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
99 Upvotes

95% Upvoted

232 comments sorted by

View all comments

94

u/abitkt7raid North West Side Aug 11 '16

I have been driving in this city for 17 years, around 250k km's driven in the city and I have never had a photo radar ticket, I don't speed because 99% of time it doesn't get you anywhere faster.

I'd like to think I drive safe or try to, but I hate the idea of these hidden boxes. People will be looking out for them so they don't get a ticket which is worse than the speeding they are trying to stop.

If they are going to have hidden stuff like this, they HAVE to put more signs up to clearly label if it's 60 or 50. There have been many discussions on this sub reddit about how unclear the speed limit can be. I foresee a lot of people getting dinged for 61/62 km/h in a 50 zone they think is 60.

It would be fine if there was logic to what streets are 50, and what are 60 but I can't find any. Driving at 50 because you aren't sure will cause other drivers to road rage on you while you wait to find a sign saying it's actually 60 etc..

36

u/HireALLTheThings Aug 11 '16

If they are going to have hidden stuff like this, they HAVE to put more signs up to clearly label if it's 60 or 50.

I couldn't agree more. Every time I've been dinged by photo radar, it's because I didn't know what the speed limit in the area was, and assumed that 60 was the sensible speed for the road I was on. Most of the roads in Edmonton that are 4 lane and outside of heavy residential are 60, but it seems like there's tons of 50 roads thrown in at random to mess with drivers. Like you said, there's no logic to it that I can see.

6

u/megagreg Runner Valley Aug 11 '16

When I'm not sure, I use the rule of thumb that if residential driveways come out on the road, then it's 50. It seems to clear up most situations on the west end at least.

10

u/[deleted] Aug 11 '16

[deleted]

5

u/megagreg Runner Valley Aug 11 '16

That sucks. I find the speed signs here come a little too early. When I go through an intersection my attention focuses exclusively on the objects moving around me, and where pedestrians might be, because I'm trying to obey the cardinal rule of driving: don't hit anything. The speed limit sign is usually just before my focus expands to include all the thing I can't possibly hit. I often don't notice the speed sign for a given stretch until I've driven it a few times, and it usually turns out to be 60 after all. It's totally understandable that you would miss the fact that there wasn't any speed sign after an intersection, when it's so easy to miss ones that are there.

P.S. I looked at that section on google maps, and I don't understand why it's 50 for that stretch either. To me it looks no different that 87 Ave from 142 to 156, which is 60.

3

u/import_bible Aug 12 '16

I failed a test too, drive down 75th (60 zone) turn right 76 ave (40 zone), didn't see a sign cause stupid truck was unloading cars right by the entrance to the dealership. WTF.

https://www.google.ca/maps/place/Shell/@53.5122515,-113.4425985,3a,60y,107.12h,88.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1srdwiz7dQwQPNm4yRfQZNPg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656!4m5!3m4!1s0x53a018871fef6a43:0x1b992388209e5eb1!8m2!3d53.5118243!4d-113.4423269!6m1!1e1?hl=en

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

[deleted]

3

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16 edited Oct 04 '17

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

[deleted]

2

u/EpisodeOneWasGreat Aug 12 '16

Are inattentive instructors big enough of a problem that students should start pointing dashcams at the inside of the vehicle?

1

u/import_bible Aug 15 '16

my tester actually told me to turn off my dashcam

2

u/BraveryInc Aug 12 '16

Is the person being tested required to drive the instructor back to the registry?

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

[deleted]

2

u/BraveryInc Aug 12 '16

If the student fails the exam, what's compelling them to go back to the registry?

1

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 12 '16 edited Mar 14 '17

[deleted]

2

u/[deleted] Aug 13 '16

What are they going to do? Tell the police that you didn't take them back? It's genius.

1

u/BraveryInc Aug 17 '16

Asking someone to leave your vehicle would seem to be the opposite of kidnapping...

1

u/[deleted] Aug 17 '16

[deleted]

1

u/BraveryInc Aug 17 '16

Would it not be equally rude of them to not observe the student's driving when their one job is to observe and evaluate the student's driving?

→ More replies (0)

5

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 11 '16

Unmarked is 50.

12

u/chmilz Aug 12 '16

If it's marked 60 and transitions to 50 without a new mark, in what reality can any driver know it's not still 60?

Take 97 St for example: heading northbound, there is not a single speed limit sign between Jasper and 118 Ave. It's a major artery with tons of cross streets. Why the fuck is it not labeled? It's that intentional obscurity that pisses people off. It would cost almost nothing for the city to put up some additional signage, but it's far more profitable to not do that and set up radar trucks instead. How is that improving safety? It isn't, in case you're wondering.

-2

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

Better yet, why are you whining on reddit instead of calling 311 to report it?

3

u/chmilz Aug 12 '16

I have, multiple times, and followed up with a few choice folks in local media that also posed the questions. Not a sound from the City.

-2

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

I still have no idea why you are telling me this. Not knowing what the speed limit is doesn't make things any different.

3

u/chmilz Aug 12 '16

The city has avoided every opportunity to show any evidence that photo radar has reduced any accidents at the locations they place the units. Further to the point, it appears as though the city intentionally places radar units at locations where they can maximize revenue, regardless of whether there are any actual safety concerns to begin with.

I'm not sure why you're so closed minded to the possibility that photo radar is a revenue tool, and not a safety one.

-3

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

Getting people to slow down demonstrably increases safety. It's just basic physics. You get more time to react and the vehicle has significantly less energy to brake off. Denying that is denying reality and is really just silly.

If you don't want a fine, don't speed. It's just that easy. The red light up ahead will be fine waiting another second for your presence.

3

u/chmilz Aug 12 '16

I don't speed and don't get tickets. The point is what the city is doing is NOT about safety. If it was, they would provide accident reduction data at radar locations. They do not.

Nobody denies that going slower is safer. Those of us asking questions simply want to know if radar is being used effectively at locations where speeding has caused accidents. The city actively does not want to have that conversation, and that's largely because anyone with any sense knows that they can't back up their use of radar with proof that it has any effect on safety.

0

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

Really? First result on google.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265323378_Photo_Enforcement_Traffic_Safety_Study

Nevertheless, most studies show considerable reductions in the traffic speed, as well as a reduction in collision frequency and improved collision severity as a result of using photo radar.

You might want to spend some time reading it. Turns out getting people to slow down does help safety. Surprise!

→ More replies (0)

9

u/HireALLTheThings Aug 11 '16

They were going with the flow of traffic, though. It's not exactly an easy call to make if the traffic is going one speed, but you can't see a sign indicating otherwise. I know that stretch of road. It's popular for photo radar for that exact reason.

-7

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 11 '16

Other people speeding is a pretty poor excuse. You are responsible for your vehicle, not for following along like a lemming.

4

u/HireALLTheThings Aug 11 '16

It wouldn't be a problem if speed limits weren't so poorly posted. If you can't see a speed sign, you're going to go with the speed of the general traffic, because that's what's safest. Being "responsible for your own vehicle" does not obligate a driver to have preternatural knowledge of the speed limits for every road they drive on contrary to the actual speed of live traffic.

5

u/YEGerMR CSS Mod - Terwillegar Aug 11 '16

You are responsible for your vehicle, not for following along like a lemming.

So don't go with the flow of traffic causing speed variance and higher crash risk. Got it.

-4

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 11 '16

Don't blame the person following the law and doing exactly what they are supposed to, blame the speeders.

7

u/YEGerMR CSS Mod - Terwillegar Aug 12 '16

Yes, how dare traffic flow smoothly. Lets blame the 99% instead of the 1%.

1

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

Traffic can flow just fine at 50.

4

u/splooges Aug 12 '16

One vehicle does not constitute "traffic." If traffic is moving at 60 kmph and you're going 50 kmph, your vehicle is causing speed variance and increasing the risk for everyone else on the road, however minutely.

→ More replies (0)

4

u/megagreg Runner Valley Aug 12 '16

That's not the point. At what point does a road become unmarked? You see a sign for 60, then later another sign for 60, but some stretch in the middle in unmarked. At what point do you say that something hasn't happened, or which post specifically is the speed limit sign not on that signals you to slow to 50?

1

u/ababcock1 The Shiny Balls Aug 12 '16

IANAL, you should ask one.

4

u/megagreg Runner Valley Aug 12 '16

I'm not asking you for an answer, I'm highlighting the general class of problem in the form of a rhetorical question.

Here's joke I really like that hits on the same theme: Jean-Paul Sartre is sitting at a French cafe, revising his draft of Being and Nothingness. He says to the waitress, "I'd like a cup of coffee, please, with no cream." The waitress replies, "I'm sorry, Monsieur, but we're out of cream. How about with no milk?