Photo Radar-Speed limits and Project TENSOR.

1) What is your stance on photo radar? Should there be more of it, less of it, only in school zones, or none at all?

I personally am not a fan of photo radar, but the stated principles of the program are reasonable. These guiding principles include:

1. Transportation safety, not revenue generation, must be the objective of Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) programs in the province.

2. Police services, in collaboration with municipalities, are responsible to ensure ATE programs are used to improve traffic safety outcomes.

3. Ongoing evaluation of ATE programs will ensure they improve traffic safety outcomes.

4. Public transparency is paramount for the success of photo radar programs.

Impact on Safety 

An independent study in Alberta over a 10-year period found that that photo radar was responsible for:

• 1.4% reduction in traffic collision rates

• 5.3% reduction in the proportion of fatal collisions

What the numbers also tell us is that these percentages are significantly weighted with higher speeds and not the lower speeds. Lower speeds contributed to a marginal return i.e.driving 62 in a 50 zone had a marginal impact versus a 70 in 50 zones. 

What are other communities doing

We are seeing communities across North America reversing the use of photo radar. 

My Issues with photo radar 

1. Intent: The tickets my family tends to get are ones where you are passing one-speed zone to the next and fail to realize or you are just entering a yellow light. These kinda feel like gotcha moments and we feel jaded from the intent of these principles. 

2. School zones: I think people universally would share the belief that reduced speed in school zones is desired for all parties. Again, I am not sure about you, but when I enter a neighborhood I am not familiar with I have found myself in the middle of the school zone without realizing it and having to pump my brakes to slow down. (I am driving 45 in a 30 zone). If this is the case for other people, photo radar would not have made that situation safer. 

3. Sudden Braking: cameras contribute to rear-end collisions caused by sudden braking and that the enforcement is not transparent. 

4. Cameras are placed in high-traffic areas and if private companies share in the revenues from the tickets they generate, this can create an incentive to place the cameras in high-traffic areas.

Solutions

I think we could make some changes to bridge the gap between proponents and opponents. 

Those changes would include:

1. Viewing the ticket as a luxury tax.

2. Revenue is only used for community-driven projects (that benefit the residents). Playgrounds, homelessness, community leagues, etc. 

3. Separating human error versus intention. Tickets that clearly demonstrate intent should be fined. Driving 70 in a 50 zone versus 61 may help separate intent. This would also pertain to yellow/red lights.

4. Installing removable speed bumps (due to the winter) in school zones.

5. China uses a count down which to me seems brilliant, but I am not advocating that we go switch all of our lights (due to cost).

6. Fines are given a % of grace with either no fine or a much reduced fine. Fines increase incrementally over the course of the year. 

7. Persons who are chronic offenders have to take defensive driving tests.

8. People who drive below the speed limit are flagged on photo radar. 

2) What is your stance on the 40kph speed limit on Jasper, Whyte, and residential? Should be 50, 40 is good, or should all be 30?

I think school zones should have speed bumps and force the drivers at  30 km/hr. I think Jasper, Whyte Ave, and residential should be 40 km/hr. 

Areas that have higher foot traffic or cyclists should have a reduced speed. According to the Canadian Association of Road Safety Professionals (CARSP). If a pedestrian or cyclist is hit by a car by a car going 30 km/h, they have a 90 percent chance of surviving. If the car is going 50 km/h, they have a less than 20 percent chance of surviving.

3) What is your stance on vehicle noise and project TENSOR? Not enough enforcement, good as-is, or kill the checkpoints and focus on actual incidents of "stunting" and not just modified vehicles?

The Dutch city of Rotterdam did a study and found that  3% of drivers – about 100 vehicles – were responsible for 100% of excess noise that was measured.

This is probably the case with Edmonton, with 97% of vehicles being compliant. 

The 5-month pilot project in 2020 was conclusive that the cost-benefit of running the TENSOR enforcement cameras did not pay for itself and that human intervention was more effective.  

Because this represents a minority of drivers, it may be best that we move away from high infrastructure monitoring and financial fines (which I interpret as a luxury tax) and we actually just solve the problem. It may be more prudent to translate noncompliance identified by police with more impactful consequences. 

Solution

In Ghent Belgium, drivers who breach noise limits have their vehicle impounded for 72 hours and must bear the cost of towing and storage. The local population has reported they are satisfied with the outcomes.