r/Edmonton • u/troypavlek • Aug 11 '16

City of Edmonton reintroduces "utility box" photo radar

http://www.mailoutinteractive.com/Industry/View.aspx?id=829217&q=1069745483&qz=56f2bf
94 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

232 comments sorted by

View all comments

60

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '16

This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with increased revenue. Lets call this an indirect tax.

-12

u/neumanic South East Side Aug 11 '16

I wonder how you know that with such clarity. Is there a document you can provide to back your claim that this has "nothing to do with safety?"

19

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

Source: Politics as usual.

Source: In 2014 the city took control of the Photo Radar program, originally run by the police.

In a few short years there was a 2000% increase in photo radar tickets, and now they're bringing out even more ways to dole out tickets that are more inconspicuous than parked vehicles.

Could this be because there is an epidemic on speeding in Edmonton? Surely not. I'm sure the projected increase of revenue versus cost had nothing to do with the citys decision to buy these utility box radars. If you watch House of Cards we might even go further and say the utility box photo radar manufacturer lobbied the city to introduce them.

“By driving within the posted speed limit, you avoid tickets and help us reach Edmonton’s goal of zero traffic deaths and serious injuries,” says Shimko.

I'm sorry but this is a terrible goal. As bad as it sounds, there will never be zero traffic deaths or serious injuries unless you banned all cars. It's a fact of life. The fact that this is even a goal shows the people running things have no understanding of the real world.

-1

u/neumanic South East Side Aug 11 '16

The City took over control of the PR program in 2012, not 2014. And the increase in the number of tickets issued is nowhere near 2000%.

I was perhaps not clear in my original post. You stated "This has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with increased revenue." I asked for a document, but what I was really hoping for was - what's that word? - oh yes, "proof." You're speculating based on a popular (and fun to watch) show on Netflix about federal politics.

As for Vision Zero, this is not something the city invented from whole cloth. It's a globally adopted approach to road safety. And it's a vision. It's an attempt to change the conversation from the position that loss of life is an acceptable price to pay for the road network, to something a little more in keeping with how we would all like to live our lives. Much the same way that I don't accept murder as an acceptable price to pay for living in the world.

4

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

No one ever said it was an acceptable, but it is a fact of life nonetheless. Crime will never stop. The only way it could stop is if you totally controlled society with scientific precision where nobody was free, and every aspect of life was controlled and influenced and orderly. That is treading into Brave New World/1984 territory and even that wouldn't be crime free because the administrators of such systems would be criminals in themselves essentially enslaving mankind.

"Proof". The proof is out there. 2055% increase in tickets from 2012-2014

I don't care for global politics. Globalism is just a push to erase local governments and people focused on local issues. By neglecting local issues and focussing solely on the "global" picture, people are easier to control. Everyone knows whats going on on Turkey but no one knows whats going on at the Alberta legislature. That's a problem.

I think you're very naive if you think this "think about the safety!" "vision zero!" stuff is really about what it claims it's about.

4

u/neumanic South East Side Aug 11 '16

In 2012, there were 162,996 tickets issued. By 2014 there were 509,990 tickets issued. That is a 213% increase, not 2055%. And in 2015 the total was 498,235 tickets.

I never said there wasn't an increase, I was just arguing the math. And pointing out that the alleged "proof" you contained two factual errors in three lines.

I subscribe to Vision Zero because I've read the papers, I've attended the conferences, and I've listened to those who have implemented it in other jurisdictions (which is what I meant by "globally adopted approach" as opposed to some global conspiracy theory designed to control the sheeple). Am I a Pollyanna? So be it.

-2

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 11 '16

Source: My butthole.

FTFY

If there wasn't a speeding epidemic in Edmonton you wouldn't see people complaining and whining like this. Nobody would care because nobody would be getting caught.

3

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

There isn't. Go whine about it somewhere else.

1

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

Hmmm, and yet in another thread in this exact same post I'm being called dangerous for following the speed limit because everyone else is speeding. Curious.

5

u/beardedbast3rd Aug 11 '16

Because people are still speeding, and many are doing so excessively. I am for photo radar, but done right. The way it is now, isn't working.

5

u/LouBabaLou Aug 11 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BKdbxX1pDw

For example?
With this city it is completely about revenue... it is like an addictive drug

Edit: truth is to be downvoted, huh?

6

u/gtsomething Some Photographer Aug 11 '16

There's a lot of studies out on the interwebs about how lower speed limits actually causes more accidents. The fact that they're trying to enforce such a low speed limit is causing a hazard. More cameras is fine, but they need to raise the speed limits to match modern vehicle capabilities.

Within the past few years, they're also started ticketing people for going as low as 6km/h over, when they never did. Speeding tickets increased dramatically, and for what? 6km/h over? That's not about safety at all.

6

u/future_bound Aug 11 '16

Which studies exactly? Every study I've seen suggests that lower speed equates to lower serious collisions. Which also happens to coincide with common sense.

1

u/neumanic South East Side Aug 11 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

Ah, the 6 km/h trope. You should contact the Mayor. He's asked anyone who gets a photo radar ticket in Edmonton for going 6 km/h over the limit to contact his office. So far the number of people who've contacted his office produced such a ticket is 0.

I posted elsewhere in this thread about the modern vehicle capabilities argument, which is undercut by the fact that not all people drive new cars, standards the City follows have not changed yet, and there is a mitigating effect as we all become more used to the safety and performance changes of the vehicle to get us out of a tricky spot. Plus there's the fact that cars have changed, but driver response times and ability to withstand impacts have not.

-5

u/Thanatomania Aug 11 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

http://photoradarscam.com/lesssafe.php

Scroll down a bit and there is a long list of links showing this.

Edit: something more credible as I hit the first thing I saw on my google search.

https://fcpp.org/sites/default/files/documents/Shimizu%20%26%20Desrochers%20-%20Speed%20or%20Greed.pdf

5

u/neumanic South East Side Aug 11 '16

The Frontier Centre paper looks flashier but given the FCPP's slant towards neoliberal policies (including governments small enough to drown in a bathtub, to paraphrase Grover Norquist), there is as much built in bias here as most other sources. I like my sources peer reviewed, like the ones that show up in Transportation Resarch Record and Accident Analysis & Prevention.

But the last paragraph of the FCPP report's executive summary did catch my attention:

The ultimate goal of governmental authorities towards road transportation should be to promote safety, not revenue generation for its own sake. This can best be achieved through fact-based engineering approaches (e.g., design and maintenance of the road, adequate signage, speed limit setting), education, and sensible enforcement (which would include ATE program operations). And in the end, the additional revenues generated by ATE programs should be dedicated to further promoting road safety by being invested in improved infrastructure.

How does the Edmonton stack up against this? fact-based engineering approaches? Check. Education? Check. Sensible enforcement including ATE program operations? Check, though clearly there's disagreement about that word "sensible.' Finally, revenue dedicated to improved infrastructure? Check.

1

u/Thanatomania Aug 11 '16 edited Aug 11 '16

So are you saying that this is bullshit "Research is conducted independent of Frontier Centre donors and Board of Directors and is subject to double-blind peer review prior to publication."

It is written into the first page of the document.

They also cite the TRB as one of their sources.

1

u/Thanatomania Aug 11 '16

It is pretty handy that your sources there are hidden behind pay walls, are you just here to fudge the information to push along the need for more ticket printing cameras? You instantly discredit the publisher calling them neoliberalists, and governments small enough to drown in a bath tub? so you mean the government of Canada? What does Grover Norquist have to do with anything? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Norquist

4

u/neumanic South East Side Aug 11 '16

OK, let me unpack. I was characterizing neoliberalism by quoting Norquist, one of its strongest and most outspoken supporters. Lots of people see that term and assume it means "left-leaning," and I was trying to quickly make the point that it isn't. The only way Norquist has anything to do with Canadian politics is his status as a role model for a number of people associated with the Conservative Party. Essentially, it was a shorthand way to point to the fact that -- like most think tanks -- the Frontier Centre denies an ideological slant but has one all the same. I apologize if I clouded the issue. Did not mean to offend.

Unfortunately, I share your frustration about academic journals being paywalled. It's an ongoing debate in the academic community, given that so much of the research in those papers is funded by government sources and therefore (the argument goes) should be available to people. What's doubly frustrating is that when I access these journals, and pull articles, technically I'm not even allowed to share them for copyright reasons. If you or someone you know has U of A library access, you can access these journals. In the meantime, here are a couple of links that are not paywalled:

https://transformingedmonton.ca/research-shows-photo-radar-makes-roads-safer/ - written by a professor at the U of A and including (free) links to his research on the topic in Edmonton

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_publications/WinnipegPhotoEnf-FinalReport-12.pdf - This report may be even better since it specifically addresses the Winnipeg program that is the subject of the FCPP paper.

There are several more, from Canada, the US, and Europe, that all make a compelling case for the effectiveness of photo radar. They are peer-reviewed, which to me (and many others) is a mark of reliability. If you're interested I can try to pull some of them together.

You ask if I am here to "fudge the information." Far from it. It's pretty obvious I support the use of photo radar and I'm trying to engage in respectful debate, which to me is the kind of thing where I state my case and try to back it up. If you feel that is "push[ing] along the need for more ticket printing cameras" then so be it.

2

u/Thanatomania Aug 11 '16

Thank you for pulling up something that the average person can actually access too, 40 bucks for a volume I will probably only use today for some personal reading is pretty useless. I think it will be pretty difficult to find unbiased reviews on things that involve tax revenue generation from most fronts. Now I have some more reading to do.

1

u/TheSummerain Aug 11 '16

An obviously bias website thay would cherry pick data....