Red light cameras

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by sim

The faster you are going, the more distance you will travel in both your reaction time and eventual braking action. Not to mention the greater momentum if a collision does occur.

Your point aside, reductions in speed can actually have an improved affect on overall traffic flow. Not to say that the speeds posted anywhere within the city are meant as such, as I don't think Calgary has implemented anything like that yet.

Secondly, let's say that such a thing isn't the case in Calgary, slower speeds can be advantageous in the long term. If travel times become slower comparitively with other modes, there would be less traffic as people opt for those other modes. Less traffic, usually means less accidents.

I do have to agree that a drunk driver is much more troublesome though.

I realize that the faster you go, the longer you travel while moving your foot to the brake, and it takes longer to stop. I think tailgating is a much bigger problem in causing accidents. I see people driving 120km/h, 5' off the bumper of the guy in front. If the car in front ever had to slam on his brakes, the guy behind wouldn't even have time to react to the car in front stopping and would just plow into them. Like I said, the biggest thing we need to do is have better education and recurring testing.

You can go over the speed limit and still drive very safe, and you can go under the speed limit and drive dangerously. I really dont think speed is a major concern (with exception to people who go 150 down Deerfoot), it's bad driving habits that are dangerous.

[kw5150]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

Well, saying that people who are driving above the speed limit through an intersection should be shot WAS pretty over the top.

Have you ever seen somone get smacked by a car speeding through an intersection on a red light? Well, i haven't but I have seen it and it is catastrophic. No one should be trying to beat red lights or speed through intersections. Like I was being serious about "people who speed through intersections should be shot;" but that is where the worst accidents (and the most) seem to happen. I speed here and there, but NEVER through intersections, dense urban areas, schools, side streets, etc.....

The chances of someone walking in front of you in one of the zones I listed above are huge. The chances that someone turns left in front of you while you are speeding through an intersection.....even bigger.

Sorry to offend.

[Calgarian]

You have to be smart enough not to step in front of a moving vehicle, if you do that and get killed because of it, than it's your own damn fault. If someone hits a person while running a red light, that's different and manslaughter charges should apply.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by bigcanuck

Don't do the crime if you can't do the time...

Consider it a user fee next time you get dinged.

Personally, I've always considered this a wonderful user fee. I spend a few extra bucks each year, and I get to go faster than the average traffic flow almost every time. 10 over the limit in most places, 15 on higher speed routes, goose it a bit every once in a while to get around the "hall monitor" types who think they're making things safe by going the exact speed limit in the passing lane and matching the next lane over's speed... and I maybe see one ticket every 2-4 years. A decent trade-off to be able to get around faster (measurably, especially if you take freeways or drive during non-peak periods).

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

I have heard that there are a number of studies that prove that the red light cameras actually cause more accidents then they prevent. This is due to people slamming on their brakes the second the light turns yellow while the guy behind sped up to catch the light not thinking the person in front was about to slam on the brakes.

Completely true and backed by numerous studies. However the current dogma is that rear-endings (caused by slamming on the brakes) are less harmful/fatal than t-bones (caused by running lights), therefore the cameras stay.

Of course, if we want to bring up the jurisdictions that have shortened yellow light durations just to increase ticket revenues (and consequently INCREASED accidents), it would blow a hole in the "don't speed if you don't want to get caught, it's about safety and not a cash grab" argument.. so we'll just avoid that inconvenient truth.

[Calgarian]

That reminds me, I was going to look up studies that show red light cameras cause more accidents. Here you go, not sure of the credibility, but the are the top results from google.

http://blog.motorists.org/red-light-...that-prove-it/
http://www.thestar.com/News/GTA/article/347197
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2008/03/new-study-says/
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp

[MichaelS]

Originally Posted by freeweed

Of course, if we want to bring up the jurisdictions that have shortened yellow light durations just to increase ticket revenues (and consequently INCREASED accidents), it would blow a hole in the "don't speed if you don't want to get caught, it's about safety and not a cash grab" argument.. so we'll just avoid that inconvenient truth.

While those jurisdictions do exist, Calgary is not one of them. I remember reading (and it was years ago in Car and Driver magazine so not exactly a scientific paper) that many towns/cities in the States had private companies install their cameras. The companies were paid a commission for every ticket they issued, so they decreased the yellow time in order to get more revenue.

[Me&You]

One thing Calgary does seem guilty of is artificially low speed limits on some of the major routes.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Me&You

One thing Calgary does seem guilty of is artificially low speed limits on some of the major routes.

Or having some major routes (memorial drive) where the speed limit is very inconsistent.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Or having some major routes (memorial drive) where the speed limit is very inconsistent.

That too.

Pet peeve is the nearly constant photo radar on Memorial WB just a couple hundred metres from where the speed ups to 70 from 50

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Or having some major routes (memorial drive) where the speed limit is very inconsistent.

McKnight/John Laurie isn't much better.

[DizzyEdge]

I'd be very curious what the threshold for speeding is on those cameras.

Personally I'd support cameras for running red lights at every intersection in the city, but just as running red lights is extremely unsafe, the speed threshold should also be in the range of 'unsafe'.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I'd be very curious what the threshold for speeding is on those cameras.

Personally I'd support cameras for running red lights at every intersection in the city, but just as running red lights is extremely unsafe, the speed threshold should also be in the range of 'unsafe'.

You have to be going at least 10 kmh over, maybe more. I think that's a reasonable threshhold, even though it may be possible to drive safely at a speed a little bit higher than that.

[DizzyEdge]

Originally Posted by You Need A Thneed

You have to be going at least 10 kmh over, maybe more. I think that's a reasonable threshhold, even though it may be possible to drive safely at a speed a little bit higher than that.

I think 20% would be appropriate.

so if you're going 65 in a 50 zone you get a ticket.

But if you're going 115 in a 100 you wouldn't.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I think 20% would be appropriate.

so if you're going 65 in a 50 zone you get a ticket.

But if you're going 115 in a 100 you wouldn't.

I think that would be reasonable, but this is a cash grab, so they are going to set the tolerance as low as possible without having to take every ticket to court, so I would guess the 10% is more likely.

[You Need A Thneed]

Originally Posted by DizzyEdge

I think 20% would be appropriate.

so if you're going 65 in a 50 zone you get a ticket.

But if you're going 115 in a 100 you wouldn't.

20% is pretty reasonable, but at least 10kmh over. 20% over in a 30kmh playgoround zone is only 36 kmh.

Conditions affect things as well. In some conditions, the speed limit is the max that is safe. In some conditions, 25-30 kmh over is easily within the realm of safety.

Also, if traffic is going 120 km/h in a 100 zone, going 120 yourself is MUCH safer than driving 100. It's also safer to speed up a bit to move past a vehicle in the right lane quickly than to slowly pass them in the left lane while traffic bunches up behind you.

[freeweed]

The problem with speed limits in general is that they apply to the "average" driver, who isn't completely paying attention to the road and is likely to be in accidents on a frequent basis. Those of us who actually (and provably based on driving records) drive safely at much higher speeds tend to frown upon speed limits as being artificially low. But we have to keep in mind that half of all drivers are below average.

[Ferreth]

Originally Posted by freeweed

The problem with speed limits in general is that they apply to the "average" driver, who isn't completely paying attention to the road and is likely to be in accidents on a frequent basis. Those of us who actually (and provably based on driving records) drive safely at much higher speeds tend to frown upon speed limits as being artificially low. But we have to keep in mind that half of all drivers are below average.

Well put. Although actually, half the drivers would be below the median

I know a couple of people in my personal life that are perfectly fine in other ways, but just don't process / react to driving situations optimally. In both cases, I'd say while they are fine to drive, they should for the most part stick to the speed limit. The bottom ~5% of drivers just need to have their licenses pulled. There are people out there who are either oblivious to the risks they are taking, or have such poor driving skills that they are a hazard regardless of how slow they go.