Say Cheesy To That Speed Camera: CRERAR

 

howard.crerar.small .logo

 


Speed cameras were a response to widespread concerns about dangerous roads, River Councillor Riley Brockington, the city’s emergency and protective services committee chairman, said recently.

“I’m a strong proponent of using whatever tool in the toolbox is available. We’re losing the war and we we’re losing the war big time.”

Experience has shown that Brockington is usually one of the quieter and more level-headed members of city council but the comments above have me scratching my head. They seem primarily like an attempt to grab publicity prior to next fall’s municipal election.

To begin, what constitutes “widespread concerns”? A statement such as this is irrelevant unless it’s quantified. How widespread is “widespread”, what specific concerns is he referencing and what data does he have to support this two-word phrase? And the “war we’re losing big time”? What war, and how big is big time? Is the loss as big as Dumbo’s ears, as big as Donald Trump’s ego, or what? Please clarify, councillor. Your confusing statements sound like something a high school English teacher would find in a student’s cliche-filled essay, not like something voters expect from someone making a six-figure salary and looking for a double-digit increase.

>



And the toolbox metaphor? How banal. Which tools are you referring to?

One obvious tool is a police force that uses radar guns to capture drivers’ speeds as they navigate our roads. A tool that would be a valuable addition to your imaginary “toolbox” is a police force with more police officers. Police constables have the ability to perform a variety of tasks, including traffic safety duty, all of which benefit our communities. I’m sure most readers would agree that increasing the size of the city’s police force would go a long way to making our roads safer. The mere presence of additional officers on our city streets would encourage drivers to slow down. So, next time you place your vote at the council table for one of the city’s ultra-expensive projects (hint hint, Lansdowne 2.0), vote “No” to free up funding to benefit all the city’s residents.

Let’s consider some other tools, shall we. Speed cameras are pointed in the direction vehicles are traveling and are, for the most part, housed in bulky metal boxes that are difficult to hide. They’re likely very expensive to purchase and integrate into the city’s computer network. Does their presence alter driver behaviour? For short distances on our roadways, yes, but when you consider the big picture, no. Once drivers learn where they’re located they’ll slow down until they’re out of range of the cameras then resume driving at their preferred speed.

Tailgating is a dangerous practice. When driving at the posted speed limit, I often look in my rearview mirror and see nothing but the grille of the vehicle traveling about a couple of metres behind me. If I increase my speed by five km/h, the usual result is the space between both vehicles usually increases and tension in both vehicles decreases, making for a safer driving experience.

Traffic Cameras: Will Ottawa Go The Way Of D.C.?

If you really want to earn your six-figure salary why don’t you hire someone to lobby automobile manufacturers to develop technology that prevents the use of cell phones in a vehicle while it’s in motion. And, while you’re at it, create legislation to outlaw all window-tinting on vehicle windshields and driver- and front-seat passenger-side windows so that drivers can always make eye contact with one another and with cyclists.

Ah yes, cyclists, how about passing legislation that makes it illegal for anyone to ride a bicycle on any city street without a helmet no matter their age. And here’s another one for you. Slow moving farm and heavy-duty construction vehicles usually have a group of cars, SUVs and pickup trucks trailing behind them when they’re on arterial roads between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. These vehicles create a potential risk to all drivers because long lines of impatient drivers tend to gather behind them. Either keep them off the arterial roads during peak hours or post minimum speeds in addition to maximum speeds on those roads.

Last winter I learned the hard way how unsafe our roadways are. I drove over a couple of potholes which I didn’t see because I was travelling on unfamiliar streets covered with a film of snow. As a result of these misadventures, I had to pay to replace a front rod and two tires. Fixing the crappy roads in the city would go a long way to contributing to road safety (again, vote “No” to city projects that don’t benefit all citizens). And the money I saved on major repairs could be used to pay the fines you are proposing.

At this point it’s time for a question for Brockington. If I were travelling five km/h over the posted speed limit and a police car was traveling behind me, do you think the officer would signal for me to pull off the road to issue a speeding ticket? The answer is a simple “No, he or she would not”. More than likely they’d pass me by (at a speed greater than the five  km/h above the speed limit I was traveling). And oh, one more question. If a driver is traveling at 82 km/h in a zone with a posted speed limit of 80, should they pay a fine for traveling 2.5 per cent higher than posted limit?

One final observation. Traffic moves most effectively and safely when all drivers are traveling at the same speed and observe the three-second rule. If the posted speed limit on a roadway is 70 km/h and 40 cars are traveling at 78 km/h, everything is generally generally safe even though everyone is exceeding the speed limit by eight km/h. How will speed cameras capture the licence plate of all those vehicles so it can issue fines to everyone or will only the last car(s) in line be fined?

Councillor, I hope you now have some additional tools to your toolbox. My best suggestion? Forget speed cameras and cut back on expenditures on projects that benefit only a few so that taxpayer dollars can be used to hire more police officers. That’s probably the easiest solution to implement and the one over which you personally have the most control.

In the meantime, are speed cameras a tax grab? Oh yeah. Nothing more than a quick and dirty one at that. Say “cheesy”.

Howard Crerar is a project manager and has worked in the software industry for three decades.

 

For You:

Safety Board Seeks Plane Crash Debris

Another First From Mayor Mark Sutcliffe

Suspend E-Bus Purchase, Lo Says

 

Bookmark The Bulldog, click here




3 Responses

  1. sisco farraro says:

    A few comments to the author (and Riley Brockington) concerning an issue that is somewhat controversial. 1) If all vehicles are traveling at 90 km per hour on a street with a posted speed limit of 80 except one which is traveling at 75 km per hour, the vehicle causing the safety issue is the one traveling at 75. 2) I noticed that traffic cameras are large enough to capture traffic moving in both directions on a two-lane road. Recently I saw 3 drivers in a row traveling in the opposite direction whose faces were looking at their lap, obviously distracted by something, presumably a cell phone. Let’s use speed cameras to spot and fine distracted drivers. 3) a few years ago George Darouze was caught texting while attending a Zoom meeting while driving. Darouze apologized. Did he pay a fine? How did Mr Brockington vote when it came time to dole out punishment to his fellow councilor? Was the apology sufficient or was Mr Darouze fined? If not I’ll be happy to send a written apology to the city in lieu of a cheque if I receive a fine for speeding in the mail. 4) I wonder if Mr Brockington has ever seen the movie “The Terminator”, an old James Cameron film in which machines have taken over the world. Allowing speed cameras to do the job of human beings cuts back on jobs for students who study criminology at a post secondary institution and moves us closer to machine armageddon. I wonder if Robot Riley would like to lead the gang.

  2. David says:

    A speed camera does two things: (a) causes the driver to slow down while passing the camera and speeding up to recover lost time afterwards; generates a ticket that the driver receives days / weeks later – and therefore maybe only a deterrent for the future. Maybe. Nothing slows traffic like a police car on the street with an officer writing a ticket. And the next time you drive on that street you wonder – “Is that cop still here?” Final thought – make speeding a VERY expensive infraction. I’d suggest doubling the stunting penalties.

  3. Ken Gray says:

    David:

    Thank you … all good points.

    One caveat. The city is working on a report on the results at the cameras of injuries and accidents in comparison to pre-cameras.

    We know that cameras have reduced speeding. However we don’t know whether that reduction translates into fewer accidents and injuries.

    Increased safety is at least supposed to be the prime reason for the cameras, not speed reduction. We need to know if speed reduction translates into increased safety.

    cheers

    kgray

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Translate »