this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
47 points (100.0% liked)

Canada

10423 readers
641 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Related Communities


🍁 Meta


🗺️ Provinces / Territories


🏙️ Cities / Local Communities

Sorted alphabetically by city name.


🏒 SportsHockey

Football (NFL): incomplete

Football (CFL): incomplete

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


💻 Schools / Universities

Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.


💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales


🗣️ Politics


🍁 Social / Culture


Rules

  1. Keep the original title when submitting an article. You can put your own commentary in the body of the post or in the comment section.

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca


founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/35871824

Mayor Patrick Brown said he’s talked with the premier. Brampton has 185 photo radar cameras deployed.

The City of Brampton has spent millions of dollars going all-in on automated speed enforcement (ASE) technology and now Premier Doug Ford says his government might ban it.

On Tuesday (Sep. 9), Ford told reporters that he wants municipalities to voluntarily remove their ASE cameras — otherwise known as photo radar — or the province might ban them.

“It’s just a tax grab. They should take out those cameras — all of them,” Ford said. “Hopefully, the cities will get rid of them … or I’m going to help them get rid of them very shortly.”

Kralt told council that the cameras had reduced average driving speeds in six study areas by between 13 and 26 km/h, while increasing speed limit compliance by up to 85 per cent.

There are two petitions currently active for and against.

Link to petition posted on change.org, urging the city to keep the cameras. https://www.change.org/p/keep-the-speed-cameras-in-brampton

Link to petition posted on change.org, urging the city to remove the cameras. https://www.change.org/p/ditch-the-speed-cameras-petition-for-immediate-removal-in-brampton-ontario

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Krudler@lemmy.world -1 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (3 children)

I've been following traffic science for decades. Look into it, there's a heavy increase in collisions where cameras are present. And furthermore, credible analysis shows that to decrease speeding and increase safety (particularly at intersections) the main improvements are found by synchronizing lights and extending yellow times. But instead what happens is those underlying issues are ignored so the tax can be gathered and "cherry" jobs can be created for former policy-makers as happened in Winnipeg. It's not about safety. It has a safety component, but as with most things, when you scratch and look below the surface, it's a much more complex issue.

I personally feel, and you're free to disagree, that the installation of a camera is an admission that real safety measures are being actively ignored. Shrink the number of lanes? Narrow them? Traffic-calming measures? More roundabouts and fewer timed lights? Nah, just slap a camera there.

[–] dom@lemmy.ca 4 points 17 hours ago

Can you link some studies to start with? I am curious because I haven't heard of any increase of collisions in my area and the speed has definitely dropped

[–] healthetank@lemmy.ca 2 points 15 hours ago

As someone who has studied traffic engineering in school and works in road design, I'd be very curious what studies these were.

Look into it, there’s a heavy increase in collisions where cameras are present.

Only place I've seen this data was as an example in school of what not to do - several states had low yellow times (1-2s shorter than Ontario's), and added red light cameras at large, wide intersections that took longer to cross than the yellow timer, meaning if you entered on a green you could theoretically get hit with a red light violation. But those studies were late 90s, early 00s.

Every piece of data I've seen shows either a reduction in speed (even post camera removal), or minimal change after removal.

Note that studies need to reflect current state cameras in Ontario - only allowed to be used in school zones, and need to have signage present indicating their use. They're not used specifically at intersections.

Additionally, the fees for traffic cameras go back to road redesign budget, which is used (on the projects I've worked on) to provide traffic calming measures like narrower lanes, AT facilities, etc. Cameras should be a stop gap measure, and are vastly preferable to an increase in the polices budget to have increased traffic enforcement presence.

[–] NarrativeBear@lemmy.world 1 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

While I do agree with your sentiment that street safety is a more complex issue that the small subset of enforcement that cameras provide, you seems to making perfect the enemy of the good.

"the installation of a camera is an admission that real safety measures are being actively ignored."

While this statement may hold true for many different examples, security cameras in a store or in a public space do provide a level of "security", similar to how a officer or a on-duty security guard may provide a level of "security" when on premise. But, crime prevention starts at the social level of a society with access to education, healthcare, housing, and meaningful fulfilling work.

North America has IMO some of the worst roadway classifications, or lack thereof. We have residential and city streets designed like throughways with six lanes of traffic. At the same time we have roads designed like streets with multiple driveways and points of conflict between pedestrians, cyclists, and cars.

Traffic calming measures are ideally the end goals with complete street redesigns to actually match the streets intended use and posted limits.

Now cycling Infrastructure such as dedicated cycling lanes and intersection's with dedicated saftey curbs ie. "bike bananas" are a traffic claiming measure. They shrink car lanes to prevent speeding, and actively promoting safer streets within cities and towns. But somehow Dougie seems to be both against traffic cameras and any type of city street redesign that negates the need for said cameras.

Now ideal the small "revenue" that a traffic camera may produce is intended to go back into the roadway its self. Where traditional tickets from a officer may go into the funding of the police department. Similarly like how NYC's congestion pricing for example, where all revenue goes back into the cities transit and infrastructure.