Driver Attitude and Automated Enforcement

The folks that complain about automated tickets are those not following the safe standards of the majority. Oh, the folks that make it necessary to pay for enforcement as they feel entitled to flaunt the rules of society that are there to make society safe. Hmmm.

Perhaps they should also turn off the daytime running lights, rip out their seat belts, disable their airbags, and be prepared to pay their own medical bills after an incident.

I am all for any method that will reduce excessive speeds on our highways.

Your comment about no-fault insurance really got me angry and I have waited a few hours to cool down so that I wouldn’t say anything I would later regret. Collision reduction and no-fault are not mutually exclusive topics and can be used in concert to lower our insurance costs.

Unfortunately, no fault is not very well understood by the vast majority of the population and I have a feeling that while you may know more than some, you may not know as much as you should if you are going to make off the cuff remarks such as the one in your Newsletter.

We already have a no-fault insurance plan but the benefits are very limited and not adequate in most circumstances. People understand photo radar as a law enforcement tool and are against it as a matter of principle. Similarly, they are against no-fault. Not because they understand it, but because they have heard negative comments and so, it must be a bad thing.

If you want an insurance system that under-compensates severely, even catastrophically, injured victims, puts ridiculous amounts of money in the hands of lawyers, over-compensates mild injuries, then do nothing because you have it.

A no-fault insurance plan can be anything you want it to be. Take look at the plans currently in place in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Quebec just for openers and compare the benefits available for the victims of MVAs.

Sorry for going on at length, but I’m really just getting started.

With police resources stretched to the limit, technology could have a role in reducing crashes. If people know a camera will be watching them at intersections they will be less likely to run a red light. Speed enforcement on highways by camera, most people will keep a slower speed because they do not want to "get caught".

Mandatory breath testing for everyone, all police cars should have the technology to test every driver without evidence of consumption. Lives can be saved, nobodies rights will be violated...

Photo radar? Yes! Everywhere!

But, operated by Radar Technicians instead of highly paid & over qualified police regulars.

I'm not sure I like the idea that a computer that will estimate "calculate" that I will speed using my average speed over a set distance.

It's cheap policing I understand, and nothing more than a cash grab. You're not really policing, you're only using fear tactics on motorists.

The driving habits don't change, I see it daily.

If you really want to do something retest people every five or ten years, when they don't pass the retest it may hit home, the bonus is that there will be less bad drivers on the road.

A few years ago a friend on vacation drove through Calgary about 3 AM.  He wasn't aware that they had Photo Radar and was somewhat surprised when he got 4 or 5 tickets mailed to him.  Did he whine and moan? No.  He did it and he paid the tickets.  Maybe I should mention that he is an RCMP officer.

But no matter.  The point was that he simply took responsibility for his own actions and this, along with ability, maturity, courtesy and a host of other things, appears to be severely lacking in our society.

However, I must say that I do have a problem with "speed limits".  Speed is only one factor in a mix of factors that result in overall risk.  Weather, road surface (wet, dry, ice), visibility (day/night, fog), traffic volume and congestion,  tire condition, vehicle condition, driver alertness/ability .... and the list goes on, all contribute.  But "speed" is the only easily measurable factor. As such, it alone is the enforcement of choice by the revenue collectors.

Furthermore, speed limits are often set abnormally low due to political pressure and other factors that have nothing to do with road engineering.  When this happens, the violation rate rises and the tax man thinks they've found a Midas treasure.

Let's take an example from my younger days around 1962 when I was into Rally Driving.  I was heading Eastbound from Cache Creek on Hwy 1 and the road was sheet ice.  As I recall, the posted limit was 60 MPH and I came upon an RCMP patrol car slipping and sliding at about 40.  I flashed my headlights, pulled out to pass and maintained just under 60 (I was maintaining a set average speed) and a ways further noticed the RCMP car had his overheads lit up.  Assuming he'd had a call, I carried on to be stopped in a road block about 10 miles short of Kamloops.  Asked if I'd passed an RCMP car, I said yes and was ordered to remain.  The officer I'd passed finally got there and issued a ticket for "unsafe driving".  Being somewhat choked over this, I chose to return a few weeks later to the Kamloops Traffic Court to fight the ticket.

The Officer gave his testimony about how I'd passed him on very slippery, treacherous roads then it was my turn to ask questions.  "Was my car slipping and sliding?"  "No."  "Was I exceeding the posted speed limits?"  "No, not that I could see."  "So, on what basis do you say my driving was unsafe?"  And so it went until the old Judge interjected and asked how I had control when the Officer didn't.  "Studded tires, your Honour ..."  "What?"  "Tires with metal studs sir ...."

As a competitive Rally Driver, I was running Pirelli radials when most cars of the day had bias ply tires.  Being a Winter Rally, my Tire Shop had punched about 250 studs into the fronts and maybe 350 into the rears.  They were a little skitterish on dry pavement but on the ice, they were like my normal tires on a wet road .... and quite controllable.  Next I know, the old Judge calls a recess and I've got him in the passenger seat buzzing around downtown Kamloops including a couple of icy parking lots.  Back in the courtroom ..... "Case dismissed!"  Oh yes, I had to give the Judge the name of my tire shop.  I was grinning all the way home ....

But back to the topic ..... My opinion is that Red Light cameras cause rear-end collisions far too often due to constant tail-gaters.  Photo Radar takes into account nothing but "speed" most of which, are too low for much of the day.  Used in say, School Zones .... fine but out on the open road, especially at the bottom of a hill, nothing more than a tax grab.

BTW - 100 MPH never did sound as inflammatory as 160 KPH.

I totally agree with your comments on selfishness and attitudes regarding the letter to the editor and Red Light Camera.

What amazes me is that the letter writer doesn’t take responsibility for his actions. He is fortunate that someone didn’t blow through the intersection at 90 k plus and T-bone his vehicle.

I’ve seen people hang back from a red light and accelerate on timing of green. A very foolish practice but done not infrequently.

If he truly was not a risk taker, he would not have entered the intersection on a yellow light and thus would never have received a penalty.

Sadly, this type of attitude is not completely rare and is a partial reflection of why our insurance rates are so high.

For me a deeper question remains. “ How do we change the attitude and habits of the majority of people to become safe and courteous drivers?”

Is this possible?

Much as the people in charge of traffic management in Nanaimo might like to say, "Thanks for your letter, Mr. Parker", it would not be politically wise for them to do so.  Below is some of what they might say. 

Mr. Parker, you state in your letter that you were not about to take any chances - however, the fact that your vehicle violated a red light shows that you are taking chances that you don't recognize.  Perhaps the most significant chance you overlooked was the possibility that one of those opposing drivers might take the same kind of chance you took. The reason that they didn't might well be because they didn't want to get the red light ticket that you got.

So, Mr. Parker, be thankful that the red light camera had two effects; it contributed to keeping you and your family safe from other errant drivers and it also brought your attention to a change that we hope you will make.

My experience with automated enforcement of traffic laws, both direct and second hand, is based upon my experience both in Canada and Europe. In B.C. back in the 1990’s I grew accustomed to seeing the photo radar vans parked idling at the side of the highway, particularly on Hwy 1 in the eastern Fraser Valley and the Coquihalla highway, particularly on clear, dry days. While this undoubtedly generated significant revenue the safety benefits of issuing speeding tickets weeks after the fact for 11+ kph over the under posted speed limit (note the speed limits on those highways have now been properly raised to more reasonable levels) is debatable at best. A marked police car at the roadside would slow down traffic far more effectively, but then there’s no financial return on that strategy is there?

Do I sound cynical? Well please consider the following comparison: Edmonton and Ottawa are two similar Canadian cities in terms of population, four season climate etc. Ottawa has no photo radar, while Edmonton has the most intensive array of automated speed enforcement in the country. Edmonton’s traffic fatality rate per 100,000 population is 2.92, while Ottawa’s is a lower 2.85. Ottawa also has a lower collision and injury rate, all the while issuing less than 10% of the speeding tickets that Edmonton does according to the following source: No Photo Radar in Ontario - Ever (statistical source references are noted at webpage bottom). If speed enforcement and slowing traffic were the defining factors they are purported to be, then Edmonton should be the safest City in Canada. Edmonton’s city government of course argues that their safety statistics are trending down, proving they are on the right track. They fail to mention that the same is true across Canada in general where few jurisdictions employ automated speed enforcement, and none to the extent that Edmonton does.

On a recent driving trip in France, where speed cameras are marked and visible if you’re observant, I noticed none on narrow country roads (where crash risk is high) but on straight, faster highways, where statistically crash rates are lower, a camera could be spotted every 10 to 15 kilometres (online camera maps confirmed this). Again, this strategy will certainly catch more speeders than placing cameras on slower, windy, more dangerous roads, but this is not an effective safety strategy.

Simply slowing traffic on well designed roads misses the point of safety, much as a placebo misses the point of good health outcomes, and our government’s preoccupation with speeding causes scarce public resources to be misapplied. Yes there is an unquestioned need to control speed in congested, urban environments. To say otherwise is just deceiving oneself, but high levels of enforcement on many of our country’s well designed highways, whether automated or done with police only allows government to give the appearance of addressing traffic safety when in fact little if anything is accomplished.

I believe that advanced driver training, such as that required in Germany for example, would be a far more productive policy tool. According to the World Health Organization, List of Countries by Traffic Related Death Rate - Canada has a traffic death rate per billion vehicle miles driven of 6.2 while Germany enjoys a rate of 4.9 - this in a country with unrestricted speeds on rural sections of their famous autobahn highway network. Traffic safety is a complex and serious issue, but the speed kills message, which justifies proponents of automated speed enforcement as well as more conventional anti-speed campaigns, while valid in some limited circumstances, does a gross disservice to the overall advancement of road safety.