[11th]

Much of the debate on the vision zero item was deranged. Nunziata and a couple other councillors complained multiple times about the debate being a waste of time.

Perruzza didn't introduce a motion to pause the speed cameras, but he went on and on about how awful and unfair it is for people who miss the warning sign to get a ticket, right after telling a story about getting a phone call about a young student who got struck and killed on the first day of school, and then 2 years later the Vision Zero program started.
"I fundamentally, absolutely, one-hundred-percent believe in the program."
"Sometimes you're not paying attention [...] you got waze, you got this you got that [...] and you got your kids in the back seat" Uh-huh...
Laughably shameless

Regardless, Perruzza's motion failed 4-16. Members that voted Yes are Olivia Chow, Stephen Holyday, Nick Mantas, Anthony Perruzza. I'm assuming Chow is playing political chess

Holyday had a motion that failed which asked "to consider painting or vinyl wrapping automated speed enforcement cameras in a brighter contrasting colour which is more obviously seen by motorists"

Not pleased to see this amendment from Chow which passed:

1. City Council request the Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer to prioritize projects that improve safety, particularly in school zones and community safety zones, when allocating funds generated by Automated Speed Enforcement Cameras.

2. City Council direct the General Manager, Transportation Services to update the City of Toronto's Automated Speed Enforcement Program to:
a. install larger, more visible, and clearer signage where Automated Speed Enforcement cameras are deployed; and
b. limit the number of Automated Speed Enforcement infractions an individual vehicle owner can receive from a single camera location prior to receiving their first infraction in the mail.

Some comments from staff and a couple councillors raise the question whether the city is even able to make the signs bigger because they're regulated by the province, and if b. is even possible because that may be directing police operations which Council isn't able to do.

If they really want it to be visible, paint a thick pink line across the roadway at where the camera's located. This solves the problem on mutil-lane roadways where signs may be obstructed by taller vehicles in the right lane, or are poorly placed.
Not sure if current provincial regulations allow this.

 

[PL1]

If they really want it to be visible, paint a thick pink line across the roadway at where the camera's located. This solves the problem on mutil-lane roadways where signs may be obstructed by taller vehicles in the right lane, or are poorly placed.
Not sure if current provincial regulations allow this.

Why? Speeding is speeding. Maybe the city can publish what the ticketing threshold is for the cameras (e.g. limit +10% or 5km/h, whichever is higher), then it's up to the drivers to stay within that.

 

[Northern Light]

Why? Speeding is speeding. Maybe the city can publish what the ticketing threshold is for the cameras (e.g. limit +10% or 5km/h, whichever is higher), then it's up to the drivers to stay within that.

+ 3km/ph is the threshold

 

[PL1]

+ 3km/ph is the threshold

Honestly that seems low. Though if the police were to also ticket at that, I'd be ok with it. People expect to be able to speed by a certain amount

 

[Northern Light]

Honestly that seems low. Though if the police were to also ticket at that, I'd be ok with it. People expect to be able to speed by a certain amount

The standard for police has generally been + 10 km/h

Though for 400-series highways........20km/h is typically a free-pass as long as you don't stand out from general traffic speed.

 

[nfitz]

People expect to be able to speed by a certain amount

Self-centred motorists expect a lot!

These are city streets, often school zones. Not divided highways where bikes and pedestrians aren't allowed.

 

[Towered]

+ 3km/ph is the threshold

That's kind of ridiculous - a slight decline can induce that increase without even stepping on the pedal.

 

[Northern Light]

That's kind of ridiculous - a slight decline can induce that increase without even stepping on the pedal.

I agree, its a low threshold. I don't know what coding allows for, just a km/h threshold or a percent over the limit (my preference), but I would probably set it at 20%:

Limit Ticket

30 36

40 48

50 60

60 72


If we had to go with a fixed number, while I'm temped by 10, that seems a bit high for 30 zone, so somewhere between 6-8 km/h

 

[evandyk]

I don't drive all that much, and I try to stay within the speed limit at all times, excepting 400 series highways at quiet times, when you will be a huge outlier if you do that. But I normally think that keeping myself in the range of 5 above or below depending on what's happening is "following the speed limit". The threshold for a ticket shouldn't be set at 3. It should be at least 5+, and I think NL's suggestion of 20% makes a lot of sense.

 

[crs1026]

Tighter limits, while tempting, are a bit counterproductive.

The reality is, no one in our system likes to look anal. The cops writing tickets don't want that reputation, the JP's who hear traffic cases don't want to be accused of rigid decisions, the Crown Attorneys will gladly trade off absolute speed for voluntary guilty pleas. And the politicians don't want to look anal either. Ditto the city officials who manage the cameras.

The idea that there is a grace zone, and that the offender should be given some "reasonable" break, is so deeply embedded in our public mindset that it's a fantasy to think that will change.

Other than in specific zones, such as school zones, it's hard to win the argument in a public forum that speed alone is unsafe. This is particularly true on the 400 highways, where the reality is, the actual modal speed is up around 120. No amount of data about the added energy and severity of collisions/pedestrian impacts is going to win the day on that one. Accidents mostly happen when people drive in dumb ways (cellphones, aggressive lane changes, failure to signal, failure to check blind spots), not because speed alone creates the incident.

Clearly there are a lot of really egregious drivers out there, and automated enforcement is a key deterrent. But there will always be a need to keep the threshold at a point where it's much harder to argue that the behaviour was "okay". That means enforcing where the offender is guilty beyond a country mile, but tolerating more marginal behaviour.

It should be about winning hearts and minds, not about pressing good arguments that are technically defensible but harder for the average driver to accept.

- Paul

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

I think plus or minus 10 is a reasonable variance, with everyone getting a number of "get out of jail" cards for lower level offences - but it needs to be coupled with much, much, much heavier penalties against egregious speeders - up to and including confiscation of vehicles, permanent removal of license, etc.

AoD

 

[Admiral Beez]

The standard for police has generally been + 10 km/h

Though for 400-series highways........20km/h is typically a free-pass as long as you don't stand out from general traffic speed.

With the new 110 kph posted limits, 130 kph is a bit much. Mind you, I drove 195 kph on the autobahn in a mini van and felt totally safe, but that's Germany for you.

 

[AlvinofDiaspar]

With the new 110 kph posted limits, 130 kph is a bit much. Mind you, I drove 195 kph on the autobahn in a mini van and felt totally safe, but that's Germany for you.

With a German level of driving skills and rules compliance. Volks here would love that level of freedom without that level of skill and responsibilities.

AoD

 

[crs1026]

PS I have wondered if anyone is developing automated enforcement tools using the self-driving car technology.

From what I've seen, Waymo and such do map automobiles around the AV pretty accurately, and can add in database information about the road form, lines and lane limits, speed limits, etc. I wonder if that technology can be used to detect, record and enforce driver behaviours instead of trying to steer the vehicle. I bet the current AV technology could spot a vehicle that is crossing a solid line, dodging in and out of HOV lanes, not signalling before changing lanes, following too closely.....

That way, instead of the old fashioned Bob Rae photo radar vehicles which only monitored absolute speed, one could ramp up enforcement of truly bad behaviour (the tailgaters, aggressive drivers, maybe even cellphone use and HOV lane abuse) without having to pull over every motorist (It is unrealistic to expect patrol officers to pull over cars in heavy traffic on the 401, given the number of lanes that must be crossed, and the tightness of roadway shoulders.... just too dangerous)

Just a fantasy thought (I have it frequently on the 401) from a guy who doesn't have the resources for a tech startup. But man, if I could have that rocket launcher....

- Paul

 

[evandyk]

And of course while most people posting here are totally fine with automated enforcement, I think almost all of us degree that road design is the solution long term, not enforcement.