| oldraven |
I lost a lot of respect for you people when you allowed someone else to do your job.
Photo Radar does NOT contribute to safer roads. Do you actually think it slows people down? Nope. It makes people hit the brakes when they see mini-vans. And what do you think happens when someone gets that flash in the rear view mirror? Again, they don't slow down. I simply causes anger. What does anger equate to on public roads? Rage. Agressive driving. People to pissed off at the flash bulb to think about what's going on on the road around them.
When you get pulled over by an officer, you slow down. It's a humbling experience, not a frustrating one. I've been pulled over, and I obeyed the speed limit after that. When I get flashed, all I want to do is turn around and beat the living fuck out of that van.
I go to work in the morning and do my own job. I don't pawn it off on someone else. This is the cheapest, sleaziest, most underhanded, and least effective way you can possibly enforce speed limits.
You want to fund the EPS? It's called taxes. This is the richest territory in north america. You want more guns? Aks your conservatives for some more money. They've got plenty. For now, stay the fuck out of my pocket. When I risk the lives of others, come get me, because I deserve it. Today was not one of those days.
What pisses me off even more is knowing I'll get huge fines for going 15 over the limit, but a police cruiser will pass me on the whitemud going 20-30 over and nothing will be done about it.
*Yes, I edited this. I took it a bit too far the first time around* |
|
|
| snugs |
| Preaching to the choir buddy. :( |
|
|
| oldraven |
You know, police services in other provinces do just fine without the cop out Photo Radar. They have the conviction to get out on the road and pull me over. And it works.
I guess I need to just get a job with the city so I can get away with what every other citizen deserves. Total bullshit.
Anyway, just waiting for the ban. |
|
|
| curtis_rak |
| If the flash makes you so mad, then don't speed. |
|
|
| oldraven |
Yeah, thanks for the useless input. If you have an argument on how photo radar is effective in making the roads a safer place, please say so. Otherwise, STFU!
I'd actually like to hear an officer make an argument to prove to me that this is anything but a way to grab more money.
I've seen radar speed traps where an officer stands and clocks you and then radio's ahead to a cruiser to chase you down. Now that would be effective. Instead of wasting money on hiring these BS photo-radar vans, they could place a few more of these speed traps out there, and actually make a positive impact. You'll notice these guys chase down the dangerous drivers, not the guys cruising safely 10-15 over the limit. |
|
|
| DelSoln |
| You make a good point. Keep in mind though that the EPS isn't just made up of traffic cops. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Yeah, thanks for the useless input. If you have an argument on how photo radar is effective in making the roads a safer place, please say so. Otherwise, STFU!
I'd actually like to hear an officer make an argument to prove to me that this is anything but a way to grab more money.
I've seen radar speed traps where an officer stands and clocks you and then radio's ahead to a cruiser to chase you down. Now that would be effective. Instead of wasting money on hiring these BS photo-radar vans, they could place a few more of these speed traps out there, and actually make a positive impact. You'll notice these guys chase down the dangerous drivers, not the guys cruising safely 10-15 over the limit.
No point in arguing about it. Photo radar is a cash cow, plain and simple. Everyone speeds around like normal until they see the vans or hear about one on a road that they're travelling on, then they drive under the speed limit until they're by it, and then.... whooooo back to speeding again. So in that area where traffic is slowing down/speeding up you get all kinds of fun things happening. :rolleyes:
Actually photo radar is conducted for a number of reasonable reasons. One is to offset the medical costs incurred to the police department when they send the guys out to run the speed traps by jumping out into speeding traffic... in the dark. Another is to pay their PR firm for coming up with such great stories when their chases end in fatalities... (but we called off the chase 1/2 a block before the accident). And of course, we all know that taser reloads aren't free. :D |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by DelSoln
You make a good point. Keep in mind though that the EPS isn't just made up of traffic cops.
Good point. But Photo Radar is used to fund the entire of EPS, I'd wager. Not just traffic control.
Snugs, I love how extremelly loaded that entire post was. Subtlety in sarcasm. *sigh* Oh, how I miss home. :lol: Can't wait to escape. :bthumbup: |
|
|
| POX |
i see photo radar as a speeding tax
but i agree that the police sould not see anymoney from any tickets, they should be funed from tax money |
|
|
| Z32NUT |
| photo radar = speed tax. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
I don't get your problem.
So what that photo radar doesn't cause people to drive better. It catches people breaking the law. It's their to enforce the law.
Of course the strong deterant of a laser radar trap isn't there. But believe it or not, some people do drive at more reasonable speeds because don't want to get a photo radar ticket. |
|
|
| Z32NUT |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
I don't get your problem.
So what that photo radar doesn't cause people to drive better. It catches people breaking the law. It's their to enforce the law.
Of course the strong deterant of a laser radar trap isn't there. But believe it or not, some people do drive at more reasonable speeds because don't want to get a photo radar ticket.
Yup, just drive a while in St.Albert and you'll see what red light cameras did for the intersections. My GF is absolutely paranoid about photo radar there. |
|
|
| oldraven |
I can understand red light cameras. There's a huge difference between cruising just above the limit, which EVERY person in this city does, including cops, and running a red light. One puts many lives in danger every single time.
The thing is, most people in this province, or at least in this city, have high enough paying jobs to not care about photo radar, as long as it doesn't effect their driving record. They'll just keep on doing what they do. BC abolished photo radar, and I think Alberta should follow suit. But Klein's got his head shoved so far up his arse that he'd never admit failure.
PR isn't working. It's counterproductive.
I think I'll write a letter to Taft telling him, if he give PR the boot, I'll vote for him, as will a LOT of other Albertans. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
I can understand red light cameras. There's a huge difference between cruising just above the limit, which EVERY person in this city does, including cops, and running a red light. One puts many lives in danger every single time.
Of course we all cruise "just above the limit" - but with photo radar you typically have to be going 10+ over to get a ticket (As I routinely drive by doing 5 over).
Going more than 10% over the limit is quite a bit more than "just above the limit".
quote:
PR isn't working. It's counterproductive.
There are people who don't drive as fast anymore, due to photo radar.
I myself am even one of them - I'm even more critical of watching my speed during the summer because when I even tap the gas pedal my car jumps 5-10KM/H instantly.
quote:
I think I'll write a letter to Taft telling him, if he give PR the boot, I'll vote for him, as will a LOT of other Albertans.
Where will the lost revenue come from?
So now my tax dollars should replace the dollars from people who can't obey the law? |
|
|
| Buddyworm |
Yup, I agree entirely. I've memorized every place the radar vans camp along my usual routes in St. Albert. So according to the lasers on those vans I drive the speed limit 100% of the time. I appreciate it when I see cops out with their own radars and radioing ahead. It's like they're actually out there trying to find speeders instead of some van with a camera on the front bumper camping out on a busy road.
Speaking of St. Albert; where are these red light cameras? I freakin live here and I can't remember seeing any.
B-Wurm :D |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Where will the lost revenue come from?
So now my tax dollars should replace the dollars from people who can't obey the law?
So you admit that PR is about revenue, not about making the streets a safer place. How much do you pay in land taxes a month? Income tax? There's all the revenue they need. Then there's actual speeding tickets, and other fines. The government of Alberta has more money than they know what to do with. Don't tell me the EPS needs more money from me to help them fund their system.
So, lets be generous and say that 5% of the population has actually slowed down due to PR. What percentage do you think will actually slam on the brakes and hammer the throttle when they approach a PR van and get out of its range? Disrupting traffic flow causes accidents. That's simple common sense. Then there's the Road Rage thing again. Agressive driving causes even more accidents, and is usually what leads to traffic fatalities.
Some things work. Others don't.
Casanova's link had this to quote:
"I deal drugs to put myself through college"
To make this an even more accurate parrallel: "I deal drugs to put myself through medical school. I want to help people in detox centres." |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
So you admit that PR is about revenue, not about making the streets a safer place.
I'll be completely honest - I think Photo Radar is doing the following, in the order listed:
1) Enforcing the rules of the road
2) Creating Revenue
3) Making the roads safer
PR is about enforcing the rules, which in turn generate a revenue.
Is it about making them safer? Not really. One could argue that normal laser radar doesn't either (Since speed traps are highly publicized). Which would leave the most effective method to make them safer as roaming radar (And I think we would all agree if there were 10 cops doing roaming radar daily, word would get around quick and people wouldn't speed).
quote:
How much do you pay in land taxes a month? Income tax? There's all the revenue they need. Then there's actual speeding tickets, and other fines. The government of Alberta has more money than they know what to do with. Don't tell me the EPS needs more money from me to help them fund their system.
If you follow the rules of the road they won't need any more money from you, they'll get it from the people who don't follow the law.
Policing is severely under funded in this city - I would much rather see them rake in the photo radar revenue than to take officers off the streets and make them sit behind a radar gun.
You seem to think you can have everything - no photo radar, same taxes as before, more laser radar. But you can't. It's not financially possible.
quote:
So, lets be generous and say that 5% of the population has actually slowed down due to PR. What percentage do you think will actually slam on the brakes and hammer the throttle when they approach a PR van and get out of its range? Disrupting traffic flow causes accidents. That's simple common sense. Then there's the Road Rage thing again. Agressive driving causes even more accidents, and is usually what leads to traffic fatalities.
Some things work. Others don't.
I'm glad you point out that disrupting traffic flow causes accidents because that's EXACTLY what people who speed do - disrupt traffic flow.
The majority of people obey the speed limits. However, there are those who don't. Those who don't disrupt traffic flow, whether they are slowing down for photo radar or not (as those who are not speeding have no reason to slow down for radar).
THAT'S "simple common sense". Don't apply the "disrupting traffic flow" to your arguement, and not the other side because you can't deny that people speeding (And their subsequent weaving in and out of traffic) cause traffic disruptions.
quote:
Casanova's link had this to quote:
"I deal drugs to put myself through college"
To make this an even more accurate parrallel: "I deal drugs to put myself through medical school. I want to help people in detox centres."
I got an even better one:
"Don't speed and you won't pay the price of photo radar"
I like that. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
I'm glad you point out that disrupting traffic flow causes accidents because that's EXACTLY what people who speed do - disrupt traffic flow.
LOL, last time I did the speed limit on the whitemud (or anywhere besides whyte ave for that matter) I was the one disrupting traffic. :lol: |
|
|
| oldraven |
You've got some points. Thanks for actually making a valid attempt.
The majority of people obey the speed limits.
You know just as well as I do that this isn't true.
For those of you who think I'm trying to get away with weaving in and out of traffic and flying by the PR van, you've misunderstood me. A police officer behind a radar gun will use his own judgement on who is driving dangerously. I agree with this. The guy cruising down the road at a safe speed, although over the limit, will not get pulled over when there's another guy two lanes over roaring down the road at WOT, cutting people off, or tailgating the guy in front of them. There's a dangerous driver and there's a safe driver. Come on, do you really think 156th needs to be a 50kph zone? It's a two laner with lit crosswalks and lights every 50'. The human eye, and rationale can distinguish between dangerous drivers. PR cameras and those who operate them do not. They see dollar figure only.
Take six people who are driving safely in the right hand lane, well spaced, and moving at the same speed. Meanwhile there's a guy in the 'fast' lane flying by with his foot on the floor. The radar can't see this guy because he's being blocked by the six people going 15k over. Now six people get fines for driving at what is mutually decided on as a safe speed, while the dangerous driver gets away scot free simply because he used those other guys as a block.
What would an officer in a cruiser do?
Are the streets actually a safer place now? |
|
|
| oldraven |
| I'd like to add now, that I was severely pissed off last night. It seems a bit extreme to be saying I have absolutely no respect for the police in this city. This still doesn't change my opinion of PR though. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
You've got some points. Thanks for actually making a valid attempt.
The majority of people obey the speed limits.
You know just as well as I do that this isn't true.
I believe it's true.
On my drive to work down 137th ave, I am usually the leader of the pack @ 65KM/H (Posted speed 60KM/H). When I drive to the gym down that same road, I am again usually the leader of the pack at ~65KM/H. And 137th isn't exactly a back road....
I agree there are certain roads where people may speed more than other roads - but in my daily drive, most people obey the speed limits. Perhaps this is because I don't do Yellowhead/Whitemud daily, but on all the roads I travel it seems the vast majority do the speed limit (And my drive during prime traffic time - 7:20am - 7:50am).
quote:
For those of you who think I'm trying to get away with weaving in and out of traffic and flying by the PR van, you've misunderstood me. A police officer behind a radar gun will use his own judgement on who is driving dangerously. I agree with this.
I agree - the police officer will do a better job and making the road safe, because he will make judgement calls. The photo operator just gets as many pictures as he can.
quote:
The guy cruising down the road at a safe speed, although over the limit, will not get pulled over when there's another guy two lanes over roaring down the road at WOT, cutting people off, or tailgating the guy in front of them. There's a dangerous driver and there's a safe driver. Come on, do you really think 156th needs to be a 50kph zone? It's a two laner with lit crosswalks and lights every 50'.
Feeling that the speed limits aren't adaquete is a complete other topic - and you should realize that just because you don't feel that a speed limit is adaquete means that you can speed.
I agree that some speed limits are silly, but there needs to be a limit set in the first place. If you feel it's wrong, and the majority of drivers feel that way, then it'll get changed (Provided they voice their opinions). But this process never happens - no one ever speaks out outside of the dinner table.
quote:
The human eye, and rationale can distinguish between dangerous drivers. PR cameras and those who operate them do not. They see dollar figure only.
Absolutely. The operator doesn't see traffic hazards, they see revenue.
quote:
Take six people who are driving safely in the right hand lane, well spaced, and moving at the same speed. Meanwhile there's a guy in the 'fast' lane flying by with his foot on the floor. The radar can't see this guy because he's being blocked by the six people going 15k over. Now six people get fines for driving at what is mutually decided on as a safe speed, while the dangerous driver gets away scot free simply because he used those other guys as a block.
Who's to say that their "mutually decided speed" is a safe one?
You see accidents daily - from people who thought they were driving safe. Obviously, they weren't. Should we trust those people to determine a safe speed? Of course not.
Not everyone is a good driver. The good drivers are the minority.
quote:
What would an officer in a cruiser do?
Are the streets actually a safer place now?
No one denies that an officer in a cruiser can do a better job at keeping the streets safe compared to a radar operator.
But that doesn't mean a radar operator doesn't have a place in law enforcement to ENFORCE the laws (Again, no mention of making the world a safer place. Emphasis is on ENFORCE the laws). |
|
|
| oldraven |
I think you're mistaken in what it means to Enforce the law. It means Forcing people to obey the law. PR never does that. It simply catches you in the act and fines you for it. Police pull you over and keep an eye on you after you head on your way. That's enforcing the law.
If everyone slowed down for PR vans, and kept on their merry way when they got out of range, people would not speed any less. They just wouldn't get caught, and a huge amount of funding would be lost. That's the bottom line. Do you think they would be happy to never catch anyone with PR? Nope. You're told it's the purpose, but we all know the truth, or we should. The veil on this thing is so incredibly thin.
I bet if PR was abolished tomorrow the entire province would be prattling on about PR like it was gun control. A total waste of time and a way to get our hard earned money. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
I think you're mistaken in what it means to Enforce the law. It means Forcing people to obey the law. PR never does that. It simply catches you in the act and fines you for it. Police pull you over and keep an eye on you after you head on your way. That's enforcing the law.
Again, there can be multiple ways of enforcing the law.
Laser Radar traps are one.
Photo Radar is another.
I'm not argueing that Laser isn't a better detterant than Photo - it is. But you can't go and say that Photo Radar doesn't enforce the laws - it may not be as effective, but it still enforces the law.
That is, by defintion, a fact.
It may not be YOUR idea of enforcement, but it still is a form. Denying that, is denying your ability to look it up in a dictionary.
Believe it or not, there are some of us that don't want to pay any tickets, photo or laser, and drive carefully because of it. Of course there are those that don't give two shits because photo doesn't count, but there are quite a few of us who'd rather see our $100 put to better use.
quote:
I bet if PR was abolished tomorrow the entire province would be prattling on about PR like it was gun control. A total waste of time and a way to get our hard earned money.
Sorry, but most people really don't mind photo radar because they obey the speed limits.
If you drive in accordance to the rules of the road, photo radar does not affect you. It affects the minority who speed around unattentive to the road and what is going on around them. |
|
|
| 95IntegraRS |
| If you break the law, there are consequences. I mean just because your neighbour raped your dog, spanked your wifes ass and hit on your little girl doesn't give you the right to go and smash his windows out. Of course, I'd do it anyways, probably smash his face in the process. But what I'm trying to get at is if its speeding its speeding and the factors leading up to it mean no difference, there is always a consequence. I speed everywhere, and I'm more than willing to take a ticket, even though I think sometimes the cops are the wrong, I think about all the times before they would not be and I would have had a higher fine and i just laugh. |
|
|
| 95IntegraRS |
| Like the time you made an illegal U-turn and almost killed us all OLDRAVEN! haha jokes man ;) |
|
|
| curtis_rak |
oldraven,
I wholeheartedly agree with you that Photo Radar does not have the same impact on MOST drivers when they get a ticket in the mail versus getting pulled over by a cop. Most people will refrain from speeding longer when the big, scary cop pulls then over and writes a ticket that they do when they get one in the mail. However, I can honestly say that I don't speed mainly due to the $140 PR ticket I got in the mail in June. There are some of us that actually respect PR as a type of law enforcement, which is exactly what PR is.
Its the same mentality as getting a ticket from a Special Constable versus an RCMP member. I grew up in a small town that had a Special Constable who wrote tickets on everything from jaywalking to rolling stop signs. A lot of people bitched and moaned about that just like people do about photo radar. The reality is that its much cheaper to operate Commissionaires (sp?)or Special Constables than it is to have RCMP or EPS members do the same job.
For example,
A minumum of 20 EPS members would be needed to run 10 radar locations every day (that would be 20 officers x $18-25/hour x 12 hours a day) = $4320-6000 per day.
10 Commissionares run 10 radar locations every day (10 people x 14.50/hour x 12 hours a day) = $1740 per day.
Now, for 1 year you are looking at a minumum cost of $1.5-2.1 million/year to have police officers catch speeders versus about $635k to have Commissionares do the job...thats a minimum of 42% savings. Then, you may as well tack on the extra money that PR collects in fines compared to a traffic stop. Financially, PR is a no-brainer.
As for it making streets safer. You can't go around saying that it doesn't, just like I can't go around saying that it does. No one knows, and maybe know one will ever know simply because something like that is too complex to calculate. Hell, something like a drop in cell phone sales in Edmonton could reflect a change in the amount of accidents.
I would also like to reiterate my first post. Not speeding is the best solution to your little dilemma. |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by 95IntegraRS
Like the time you made an illegal U-turn and almost killed us all OLDRAVEN! haha jokes man ;)
Yes. I admitted fault immediately on that one. :D Gotta say, when you're a fool........
I think I got enough punishment from Chad's lass just from the look of death she gave me. :blink:
As for the matter at hand, I'm glad people are actually giving me valid arguments now, rather than just posting brainless shit.
I do sort of resent the implication that I was speeding around, oblivious to my surroundings. The only thing I didn't take note of was the photo radar van. What bothers me about PR isn't that I got caught breaking the law. It's the manner in how it was done. For all the efforts of these people clicking a button in a van, I see no change in traffic accidents, and don't see people slowing down as a whole.
Anyone see the news yesterday morning? How many severe to fatal accidents happened in our city in one night? Nothing's changing. Mind you, one chick was just insane, and wanted to die, but that doesn't account for the other five incidents.
Yesterday I was using anger to argue my point, and today I'm using rationality. I cannot see how PR is slowing traffic down.
As for everyone around you driving the speed limit, Trevor, I don't know what streets you drive on, but the only people I see driving the speed limit, on a daily basis, and on every street I'm on, are causing major swells in traffic. You even said yourself that you never speed, then proceeded to say you drive 5-8 k over the limit at all times. Where's the limit. The sign's telling you 60, but you deep it a reasonable and safe speed to go 8 over. What's the difference between 8-10?
I'll exempt Whyte ave from that one, because everyone's too busy either gawking, or being gawked at. Rubberneck villiage.
Again, if the EPS needs more money, the government of this province has it in abundance. How very conservative to think of cost and revenue over effective law inforcement.
Why not have a particular force dedicated to traffic control? They would need a fraction of the training and pay as a beat cop, but would still be usefull in the effort to make the streets safer.
Bottom line, I want a qualified mind deciding if I'm endangering those around me, not some greedy bastard with a black box. If they decide so, so be it. I was obviously in the wrong, and will be more careful in that area. (not meaning to watch for cops more, but to slow it down there)
For example: I tried to stop on ice one day in my old Tercel, as the light turned amber. I skided into the intersection about a car length. There was no one going anywhere, just waiting for me to make a decision. I saw the cop, looked at him, and made a decision. I decided to finish going through the intersection. No cross traffic, just trying to get out of the way after making a mistake. He pulled me over, obvioulsy. He didn't give me a ticket, because I think he understood that I really didn't know what to do in that situation. I do appreciate that. Anyway, he did explain to me why backing up was the right decision. Due to pedestrians being hit so much in the city, it's basically their policy to keep you out of the opposite cross walk. He was helpfull. He pulled me over and informed me of what I did wrong. If it ever happens again, I'll back up. And yeah, looking back, I looked like an idiot. A red light camera would have said "Guilty! Fine! Be on your merry way!"
If I had thought I was driving beyond the limit of safety, I would have understood a ticket, but I honestly don't think a police officer would have pulled me over. Rather, I would have expected him to cruise along with me. I've yet to see a cruiser going the speed limit in this city. I'm not making that up, I actually haven't seen it happen.
Still waiting for an officer's input. |
|
|
| 95IntegraRS |
| This is true, she can be a mean one... :blue: |
|
|
| curtis_rak |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Why not have a particular force dedicated to traffic control? They would need a fraction of the training and pay as a beat cop, but would still be usefull in the effort to make the streets safer.
Thats exactly where Commissionaires come in, and they definately have a fraction of the training. But, since a beat officer makes about $60-65k a year, there goes that theory.
I still haven't seen a URL to where you get your information to support your claim that an increase in vehicle collisions is caused somehow by photo radar.... |
|
|
| oldraven |
| I actually don't know where you got that from. I never said it caused more accidents. I said it isn't helping. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
I actually don't know where you got that from. I never said it caused more accidents. I said it isn't helping.
Show the statistics that prove this.
Both Curtis and myself say that we are more cautious because of Photo Radar, so obviously we aren't the only ones.
Please, show the proof to your statement. |
|
|
| oldraven |
| I don't have proof. This whole thread has been theory and speculation on both sides. All I know is what I see on the streets. Does that make none of the points in this thread valid? |
|
|
| oldraven |
I'm finding I'm getting into a LOT of conflict on this site. That's not the image I'm going for, so I'm dropping this.
My views haven't changed, I'm just going to be a lot less vocal about things. I'm seeing trends in my posts that piss me off about others. It's time for an overhaul.
So keep discussing if you want, but I think I've made every point I can.
And by the way, tagging this as a way to talk to your local law enforcement but getting no response at all is useless. Just call it legal questions or something. I had no intrest in talking to fellow road goers. That got me nowhere. |
|
|
| curtis_rak |
Seeing as how there is only 1 officer on this board might make it kind of tough to get a response on everything. Plus, I am sure he has a life outside of work and 780.
But, I do see Jim respond to quite a few threads on here, maybe this one just isn't his cup of tea. |
|
|
| oldraven |
| Well, after re reading my first post, I wouldn't doubt it. That's why I edited it. The things you say in anger. |
|
|
| mx73someday |
Photo radar and the "speed kills" campaign makes ignorant people drive too slow, and this is dangerous. So many times these people are in the wrong lane doing the wrong speed and causing many traffic problems.
St. Albert has to be the worst place in Alberta for slow drivers. The double wide streets with high visibility (most with an island seperating the flows) are set at 50 km/h for some reason, with no schools or parks in sight. I remember coming back from Vancouver and thinking how stupidly slow people drive there.
Also, those signs they put on the edge of town that go something like "Drive Fast and Die" or "Speed and Be Dead Fast", what a friendly message from such a great ignorant community. Damn, I'm so glad I don't live there anymore.
Slow, ignorant drivers can be just as bad as drivers who speed excessively. |
|
|
| POX |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Show the statistics that prove this.
Both Curtis and myself say that we are more cautious because of Photo Radar, so obviously we aren't the only ones.
Please, show the proof to your statement.
Wasnt Bill Smith spouting about the rise in accidents in Edmonton? |
|
|
| 95IntegraRS |
| There is a huge rise in accidents, incidentally, this rise has not been slowed by the introduction of 50% more PR vans across the city over the years. Don't get me wrong, speeding is speeding. But the actually act of recieving a ticket from a daunting officer of the law carries more weight than a low-paid van operator flashing his cameras at you. Its all about perception, and people don't perceive PR vans as a method of speed control, they just avoid speeding in the hot spots and break the law in other places. |
|
|
| albertarc |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
I'm finding I'm getting into a LOT of conflict on this site. That's not the image I'm going for, so I'm dropping this.
My views haven't changed, I'm just going to be a lot less vocal about things. I'm seeing trends in my posts that piss me off about others. It's time for an overhaul.
So keep discussing if you want, but I think I've made every point I can.
And by the way, tagging this as a way to talk to your local law enforcement but getting no response at all is useless. Just call it legal questions or something. I had no intrest in talking to fellow road goers. That got me nowhere.
The reason I haven't added my 2 bits to this topic is because I have yet to read anything worth responding to. What is your question?? It seems to me that there has been a lot of ranting & raving about photo radar & it being a cash cow. If you are complaining about photo radar in Edmonton then take it up w/ Edmonton City Council - if you are complaining about Devon / St Albert / Sherwood Park etc then take it up w/ the town / city council.
There are many views on whether or not photo radar works & I for one am not educated enough on the subject to form a valid response & unfortunately I am the only police officer that I am aware of that responds on this board - please correct me if I'm wrong!!
Some people tend to forget that if you are breaking the law then there are consequences ... whether it be speeding / red lights / impaired driving / pursuits / bank robbery / murder / assault / sexual assault etc.
Jimbo;) |
|
|
| oldraven |
Well, it started off as a rant, and a brutal one at that, but I think it's become a discussion since. I never once said speeding shouldn't be grounds for punnishment. I do have an issue with PR as opposed to real law enforcement.
My question is has PR had a positive effect on road safety, or has it simply been a way to draw more revenue? I guess my real issue is with those at the top who decided to use PR as a way to pump out speeding tickets.
What does the EPS have to do with PR, other than benefit from the cash it brings in? Why, when more police presence is needed on the streets, would the city go after the citizens for more funding, rather than the government, who has no excuses for not better funding the EPS?
I believe its up to the police to enforce the law, not PR. Can you clear up exactly who PR is run by? Not people, but organizations. Are they simply contracted companies, or private owners? What percentage of the ticket I'm paying will go to the police, and how much to the person in the van, or the owner of the van? Why is it that vehicles registered to the city of Edmonton are exempt from paying PR tickets if it's not a BS system? (ok, I suppose that one is for the city of Edmonton to answer) Have you, while behind the wheel, ever triggered PR, or are the operators instructed to leave police cruisers alone? I'm not talking about persuit situations, or when you're on a call.
It's questions like this that make me uneasy about PR. I pay a good amount out to the government in the run of a year, and I feel like this is simply leeching more money from me on top of all the taxes I pay to help run systems like the EPS. If I'm going to pay a ticket to the police, the police had better be there to hand me the ticket.
Bottom line, are Edmonton streets safer with PR, or is it simply bringing in more money? If your boss isn't paying you enough, or funding your job enough, why don't you ask the goverment for more money, because I'm already doing my required part.
Please, answer the questions you can, and tell me if I have any misconceptions about the system. Any question you can't answer, I'll be sure to ask my local representative. |
|
|
| MX5 Miata Guy |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Why is it that vehicles registered to the city of Edmonton are exempt from paying PR tickets if it's not a BS system? (ok, I suppose that one is for the city of Edmonton to answer).
Well, that's not true. I know two bus drivers...and ETS gives tickets to its drivers. So does Strathcona County for that matter...to all its staff. The provincial government doesn't...but that's another reason not to like the PCs...they've simply been in too long. |
|
|
| albertarc |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
1) Can you clear up exactly who PR is run by? Not people, but organizations. Are they simply contracted companies, or private owners?
2) Have you, while behind the wheel, ever triggered PR, or are the operators instructed to leave police cruisers alone? I'm not talking about persuit situations, or when you're on a call.
3) Bottom line, are Edmonton streets safer with PR, or is it simply bringing in more money?
4) If your boss isn't paying you enough, or funding your job enough, why don't you ask the goverment for more money, because I'm already doing my required part.
Here's what I can answer:
1) The City of Edmonton contracts out the photo radar duties & that very issue has been in the media recently regarding how fair the contracts are & if there is any controversy over who gets them. I believe the current contract belongs to an American company.
2) I have yet to ever see a flash in my rearview mirror (either as a private citizen or as a police officer - touch wood). Working out in Stony Plain I don't have much of an opportunity to go through the photo radar points but occasionally I end up in Edmonton either going to "K" Division HQ or travelling through to other detachments. I am a strong believer that anytime someone is in a company vehicle (rolling billboards) they should portray a positive attitude & follow the rules of the road. I can tell you that if there's a plumber's truck that is cutting people off & blowing yellow lights etc I sure know who I won't be calling the next time I need a little roto-routering.
3) I don't know if streets are safer w/ photo radar enforcement. I'm not even sure if it can be measured. There would have to be a spread sheet showing a vehicle on the road per capita speed over the speed limit comparing the most recent time period & one from when photo radar came into existence (clear as mud??). Maybe this is something someone out there may wish to try to locate.
4) Sorry friend but my pay cheque comes from a federal gov't office somewhere down east. I can honestly say that not a cent of my wage comes from any type of photo radar enforcement.
I hope this answers some of your concerns.
Jimbo:dunno: |
|
|
| oldraven |
It does clear a few things up. Thanks.
As for PR being contracted to an American company..... What the hell? We may as well just send them cheques from the federal government like we do with Quebec. I think that bothers me even more now.
I had no idea regional police services were funded federally. Something else that makes no sense. I can see federal allotments to provinces for running police, fire, and ambulance, but why does the provincial government not do their part and fund these areas where they are lacking? No, I'm not asking you that. More of a statement through a question. Consider it part of sharing the wealth with your own province.
I despise the PC's more every day when I learn how they run things here. I can't understand how they get voted back in over and over. Sponsorship scandals are one thing, but farming out law enforcement to American companies is completely beyond reason.
Thanks for helping, and I hope you realise I see I was out of line in the first part of this thread. (not kissing arse, just apologizing for generalizing, I guess) |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Have you, while behind the wheel, ever triggered PR, or are the operators instructed to leave police cruisers alone? I'm not talking about persuit situations, or when you're on a call.
Isn't the system fully automated with the pictures being post processed? Most of the times when I pass the vans, the ballast (or driver as we can call them), is asleep, or reading the paper, or picking their nose, etc... |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
My question is has PR had a positive effect on road safety, or has it simply been a way to draw more revenue? I guess my real issue is with those at the top who decided to use PR as a way to pump out speeding tickets.
Again - what's wrong with the EPS enforcing the laws and handing out speeding tickets left, right and centre?
If you don't speed and BREAK THE LAW it doesn't affect you.
I understand it's not the greatest deterrant - no one argues that. But what the heck is wrong with them using Photo Radar, even if they admitted it was for revenue?
I'd rather they get their funding from drivers who refuse to acknowledge the laws then out of my tax dollars (Again, theoretically in order for the EPS to have more funding either taxes go up, or services go down (To shift funds to EPS) - lets not get into an arguement about government inefficiences). |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Again - what's wrong with the EPS enforcing the laws and handing out speeding tickets left, right and centre?
Nothing. I never said there was anything wrong with it. But we're not talking about the EPS pumping out tickets. We're talking about PR, which our EPS representative has just confirmed is completely unrelated. They're not taking the pictures, and they're not seeing the money from it. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Nothing. I never said there was anything wrong with it. But we're not talking about the EPS pumping out tickets. We're talking about PR, which our EPS representative has just confirmed is completely unrelated. They're not taking the pictures, and they're not seeing the money from it.
LOL, so can we consider photo radar to be a kind of authorised vigilante-ism/extortion?
Its not the police, its a commercial company taking pictures that show you breaking a law, then they send you a nice little letter saying pay up or else, and when you pay they take a portion of the money, and kick back the rest to the government. :blink:
Now I wonder if one of us set up a lawn chair down on Whyte and took pics of people jay walking, then demanded they give us cash or we'd turn them in... would we get pulled for extortion (even if we were putting 50% of the cash back into some government charity program)? :lol: |
|
|
| oldraven |
Modern day Privateers, my good man. :lol:
Excpet totally not cool like real Privateers. :beer:
Blackmail at its best. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Modern day Privateers, my good man. :lol:
Excpet totally not cool like real Privateers. :beer:
Blackmail at its best.
Which is exactly why we should start up a mobile photo radar business!!!!
Oh the year was 2004... how I wish I wasn't in Edmonton now... :lol: |
|
|
| oldraven |
.. For two bored men, never fishermen who,
would take seedy pics to get money from you.
GOD DAMN YOU ALL!!!!
:lol: |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Nothing. I never said there was anything wrong with it. But we're not talking about the EPS pumping out tickets. We're talking about PR, which our EPS representative has just confirmed is completely unrelated. They're not taking the pictures, and they're not seeing the money from it.
EPS does not take the pictures? True.
EPS get's nothing from it? False.
It's a huge contract (Which is all over the news right now - I think it's in the Sun today on the front page headlines even). So yes, the EPS sees revenue from Photo Radar directly.
Same concept as the City allowing private groups (like on the U of A campus) to issue Bylaw tickets. |
|
|
| oldraven |
I must have misread then.
4) Sorry friend but my pay cheque comes from a federal gov't office somewhere down east. I can honestly say that not a cent of my wage comes from any type of photo radar enforcement. |
|
|
| MX5 Miata Guy |
| As in he's an RCMP officer...of which, the RCMP is precluded from operating photo radar (they use the real stuff, laser, or planes). EPS on the other hand, within Edmonton and not on provincially controlled roads (where its use is prohibited by the Transportation Minister) does use, through a private contractor, photo radar...and sees a percentage of the funds. They control its location and times used, but the person sitting in the van works for a private contractor. |
|
|
| oldraven |
| Ah, I see now. I didn't realise he was an RC, or that PR didn't apply to the RCMP. |
|
|
| Mekanik22 |
| Yeah, I hate photoradar too. But I don't think their getting rid of it soon. Their talking about putting police dogs in the vans so vandals can't through rocks and other objects at them. Which is even more retarded. Personally, if I get hit with a brick because I have a stupid job sitting in a van, I wouldn't go back to it. But whatever, some people are "compelled" to do it, I guess. |
|
|
| Z32NUT |
Oldraven..
If you hate PR so much (like I love my Z ;) ), why not get your member of Provincial Parliment in on it? Complaining here will not solve anything, or allow your voice to be heard where it needs to be.
Start a petiton, get yourself on Global to express your view to the whole city. Sitting in here preaching to the choir will only raise your blood pressure. But it won't do a damn thing to get rid of the cash cow PR. |
|
|
| Mekanik22 |
| Bring up the operators safety is at risk as well. Like I said, their going to be investing in police dogs in the vans to protect themselves. But anyway the operator is at risk by vandals and maybe next time it might not be a brick, but a bullet.... :dunno: |
|
|
| oldraven |
| Maybe the City will finance PR Sherman tanks? Now THAT's the kind of public spending we're used to. |
|
|
| 3gec |
Everyone allready knows it's a money grab allready. They say it's not and it makes people slow down to keep it going. So now that it's on the radio every second minute and such. Not to be an ass but get over it cause they won't change it just for you. If they don't make the money off this they will just make it another way in which you will still be getting money taken from you from the goverenment. BTW i hate goverenment.
I am just sick of hearing people complain about it every other minute. I am not trying to be an ass. It's just my opinion |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by 3gec
. I am not trying to be an ass. It's just my opinion
I know how you feel. :p Therefore, let me present that opinion.
I came here to get information on PR from the police. That's the point. I'm not trying to get it abolished in this thread. I can see how futile that is. |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
I look at it this way:
When is the last time you drove a car with drum brakes?
Leaf spring suspension?
Did that car have power steering?
Speed limits have not kept up with technology. I feel they have been kept unreasonably low. I am sick and tired of laws catering to the lowest common denominator.
Damn near any car build since 1985 (almost 2 decades) is capable of SAFELY achieving,maintaining and manouvering at much higher speeds than what the government has instituted. If your vehicle can't, then it probably isn't fit for the road in the first place and needs repair or replacement.
There is no reason on earth why the Whitemud, Yellowhead (with it's 97 St. upgrade) and the Henday shouldn't have speed limits equal to or greater than Highway #1. 110 KM/h
Commercial zones and residential I can live with, those are high pedestrian area's. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by Pro Drag
Damn near any car build since 1985 (almost 2 decades) is capable of SAFELY achieving,maintaining and manouvering at much higher speeds than what the government has instituted. If your vehicle can't, then it probably isn't fit for the road in the first place and needs repair or replacement.
Doesn't mean the drivers can. |
|
|
| oldraven |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Doesn't mean the drivers can.
Can't argue with that. But there are also people who can't handle the old speed limits. Does that mean we should all be held back, or hold them back? (more rigorous testing, etc.)
Ok, this is morphing into a different thread. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Can't argue with that. But there are also people who can't handle the old speed limits. Does that mean we should all be held back, or hold them back? (more rigorous testing, etc.)
Ok, this is morphing into a different thread.
Completely different thread now.
Something has to be done - either reducing (Or stricter enforcement) of current limits/laws or stricter licensing. I think we can all agree it's not good the way it is. |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Completely different thread now.
Something has to be done - either reducing (Or stricter enforcement) of current limits/laws or stricter licensing. I think we can all agree it's not good the way it is.
I wholeheartedly agree with stricter licensing. When I went for my license I was allowed a maximum of 50 demerits, has anybody looked into how many are allowed nowadays? 75 Fucking demerits in a 15 minute test. That is simply ricockulous. When you get behind the wheel you are taking your own life as well as the lives of those around you into your own hands. If you can't fucking swim, don't jump in the pool. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by Pro Drag
I wholeheartedly agree with stricter licensing. When I went for my license I was allowed a maximum of 50 demerits, has anybody looked into how many are allowed nowadays? 75 Fucking demerits in a 15 minute test. That is simply ricockulous. When you get behind the wheel you are taking your own life as well as the lives of those around you into your own hands. If you can't fucking swim, don't jump in the pool.
Damn, you're an old fart.
When I took my license it was 75 demerits - and when you look at how you get scored, you can easily screw up plenty of times without failing.
The worst part about it is that it is completely subjective. I don't mean to be rude (or racist), but there are a lot of people who you can tell never would have passed the driving test, yet somehow they did.
Hell, when my cousin went for his test he was told to go through the drivethru. |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Damn, you're an old fart.
When I took my license it was 75 demerits - and when you look at how you get scored, you can easily screw up plenty of times without failing.
The worst part about it is that it is completely subjective. I don't mean to be rude (or racist), but there are a lot of people who you can tell never would have passed the driving test, yet somehow they did.
Hell, when my cousin went for his test he was told to go through the drivethru.
I was born in '81.
I have been driving since I was 10, I was first in line to write my learners when I was 14 and to take my driving test when I was 16.
There needs to be standardized testing, and a reduction in demerits for the drivers licence test. If you can run up 50 demerits in 15 minutes, stay off the road, or learn how to drive. |
|
|
| TrevorK |
quote:
Originally posted by Pro Drag
I was born in '81.
I have been driving since I was 10, I was first in line to write my learners when I was 14 and to take my driving test when I was 16.
There needs to be standardized testing, and a reduction in demerits for the drivers licence test. If you can run up 50 demerits in 15 minutes, stay off the road, or learn how to drive.
Weird, I was born in 81, and got my license at 16. Yet I got the 75 demerit test.... |
|
|
| Pro Drag |
| I took my test in rural Alberta, dunno if that makes a difference. January is when I took mine. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
For example: I tried to stop on ice one day in my old Tercel, as the light turned amber. I skided into the intersection about a car length. There was no one going anywhere, just waiting for me to make a decision. I saw the cop, looked at him, and made a decision. I decided to finish going through the intersection. No cross traffic, just trying to get out of the way after making a mistake. He pulled me over, obvioulsy. He didn't give me a ticket, because I think he understood that I really didn't know what to do in that situation. I do appreciate that. Anyway, he did explain to me why backing up was the right decision. Due to pedestrians being hit so much in the city, it's basically their policy to keep you out of the opposite cross walk. He was helpfull. He pulled me over and informed me of what I did wrong. If it ever happens again, I'll back up. And yeah, looking back, I looked like an idiot. A red light camera would have said "Guilty! Fine! Be on your merry way!"
I know this is a response to an older post but I noticed no one addressed this so I took it upon myself. Besides, if I didn't, I'd have to work, or something.
Getting the ticket in the mail does not mean you are guilty. (You are also not guilty when an officer writes you a ticket). If you pay the voluntary fine, you admit guilt. However, you can fight the ticket, whether it was delivered partially through an automated process or not. Quite often, you don't even have to go to court. If you slid through ice in an intersection and received a red light ticket, you can argue your case to the clerk or crown prosecutor and ask to have the charges dropped. They very well might. (Or, they might decide that if it was icy out you should have been driving accordingly). But the point is, ticket != guilty. You can fight. |
|
|
| DarrylBleau |
quote:
Originally posted by TrevorK
Completely different thread now.
Something has to be done - either reducing (Or stricter enforcement) of current limits/laws or stricter licensing. I think we can all agree it's not good the way it is.
I also agree that the current licensing situation is lacking. I took driver's training before getting my license, and I think it was great. A few weeks of driving around with a professional instructor, highway/city situations, and a weekend-long course. I believe that at the minimum, a driver's training course like this should be mandatory before you can even think of testing for your license. Most everything else you do in life requires training beforehand (when's the last time you saw a doctor who didn't go to school and just wrote his medical exams?), and operating a 3k+lbs piece of metal that can kill people easily should be no exception. Re-testing, just like for any other potentially life-threatening skill, should also be mandatory. Same goes for vehicles. They should be re-certified road worthy on a periodic basis.
People complain about bad drivers, but really, we should be complaining about bad testing and licensing that allows the bad drivers/vehicles on the road.
And really, you can't address the speed limit situation until you address the licensing situation. The limits have to be tailored to the lowest common denominator to make the streets safe for everyone. Yes, this means that you who is a good driver in a car that is capable will be kept below a speed that might very well be safe for you to drive at. But what else do you expect? Separate licensing and a 'license to speed'? Think of the logistics... |
|
|
| oldraven |
Well, there was no red light camera. I was saying there's a difference an officer makes that a camera never can.
Anyway, I got my ticket today. $110 for going 67kph. Wow! What wreckless abandon. And there's not a soul in sight. I'm the only one on the road. There wasn't even any flow to go with, and I still kept it under 70. Complete BS. |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
Anyway, I got my ticket today. $110 for going 67kph. Wow! What wreckless abandon. And there's not a soul in sight. I'm the only one on the road. There wasn't even any flow to go with, and I still kept it under 70. Complete BS.
You are a dangerous felon and should be locked away for good. Endangering all those little old ladies who are trying to cross the street with your reckless speedfreak insanity. For shame. :mad:
:lol: |
|
|
| oldraven |
| Hey, if I get fined for shit like this, maybe I should start peddling crack. It's got to balance out somehow. May as well actually do something criminal if I'm getting the charges. And it's a great way to put away for your child's education. :bthumbup: |
|
|
| snugs |
quote:
Originally posted by oldraven
And it's a great way to put away for your child's education. :bthumbup:
Or put yourself through college. Tim Allen taught me that! :D |
|
|
|
