[liferanger]

Yep, the above is correct. According to the paper today, as of Wednesday, the Alberta Govt will introduce legislation to amend the Traffic Safety Act to allow law enforcement agencies to also fine motorists for speeding through intersections via the red light cameras.....The cameras in use at current time are all capable of detecting speed, which is printed on the red light tickets you get. This legislation would now allow the govt to give a speeding ticket as well.

What are your thoughts???

[mattropolis]

Good idea.

[feepa]

I'm not able to find anything online about this yet... found link... posting in next post

If this is true, its another cash cow. Rob from the poor, and take a bit from the rich.

This just punishes the poor, and allows the rich to drive as fast (and careless) as they want. If they want to stop poor driving, and speeding, etc. ENFORCEMENT BY ACTUAL OFFICERS OF THE LAW. TAKE AWAY DEMERIT POINTS. Taking my picture, and sending me a photo in the mail when I'm rich just proves how fast I did go. Thanks for my picture, heres $xxx.xx.

I know that I'm more scared of losing demerit points off my licence and losing my licence then having some fine come in the mail with little to no penalty besides a fine.

I guess being rich, you can pay to drive as fast as you want.

Is there any point to even having a points and demerit system anymore when cops rarely pull anyone over anymore?

[feepa]

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Alberta/2007/03/04/3695325.html

Red light cams to catch speeders

Expanding use of photo radar on Tory agenda

By CP

EDMONTON — Changes to broaden the use of photo radar and the creation of Alberta’s first lobbyist registry are among the goals for the first session of the legislature since Ed Stelmach became premier.

Among 50 pieces of legislation on the agenda for the spring sitting, which starts Wednesday, is a bill that will allow red-light cameras to also be used to catch drivers who speed through intersections.

Photo radar was a divisive issue during the Conservative leadership race last fall, with Stelmach calling for more of it while Lyle Oberg — who is now finance minister — denounced it as a “cash cow.”

Photo radar has also been a hot issue in other provinces. Ontario scrapped it in 1995, and British Columbia did the same in 2001. In Alberta, it’s only allowed within municipalities, not on provincial highways.

NDP house leader Ray Martin says he expects some Albertans will bristle at the idea of more photo radar on the streets.

“I think they would probably see it as Big Brother,” said Martin. “I would prefer to have more police.”

Another bill would tighten conflict-of-interest rules, including an extended cooling-off period for ministers and senior government officials after they leave government.

Changes to the Mental Health Act would allow more involuntary admissions of people with serious mental health problems.

Amendments to the Police Act would allow the province to set up an agency with the power to investigate highly sensitive matters involving police, including incidents where someone has been seriously hurt or killed.

[vid]

There is actually a pretty simple way to keep all of your money: Don't speed!

WOW! Imagine that! :rolleyes:

[feepa]

There is actually a pretty simple way to keep all of your money: Don't speed!

WOW! Imagine that! :rolleyes:

Well I completely agree with you, you still miss the point of what I'm trying to say. When you're rich, who cares if you get a fine in the mail with no other punitive action taken against you? Being rich shouldn't be a licence to speed.

EDIT: Maybe fines from photo radar/red light cameras should be based on a certain percentage of what your reported income was the previous year or maybe overall net worth.

[vid]

Well then that would be discrimination. Penalizing rich people harder just because they're rich and 'can handle it' is wrong.

[feepa]

Well then that would be discrimination. Penalizing rich people harder just because they're rich and 'can handle it' is wrong.

What about just getting back to regular enforcement? Demerit points + fine

[vid]

Now that's fairer.

But having the cameras leaves police to deal with more important issues than speeding as well.

[SHOFEAR]

Gonna have to prove to me that this is in the interest of public safety and not for revenues.

[vid]

Gonna have to prove to me that this is in the interest of public safety and not for revenues.

Is it ever in the interest of public safety? I don't have any figures but I'm sure I read somewhere that most car accidents happen in parking lots.

If they would use the revenues to fund police and lower taxes a bit (preferable middle class or business income taxes) that would be great. The highest payed public servant in Thunder Bay is the chief of police, making almost 2.5 times as much as the mayor. And yet the police have only recently moved to a secure radio frequency.

I'm sure many cities in Canada have a similar situation, no?

[SHOFEAR]

If they would use the revenues to fund police and lower taxes a bit (preferable middle class or business income taxes) that would be great.

Or a gaint fund to help pay for the lawsuits regarding corruption and brutality the asshats at the EPS have faced on a weekly basis for the past couple of years.

How can you trust people like this?

OFFICERS ABUSED LAWYER'S SON: LAWSUIT CLAIMS
Matt Engel Strip-Searched But Not Charged EDMONTON -- Edmonton police officers detained and strip-searched the son of Edmonton defence lawyer Tom Engel after they threw away the evidence -- a marijuana cigarette -- of his alleged crime, according to a lawsuit filed Tuesday. The statement of claim also alleges officers physically and emotionally abused Matt Engel, never read him his rights and refused the 22-year-old's repeated requests to call a lawyer. After the strip search, he was released with no charges. "The level of force used by the defendants ... was wholly unnecessary and excessive, and was motivated by their animosity towards ( Matt Engel's ) father and their own personal amusement rather than any legitimate law enforcement purpose," the lawsuit states. The lawsuit's allegations have not been proven in court and no statement of defence has been filed. In the statement of claim, Matt Engel admits he was smoking a marijuana cigarette in an alley behind the Strathcona Hotel on Feb. 25, 2005, when he was approached by three police officers. One of the officers asked for the cigarette and Engel gave it to them. Edmonton police have the discretion whether to lay charges for small amounts of marijuana and the lawsuit states the officers decided not to charge Engel and threw away the marijuana cigarette. But after discarding the marijuana, one of the officers asked Engel to submit to a search. He initially declined but then relented and emptied his pockets, including his identification. Once the police officers realized they were dealing with the son of Tom Engel, who is well known to police in Edmonton, it is alleged his head was slammed against the wall, he was handcuffed and one of the officers pressed his thumb under Engel's ear in a deliberate attempt to cause pain. Engel was taken to the Strathcona police station. At the station, one of the officers "made a deliberate show of putting on rubber gloves for the sole purpose of intimidating and frightening Engel and causing him to believe that he was about to be subjected to a highly intrusive body cavity search." Engel asked to call a lawyer but his request was denied, the lawsuit says. All his clothes, with the exception of his underwear, was removed. The strip search ended when another police officer intervened, the lawsuit states. Engel's clothes were returned to him, he was locked in a cell and then released without charge. After learning of the incident, Tom Engel made a Freedom of Information request for all documents related to his son's arrest. In direct response to the FOI request, one of the officers named in the statement of claim created a memo for his commanding officer outlining his version of events. In the April 29, 2005, memo, Const. Bill Allen said he and two officers saw a male who appeared to be serving as a lookout for another male who was smoking what he believed to be a joint. The smoker threw the joint down. "From the start the male seemed to come across as not being happy to being dealt with by police," the memo states. "He questioned the fact that we were speaking to him at all about the drugs and from his standpoint the possession of drugs was not against the law." Allen said Engel was told he was under arrest for the possession of drugs and he would be searched. Engel was also told he would be searched for other drugs unless he voluntarily handed over any drugs he may be holding. "Engel said he would not hand over anything and that he would not allow a search without being able to exercise his right to speak to legal council prior to the search," the memo says. Engel was taken to the police station and, according to Allen, was informed "the search would take place with or without his approval. "He then assisted in the search of his person which did not produce any further drugs." Engel was then asked if he wanted to speak to a lawyer or if he wished to leave, and he opted to leave. Erika Norheim, the lawyer for Matt Engel, noted that Allen's memo was created from memory more than two months after the arrest since he acknowledges he took no notes.

[vid]

Well if they didn't throw away the evidence first..

Maybe you need more experienced cops?

[SHOFEAR]

Well if they didn't throw away the evidence first..

Maybe you need more experienced cops?


Matt Engel's father is the top criminal lawyer in the city and he has called out, as well been a very outspoken critic of the police.

A police force that deals with outspoken people by roughing up their son scares the hell out of me. Unfortunatly it's not the only attempt to shut up critics. They are still dealing with a botched sting where they targeted an outspoken member of the media at a bar hoping he would drive home drunk.

[drew]

The cameras in use at current time are all capable of detecting speed, which is printed on the red light tickets you get. This legislation would now allow the govt to give a speeding ticket as well.

What are your thoughts???

When they brought in red-light cameras in Winnipeg a couple years back, they never made a single hint or mention that the cameras also happened to record the speed of cars as well as red-light infractions.

As soon as they were installed and operational, the police made sure to mention "oh yeah, and the cameras also record your speed, so slow down".

I would wager that since they have been working here in Winnipeg, about 99% of the tickets generated are speeding related. You REALLY have to try hard to get an actual "red-light" ticket.

[Thunderball]

Ridiculous cashcow. This won't solve anything... as some have mentioned, rich people will happily pay the luxury tax to speed without consequences, while we have a society getting perilously close to fascism on SPEEDING, while real crimes are increasing with no outrage from society by form of demanding aggressive change, be that stiffer penalties, or more aggressive studies into the root causes of crime in our society... plus, is it just me, or could this lead to more accidents at intersections with people frantically slamming the brakes to avoid a fine?


I wonder how adamant the police associations would be on the "dangers" of going 10 over the speed limit, and the requirements of all this "big brother" tech, if all the monies went to the provincial coffers instead of to them. My bet is they would only focus on serious traffic infractions and serious crime and promote decent parenting.

[vid]

What is Alberta's policy on yellow lights? In Ontario you have to stop for them and it's a 70$ fine if you pass them.

[mersar]

At least how I was taught the yellow is a 'stop if you can, but if you can't safely stop continue through without speeding'. The speeding part is what will get a lot of tickets, especially as people tend to speed up to try to beat the yellow.

[liferanger]

You actually recieve a fine of $287 dollars for a yellow light....same as a red in Alberta...

[Slug]

This just punishes the poor, and allows the rich to drive as fast (and careless) as they want

Not if you implement a Finlandesque traffic fine system like this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/1759791.stm).

Been lurking in these forums for some time now :P

[freeweed]

What is Alberta's policy on yellow lights? In Ontario you have to stop for them and it's a 70$ fine if you pass them.

Do you know the section of the highway traffic act that states this? It seems completely opposite to how driving is taught, and in fact defeats the entire purpose of the yellow light in the first place. It might explain why we're seeing more and more people who refuse to enter the intersection when making a left turn and there's oncoming traffic, though...

What do you do if the light turns yellow and you're 20' from the intersection? Again, that's the whole POINT of a yellow light - proceed if it's unsafe to stop, stop when you're far enough back that you're not gunning it to make it through to beat the red.

On speeding tickets - I'll agree. I look at it as basically a more expensive license for those of us who choose to speed. So long as you don't get caught more than once or twice a year, it's not terribly expensive (a few hundred bucks compared to the cost of owning and operating a car?).

[Lyle]

For a province that likes to think it gets government out of people's hair, there sure is a strong streak of authoritarianism...

[lubicon]

Bad idea. Maybe I'd think differently if comebody can show me a study that proves beyond a shodow of a doubt that photo radar has reduced speeding. Until then it's just a cash grab by whichever city decides to implement.

If this passes, I'll have to watch to see how my Alderman votes when it comes time for Calgary to decide if they will start handing out tickets this way. My vote in the next civic election will largely be decide on this matter along with a couple of others. The deciding factor is how my Alderman votes. My vote for or against him will hinge on this.

[Thunderball]

Bad idea. Maybe I'd think differently if comebody can show me a study that proves beyond a shodow of a doubt that photo radar has reduced speeding. Until then it's just a cash grab by whichever city decides to implement.

If this passes, I'll have to watch to see how my Alderman votes when it comes time for Calgary to decide if they will start handing out tickets this way. My vote in the next civic election will largely be decide on this matter along with a couple of others. The deciding factor is how my Alderman votes. My vote for or against him will hinge on this.

If only more people voted like you... we might not have the gaggle of morons that we have... like Colley-Urquhart and her election motorhome.

[You Need A Thneed]

So what if it's a cash cow? The police have to get funding from somewhere. Better out of other peoples' pockets than through my taxes.

[liferanger]

Do you know the section of the highway traffic act that states this? It seems completely opposite to how driving is taught, and in fact defeats the entire purpose of the yellow light in the first place. It might explain why we're seeing more and more people who refuse to enter the intersection when making a left turn and there's oncoming traffic, though...

taken from the rules of the road legislation:

Yellow traffic lights

53(1) When, at an intersection, a yellow light is shown by a traffic control signal at the same time as or following the showing of a green light, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the intersection and facing the yellow light shall stop the vehicle before entering

(a) the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or

(b) if there is not any marked crosswalk, the intersection,

unless the stopping of that vehicle cannot be made in safety.

(2) When, at a place other than an intersection, a yellow light is shown by a traffic control signal at the same time as or following the showing of a green light, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the signal shall stop the vehicle before reaching the closer of

(a) the area that is subject to the signal, or

(b) the nearest crosswalk that is in the vicinity of the signal,

unless the stopping of the vehicle cannot be made in safety.

(3) When, at an intersection, rapid intermittent flashes of yellow light are shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is facing the flashes of yellow light may drive the vehicle into the intersection but shall only proceed to do so with caution and shall yield the right of way

(a) to any pedestrians that are lawfully within the intersection or an adjacent crosswalk, and

(b) to any other vehicles that are lawfully within the intersection.

(4) When, at a place other than an intersection, rapid intermittent flashes of yellow light are shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the signal

(a) may, with caution, drive the vehicle past the signal, but

(b) shall yield the right of way to any pedestrians that are in the roadway or on a crosswalk that is in the vicinity of the signal.

(5) When, at an intersection or other place, rapid intermittent flashes of yellow light are shown together with a sign reading or symbol indicating “school zone”, “playground zone”, “school crossing”, “pedestrian crossing”, “pedestrian zone” or other wording or symbol indicating a pedestrian hazard, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the signal may, with caution, drive the vehicle

(a) across the intersection, or

(b) if at a place other than an intersection, past the sign,

but when so doing

(c) shall not drive the vehicle across the intersection or past the sign at a rate of speed that is greater than 30 kilometres per hour, and

(d) shall yield the right of way to any pedestrians that are in the intersection or on the roadway that is in the vicinity of the sign or signal.

Red traffic lights

54(1) When, at an intersection, a red light is shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the intersection and facing the red light

(a) shall stop the vehicle

(i) immediately before the marked crosswalk that is on the near side of the intersection, or

(ii) if there is not any marked crosswalk, then immediately before the intersection,

and

(b) shall not, until a traffic control signal instructs the person that the person is permitted to do so, drive the vehicle so that the vehicle or any portion of the vehicle is

(i) across the marked crosswalk and into the intersection, or

(ii) if there is not any marked crosswalk, into the intersection.

(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), unless a traffic control device prohibits a right turn from being made on the red light, a person driving a vehicle may turn the vehicle and proceed right at the intersection if that person first stops the vehicle and yields the right of way

(a) to any pedestrians that are in the intersection, and

(b) to any vehicles that are in or approaching the intersection.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), at the intersection of 2 one-way streets, a person driving a vehicle may, unless a traffic control device otherwise directs or prohibits a left turn from being made on the red light, turn the vehicle and proceed left at the intersection, if the driver first stops and yields the right of way

(a) to any pedestrians that are in the intersection, and

(b) to any vehicles that are in or approaching the intersection.

(4) When, at a place other than an intersection, a red light is shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the signal shall stop the vehicle before reaching the closer of the signal or the nearest crosswalk, if any, that is in the vicinity of the signal.

(5) When, at an intersection, rapid intermittent flashes of red light are shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the intersection and facing the flashes of red light

(a) shall stop the vehicle

(i) immediately before the marked crosswalk on the near side of the intersection, or

(ii) if there is not any marked crosswalk, immediately before the intersection,

and

(b) shall not drive the vehicle into the intersection so that the vehicle or any portion of the vehicle is in the intersection until it is safe to do so.

(6) When, at a place other than an intersection, rapid intermittent flashes of red light are shown by a traffic control signal, a person driving a vehicle that is approaching the signal,

(a) shall stop the vehicle

(i) immediately before reaching the signal, or

(ii) if there is a crosswalk in the vicinity of the signal, immediately before entering the nearest crosswalk,

and

(b) may drive the vehicle past the signal and across the crosswalk, if any,

(i) after having stopped the vehicle, and

(ii) if the pedestrian traffic that is located in the roadway or, if there is a crosswalk in the vicinity of the signal, the crosswalk is such that the vehicle can proceed with safety.

(7) When, at an intersection, an amber light in the shape of a “T” or an “I” on a dark background and a red light are shown at the same time by a traffic control signal, a person driving a municipal transit bus or other vehicle to which that “T” or “I” signal applies may drive the bus or vehicle through the intersection in the traffic lane that is governed by the “T” or “I” signal so long as there are not any pedestrians or vehicles that are within the intersection that would obstruct that bus or that other vehicle from proceeding through the intersection.

[freeweed]

So essentially what I said - yellow light means you stop, unless you can't safely. If you can stop, and try running it (pretty much means flooring it unless you want to also run the red), you risk getting a ticket.

That's a far cry from "you get a ticket if you go through a yellow light", which was what was implied earlier.

[Blood PuP]

I do not see how this is a rich vs poor thing. If these are setup at specific places the tickets could pile up quite rapidly. I do not think that there are many people who would pay ~$200 a day for speeding through the same intersection on their way to work.

That is what I see as the beauty of this idea. You know where they are. You know that they will be there. It is harder to justify speeding. Today I can think "chances are good I can speed and get away with it". With traffic lights catching speeders it changes to "I can speed, but I will end up paying at these 3 points on my trip".

[polishavenger]

To me anyone who has a problem with this just wants to get away with speeding and running red lights. Police cant be everywhere at once, so this is a tool to catch more people. If its a cash cow, so be it. Its money going to the police for additional capabilities from people who broke the law and deserve to get fined.

[Greco Roman]

Why not?

This has been going on for a few years in Winnipeg already. I have a few family members who have fallen victim to the red light/speed radar camera's.

It shouldn't be any different for Alberta than for other jurisdictions who already have this system in place.

[Xelebes]

To me anyone who has a problem with this just wants to get away with speeding and running red lights. Police cant be everywhere at once, so this is a tool to catch more people. If its a cash cow, so be it. Its money going to the police for additional capabilities from people who broke the law and deserve to get fined.

Saves the need for a guy hiding in a van.

[mersar]

Or as Calgary police have discovered, a cop hiding behind a light standard or on a motorcycle.

[Thunderball]

The difference between redlight cameras and photo radar is that red light cameras have a proven record of making roads safer. I'm in total favor of red light cameras, since running reds is definitely and empirically dangerous. No one could ever publish anything to the contrary. Photo radar on the other hand, can't make that assertion, despite what the police will try to tell you. Fact is, none of these anti-speeding implements have prevented people from speeding, and we don't have fewer accidents than we did before. Typically, for a society to agree to such stringent methods, there must be an obvious payoff... in this case, its just a payout... to police coffers.

The question is, why is society giving something as trivial as this so much attention and focus? The traffic division of the police force should be relatively small, focusing on proven causes of accidents, namely, drunkeness and reckless/dangerous driving (which includes people driving 50km/h on Deerfoot), not some guy doing a couple clicks over the speed limit.

What makes our roads dangerous are volume and weather, not that someone is *gasp* doing 11kms over the speed limit. Someone doing twice the speed limit, weaving in and out of lanes, yeah... that's dangerous, and should be addressed.

This is a money grab, part of a vicious cycle that the police have us buying into... "we need more cops so we need more money, we need more money, so we write more tickets, we need more tickets so we need more cops..."

To me, a country paranoid about minor things like speeding must have no serious crime to speak of. Since that is clearly not the case... (Calgary had how many homocides in the last week... not to mention growing gang issues) this is a society with clearly skewed priorities... ie: tackling the easy problems cause the hard ones are too tough.

[Riise]

In regards to the poor vs. rich issues, I think we should do what Finland does. Over there tickets are a proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income, for example Anssi Vanjoki was hit with a 116,000 euros ticket, and Teemu Selane was fined $62,500 CDN.

In Finland, traffic fines generally are based on two factors: the severity of the offense and the driver's income. The concept has been embedded in Finnish law for decades: When it comes to crime, the wealthy should suffer as much as the poor. Indeed, sliding-scale financial penalties are also imposed for offenses ranging from shoplifting to securities-law violations. "This is a Nordic tradition," says Erkki Wuoma, special planning adviser at the Ministry of Interior. "We have progressive taxation and progressive punishments. So the more you earn, the more you pay."

http://www.stayfreemagazine.org/public/wsj_finland.html

[lubicon]

To me anyone who has a problem with this just wants to get away with speeding and running red lights. Police cant be everywhere at once, so this is a tool to catch more people. If its a cash cow, so be it. Its money going to the police for additional capabilities from people who broke the law and deserve to get fined.

Well then maybe we should install cameras everywhere and use them to issue ticket to jaywalkers, people riding bikes without helmets, riding bikes on a walking pathway (and vice versa), spitting etc.

And the best idea of all, use the cameras to fine people who are driving too SLOWLY on the roads and thus causing just as much danger as those who are speeding.

[scumtoes]

every camera patrolled intersection should have count down timers on the pedestrian signals. at least give us some chance.....

[feepa]

every camera patrolled intersection should have count down timers on the pedestrian signals. at least give us some chance.....
Some of the red light cameras are the same intersections that only change the walk/stop signals when a button is pressed. That kind of annoys me.

I once had to fight a red light ticket on a left turn signal that was broken. The left turn lane light was only activated when it sensed a vehicle there. While, I sat at that light, before the stop line for 2 full sets of lights, with it only ever being red on the left turn light. I got frustrated, ran it, got flashed, went to court, and won. Didn't take my convincing, I guess they've had problems at that intersection.