Photo radar… is it working effectively, as some statistics would suggest, or are people merely becoming accustomed to the locations and vehicles used by the contractor that is cashing in from leadfoot Canmore drivers – and slowing down at, or avoiding, those locations?
Everyone has a story of why they hate photo radar being used in town. The trucks are hidden… they catch drivers on downhill stretches where almost every vehicle creeps over the speed limit… the owners of vehicles are ticketed, not the actual driver… it was cancelled in B.C., why not here..?
On one side of the photo radar argument is the revenue. The Town of Canmore makes money off the issuing of tickets, no question, while the contractor, Global Traffic Group, makes plenty. Going back to 2007, in the first month of operation, Global made $60,000 (no wonder the company can use late model four-by-four trucks).
The other side of the argument is that if people didn’t speed, they wouldn’t be ticketed. It’s hard to generate much sympathy for speeders who are hit in the pocketbook; much the same as the maniacs the Mounties stop on the Trans-Canada.
The problem is, being that actual drivers aren’t ticketed, as is the case when an RCMP member pulls you over and writes a ticket, one wonders about the psychological effectiveness of photo radar. It’s one thing to be stopped by the Mounties, then have to sit at the side of the road while registration is run through the police computer system and lights illuminate the interior of your vehicle, then have a ticket handed to you personally.
With photo radar, on the other hand, all that happens is that the vehicle’s owner fumes when the ticket arrives in the mail, after the fact, then pays or fights the ticket.
Then again, photo radar also looks more like a cash grab than police ticketing because no demerit points are given – again, because the registered owner is ticketed, not the driver. The fact that no demerits are registered suggests even enforcement officials don’t view photo radar tickets with the same seriousness as a police-issued ticket. That suggests it’s really about the money.
Another common complaint about photo radar is that so much of the money generated leaves town into the coffers of the contractor.
And that’s maybe the most important complaint. If photo radar is actually effective at slowing speeders in town, which is debatable, and thereby increases public safety while generating income, shouldn’t all of the income stay in the community?
Possibly the best situation for photo radar would be for the Town to purchase its own equipment and have bylaw services staff man it. If council feels photo radar should continue in town as a traffic safety measure, and it voted to keep it running on Tuesday (Oct. 2), wouldn’t it be best to take it on and thus be free to spend the revenue where it feels it would be best used?
For example, in Calgary and Edmonton, 15 per cent of ticket revenue goes to victim services, 16.67 to the province and the rest to the City.
Ultimately, when it comes to photo radar, what can be seen as a negative for a contractor (dwindling tickets issued) could be seen as a positive for the Town (an increase in safety on the roads).
In control of its own photo radar, the Town could put revenue toward anti-speeding education campaigns, the purchase of more mobile speed display units, etc. and eventually, should speeders actually ease up, the Town could generate quality public relations in claiming it helped make its streets a safer place to be.
