this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2025
45 points (86.9% liked)

Canada

10449 readers
941 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
otter@lemmy.ca
mp3@lemmy.ca
otter@piefed.ca
mp3@piefed.ca
45
Speed-camera threat — Doug Ford shows he's the irresponsible driver's best friend (ottawacitizen.com)
submitted 1 week ago by sbv@sh.itjust.works to c/canada@lemmy.ca
45 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://sh.itjust.works/post/45991302

Ford calls speed cameras “nothing but a tax grab.” As do many reckless drivers. But surely he knows that speeding fines are not taxes. Even if they were, they’re voluntary: If you don’t want a speeding ticket, don’t speed.

...

In Ottawa, compliance with speed limits rose from from 16 per cent before speed cameras to 57 per cent after only three months, and to more than 80 per cent after three years. Instances of speeding at more than 15 km/h above the posted limit dropped from 14 per cent, pre-speed cameras, to less than one per cent after three years of the city using them.

A survey of more than 1,000 Ottawa residents, meanwhile, determined that of the 35 per cent of respondents who had been dinged with an speed camera fine, 69 per cent said it changed their driving behaviour. That’s what we want from these cameras.

And of course:

A study conducted by SickKids hospital in Toronto and published in July in the British Medical Journal’s Injury Prevention journal found that the use of speed cameras in school zones led to a 45 per cent reduction in speeding motorists, while the 85th percentile speed — the speed at or below which 85 per cent of the drivers travelled — dropped by almost 11 km/h. “The observed reduction in speed is likely important in reducing collisions and injuries,” the study noted

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (1 children)

I don’t tend the speed much, but I do now avoid the areas with cameras - I just cut through smaller residential streets more. How do we know this is any safer?

Aren't residential streets lower speeds too, so unless you're speeding there you're going slower on purpose?

And if you don't speed, why do you avoid areas with cameras?

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

It's when they drop more arterial roads to low speeds like 50km/h or even less that taking shortcuts through residential roads becomes more enticing. And doing 55km/h or 60 in 50 zones is pretty normal when there's no camera. Yes it's technically speeding, but very common.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

Sure but you haven't actually answered either question

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago (1 children)

I think the reference to 'shortcut' explains the first. And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that's why it's best to avoid the road with the camera even if you're nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

And accidentally going a few km/h over the limit is too great a risk if one might get a ticket, so that’s why it’s best to avoid the road with the camera even if you’re nominally trying to go at the speed limit. Do I have to spell it out any more?

Yes please, because "going a few km/h over the limit" doesn't trigger those cameras, there's quite a generous threshold (manufacturers give it a healthy margin to not have it within measurement error variances). Generally you need to be 10km/h or more above the limit to get a ticket.

So if you are not speeding, there's no reason to avoid routes with cameras. So do spell it out why would you prefer going 30 to 50km/h through a residential zone instead of going 50km/h through a normal arterial just because there are cameras.

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

There are reports of tickets for 2km/h over. penalties start at 1km/h over.
Whatever - you do you. I'll stick to the smaller roads away from the cameras. No risk to me then.

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

Cameras here don’t work that way. The usual implementation is that nothing within 10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher, because the sensor doesn’t have that accuracy, so you’re making your life harder for no reason

[–] CannonFodder@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

10% of 30km/h is 3km/h. So by your metrics if you're 3km/h over you can get a fine. And if it's accuracy is so bad, then it might give you a ticket for 31km/h even if it's threshold is set to 10%

[–] villasv@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

10% of the speed limit generates a ticket - most often even higher

In practice, it usually means near or above 10 km/h beyond the speed limit, because the accuracy isn't high enough to give tickets for 1 to 3 km/h differences. Those would be easily disputed and annulled in the courts.