 |
     |
|
|
Photo radar is contentious. I've seen its effect in action in Calgary, where everyone drives at the speed limit even on the countless multi-lane "trails" that slice through the ever-expanding city. Now, it seems that Ontarians can expect similar treatment, as early as when the snow goes in the spring: at least according to the G&M item Ontario likely to back photo radar. Let's let the story show us the contentions.
Contention one: it's a public safety issue. That's true. There are, I notice, more and more people (and I'm one of them) going faster and faster on the roads. It's one thing to zip along 30km faster than posted (100km) on a 3-lane highway with ramped entrances and exits; it's quite another to be 20km over the posted 60km on a primary in-town artery with traffic lights, pedestrians and their cross-walks, cyclists, right angle entry/exit at a multitude of cross streets, and a much broader array of drivers and styles (e.g., emergency vehicles). It's the primary reason red-light photo equipment has been installed. Too many people ignoring traffic lights. I mean, what is this Egypt?
Contention two: it's about political control. This is a municipal issue (on local streets) not provincial. But the province holds the money and its municipal act is what gives the municipalities their rights and powers. So, the big brother has to approve. Small but significant issue.
Contention three: it's about revenue. That's what most people who argue against it say, and that's fair. It's well known that the threat of a ticket is more effective than tickets in reducing speed. Which, by the way, is what this program is substantially about. But, for those who are hard to learn, like people who don't pay their parking tickets, a substantial one or two-time economic hit has magnificent impact. I share this concern, but at the same time realize that there are consequences for breaking the law and, no matter what we've come to think, speeding IS in fact breaking the law. Besides, the penalty doesn't have to be economic. You could be compelled to do public good or lose your license to drive for some period. Cash cow argument: gone.
Contention four: it's invasive and extends government too much into our lives. Get a grip. The street is there for the public provided by the public. You use it according to the rules that are generally acceptable to, created by, enforced by the public. The government represents the public. So, since the road is not your private property, abide by its rules or the public will impose itself on you. Don't want to be "invaded" by the government? Stay off the road. It's a stupid argument.
Just some thoughts.
Posted by Grayson at August 24, 2004 07:36 AM