this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
45 points (86.9% liked)

Canada

10431 readers
800 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Related Communities

🍁 Meta

🗺️ Provinces / Territories

🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.

🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.

💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales

🗣️ Politics

🍁 Social / Culture

Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
45
Speed-camera threat — Doug Ford shows he's the irresponsible driver's best friend (ottawacitizen.com)
submitted 3 days ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
39 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/45991302

Ford calls speed cameras “nothing but a tax grab.” As do many reckless drivers. But surely he knows that speeding fines are not taxes. Even if they were, they’re voluntary: If you don’t want a speeding ticket, don’t speed.

...

In Ottawa, compliance with speed limits rose from from 16 per cent before speed cameras to 57 per cent after only three months, and to more than 80 per cent after three years. Instances of speeding at more than 15 km/h above the posted limit dropped from 14 per cent, pre-speed cameras, to less than one per cent after three years of the city using them.

A survey of more than 1,000 Ottawa residents, meanwhile, determined that of the 35 per cent of respondents who had been dinged with an speed camera fine, 69 per cent said it changed their driving behaviour. That’s what we want from these cameras.

And of course:

A study conducted by SickKids hospital in Toronto and published in July in the British Medical Journal’s Injury Prevention journal found that the use of speed cameras in school zones led to a 45 per cent reduction in speeding motorists, while the 85th percentile speed — the speed at or below which 85 per cent of the drivers travelled — dropped by almost 11 km/h. “The observed reduction in speed is likely important in reducing collisions and injuries,” the study noted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 8 points 3 days ago (1 children)

The article shows some of the positive effects speed cameras are having on drivers. Feel free to disagree, but it's nice to see interventions that make roads safer.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 3 days ago (2 children)

Well it doesn't actually say that. There's no measurments of accidents or injuries here. The only metrics are reduced speeding in the measured areas. I don't tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

I don’t tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?

Aren't residential streets lower speeds too, so unless you're speeding there you're going slower on purpose?

And if you don't speed, why do you avoid areas with cameras?

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

It's when they drop more arterial roads to low speeds like 50km/h or even less that taking shortcuts through residential roads becomes more enticing. And doing 55km/h or 60 in 50 zones is pretty normal when there's no camera. Yes it's technically speeding, but very common.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 13 hours ago (1 children)

Sure but you haven't actually answered either question

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 12 hours ago

I think the reference to 'shortcut' explains the first. And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that's why it's best to avoid the road with the camera even if you're nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There are three instances of positive change in the original post.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (2 children)

It's all measured speed reduction in the camera zones. That doesn't mean people are driving safer, or slower on average even. That people have changed their behavior doesn't mean it's safer. More use of smaller residential roads that don't have cameras is probably not safer. Allowing rich people to speed as much as they want and just pay a fee probably isn't safer either.

[–] sbv@sh.itjust.works 5 points 2 days ago

Collisions at lower speed generally result in less serious injuries. Bringing drivers back down to posted speed limits should provide safety benefits. That has shown a direct reduction in collisions and injuries.

Allowing rich people to speed as much as they want and just pay a fee probably isn't safer either.

Fees should definitely scale with income or wealth. I'm not sure I've seen anyone on Lemmy argue against that.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It’s all measured speed reduction in the camera zones. That doesn’t mean people are driving safer, or slower on average even.

Few months back City of Barrie released some info that showed the reduction in speed was long lasting, well after the removal of the speed cameras. This shows a positive change on drover behaviour, even if it is only for the school zone, that's a big win in my books.

More use of smaller residential roads that don’t have cameras is probably not safer.

Ignoring the assumption that traffic cameras cause decreases in AADT, when the alternative is people speeding through school zones, yes it is likely much safer. Fewer pedestrians, particularly kids which are notorious for not paying attention and are more likely to wander into lanes, means that it is a net positive for those areas.

Allowing rich people to speed as much as they want and just pay a fee probably isn’t safer either.

Is this any different than it currently is? Definitely isn't making things worse.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Logically, slower speeds should make safer streets. But it's not 100% a sure thing. When people are in a hurry, they find other ways and that's when things get more dangerous.
And no, traffic cams only give monetary fines not demerit points or a criminal record like if you get pulled over by a cop. They don't assess who the driver is, so they can't blame it on a particular person. So rich people don't care at all about going fast in those areas - it's just a fee to go fast to them.

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When people are in a hurry, they find other ways and that’s when things get more dangerous.

Can you try explaining this? I've reread it and can't make sense of it. Are you saying that speed cameras INCREASE how much people hurry? I disagree. School safety zones are not big areas - if they're having a notable impact on your length of drive, that's weird. Forcing people to go 20km/hr slower through those zones via speed cameras shouldn't add more than a couple of seconds onto a drive. Even if the zone was a km long, that's a 30s difference going at 60 vs 40. You're more likely to be caught at a streetlight longer than that.

So rich people don’t care at all about going fast in those areas - it’s just a fee to go fast to them.

Data isn't showing that. Data, when released, shows top speeds of ~10km/hr over the limit once cameras have been in place. Demerits can't be assigned until 15km/hr over.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Yes, some people hit the gas just after the camera. They also peel off on smaller streets to 'make up time'. I suspect these are people who are in a hurry / late, or just impatient. People do this on the highway too after clearing radar traps. Or after overtaking someone traveling slowly. I don't know if the effect is significant. People are weird and side effects can be unexpected. I'm just not sure that we should totally assume cameras that slow down measured speeds actually increases safety.
I haven't seen data like you mentioned- it seems strange that there wouldn't be an array of speeders like anywhere else. I think most people's complaints about these things are that they trigger at too close to the limit - doing 52 in a 50 zone is not unsafe, and can help with the flow of traffic. It probably depends on the area. I can afford a ticket, but I still avoid areas with cameras. With all the traffic calming stuff and cameras, I actually just avoid going out more and order stuff from Amazon instead of supporting my local stores.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

that they trigger at too close to the limit - doing 52 in a 50 zone

This is not what happens, though