Quote:
Originally Posted by Innsertnamehere
What? The closest school west of Upper James is James Macdonald Public School, which is about a 15 minute walk away. By that standard the entire urban area is close to a school.
Quebec has a few speed cameras around, including on freeways, and my experience is that people slow down for the camera then speed right back up again.
I'm not opposed to speed cameras in certain locations like directly in front of schools on local streets, in high pedestrian zones like downtowns, etc., but sticking them on suburban arterials with little to no pedestrian traffic is silly and does absolutely nothing for actual pedestrian safety.
You can tell the province intended for these cameras to largely go in areas that have actual safety concerns by requiring them to be in community safety zones, and not on random arterials. The problem is that municipalities have free reign of designating community safety zones wherever they want, so municipalities are just sticking the cameras wherever and just implementing safety zones to allow it, bypassing the purpose of the legislation.
The worst offender of municipalities "cash grabbing" with these cameras is in York Region if you ask me, on Bloomington Road.
This is a rural arterial road that with very high vehicle volumes. It's built to a 100km/h design speed (typical for a posted 80 road), but is posted for 60km/h. It's directly beside a public school, but is separated by a large fence beside the school yard, and a ditch. There are no sidewalks. The school fronts onto another road where it is accessed.
And York region is going to stick a speed camera here for "vision zero". This will protect no pedestrians. At. All. Ever. All you will get from the camera is cars going 55km/h on a road designed for them to safely do 100km/h.
https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9848...7i16384!8i8192
I haven't seen an example quite so egregious in Hamilton yet, but the locations for 2022 certainly don't seem focused on pedestrian safety to me. They seem focused on areas with lots of cars so they can get lots of tickets. |
I was in Quebec less than a week ago, my experience is the total opposite. 90% of drivers seem to be going the speed limit or within 10km above. Some even drive below the speed limit.
Cash grab would require that the municipality actually makes money on these programs, they don't typically net any money after operating costs and admin costs.
If they make too little money and cost the taxpayer too much, people complain the city is wasting their money. If they make even a small net profit, then it's a cash grab. Municipalities are caught between two rocks.
The reality is this:
1) Speed cameras work in conjunction with better designed streets
2) Drivers hate that fact
3) People are so used to passing a speed trap 1% of their time driving, that speeding has become a societal norm, and the reason drivers hate speed cameras is because they mean your regular route you will pass a speed camera 100% of the time.
https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2019/10/...1d9T7sqoVmyoLU
Here is a study from BC on the net benefits:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/30162746
Another article discussing the spillover effect outside the enforcement area, and why moving locations is important:
https://www.researchgate.net/publica...itish_Columbia
You personally may experience something, but anecdotes are not evidence. If you study 100 drivers and 85% of drivers are effected by a change in road control, and 15% are not, that does not necessarily describe a failed policy. People speed in Amsterdam, I've seen it with my own two eyes, I've also seen a bicycle crash in Amsterdam with my own two eyes. I was in Amsterdam for 4 days. That does
not indicate Amsterdam does not have significantly safer roads than most North American studies.
I'm more interested in good policy, and objective realities. Yea, it's annoying to not be able to speed, but that doesn't mean speed cameras aren't good policy.
