforcement.
The solution to doing so efficiently is to delegate authority to lay charges to municipal enforcement officers. There's no need to define this as a moving violation. Just parking a vehicle on a public street or in a public parking lot is sufficient grounds for this to be a violation. (there are jurisdictions where front license plates aren't issued that require cars to be parked nose-in to parking spaces, so patrolling officers can read the plates.... counter intuitive as it's generally known that parking nose out is safer, but the point is, inspection of plates of parked cars is a legal mandate so if your plate is obscured, it's a violation even when parked). So parking control officers can enforce this as they do their usual walks along the streets.
And I would go one further, in the sense that the first 5 meters or so of a private residence driveway is also city property.... based on the boundaries of the city land in front of a house. So parking control officers can enforce in that space.
And, yeah.... shouldn't be too hard to create a portable technology that measures window tint... so parking control officers can write a ticket for that also.
- Paul
PL1
Senior Member
I agree 100%. Also, make the fines painful. $500+? It's basically an attempt to deceive
afransen
Senior Member
Also, for the love of all that is good and holy, please crack down on modified exhausts. They are getting to ridiculous levels of asshat-ery.
lenaitch
Senior Member
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "over-litigious". Under our system, the end point of a statute that creates an offence is either a court or tribunal (depending on the statute). We get to meet our accuser.
The use of tracking information-based insurance is growing among some demographics but I couldn't find any raw numbers. The way I understand the policy in Ontario, monitored coverage is either distance-based and/or behaviour/driving dynamics-based. I'm not aware that the tracking is linked to specific locations, if that is what you are suggesting. Even if it is, insurance coverage in Ontario is a contract between the insured and insurer, not involving the government.
They have existed for years, but the problem is, Ontario law is written subjectively. A number of websites from insurance companies and tint installers mention percentages of 'visible light transmission' and cite a 'new law' in 2017. The only thing I can find on that is the Motor Vehicle Inspection Standard which, for light duty/passenger vehicles, only applies on change of title.
Last edited:
crs1026
Superstar
I'm not an engineer, and maybe watch too much fiction where technology does magical things, but I would have thought that all that's needed is to direct a beam of light of measured and calibrated power in one side of the window and measure how much light makes it out the other side. There must be portable devices that do that, if the regs were written to allow that. Could be done from the sidewalk with the car neither unlocked nor entered.
- Paul
afransen
Senior Member
I'm sure you could at least issue a summons to have it measured and a fine for failure to appear.
crs1026
Superstar
A good anciliary duty for Collision Reporting Centers - you are summonsed to appear within say 30 days at a CRC who are equipped to make the measurement.
- Paul
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
From https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/siu-investigates-after-two-toronto-officers-fire-guns-during-traffic-stop-one-person-in-life/article_95becd12-8f75-4d6c-a462-0a97608014f5.html
"A traffic stop in North York escalated into gunfire late Sunday night, leaving officers scrambling to take cover and one person in life-threatening condition.
"It was shortly after 10:50 p.m. when Toronto police officers pulled over a red Infiniti sports car on Sheppard Avenue West, just east of Bathurst Street. The vehicle caught their attention because it was missing a front licence plate."
Don't think that an unarmed "municipal enforcement officer" would result in an escalation where shooting would be a result. Could have happened with a vehicle with stolen plates. The "enforcement officer" shouldn't have to face a conflict with any driver.
crs1026
Superstar
Unarmed Enforcement officers have confrontations with motorists all the time. Some escalate to violence, sure, but relatively few. There's no reason why citing a parked vehicle for obscured plate would be any more of a risk than citing it for parking next to a fire hydrant, or overstaying a paid meter transaction. Or even lacking a license plate. I am suggesting citing parked cars, not conducting traffic stops (which are definitely higher risk)
We should not inflate the perceived risk beyond actual experience and probability. I'm jumping ahead of the investigators and assuming that the officers in this situation had grounds to fear for their safety, hence their actions were legal and justified. But every transaction between officers - armed or otherwise - and the public should not be escalated just because some do turn out lethal. There will always be some ambiguity and hence some risk taken - which is why we pay officers well, give them respect, and equip and train them for the dangers of the job.
- Paul
Monarch Butterfly
Superstar
bearcat
Active Member
!
I am confused about what your point is?
There was one incident where someone was stopped for an issue with their plates that resulted in a shooting? And? A single event is not indicative of a trend. It's rather meaningless in my opinion. I am not sure how you can draw any conclusions from this.
I am confused about what your point is?
There was one incident where someone was stopped for an issue with their plates that resulted in a shooting? And? A single event is not indicative of a trend. It's rather meaningless in my opinion. I am not sure how you can draw any conclusions from this.