Noise camera? Really

[GreyGhost]

Forum Sponsor

I hope this is actually something that catches on...

Some canadian muncipalities have installed them. They were a dumpster fire as expected. Far more effective to run a manned blitz as you can get many of the offenders in a short period of time and those tickets are quite hard to beat.

 

[nobbie48]

Some canadian muncipalities have installed them. They were a dumpster fire as expected. Far more effective to run a manned blitz as you can get many of the offenders in a short period of time and those tickets are quite hard to beat.

I would prefer the blitz with heavy fines over lots of iffy charges with light fines.

 

[FullMotoJacket]

Exactly.

This isn't interfering with our rights in any way, and if you're truly concerned with surveillance, or surveillance capitalism (depending on your ideological bent) then the devices we're using to access and respond to this needs to go in the dumpster (or shredder).

Why throw out the device that you can use to beat them at their own game? Sounds like a baby/bathwater scenario to me.

 

[GreyGhost]

I would prefer the blitz with heavy fines over lots of iffy charges with light fines.

Forget fines, just pull plates. Make them get a safety to put them back on the road. The chance they do a double exhaust swap is low.

 

[ToSlow]

Why throw out the device that you can use to beat them at their own game? Sounds like a baby/bathwater scenario to me.

Is that waze?

 

[nobbie48]

Forget fines, just pull plates. Make them get a safety to put them back on the road. The chance they do a double exhaust swap is low.

A variation on HTA 172. If a police officer isn't a licensed mechanic, is he qualified to judge? Therefore, punishment before conviction.

 

[Scuba Steve]

A variation on HTA 172. If a police officer isn't a licensed mechanic, is he qualified to judge? Therefore, punishment before conviction.

The mto has always been able to pull plates on vehicles that don't meet standards.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

 

[nobbie48]

The mto has always been able to pull plates on vehicles that don't meet standards.

Sent from my Pixel 5 using Tapatalk

I agree it is common but there are grey areas where the judgement could be challenged if the challenger had enough money. Has HTA 172 been to the supreme court?

 

[GreyGhost]

A variation on HTA 172. If a police officer isn't a licensed mechanic, is he qualified to judge? Therefore, punishment before conviction.

For municipalities that have a quantitative test (ie sound measurement) or if exhaust is marked off-road or competition only, you don't need to be a mechanic to document a fail.

 

[adri]

If the dollars don't/can't workout and the charges can't stick that's a serious and separate issue, but I don't have a problem with targeted enforcement.

I travelled through Ottawa going to Gatineau twice last year and each time I got a photo radar generated ticket for 60 and 62 in a 50. It seems to me to be a chintzy ticket, but I got the message and will avoid that route or piddle along at 40 just to be safe.

Was the camera not on Waze? If you're not sure, maybe the message was just: "Use Waze"?

As for noise cameras, yes, popular in Europe. Luckily my bike there has Ontario plates so I just roll right by.

 

[Lash]

Didn’t they try that at the forks a while ago..? Could have made a fortune..

 

[xrljoel]

Was the camera not on Waze? If you're not sure, maybe the message was just: "Use Waze"?

As for noise cameras, yes, popular in Europe. Luckily my bike there has Ontario plates so I just roll right by.

I don't like wayze. Too often in Ottawa the route changes as we're heading to to Quebec. My wife likes it, so we'll try it next time.

 

[Robp]

I don't like wayze. Too often in Ottawa the route changes as we're heading to to Quebec. My wife likes it, so we'll try it next time.

Ha, my partner and I are the opposite. I used Waze exclusively, but then it literally sent us in a circle while in Cambridge one time. After that incident, my partner always shat on it. So we compromised with Google, even though it's the same data.

 

[Mad Mike]

I'm not disagreeing with targeting enforcement (if set at a reasonable threshold). This specific way of conducting enforcement has major issues. In short, like the old days of radar where the number shown would sometimes be from a different vehicle, if someone is exceedingly loud far away, there is a chance that the ticket goes to the person that is close as that's the one the camera saw. In a group, distinguishing between vehicles is almost impossible. Two vehicles in different directions are possible to distinguish if they do the math but I'm not sure any of the cameras bother. Distance to camera makes a huge difference on measured sound level, are they looking for an exceedance at the camera or trying to use math to back this up to a standard distance? Nothing is insurmountable but the camera companies just need things good enough to get money from municipalities. In practice, a split system (say on two consecutive light poles) has many advantages and a higher chance of properly isolating the offending vehicle. Afaik, nobody sells a system like that.

If I were King, I’d farm out traffic ticketing to companies who can manually operate cameras. I’d let the public decide where they get stationed, not the CFO for the municipality.

• Speeding
• Red lights and stop signs
• Distracted driving (cell phones, makeup)

Other things I’d do:

• Reduce to near zero traffic enforcement by police (it’s not a job that should cost taxpayers $200/hr)
• Increase fines to make them a deterrent
• Apply fines indiscriminately - to pedestrians, cyclists and farm vehicles who break the law.

Forum Sponsor