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

submitted 1 year ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca

43 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 1 year ago

Sure but you haven't actually answered either question

[-] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I think the reference to 'shortcut' explains the first. And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that's why it's best to avoid the road with the camera even if you're nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?

[-] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 year ago

And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?

Yes please, because "going a few km/h over the limit" doesn't trigger those cameras, there's quite a generous threshold (manufacturers give it a healthy margin to not have it within measurement error variances). Generally you need to be 10km/h or more above the limit to get a ticket.

So if you are not speeding, there's no reason to avoid routes with cameras. So do spell it out why would you prefer going 30 to 50km/h through a residential zone instead of going 50km/h through a normal arterial just because there are cameras.

[-] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

There are reports of tickets for 2km/h over. penalties start at 1km/h over.
Whatever - you do you. I'll stick to the smaller roads away from the cameras. No risk to me then.

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

Cameras here don’t work that way. The usual implementation is that nothing within 10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher, because the sensor doesn’t have that accuracy, so you’re making your life harder for no reason

[-] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

10% of 30km/h is 3km/h. So by your metrics if you're 3km/h over you can get a fine. And if it's accuracy is so bad, then it might give you a ticket for 31km/h even if it's threshold is set to 10%

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

10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher

In practice, it usually means near or above 10 km/h beyond the speed limit, because the accuracy isn't high enough to give tickets for 1 to 3 km/h differences. Those would be easily disputed and annulled in the courts.