this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
-1 points (33.3% liked)

Canada

10433 readers
623 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
-1
Speed-camera threat — Doug Ford shows he's the irresponsible driver's best friend (ottawacitizen.com)
submitted 4 days ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
31 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

top 31 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's all honky-dorey, perfectly legitimate, completely okay until you get your first speed camera ticket in the mail.

Makes a lot more sense if, by law, these speed cameras have to be paired with an instant feedback sign that shows your speed, just before the photo is taken, so you are not caught unawares several weeks later.

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Trust me, I've been caught speeding, but I was a dumb driver. I learned my lesson. The problem isn't the signage, the problem is people need to slow the fuck down, which I certainly did after paying $500 for my infraction.

[–] Daryl@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago (2 children)

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.

[–] yardratianSoma@lemmy.ca 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours 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.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day 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.

[–] cecilkorik@lemmy.ca 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Another case of Ford being right, for all the wrong reasons, by complete accident. He so often bumbles his way through government like Mr. Bean. Unfortunately it's not enough to outweigh all the times he is wrong, for the wrong reasons, by complete corruption. But I still find it very interesting.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The article shows some of the positive effects speed cameras are having on drivers. Feel free to disagree, but it's nice to see interventions that make roads safer.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Well it doesn't actually say that. There's no measurments of accidents or injuries here. The only metrics are reduced speeding in the measured areas. I don't tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don’t tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?

Aren't residential streets lower speeds too, so unless you're speeding there you're going slower on purpose?

And if you don't speed, why do you avoid areas with cameras?

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 23 hours ago (1 children)

It's when they drop more arterial roads to low speeds like 50km/h or even less that taking shortcuts through residential roads becomes more enticing. And doing 55km/h or 60 in 50 zones is pretty normal when there's no camera. Yes it's technically speeding, but very common.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

Sure but you haven't actually answered either question

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 20 hours 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?

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are three instances of positive change in the original post.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

It's all measured speed reduction in the camera zones. That doesn't mean people are driving safer, or slower on average even. That people have changed their behavior doesn't mean it's safer. More use of smaller residential roads that don't have cameras is probably not safer. Allowing rich people to speed as much as they want and just pay a fee probably isn't safer either.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s all measured speed reduction in the camera zones. That doesn’t mean people are driving safer, or slower on average even.

Few months back City of Barrie released some info that showed the reduction in speed was long lasting, well after the removal of the speed cameras. This shows a positive change on drover behaviour, even if it is only for the school zone, that's a big win in my books.

More use of smaller residential roads that don’t have cameras is probably not safer.

Ignoring the assumption that traffic cameras cause decreases in AADT, when the alternative is people speeding through school zones, yes it is likely much safer. Fewer pedestrians, particularly kids which are notorious for not paying attention and are more likely to wander into lanes, means that it is a net positive for those areas.

Allowing rich people to speed as much as they want and just pay a fee probably isn’t safer either.

Is this any different than it currently is? Definitely isn't making things worse.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Logically, slower speeds should make safer streets. But it's not 100% a sure thing. When people are in a hurry, they find other ways and that's when things get more dangerous.
And no, traffic cams only give monetary fines not demerit points or a criminal record like if you get pulled over by a cop. They don't assess who the driver is, so they can't blame it on a particular person. So rich people don't care at all about going fast in those areas - it's just a fee to go fast to them.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When people are in a hurry, they find other ways and that’s when things get more dangerous.

Can you try explaining this? I've reread it and can't make sense of it. Are you saying that speed cameras INCREASE how much people hurry? I disagree. School safety zones are not big areas - if they're having a notable impact on your length of drive, that's weird. Forcing people to go 20km/hr slower through those zones via speed cameras shouldn't add more than a couple of seconds onto a drive. Even if the zone was a km long, that's a 30s difference going at 60 vs 40. You're more likely to be caught at a streetlight longer than that.

So rich people don’t care at all about going fast in those areas - it’s just a fee to go fast to them.

Data isn't showing that. Data, when released, shows top speeds of ~10km/hr over the limit once cameras have been in place. Demerits can't be assigned until 15km/hr over.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, some people hit the gas just after the camera. They also peel off on smaller streets to 'make up time'. I suspect these are people who are in a hurry / late, or just impatient. People do this on the highway too after clearing radar traps. Or after overtaking someone traveling slowly. I don't know if the effect is significant. People are weird and side effects can be unexpected. I'm just not sure that we should totally assume cameras that slow down measured speeds actually increases safety.
I haven't seen data like you mentioned- it seems strange that there wouldn't be an array of speeders like anywhere else. I think most people's complaints about these things are that they trigger at too close to the limit - doing 52 in a 50 zone is not unsafe, and can help with the flow of traffic. It probably depends on the area. I can afford a ticket, but I still avoid areas with cameras. With all the traffic calming stuff and cameras, I actually just avoid going out more and order stuff from Amazon instead of supporting my local stores.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

that they trigger at too close to the limit - doing 52 in a 50 zone

This is not what happens, though

[–] kbal@fedia.io 0 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't even drive, but getting people accustomed to having computerized surveillance systems watching over the city and handing out fully automated fines for whatever minor offences are easy to enforce seems like a somewhat bad idea.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago

Canadian road fatalities are increasing. I generally agree with your sentiment, but inattentive drivers are too dangerous. A properly administered speed camera system is fine in my books.

[–] deege@lemmy.ca -1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Speed cameras are a regressive tax until the fees are proportionate to net worth (income is too easy to cheat with here in Canada).

Same with parking tickets.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The studies in the article have shown that they are reducing speeding in the city. Hopefully that translates to fewer fatalities and injuries, as well as reduced greenhouse gas emissions.

I agree that fines should be proportional to income (or net worth).

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I’m pretty skeptical of those studies. In my city these cameras are everywhere yet every night I can walk outside and hear The Fast and The Furious wannabes screaming through the city at 200km/h, loud enough to wake the dead.

My dad has gotten nailed multiple times for going 41 in a 30 zone, thanks to these cameras being positioned to spot and ticket you the instant you cross a speed limit boundary. The $100 ticket wipes out his entire day’s earnings driving for Uber eats.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

for going 41 in a 30 zone, thanks to these cameras being positioned to spot and ticket you the instant you cross a speed limit boundary

So it’s working as intended, which is great

[–] chonglibloodsport@lemmy.world 0 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes, a regressive tax on poor people. That’s why it’s going to be cancelled at the provincial level.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 0 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

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 1 day ago (1 children)

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 1 day 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.