November 9, 2016

Ontario introduces Photo Radar bill for Municipalities to save Pedestrian/Cyclist Lives

Pedestrian deaths on the rise in Toronto
We hear it all the time. A group of cyclists cycling in Richmond are hit by a vehicle at 12:30 in the afternoon last Saturday.  One person dies, several are injured. The day before an elderly man, a much-loved grandfather is killed crossing 56th Street in Tsawwassen at 7:00 a.m. in the morning, and police are looking for witnesses to this tragic car crash.
Perhaps we are used to thinking about cars as having advantages in the safety department, and think of pedestrian and cyclist safety as somewhere else, but not on the same road. What ever the reason we as a society and a culture have tragically displaced and defaulted the use of our transportation networks to the automobile, and have tolerated the loss of pedestrians and cyclists in numbers so vast that even the Medical Health Officer of British Columbia, Dr. Perry Kendall has written a report “Where the Rubber Meets The Road” outlining the carnage and critical injuries that are resulting in British Columbia by car dominance. Why did Dr. Kendall write this report? Because being killed or maimed by vehicular traffic and vehicles  is a major cause of death and disability in this province.
There are even pedestrian “shaming” campaigns in some jurisdictions, where authorities are asking pedestrians to wear reflective clothing. As shown in Scandinavia where reflectivity is part of the wardrobe and universally mandated and accepted, this DOES reduce deaths and injury, but it is only one small piece of a solution that also includes lower road speeds, education and change in driver behaviour, and road design that means drivers drive slower for the road, not the road speed the driver feels is appropriate for the design.
The City of Toronto has an unprecedented  18 pedestrian crashes a day (three times more than average) and 35 pedestrian deaths so far this year. The Premier of Ontario has just announced that legislation that would give municipalities the power to introduce photo radar technology in school and community safety zones, which takes pictures of the licence plates of speeding cars. Other areas like daycares, parks, seniors’ homes, hospitals and even entire neighbourhoods could also be monitored for speed.
The use of photo radar and fining is controversial in Ottawa where it was felt to be a money grab by the Mayor. However the Premier has said that revenue from enforcement using photo radar would go into road safety programs associated with the municipalities, not general city revenue. And it is a good first step if passed by the Ontario legislature and reintroducing photo radar enforcement to slow cars on an area wide basis is enforced by municipalities. Slower speeds reduce fatalities and injuries. Now we just need to talk about changing road design and driver behaviour to recognize that all users of roads are not vehicular.
crosswalk
 

Posted in

Support

If you love this region and have a view to its future please subscribe, donate, or become a Patron.

Share on

Comments

Leave a Reply to AnonymousCancel Reply

  1. We should have automatic speed detection systems as well as more intersection red-light running and detection of other violations. This does not have to be a money grab as revenue can be used to make the roads safer. Also, some jurisdictions put some of the revenue into a lottery system where good drivers are entered to win a jackpot every month.
    One thing I find very disturbing is that police and media often blame the victim in crashes involving vulnerable road users. Here is what the RCMP officer provided at the scene of the road violence involving injury and death to 6 people riding bikes on River Road in Richmond on Sunday:
    “Police do not know what caused the crash and all the cyclists appeared to be wearing their helmets. Meanwhile Colville urged cyclists who use that stretch of road to be careful because accidents have occurred there in the past. He urged cyclists to ride in single file. Police say this is the second fatality involving a cyclist in Richmond within the past week.”
    Not a word about encouraging drivers to be more careful, especially when sharing the road with those riding bikes.
    This is from the article on a pedestrian that got mowed down in Burnaby the following day:
    “Cpl. Richard Mehner said low visibility may have played a role, as the pedestrian was wearing dark clothing. He said the pedestrian may also have been wearing earbud-style headphones at the time of the crash.”
    The RCMP media release on the crash was better in that they “urged pedestrians and drivers to take extra care, especially after sunset.”
    No suggestion that drivers should slow down in dark and rainy conditions. No suggestion about being hyper vigilant at intersections. A driver killed someone and all they can do is suggest that the pedestrian was responsible for her own death.
    This victim blaming which appears to be common is an indication of the deep rooted motordom culture which continues to pervade our society. Vulnerable road users are simply collateral damage and “accidents” are a mere nuisance.
    Photo radar would certainly help to make our roads safer. Especially since our provincial government continues to refuse to allow municipalities to set default speed limits.

  2. Post
    Author
  3. Last time I looked into it, it was absolutely clear that there is no evidence that photo radar or red light cameras actually make streets safer.
    They are though fantastic money makers for government and the companies that sell and manage the equipment – especially if government agrees to the contract that lets the camera company set speed limits or yellow light timings to their advantage.

    1. I’m sure many studies exist on photo radar effectiveness. When I lived in London I noticed that everybody drove at or under the speed limit on certain roads. After seeing this week after week I finally noticed the permanent photo radar. The roads were similar to the Stanley Park causeway where people easily drive too fast.
      I like the idea of the revenue funding improvements that make roads safer.

    2. How can this possibly be a money grab? Surely no one is forcing people to drive faster than the speed limit. And how can anyone argue against making our roads safer. Surely the status quo is totally unacceptable.
      If you don’t like photo radar, would you accept lower speed limits? How about protected intersections where those on foot and riding bikes have a separate signal phase? How about narrower traffic lanes? How about harsher penalties for breaking the law while driving? How about advance signal for those walking and cycling. How about all of the above? How about a complete network of protected bike lanes? If not, then why not?

      1. “How can this possibly be a money grab?”
        Photo radar generates a LOT of income in fines. It’s the primary reason why it is adopted in many places – relatively small cash outlay for a steady stream of revenue.
        It’s especially popular because the entire process is usually handled by the company selling the cameras – no staff costs for government.
        The linked reports don’t really offer a hands down statistical demonstration that these things will always make roads safer. The first says “Findings showed that “photo-radar and speed display boards are about equally effective during deployment,” meaning that a flashing speed sign is just as effective, without cash penalties.
        And MORE effective if you add occasional police enforcement.
        The Winnipeg report ifs full of caveats, and ends with “Finally, it is recommended to conduct a follow-up study to enable the evaluation of the effectiveness of photo radar. It is recommended that efforts are made to improve data collection to enable the evaluation of this aspect of the program.”
        I would absolutely prefer that we design roads to moderate traffic speeds, and the techniques for doing that are pretty well understood.
        I’m also a big fan of building good quality pedestrian infrastructure to encourage people to walk instead of drive.
        I tend to put photo radar into the same box as “Fine people for using a smart phone while walking.”
        Just because some subset of the population wants to “get” a group that they disapprove of doesn’t mean it’s good policy.
        I’ll add that the people who want heavy enforcement of automobile drivers to “protect” walkers and cyclists are almost never willing to accept licencing and insurance for bikes to make it easier to police riders who ride in an irresponsible fashion.

        1. You havn’t answered my key point – namely that no one is forced to drive faster than the speed limit, so this is a totally voluntary contribution on behalf of a driver. If this contribution goes toward road safety or a lottery for which can be won by safe drivers, then this is a bonus. Again, how can this be a cash grab?

        2. And you haven’t responded to whether you would accept other road safety measures. Again, the status quo is totally unacceptable. How would you improve the situation? Which safety measures would you approve?

        3. How would licensing and insurance make any difference in police prioritizing enforcement? I already have a driver’s license and insurance if I cause damage or injury while on my bike. Unless there’s roving bands of under-16 year olds riding bikes and causing problems, there’s no compelling reason for licensing and insuring a simple device that about half of Canadians own and use without issue. And even then one would be hard pressed to believe scofflaws suddenly do a behavioural about-face because they carry a wallet-sized card with their picture and birthdate on it. If this scheme (unworkable unless it’s as universal as driver’s licenses which are required globally) could work and made sense it would be in place already somewhere. But it’s not. And for good reason.

        4. Rebuilding all streets to self-enforce appropriate speeds would be best but takes a lot of time and money. Photo radar can be an interim solution, either mobile or permanent radar. Permanent photo radar in other jurisdictions is usually signed, so it’s not like drivers are ‘tricked’ into driving faster than the speed limit.
          I’m not sure why it matters whether government staff manage photo radar or a private company, especially if a contract with a company is more cost effective for tax payers.

  4. Didn’t they have photo radar in BC already, and everyone hated it?
    You mention a spike in accidents in Ontariom but are people suddenly driving much more faster or dangerously, or are more people walking around staring at their smartphones? My gut tells me it’s the latter..

    1. NOT everybody hated photo radar in BC.. The over the top enforcement by the profit driven contractor made it an election issue. Abolishing it was one of the very few promises kept by the BC Liberals. Had there been a combination of warnings & moderate fines it would still be here saving lives & insurance premiums.

  5. My deepest condolences go out to the family of the cyclist that died and those that were injured in recent incidents.
    We all noted that those cyclists were using the roadway for a completely different purpose than it was originally built for. Recreational cycling on carbon fibre speed bikes. These guys were not commuting they were on a circuit.
    Here’s one of the victims:
    http://images.glaciermedia.ca/polopoly_fs/1.2530860.1478622366!/fileImage/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_804/cyclist-killed.jpg
    One could argue that perhaps they should have been on a track. They are racers. This is their team; “JUST GIVER 4PD is a diverse group of men and women of all ages who share a passion for cycling. Some of us are road racers with years of experience while others are recreational riders new to the sport.”
    Is Sandy James suggesting that all roads be open as cycling racetracks?

    1. My condolences also go out to the innocent person killed by the motorist.
      The people riding bikes when they were hit were not reported to be using the road for any purpose other than that which it was designed for. While it was reported to be a recreational ride, and not a commute, that is no different than a person driving a vehicle to a golf game as opposed to driving to work. Perfectly reasonable, and completely legal. There was no report that the riders were engaged in a competitive timed event when they were hit, or even if they were, that it caused them to be driven into by a third party.
      A photo of the same rider, on a time trial bike during a racing event, has nothing to do with this incident. It is part of a “blame the victim” stance taken by some in the media, and the RCMP to a certain extent, and is shameful. I would go further, and say that it is disgusting.

        1. We should wait until the investigation is complete before deciding who hit who. There’s a double yellow line along that road and someone must have crossed theirs.
          Only an expert could determine that the rider depicted is doing a time trial. All the public heard is that the bike was of carbon fibre.

        2. Eyewitness accounts put the vehicle on the wrong side of the road, and note that the people riding were single file, in the lane as they should be, as there is no shoulder. The damage to the vehicle is on its left side. When the clean up was taking place the vehicle was still parked in the centre of the road.
          What the bike was constructed of is entirely irrelevant.

        3. The material of the bike is not entirely irrelevant, otherwise the police would not have mentioned it and the press published it. You obviously have more information than has been published. Yet, according to the club the deceased cyclist is from, “Please also be respectful within the cycling community regarding the process that must take place regarding the accident. Please let the Police and RCMP deal with how, what and why this tragic accident occurred as in the end that is what it is; A tragic accident. “

    2. “We all noted that those cyclists were using the roadway for a completely different purpose than it was originally built for. ”
      A more dispassionate observer than one with an anti-cycling agenda might find in this tragedy some room to muse over the danger to the public represented by small SUVs with acceleration characteristics roughly analogous to the Ferrari 308 GT (For those unfamiliar — the Magnum P.I. red racer). Esp. when driven by a motorist with at best 3 years of legal driving experience.
      But yeah, a few people out of a bike ride. Clearly a menace to society.

Subscribe to Viewpoint Vancouver

Get breaking news and fresh views, direct to your inbox.

Join 7,284 other subscribers

Show your Support

Check our Patreon page for stylish coffee mugs, private city tours, and more – or, make a one-time or recurring donation. Thank you for helping shape this place we love.

Popular Articles

See All

All Articles