There is a piety amongst most of us when it comes to traffic offences. We rarely see our own faults when driving, but we notice all the bad behaviours of others.
Yet, when we transgress traffic laws, we are strictly liable – and we are all guilty, nostros culpa. When it comes to speeding, we have all transgressed this law, whether we have done so through conscious effort or a technicality. This is because the posted speed is an upper limit and road and weather conditions can lower this limit, based on good judgment. Technically, to be one kilometre per hour over that limit is a transgression.
When we have been stopped for speeding by a peace officer, and a ticket is issued, we will go through a plethora of emotions from anger, frustration, embarrassment, even guilt and remorse, because we know we have done something wrong. More importantly, however, we will immediately modify our behaviour because we know the reason for these measures is to enforce order and safety.
When it comes to photo radar, however, the ideals of order and safety are lost because of the business aspect of this enforcement. It has become a revenue source for municipalities, along with the province and private businesses taking an administrative cut. We see photo radar boxes hidden behind trees, bushes and other objects designed to camouflage their presence, reminiscent of Sheriff Rosco P. Coltrane and Boss Hogg from The Dukes of Hazzard, looking to raise funds through duplicitous means. This undermines the intention of the law.
In a strict sense, it is no longer the driver whom is at fault with photo radar, but rather the vehicle owner (Section 160(1) Traffic Safety Act), which for the most part may be one and the same person. In essence, it is an object, not a person, that has transgressed the traffic law, and objects cannot do so, and there is a further sense of injustice created. Though there are no demerits issued for this act, there is still a resentment felt.
Maybe this is why Brian Mason has recently announced that the government is reviewing photo radar. Politically, of course, this is a sound move. If the government changes its position on photo radar, it would be a popular move. The statistics are not there to show that it has modified driver behaviour, nor that it has improved public safety. But, on the other hand, this “speed tax” does help in municipal finances, leading to some public good. If the government removes this income source, how will it be replaced? The review of photo radar use within Alberta is long overdue, because the law has been abused, undermining its own credibility. We are strong supporters of public safety, but this is no longer how we perceive photo radar. It is seen as a “cash cow,” possibly even treated this way by municipalities, and so it should go. But then, will we take measures to improve our own driving behaviours?
John Kennair is an international consultant and doctor of laws who lives in St. Albert.
