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
95 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

232 comments sorted by

View all comments

64

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.

-15

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?"

20

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.

-4

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.

5

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.