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

submitted 4 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

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

Frankly, at the fundamental root of the problem, is the fact that it is far too easy to 'speed' in a car. The basic design of the control system and the speedometer is to completely give the driver a completely erroneous feedback of the estimate of the speed of the car, and completely inadequate information on when and by how much the peed limit is being exceeded by. Not to mention the design of the road. Some roads are designed to give completely faulty feedback on the actual speed you are going. A driver should not have to completely keep watch on a sometimes inconspicuous speed indicator to know how fast they are going. That is why my suggestion for far more automatic radar signage that gives direct feedback on the speed the car is going at, compared to the established speed limit. especially in high-risk zones.

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 weeks ago

Sure, but we can have both, so let's have both. Drivers do have to keep watch on their inconspicuous speed indicator, and if they don't they're putting the lives of others at risk and should be fined.

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

I do think highly of good road design, as some countries in Europe have shown, can reduce pedestrian and cyclist fatalities greatly. I think road design has a far greater impact than automatic radar signage.

Vehicles controlled by humans will always have to tend with the fact that humans make mistakes. One of the first things learned in drivers ed is that the ability to balance focus on multiple variables: signage, road conditions, other drivers, etc. . . is vital to the skill of driving. So, if people will make mistakes, maybe rarely or maybe often, I would put automatic radar signage somewhat low on the list of speed prevention measures, as it is employed often enough, but isn't as strong as a deterrent as a fine for speeding.

A crime is a crime, and a crime unpunished will be repeated for lack thereof, because humans are imperfect. I do think the larger issue is the reliance on cars in Ontario, but that's a larger issue, that Doug Ford will never address with any depth.