Photo Radar Back in TO?!

[Rob MacLennan]

Absolutely not. If a cop sees something or is called to assist someone who has, he is a citizen who may exercise the discretion to intervene and enforce a law. Building machines to control people's behaviour is just repression.

I read Bill Blair's comments on this in the newspaper and this is just political blackmail over his budget being capped. When the police can threaten to impose totalitarian systems if they aren't given more money, we have a real problem.

Sounds very much like Blair wants to shift certain costs onto general city coffers, instead of his budget. After hearing his comments live I think that perhaps he should consider a different option: NOT WASTING HIS MEN ON SPEED TRAPS. They don't provide enforcement for anything other than simple speed which, in and of itself, isn't necessarily the worst offence that his officers could be enforcing. I don't see many/any of them sitting at red lights and enforcing that particular law either.

Then there are his comments regarding an expansion of red light camera usage, to cover illegal turns. This is possible via the technology, but is not support by law where the section of the HTA pertaining to what red light cameras can be used for is concerned.

 

[Emefef]

I wonder if Blair would be as supportive if the fine revenue, essentially a tax, was to be directed to road maintenance.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I wonder if Blair would be as supportive if the fine revenue, essentially a tax, was to be directed to road maintenance.

It goes to general revenues already, rather than police budget.

 

[Emefef]

It goes to general revenues already, rather than police budget.

but he can't argue the funds are available if they're earmarked for something else.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

but he can't argue the funds are available if they're earmarked for something else.

His comments essentially pertained to being able to reassign officers from speed traps (a waste of time and resources anyway) and watching for red light runners (which I've never seen officers assigned to at any rate), so that they could be put onto more important duties. It was a meaningless and purely political commentary from Blair.

 

[OMGSelenaGomez]

I am pro photo radar, provided that 20% or less of current speed enforcement done currently is what it's reduced to. If you want to beat the camera's bad enough, it's easy - $120 kit or $30 & have basic training in electronics / electrical.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

I am pro photo radar, provided that 20% or less of current speed enforcement done currently is what it's reduced to. If you want to beat the camera's bad enough, it's easy - $120 kit or $30 & have basic training in electronics / electrical.

... and illegal to have on your car/bike, whether you use it or not.

 

[Malks]

The return of Photo Radar to Ontario is highly unlikely as neither the Liberals or PC would be stupid enough to try to bring it back. The City of Ottawa asked to have it allowed after a unanimous vote by council. However, that request was flatly refused by the McGuinty, (one of the very few smart things this guy has done in all his years in office). The only way Photo Radar would have a chance in Ontario is if the NDP got back into power and, if that happens, we would have far more problems than just the presence of Photo Radar.

 

[conundrum]

I never understood the point of a warning sign for a red-light/speed camera up ahead. What is it's purpose? Is there a law that it's abiding to? The only thing I could think of is some sort of privacy statue stating that we have to be informed if we're being taped/recorded.

The purpose of a red light camera (or a speed camera, if set up 'correctly') is to get people to stop or slow down, depending on the application. The sign warns people that there IS a camera up ahead and if they choose to ignore it they WILL be caught and fined. If they stop or slow down given they saw the sign then great -- the setup served it's purpose. If they fail to read or listen to the sign, then the camera tags them and they get a fine in the mail. Unfortunately though, 9 times out of 10 the cameras are used more for revenue than for safety (esp speed cams), which means hiding them to ambush drivers/riders for barely going over the limit, which is just flat out wrong/stupid.

Although I'm not really for speed cameras (unless they are set up like I mentioned above -- only in areas deemed dangerous at high speed with a history of deaths/accidents, and that are clearly marked/publicly known), I am 100% for red light cameras. There is imo no real reason to ever run a red, with the possible exception of intersections not picking up motorcycles properly.

 

[Rob MacLennan]

The return of Photo Radar to Ontario is highly unlikely as neither the Liberals or PC would be stupid enough to try to bring it back. The City of Ottawa asked to have it allowed after a unanimous vote by council. However, that request was flatly refused by the McGuinty, (one of the very few smart things this guy has done in all his years in office). The only way Photo Radar would have a chance in Ontario is if the NDP got back into power and, if that happens, we would have far more problems than just the presence of Photo Radar.

As I stated previously, Section 205 of the Highway Traffic Act was never repealed. Individual Townships, Regions, towns and cities do not need the permission of the Provincial government in order to make use of it, within their borders. It could be put up in every school zone in Caledon tomorrow, for example, if the council decided to do it.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK306

 

[JZ67]

If Toronto is broke, where are we getting the money to do this?

A red light camera costs 100k, I am sure that a photo radar camera will be on the same ball park

The only reason they are honest about revenue generation is because they are using that argument to justify the expense, however if we are broke, we are broke, there is no money for nice things that may or may not return the capital invested

It was reported on the news that our Red Light cameras already have the ability to perform photo radar services as well. Just a matter of turning on that portion of the unit so no additional equipment costs. As for administrative costs, that's probably the rub.

I'm not at all for photo radar, I don't really like red light cameras either. As soon as we accept these gadgets bits of our freedom continue to erode. We don't need big brother as much as big brother needs us.

 

[omnivore]

" We are broke, so we are going to knowingly and willfully remove your chartered rights and freedoms".......and the sheeple said:

"Bahhhhh"

 

[Rob MacLennan]

It was reported on the news that our Red Light cameras already have the ability to perform photo radar services as well. Just a matter of turning on that portion of the unit so no additional equipment costs. As for administrative costs, that's probably the rub.

I'm not at all for photo radar, I don't really like red light cameras either. As soon as we accept these gadgets bits of our freedom continue to erode. We don't need big brother as much as big brother needs us.

While the red light cameras may have the facility for speed enforcement, the hardware might not be legally authorized for that purpose under the HTA.

" We are broke, so we are going to knowingly and willfully remove your chartered rights and freedoms".......and the sheeple said:

"Bahhhhh"

There is no Charter breach.

 

[ZX600]

" We are broke, so we are going to knowingly and willfully remove your chartered rights and freedoms".......and the sheeple said:

"Bahhhhh"

That ship has sailed, look at what happened to teachers and their right to strike - Bits by Bits they are taking our freedoms away.... for the children

 

[Malks]

As I stated previously, Section 205 of the Highway Traffic Act was never repealed. Individual Townships, Regions, towns and cities do not need the permission of the Provincial government in order to make use of it, within their borders. It could be put up in every school zone in Caledon tomorrow, for example, if the council decided to do it.

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90h08_e.htm#BK306

So if this is in fact true, why did the City of Ottawa feel the need to ask the Province for permission to set up Photo Radar in their City? And why did the Premier tell Blair Photo Radar cannot be used in TO?

Perhaps there is a sub-section within Section 205 that gives the Province control over where this technology may be used. That would allow the Section to remain within the HTA, making it more easy to re-introduce it should they grew a pair and decide to bring it back. The list of allowed locations would be very short and only include the words "Not in Ontario".

 

[Rob MacLennan]

So if this is in fact true, why did the City of Ottawa feel the need to ask the Province for permission to set up Photo Radar in their City? And why did the Premier tell Blair Photo Radar cannot be used in TO?

Perhaps there is a sub-section within Section 205 that gives the Province control over where this technology may be used. That would allow the Section to remain within the HTA, making it more easy to re-introduce it should they grew a pair and decide to bring it back. The list of allowed locations would be very short and only include the words "Not in Ontario".

I have no idea why they felt that need. It has been floated in various municipalities, in the past, and was shot down for reasons that didn't include "We aren't allowed." Mississauga was one of them.

My searches find nothing, with respect to limiting the areas where photo RADAR may be used. Keep in mind that the HTA section on photo RADAR states, "The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,...(b) designating areas of Ontario for purposes of subsection 205.1." Barring that designation, and I can't find one, there would be no restriction on its use.

 

[CruisnGrrl]

both photo radar and red light cameras cause more accidents than they stop. britain is actually slowly getting rid of theirs.

 

[FiReSTaRT]

both photo radar and red light cameras cause more accidents than they stop. britain is actually slowly getting rid of theirs.

I drive through a camera-controlled intersection on a daily basis. On a few occasions it changed to amber on me just as I was gonna enter - it gives me good opportunities to practice emergency braking.. On a sad note, came close to getting rear-ended a couple of times

 

[iFly55]

I personally don't mind speeding tickets, but the consequences w.r.t. Insurance scares the bejesus out of me

I'd rather spend $500 in lawyer fees than pay a +1kph ticket of $17.50 (incld. Victim Surcharge + Court Fee)

With State Farm for my first ticket, insurance goes up 20%; consecutive tickets are +10% upto a maximum of three minor tickets (after that your policy is insta-cancelled)

So if you pay $2000yr for insurance, for a +1kph ticket you pay an additional $1200 for the next three years

A second +1kph ticket gets you +$1800 for three years; on the third ticket you're taking the bus

In Europe most photo radars have +20 buffers on freeways, I'm surprised as to how many people actually got out of a speeding ticket from a cop here in Ontario

If the speed limit is too low,get your local councilmen to increase it to reflect the majorities' driving habits