Speed-camera threat — Doug Ford shows he's the irresponsible driver's best friend (ottawacitizen.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

45 comments fedilink hide all child comments

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/45991302

Ford calls speed cameras “nothing but a tax grab.” As do many reckless drivers. But surely he knows that speeding fines are not taxes. Even if they were, they’re voluntary: If you don’t want a speeding ticket, don’t speed.

...

In Ottawa, compliance with speed limits rose from from 16 per cent before speed cameras to 57 per cent after only three months, and to more than 80 per cent after three years. Instances of speeding at more than 15 km/h above the posted limit dropped from 14 per cent, pre-speed cameras, to less than one per cent after three years of the city using them.

A survey of more than 1,000 Ottawa residents, meanwhile, determined that of the 35 per cent of respondents who had been dinged with an speed camera fine, 69 per cent said it changed their driving behaviour. That’s what we want from these cameras.

And of course:

A study conducted by SickKids hospital in Toronto and published in July in the British Medical Journal’s Injury Prevention journal found that the use of speed cameras in school zones led to a 45 per cent reduction in speeding motorists, while the 85th percentile speed — the speed at or below which 85 per cent of the drivers travelled — dropped by almost 11 km/h. “The observed reduction in speed is likely important in reducing collisions and injuries,” the study noted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

You said yourself that your dad is speeding on a 30 km/h zone lol that's why it shouldn't be cancelled

But if you want to push for having higher fines for the upper tax brackets, count me in. I agree that the fines should scale with income otherwise the rich can just pay to stay negligent.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No, he’s driving a normal speed in a residential zone (40) and then the limit suddenly changes to 30 because a school is nearby but he doesn’t know that because he’s a food delivery driver who doesn’t know the area, so he gets a ticket instantly when the speed limit changes.

It’s a trap designed to collect revenue for the city. The fines can’t scale with income because the city doesn’t know your income (no city income tax).

This is a Pigouvian tax that has a conflict of interest between changing behaviour and collecting revenue. These are some of the worst sorts of laws. If they actually want to change behaviour then it’s simple: spend money to make the roads physically impossible to speed on. That means narrow 1 way streets, street parking to make it even narrower, etc.

Cities brought the problem on themselves by building suburbs with giant 2-lane stroads (streets that are really roads). Now they want to blame drivers for their mistake and punish them by collecting a tax. It’s classic pass-the-buck adversarial city planning. Total bullshit.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago)

No, he’s driving a normal speed in a residential zone (40) and then the limit suddenly changes to 30 because a school is nearby but he doesn’t know that because he’s a food delivery driver who doesn’t know the area, so he gets a ticket instantly when the speed limit changes.

In so many words, he's speeding through a school zone, so hopefully he'll eventually learn to pay attention to school zone signs. If the school zone sign is occluded or for some reason not visible, he should take that to the city and easily use that to dispute the ticket.

The fines can’t scale with income because the city doesn’t know your income (no city income tax).

That's not really an impediment. The city can know your income, even if they currently don't.

has a conflict of interest between changing behaviour and collecting revenue

This is very easily fixed via policy, i.e. by forcing via legislation that automated enforcement revenue has to be dedicated to traffic calming projects.

[-] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 1 points 3 weeks ago

This is very easily fixed via policy, i.e. by forcing via legislation that automated enforcement revenue has to be dedicated to traffic calming projects.

It could be, but it isn’t and it never will be. Governments never do this. They never accept limits on their own power. They always look to expand their power and fight against checks on it.

Whenever you think “maybe a government program for this would be great” you should follow up with “what if bad actors got elected?” and then recognize that bad actors are more likely to get elected due to the personality traits that politics select for.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 weeks ago

I understand where you're coming from but I'll disagree that it's more relevant than the already existing and very real risk of people dying in traffic. Even if the city just absorbs ticket revenue and use that for another gym equipment for a bro mayor, I'll happily support more and widespread enforcement of traffic violations. I also have some privacy concerns with having surveillance everywhere, but again, people die because of driver negligence all too often and we're not going to rebuild these roads any time soon so until then yeah tax the shit out of speeders - promotional to income would be ideal but won't wait for it either.