[W. K. Lis]

Next you'll be offering us potato chips and saying "Just have one or two" ;-)

I did play a bit - and to your comment about Scarborough showing change - I found this view interesting.

The brown lines are roads that have seen speed limits lowered. Definitely a lot of change has gone on in Scarborough particularly.

The purple dots are locations that have seen speed enforcement cameras.

My hypothesis would be - perhaps simply reducing absolute speed on main roadways has made a difference in the burbs, at least for some types of situations.

Hard to demonstrate causality, but food for thought anyways.

- Paul



View attachment 452471

For now. Just having signs mean nothing, because it is new. If there is no changes (like lane widths), over time the speeders will return.

 

[W. K. Lis]

The Dangers of Driving Are Way More Normalized Than We Think​

From link.

People raised in a car-dominated culture are measurably more likely to accept the societal harms and inequities associated with driving than other public health threats, a new study finds — and undoing those powerful double standards will require a profound rewiring of the way we think about ... everything.

In a new paper published in the Journal of Environment and Health, a team of U.K.-based researchers asked half of a nationally representative sample of more than 2,000 British adults how strongly they agreed or disagreed with provocative statements aimed at better understanding their attitudes towards driving.

The other half was asked the exact same questions, but with the nouns related to automobiles subbed out for other public health concerns, like smoking, drinking, food sanitation, and workplace safety.

Those statements were:

• "Risk is a natural part of [driving/working], and anybody [driving/working] has to accept that they could be seriously injured."
• "There is no point expecting people to [drive/drink alcohol] less, so society just needs to accept any negative consequences it causes."
• "People shouldn’t [drive/smoke] in highly populated areas where other people have to breathe in the [car/cigarette] fumes."
• "It’s OK for a [delivery driver/chef] to bend a few health and safety rules in order to keep their business profitable."

The researchers also included a fifth question that's less explicitly related to public health, but still demonstrates how wildly different our conversations about justice and public space tend to be when we're talking about automobiles:

• "If somebody leaves their [car/belongings] in the street and [it gets/they get] stolen, it’s their own fault for leaving [it/them] there and the police shouldn’t be expected to act."

The results, as study author and environmental psychologist Ian Walker succinctly put it on Twitter, showed that "'Car Brain' — the cultural blind spot that makes people apply double standards when they think about driving — is real, measurable and pervasive."

For instance, a whopping 61 percent of respondents either "agreed" or "strongly agreed" that safety risks were a natural part of driving, while roughly half as many people (31 percent) thought workplace hazards were to be expected and tolerated — despite the fact that for millions of people who work in transportation, driving is working, and those people need workplace protections, too.

When it came to air pollution, meanwhile, only 17 percent of respondents thought that non-consenting passerby shouldn't be exposed to toxic fumes from tailpipes, while 75 percent said the same about fumes from cigarettes, which have been banned in many indoor and outdoor environments.

Those findings, unsurprisingly, prompted a flurry of conversation, particularly from those who questioned whether the hazards of car dependence are truly comparable with other hot-button societal issues. Take cigarettes, which offer no benefits to anyone besides the pleasure of the smoker herself and the profit margins of the tobacco company that feeds her habit; driving, by contrast, at least quickly transports goods and services that we all, theoretically consume. Or, as New York activist Doug Gordon once memorably put it, "no one drives a cigarette to the grocery store."

Walker, though, says that "part of the point" of the study was to highlight the ways that pro-car bias — or, as he calls it, "motonormativity" — isn't just a matter of individual preference, but the result of societally constructed asymmetries that make, say, forcing car exhaust on our neighbors feel like a defensible choice, while forcing cigarette fumes on those same neighbors is increasingly stigmatized and outlawed. (He also points out that truly necessary trips aside, a lot of driving doesn't benefit society at large, and with good planning and policy, no one would need a car to get to a grocery store at all.)

More important, Walker stresses that the instinct to defend the car-dominated status quo isn't only the result of bad policies that too often make driving the only realistic choice. It's also a deep cultural and emotional value that's systemically reinforced by our own families, our media landscape, and countless small, daily interactions that seem innocuous in the moment, but add up to powerful norms. He says the study was partly inspired by a recent visit to his doctor, who assumed he needed driving directions to the closest pharmacy to fill a prescription — even though it was less than a quarter-mile away.

"We like to think that we’re rational agents, and especially given the influence of economics in policymaking," he adds. "We tend to think that people weigh out the pros and cons of everything they do. But they don’t. Because if they did, well, why doesn't everyone just drive the most affordable car? Why does anybody worry about the color of their car? We are so, so influenced in our behavior by what we see other people do; it’s unconscious, but it happens all the time."

Critically, Walker says de-normalizing the harms and inequities of driving may not require advocates to penetrate every layer of systemic bias that's made "motonormativity" the virtual default — even if nudging our friends and families to think beyond the windshield certainly can't hurt.

"As an individual, the layers [of influence] closest to us are the most important," he adds. "But those outer levels influence everybody — especially that exo-layer that policymakers can control. If I could wave a magic wand and change a single thing, it would be getting [transportation leaders] to agree to change planning laws, environmental laws, and policing standards ... Build a street where people can’t speed, and there will be a brief period of moaning and complaining. But you won't have speeding."

Still, the new paper suggests that even with big policy reforms, overcoming "car brain" on a grand scale will take time — even though people are dying while we wait.

"As people who are trying to encourage mode shift to non-car modes, we are very aware of these obvious double standards," Walker said. "So many people say things like, 'oh, someone whizzed by me on a bicycle almost killed me the other day!' Whereas cars do the same thing, and it barely gets a mention."

 

[allengeorge]

Toronto’s photo radar program has generated a lot of money, but isn’t slowing traffic like it used to

Almost three years in, the automated speed enforcement program is catching more drivers than ever.

torontoverse.com

Via Reddit

The graphics are distracting, but the thrust of the article is that enforcement has not delivered sustained reduction in speeds.

Personal editorializing: this is totally unsurprising, since a road that feels designed for 70 km/h is going to have people comfortably driving at that speed regardless of what’s signed. The only way to sustainably reduce speeds are design changes (road diets, roadside treatments, etc) with enforcement serving as an adjunct.

 

[crs1026]

^I poked at the graphs and a number do show trends in the right direction. I think the claim that the cameras are ineffective is a bit hyperbolic. Deterrence may be transitory - but with the cameras changing locations regularly, I bet many drivers do reduce speed in obvious potential locations eg school zones because they may anticipate a camera possibly being there.

But I agree…. roads that have speed built in will send signals that drivers will respond to (consciously or otherwise) regardless of signage etc.

- Paul

 

[Northern Light]

@crs1026 and @allengeorge

We all agree on the value of permanent changes in road design............that said...

Something I don't see accounted for in the data linked above is when (if) speed limits were reduced. Toronto slashed speed limits on many, many roads during the period these machines have been active.

I rather suspect that there may have been a spike in tickets issued after those latest reductions (some of which are ongoing btw, as the City has to re-sign a slew of streets)

That doesn't take away from the design question, but it may mitigate the camera effectiveness question.

Also not indicated is what the baseline speeds were when the cameras have gone up at later points.

If cameras were reducing median speeds from 70km/ph to 60km/ph at 'x' rate; but are now less effective at reducing 57km/ph to sub 50km/ph that's important to know.

I should add that may not be the case, I simply see the absence of that info as problematic.

 

[crs1026]

If cameras were reducing median speeds from 70km/ph to 60km/ph at 'x' rate; but are now less effective at reducing 57km/ph to sub 50km/ph that's important to know.

I should add that may not be the case, I simply see the absence of that info as problematic.

I would love to see data on the various placements…. as well as post-camera followup data to see if there is any retained memory (many drivers will be following the same route over and over and may remember the camera was there) or does the speed return as soon as the camera moves on.

My impression as a west end resident is initially most cameras in this part of the city were placed in school zones where the speed limit was ever only 40, and in one case 30 (Windermere Road) 30. (IIRC the original locations were left to the discretion of the local Councillors, who may have had particularly vocal constituencies to respond to).

My personal experience is that one does get trained such that encountering a school zone makes one immediately think, “possible traffic camera ahead”..…. and take extra care (not that I ever blew through school zones, but the penny does seem to drop further ).Those redditt graphs do seem to support that trend…. local roads probably have higher “repeat customer” values.

Placing cameras at random on more major streets with higher limits may not have the same training value, especially if the street is otherwise built for speed. (The infamous high-volume Renforth camera was at a point where it is virtually impossible to stay at the 40 limit, even when trying….. because the street is just so wide open that 40 feels like 10). Some of the locations that are demonstrating no downward trend may be of this sort - and major streets may have fewer “repeat” drivers who register and remember the presence of the camera. My theory would be that there are not yet enough cameras for drivers to believe that they actually are at risk of getting nabbed on the more major streets, so no real deterrent value.

Just my observations - which mean little without data to support them.

- Paul

 

[W. K. Lis]

I would love to see data on the various placements…. as well as post-camera followup data to see if there is any retained memory (many drivers will be following the same route over and over and may remember the camera was there) or does the speed return as soon as the camera moves on.

My impression as a west end resident is initially most cameras in this part of the city were placed in school zones where the speed limit was ever only 40, and in one case 30 (Windermere Road) 30. (IIRC the original locations were left to the discretion of the local Councillors, who may have had particularly vocal constituencies to respond to).

My personal experience is that one does get trained such that encountering a school zone makes one immediately think, “possible traffic camera ahead”..…. and take extra care (not that I ever blew through school zones, but the penny does seem to drop further ).Those redditt graphs do seem to support that trend…. local roads probably have higher “repeat customer” values.

Placing cameras at random on more major streets with higher limits may not have the same training value, especially if the street is otherwise built for speed. (The infamous high-volume Renforth camera was at a point where it is virtually impossible to stay at the 40 limit, even when trying….. because the street is just so wide open that 40 feels like 10). Some of the locations that are demonstrating no downward trend may be of this sort - and major streets may have fewer “repeat” drivers who register and remember the presence of the camera. My theory would be that there are not yet enough cameras for drivers to believe that they actually are at risk of getting nabbed on the more major streets, so no real deterrent value.

Just my observations - which mean little without data to support them.

- Paul

Then you get the cameras that are placed at the bottom of hills, where gravity causes even bicycles to get over the speed limit. Should be placed on level portions of the road, stroad, or street.

 

[crs1026]

Then you get the cameras that are placed at the bottom of hills, where gravity causes even bicycles to get over the speed limit. Should be placed on level portions of the road, stroad, or street.

I have wondered if there is a science, or even a devious strategy, to the exact placement of the cameras. I have seen several that are basically at the property line of the school... logical, in the sense that they are measuring speed as the vehicle passes the school itself, and not the broader zone so no plausible arguments eg "I saw the sign but was still decelerating" etc.

If the camera is placed too soon after a natural slow pinch point.... eg an intersection with traffic control... even leadfooted drivers may not have reached full speed so the camera is giving them a break. One would naturally presume that the camera would be placed for the wide-open speed on a long stretch.

There may be physical or logistical constraints - eg camera needs a field of view around bushes, hydro bunkers, etc.

All just wondering

- Paul

 

[TRONto]

Greater Toronto Area News - GTA | The Star

Toronto area breaking news from the Star, including live news and features about Brampton, Mississauga, Durham, Halton, York and more on thestar.com.

www.thestar.com

"But under cross-examination, the officer couldn’t explain how the city’s speed cameras are powered, or when the device on Avenue had been installed. He also said there was only one vehicle in the photograph, when a second car was visible.

In what the justice of the peace said was key testimony, Powers also couldn’t say when the speed camera had last been tested for accuracy. By law the devices have to be calibrated within 12 months before an alleged offence, and while the officer said a certificate of accuracy for the camera was posted to the city website, he couldn’t name the company that provided it.

The certificate for the camera at Avenue and MacPherson is still posted online, and shows it was calibrated on Sept. 21, 2020, within the mandated time frame. It doesn’t appear this evidence was presented at trial."

I think it's fair that the officer doesn't know how the speed cameras are powered, when the device had been installed, when it was last tested for accuracy or which company did the testing. I assume they are only checking what's in the picture. If accused wanted to fight those points, they should have called in someone from the city. The way the article is framed doesn't seem like a legitimate working of justice.

 

[W. K. Lis]

Greater Toronto Area News - GTA | The Star

Toronto area breaking news from the Star, including live news and features about Brampton, Mississauga, Durham, Halton, York and more on thestar.com.

www.thestar.com

"But under cross-examination, the officer couldn’t explain how the city’s speed cameras are powered, or when the device on Avenue had been installed. He also said there was only one vehicle in the photograph, when a second car was visible.

In what the justice of the peace said was key testimony, Powers also couldn’t say when the speed camera had last been tested for accuracy. By law the devices have to be calibrated within 12 months before an alleged offence, and while the officer said a certificate of accuracy for the camera was posted to the city website, he couldn’t name the company that provided it.

The certificate for the camera at Avenue and MacPherson is still posted online, and shows it was calibrated on Sept. 21, 2020, within the mandated time frame. It doesn’t appear this evidence was presented at trial."

I think it's fair that the officer doesn't know how the speed cameras are powered, when the device had been installed, when it was last tested for accuracy or which company did the testing. I assume they are only checking what's in the picture. If accused wanted to fight those points, they should have called in someone from the city. The way the article is framed doesn't seem like a legitimate working of justice.

The questions about the camera are about the same as asking what gear was your automatic transmission on the car was in? Was the car speedometer calibrated to the tire and wheel dimensions properly correctly to show the most accurate speed? How full was the tank of fuel in the vehicle at the time? Were the headlamps on low or high beam at the time? Etc..

I think the Justice of the Peace had a dislike of the cameras, and was looking for any excuse.

 

[crs1026]

The JP may have been unconvinced that the device was registering correctly, but even if it were off by 40 km/h the driver was still speeding egregiously. And if the device was indeed badly calibrated, one would expect to see repeated spurious readings. Seems like they were splitting hairs.

Perhaps one day the cameras should be upgraded to video, storing 20-30 seconds worth of video when the speed threshold is exceeded, and not just a still photo…. so the JP can see the car flashing by.

- Paul

 

[lenaitch]

As Dan Brown mentioned, technology always goes through a 'show me' or reverse honeymoon stage with the legal system. Precedent is not set at the OCJ (JP) level so it will take an appeal case or two to set out some case law. Exactly the same process took place with the breathalyzer, traditional radar, DNA, etc. and their related legislation.

Regardless, this matter was marked for trial and the provincial offences officer should have come prepared to prove the instrument. Since the fines are generally fairly small and there is no impact on driving record or insurance, most people will simply pay them rather than commit the time and expense to go to trial. In that regard, who knows how consistently accurate any of them are or if there are some procedural gaps to ensure accuracy and fairness. In this case, it was a stiff fine and that paralegal came free.

A few comments from the above:

If accused wanted to fight those points, they should have called in someone from the city.

That's not how our legal system works. The Crown is required to prove the 'facts in issue' beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused only need to raise a reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court; they don't have to prove anything. When questions are raised that can only be reasonably answered by someone not called as witness, the prosecutor could have asked for an adjournment. I doubt they would have got one - this isn't a murder trial. One of the most effective avenues of defence is to get a Crown witness to say 'I don't know' as many times as possible (or even worse, box them into saying something you can prove is incorrect).

The questions about the camera are about the same as asking what gear was your automatic transmission on the car was in? Was the car speedometer calibrated to the tire and wheel dimensions properly correctly to show the most accurate speed? How full was the tank of fuel in the vehicle at the time? Were the headlamps on low or high beam at the time? Etc..

I think the Justice of the Peace had a dislike of the cameras, and was looking for any excuse.

The difference is the vehicle parameters you mention are not relevant to the offence of speeding. The accuracy of the device is. The driver could try to argue that their speedometer said 'x' speed, but can't establish that to the court beyond a self-serving statement. Besides, a speedometer isn't even legally required under the HTA.

Does the JP have a dislike for camera radar? Who knows. The caseload at the Ontario Court of Justice, JP and judge, is pretty much off the dial around the GTA. It is my view that most jurists and prosecutors will do just about anything to get through their docket. Watch how many Impaired Driving charges are plead down to Careless Driving.

The JP may have been unconvinced that the device was registering correctly, but even if it were off by 40 km/h the driver was still speeding egregiously. And if the device was indeed badly calibrated, one would expect to see repeated spurious readings. Seems like they were splitting hairs.

But if the accuracy of the device is called into question to the point of not being able to prove the speed alleged, how can it be relied on to prove any other speed? It might well have been producing wonky readings all day, but that was not entered into evidence. Maybe other owners simply paid their tickets. Maybe somebody who was speeding but wasn't registered. Again, the accused doesn't have to prove the device inaccurate, they just have to put reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court that it might be.

 

[crs1026]

But if the accuracy of the device is called into question to the point of not being able to prove the speed alleged, how can it be relied on to prove any other speed? It might well have been producing wonky readings all day, but that was not entered into evidence. Maybe other owners simply paid their tickets. Maybe somebody who was speeding but wasn't registered. Again, the accused doesn't have to prove the device inaccurate, they just have to put reasonable doubt in the mind of the Court that it might be.

I would have thought that the Reg’s would say something such as “a radar camera will be considered reliable provided that the following testing and certification is in place”

If somebody wanted to take a run at that standard, by offering a dissenting expert opinion, or otherwise putting the crown on the onus to show that the standard is technically sound and reliable, then we would have a valid precedent-worthy challenge to the law.

However, if this trial was just a case of the officer being poorly prepared for their appearance, or having a bad day on the witness stand, then I don’t see the case as having any real importance or precedent. Officers are only human and testifying is a very difficult task. Hopefully some supervisor is monitoring each officer’s track record and evaluating overall proficiency.

And if the installation or maintenance of that camera was deficient, that too is just a one-of and should rightly lead to acquittal - and again, somebody should be accountable for letting that happen.

- Paul

 

[picard102]

I would have thought that the Reg’s would say something such as “a radar camera will be considered reliable provided that the following testing and certification is in place”

I think they'd have a hard time providing certification on an automated basis regularly enough to satisfy reasonable doubt it is working correctly.

 

[crs1026]

I think they'd have a hard time providing certification on an automated basis regularly enough to satisfy reasonable doubt it is working

Perhaps, but there ought to be some acceptable middle ground point here.
With 150 cameras planned, a single technician needs to test roughly 10 to 11 a day to have a biweekly calibration regimen.
So hold back all data for two weeks and if a camera fails the test, just discard all the data since its last positive calibration. Losing two weeks’ revenue is a good incentive to keep each camera maintained, but it’s not fatal to the program if a failure is found.
In this case, the premise that there was reasonable doubt that this exact reading was unreliable - when the camera arguably worked quite well before and after this particular car passed - is stretching beyond reasonable doubt. Did lightning strike at that exact moment?
The premise behind ex-copper services has always been the claim that every summons written contains some flaw, and all a driver has to do to keep their record clean is find the flaw. I’m all for justice, but I disagree with that attitude. Drivers should be accountable for their actions, and the truth needs to out. If we construct the enforcement system such that drivers always have an out, we have drained the justice out of the shstem. So let’s find a reasonably robust way to use speed cameras, and let’s have more of them.

- Paul