Ontariohighwaytrafficact.com

"A matter pertaining to advice subject to solicitor-client privilege, including communications necessary for that purpose as it relates to the potential implementation of a Red Light Camera Program (C2/1/CWC)"

Tuesday Jan 12, 2016

Sorry for the LATE notice.

BUT email your London Councillor or Mayor in general or all of them. Does not matter if you live in the city, you visit the city right?

1% of the London citizens are probably aware they are about to get 5 yrs of HELL and $325 fines, 40% goes to the Region and 60% the cash starved city.

And you all know that red light cameras ticket rolling RIGHT TURNS right?

Durham Region said NO by vote of 21-4 in Sep. 2015.

Why because increasing yellow lights by 0.5-1sec makes the whole Red Light Camera business case fall apart.

http://sire.london.ca/mtgviewer.aspx?me ... ype=AGENDA

http://www.london.ca/city-hall/city-cou ... fault.aspx

Now is NOT the time for apathy fellow Cdns

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/25/redf ... o-resigns/)

A ''rolling right turn'' is still a ''Fail to stop at red light'' and warrants the $325.00 total payable.

Photo enforcement is coming , red light cameras are only the beginning. Might as well get used to it.

Take the City of Edmonton for example which is now testing a mobile unmarked photo radar unit and dozens of photo enforcement sites operating throughout the city 24/7 .

250alp wrote:

And you all know that red light cameras ticket rolling RIGHT TURNS right?

Let's pretend that making a right on a red without stopping wasn't already illegal.

These cameras work based off of triggers that correspond to speed. These cameras start picking up action when it recognizes something moving over a certain speed right before the line. I don't know the exact speed, but it's somewhere in between 20-30km. The picture sent to you will even provide you with your speed when you hit the line. Your average joe isn't going to trigger the camera by simply creeping over the line. If you received a red light camera ticket while making a right on red, chances are you made nothing close to an attempt to stop to begin with.

250alp wrote:

email your London Councillor or Mayor in general or all of them

Email sent asking them not to approve the cameras.

Reminder the VOTE is Tuesday lunch TOMORROW, time running out.

Red Light Cameras have "unintended consequences" and do little to change behavior except increase rear end collisions by 46% by one study alone.

Plus USA cities are slowing pulling the plug, why? too many angry voters and red light corruption by the private contractors in it for profit.

http://www.autoblog.com/2015/03/25/redf ... o-resigns/

"Regarding the results from the time series analyses of red light running crashes, when considering the strongest evidence only (effects significant at 5% level), there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and a 42% increase in rear end crashes. Given that rear end crashes are typically less severe than right angle crashes and the fact that this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education about the functioning of the photo cameras, it appears the photo enforcement safety program has had a positive net effect on traffic safety in the city of Winnipeg."

Winnipeg study 2011 pg12

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_pub ... ort-12.pdf

Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course.

$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.

You seem to be misinformed. Insurance rates can not be increased as a result of a red light camera ticket.

250alp wrote:

Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course.

$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.

Warning - rant ahead.

As a former soldier (who lost good friends) I'm getting thoroughly fed up of people using the old line that people died for our freedoms every time they don't like something that government is doing.

I'm no fan of red light cameras but their use is nothing to do with taking away a freedom. You don't have the freedom to run red lights now - there's a law against that. A red light camera is just a way of enforcing it.

Rant over - carry on.

250alp wrote:

$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years?

Red light camera tickets have no impact on insurance. They are glorified parking tickets. No honest "ticket fighter" will ever take your money to defend such a charge because their time would cost more than the ticket would ever cost you.

agreed

also Jumping a RED light is far far far more deadly than most offences, as your likly to crash with somone coming the other way

I very rarely have any sympathy for anyone jumping a red light

argyll wrote:

250alp wrote:

Tks "jsherk" for sending the email. Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms with good intentions of course.

$325 ticket, give me a break, plus insurance penalties for 3 years? Why not make it $550, make more money.

Warning - rant ahead.

As a former soldier (who lost good friends) I'm getting thoroughly fed up of people using the old line that people died for our freedoms every time they don't like something that government is doing.

I'm no fan of red light cameras but their use is nothing to do with taking away a freedom. You don't have the freedom to run red lights now - there's a law against that. A red light camera is just a way of enforcing it.

Rant over - carry on.

I wish red light tickets took pictures of the driver, and not the plate. Yes I know it has no insurance complications, but on 2 instances where my father got a red light ticket on a shared vehicle, no one wants to admit they ran the red. So my dad makes all of my siblings pay for the ticket, which I find is stupid.

UnluckyDuck wrote:

I wish red light tickets took pictures of the driver, and not the plate. Yes I know it has no insurance complications, but on 2 instances where my father got a red light ticket on a shared vehicle, no one wants to admit they ran the red. So my dad makes all of my siblings pay for the ticket, which I find is stupid.

Then buy your own car.

His car. His rules. Start walking.

250alp wrote:

"Regarding the results from the time series analyses of red light running crashes, when considering the strongest evidence only (effects significant at 5% level), there was a 46% decrease in right angle crashes at camera intersections and a 42% increase in rear end crashes. Given that rear end crashes are typically less severe than right angle crashes and the fact that this negative side effect can be rectified using mitigating strategies such as improving signage and education about the functioning of the photo cameras, it appears the photo enforcement safety program has had a positive net effect on traffic safety in the city of Winnipeg."

Winnipeg study 2011 pg12

http://www.tirf.ca/publications/PDF_pub ... ort-12.pdf

I'm not sure what kind of point you're trying to make here because all this quote does is contradict your whole argument. How closely did you read it? Even if you read the report by The London Road Safety Strategy, which is brought up in the London meetings, no one is denying rear end crashes increase.

The London Road Safety Strategy wrote:

Studies show that angle collisions, which are usually the most severe type of collision, are reduced by 25% when RLCs are used. The number of rear-end collisions may increase up to 15% as more drivers are stopping at the red signal. Overall there is a net safety improvement and a positive overall safety cost benefit.

The point made in both quotes is that while rear end collisions increase, angled collisions decrease. So what they are saying is, would you rather be rear ended by a braking vehicle going the same direction or hit on an angle by a car going a different direction at a higher rate of speed? It's like the argument that seat belts and/or air bags increase chest, neck, arm, and head injuries while the alternative is you're ejected from the windshield and you're dead.

I really don't have much of an opinion on red light cameras. I've never received a ticket through one. I can't say i've seen a "cheap" camera ticket given where I would have rolled my eyes. Probably all the rlc tickets i've seen through this forum were more than well deserved. Going through a red light is stupid, no matter how late you are. I can see the argument for someone who doesn't fully complete a stop on a right turn (even though illegal), but the cameras are good at filtering out those who may roll versus those that go now and ask questions later.

That being said, you're not exactly making great arguments. They don't give tickets for rolling right turns on red (unless you consider never slowing to below 20-30km rolling), they don't increase insurance rates, and no one is denying (not even the City of London) that rear end collisions increase.

LIVE debate now!

London Councillor just asked about RH turn red lights, "YES you will get a $325 ticket unless you make a full stop".

I warned you guys, the money is too lucrative.

Of course the robotic cameras never make mistakes and they are always calibrated fairly and maintained properly... which is why the State of NJ is shutting them down.

Apparently it passed, LONDONER's get out your wallet and get ready for money to leave the economy. The represented motorists is fair game for paying for broke governments.

5yrs from now? when the whole program fails you can revisit this post.

Like one of the fine Councillors said on LIVE streaming 'takes money away from the local economy for dubious results that longer yellow light times will solve and then the business case falls apart'...

I believe it was Councillor Michael van Holst, good man and here is an article he worked on with LFP.

http://www.lfpress.com/2015/12/27/red-f ... ht-cameras

"46% increase in rear end collisions at Red Light Traffic Cameras."

Why do they happen?

Because instead of a yellow amber light meaning "proceed with caution", citizens of London will be scared to death of this draconian fine and will be slamming on the brakes.

I will and you will, admit it.

It gets better, now you or your family member or friend is at fault for hitting the person stopped at a yellow traffic light and your insurance will go up plus the heavy demerit penalty.

Bottom line London Councillors choose to ignore the lessons learned from USA cities that are pulling the plugs on red light cameras due to: poor business case, corruption, increasing yellow light times by 0.5 sec or more and angry voters.

http://abc7ny.com/traffic/new-jersey-dr ... nt/416041/

250alp wrote:

London Councillor just asked about RH turn red lights, "YES you will get a $325 ticket unless you make a full stop".

So, if you break the law you risk a ticket? Not sure I'm seeing how this penalizes safe drivers.

Perhaps those who are driving will now actually leave enough space in front of them to come to a safe stop if the person in front has to "slam on their brakes"

It's no different than if that person had to do the same if a child ran onto the road.

Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on.

Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines.

ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING.

ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439.

Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?

Who funds this site?

250alp wrote:

Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?

Who funds this site?

Uh yeah, anyone disagreeing with you must be shilling for the man.

Clearly some just don't see red light cameras as the Orwellian threat to free society that you do.

250alp wrote:

Not sure whose side you are on? More government control or more trust to the people? Advanced societies don't need a policeman on every corner. Advanced societies people police themselves and don't hand over their destiny to Politicians who don't have a clue what they are voting on.

Some of us see photo radar, red light cameras, average speed calculators as money scams with questionable safety benefits when you actually look at the DATA vs the headlines.

ONTARIO pulled the plug on the photo radar experiment in 1995, 20+ years ago after making $19,000,000 in 11 months and what happened on our freeways NOTHING.

ON still has the safest highways in N.American, perhaps that is because only 2% of fatalities happen on 400 series highways in the first place. -SAE paper 960439.

Starting to think the purpose of this bulletin board is support more government intervention to drive business for Paralegals and Lawyers?

Who funds this site?

Whether we agree with something or not, it doesn't change whether a comment is factual accurate.

- Red light camera tickets don't increase insurance rates.

- Red light cameras don't ticket every driver who rolls a right on red. If you're so passionate about the issue, perhaps you should look at a RLC ticket and see how that idea is impossible without taking a picture of every car that uses the right turn lane.

- "Soldiers died for a freedom and now we are letting unrepresentative government take away our freedoms ". Soldiers didn't die for your freedom to drive through a red light because you're not free to drive in the first place. I don't agree with everything in the HTA, but driving is not a right whether I like it or not. Besides, using soldiers as a pawn for some argument is tacky.

- Trying to use the argument that poor innocent family members are now slamming into the rear of other vehicles, also tacky and already illegal. People (tailgators) who slam into the rear of another vehicle aren't the victims, which is why they can be charged. Hazards on the road appear all the time whether it's another vehicle, slow traffic, basketball, child, garbage can, piece of lumber, whatever. Those people are allowed to brake as need be without you injuring or possibly killing them in the process. There is already a law to prevent your dilemma, yet your solution seems to be to add even more safeguards (e.g. extending yellow lights), which condtradicts the whole nanny state mentality you're trying so hard to fight.

If you were an individual who opposes the use of RLC in your area, I commend you. There should always be a discussion from both sides of the fence on these issue. However, you've made some pretty big statements here.

I'm not sure why the implementation of red light cameras would necessarily preclude a change in timing of the amber lights as well. I think red light cameras can help increase motorist safety but obviously shouldn't be the only consideration. I'm not aware of any Municipalities in Ontario that have changed the timing of the lights post traffic camera installation. I'd also point out that in locally from what I've read, red light cameras seem to be beneficial in the long run. There tends to be a spike in rear end collisions for the first few years but afterwards a drop in overall collisions. http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/10 ... _show.html