Last week’s report to city council, effectively declaring the idea of tinkering with photo radar, speed on green and red-light camera tolerances outside the jurisdiction of the city, hopefully brings an end to what has been a yearly crusade on the part of the mayor to generate more revenue from a technology vilified by drivers citywide.
General manager of protective services Chris Jardine informed council, per an information request made by Mayor Nolan Crouse a month ago, that photo radar uses accepted industry standards to determine at what speed the system generates a ticket, and that communities that have tried to adjust it have faced the wrath of the provincial solicitor general’s office, which oversees the program.
This marks the third time Crouse has asked about being able to play with tolerances. In the past his motivation was plainly evident — generating revenue. During the 2009 budget process, it was reported that reducing the speed at which a ticket would be issued by one kilometre per hour would have generated an extra 5,300 tickets worth about $170,000. The mayor has even complained about falling revenue from speed-on-green technology, an indication motorists are slowing down and traffic safety is increasing, and that supposed “revenue-neutral” bylaw officers weren’t issuing enough tickets.
That Crouse would ask about it again is no surprise, despite the public perception of photo radar as a municipal cash cow. But at least this time he has tried to frame his request within the subject of increasing traffic safety. Unfortunately, his remarks still seem to miss the point. Photo radar does get people to slow down, but fining motorists more by playing with tolerances is not the contributing factor. It is the deterrent value, not the penalty that creates safer roads.
Almost every city motorist knows where photo radar operators like to park their vehicles and flip the on switch. Their locations are predictable, meaning people who know where the cameras are will slow down in those areas. And let’s not forget about those helpful drivers who use their lights to warn us when we are driving towards a photo radar unit. Falling revenue from speed on green was also inevitable because drivers got wise to both locations and adjusted their driving behaviour accordingly.
If Crouse is serious about improving traffic safety through camera technology, then the correct solution is to deploy more resources — more photo radar vehicles, more speed-on-green cameras and more red-light cameras. Also, changing up the rotation and location of photo radar vehicles would keep drivers guessing and both change driving behaviours and maybe even drop a few extra dollars in the bucket.
Adding a few dollars to drivers’ tickets will infuriate them, but the deterrent value is negligible. Arguing that speeding technology increases traffic safety is correct, but the change comes from presence, not from hiking fines. Drivers who know where photo radar vehicles are simply won’t speed there. Given his history on the subject, the mayor’s comments on photo radar still appear suspect. Increasing traffic safety is a laudable goal, so let’s pursue it with innovative ideas and speed-on-green revenue earmarked for it. Simply making drivers pay a few more dollars, even if the city was allowed to do that, won’t achieve the same effect.
