NDP CAN EASILY REDUCE ABUSES OF PHOTO RADAR
But the changes may mean municipalities would have to live with lower revenues
Rachel Notley’s New Democrats could wrap up their review of photo radar in Edmonton and other Alberta municipalities, rightly conclude there’s been rampant abuse, and axe the entire program.
Little or no harm would be done.
Six other Canadian provinces, including Ontario, don’t have photo radar.
Our roads are no safer than the majority of them.
If the Notley government isn’t prepared do that, however, there are steps it can take to properly limit photo radar abuse.
In Edmonton, the city tripled photo radar revenues from $16 million in 2011 to $52 million in 2016, first by secretly dropping the tolerance for speeding by five km/h, then by ramping up photo radar deployment.
By now, some of you are no doubt scoffing and saying, “All you complainers are just cranky speeders whining about getting tickets for your dangerous driving habits. You don’t want a ticket, don’t go over the speed limit.”
This critique is certainly what many local politicians and city officials appear to believe. That’s why they’re not going to limit photo radar. They believe they’re all about the safety and on the side of the angels. I’m going to point out, though, that they’re not completely on the side of their own police chief any more. Just last week, Edmonton police Chief Rod Knecht spoke against the low 100 km/h limit on the Henday ring road.
“I think the speed limit on the Henday is wrong,” he told reporters. “I think it should be raised . ... I think the state of that roadway, in the summer time in particular, probably 110 (km/h) is not unreasonable . ... I don’t think it would have any impact on public safety at all.”
Various photo radar units “police the heck” out of the Henday, Knecht said, then explained how he had recently driven near the limit on the Henday, but that had been problematic: “It was like I was standing still. Zoom! Zoom! Zoom! I’m almost perhaps contributing to an accident because I’m going so slow.”
The essential issue here, as traffic experts will tell you, is that the safest drivers drive according to arterial road conditions with the flow of traffic, not way below it or way above it. But if the speed limit is set well below that safe flow, such as on the Henday, the vast majority of drivers will be driving safely, but they’re still going to get zapped by the city’s array of Henday photo radar honey pots.
This was never the purpose of photo radar. It was brought in 20 years ago to hammer dangerous, reckless drivers who rocket through traffic, not penalize the herd of safe drivers.
So what to do?
Two reforms are crucial. Right now, the province allows photo radar in high collision areas and in places with high pedestrian traffic. This makes sense. But
The safest drivers drive according to arterial road conditions with the flow of traffic, not way below it or way above it.
regulations also allow for radar in places where there is a “high frequency” of speeding.
When traffic is flowing smoothly on an arterial road like the Henday, the vast majority of drivers are technically speeding. This is where the abuse occurs and it’s why this “high frequency” category has to go. If there’s no history of high collisions and no major pedestrian traffic in an area, photo radar isn’t needed. Manned police radar and police ghost cars can still pick out and hammer the worst offenders.
The new regulation should also stipulate that before a photo radar operator stakes out a high collision area on a road, the municipality must first set up a clearly marked warning sign, namely a portable digital speed feedback sign, the kind that the City of Edmonton is now investing in heavily.
These feedback signs tell drivers how fast they’re going and actually work in that moment to get them to slow down.
“I think that’s a great notion,” says Wildrose justice critic Angela Pitt, who has been leading the charge to end photo radar abuse. “That’s an immediate feedback, as opposed to the ticket you get in the mail three weeks later.
“If you want behaviour that’s what you have to do . ... A properly marked school zone is going to change my behaviour. Those mobile signs that flash the speed limit, those are going to change my behaviour.”
Drivers don’t need to be hammered to drive safely. A few obvious reminders in key places will do the trick for the vast majority. Of course, this approach won’t enrich local governments, but that was never supposed to be the purpose of photo radar.