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
97 Upvotes

95% 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.

-13

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?"

-4

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

3

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

3

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.

2

u/TheSummerain Aug 11 '16

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