I'll ask the question proposed in the video. "Why is the speed limit 40 there?" I can see setting the limit to 30 km/h near Island Park, not only because there are seniors who cross the road at that point, but because people navigating over the dam and canal should be going slow and using caution anyway. For the rest of the road, a limit of 40 km/h seems out of place, which is *why* drivers are speeding.
The "logical next step" would be to set the speed limit to 60 km/h (which is clearly what the road was designed for), or if there's an actual reason for the limit beyond entitlement, to install traffic calming devices that will force drivers to lower their speed. Speed cameras introduce ongoing costs for maintaining the equipment, processing the data, sending out fines, collecting fines. As we've seen with more remote radar-based "slow down" signs, local yahoos might even damage the cameras, leading to more expense. Modifying the road would incur a larger initial capital cost, but lower costs for ongoing operation.
Excellent video Alan. If road speeds were supported by road design rather than punitive action, speeding wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. One simple way to slow down traffic at least during non snowplow seasons, Is to place posts in the road that vehicles have to pass through. Cobourg utilizes these on Burnham Street in front of Burnham Public School and they are very effective.
Exactly. We design these places to be car centric and then add on layers of rules and systems to address the problems created because they're car centric! Fix the design, the problem is virtually eliminated.
I live on Trent Island and have a view of Grand Rd and Trent Dr. Cars actually go faster on Trent Drive. The Municipality tried speed bumps but soon removed them. The speed limit should stay the same, one good thing the Municipality did was to remove the picnic tables. Families with small children would use them. I was always fearful that a child would run out onto the road. People now park there and use the benches, no problems. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic. The problem is that there is no radar being run there from a standing position. Approximately ten years ago the police would park just South of the Tennis court and run radar. I haven,t seen them there in years. A number of years ago there was a cruiser parked at the Parkview Intersection. I engaged the officer in a conversation, he said that Trent Drive was a fishing hole. The road has got busier. What could improve enforcement is if the OPP supervisors would direct enforcement to be done. Thanks Art for this article. Call your local councillor and bring this article to their attention. Joe
I'm not against speed cameras and fines per se, but think the first 4 km over is splitting hairs and can only serve to make locals resentful, rather than supportive. I think charges should begin at 5 km over at the rate suggested, so a minimum fine of $25.
Yeah, I think that's the way it works in practice. They allow a certain amount over before charging. I didn't see anything for Brighton or Belleville that said what the allowance would be, so I didn't go into it in this story.
I refer you to an excellent discussion of road speed limits by "Not Just Bikes" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bglWCuCMSWc
I'll ask the question proposed in the video. "Why is the speed limit 40 there?" I can see setting the limit to 30 km/h near Island Park, not only because there are seniors who cross the road at that point, but because people navigating over the dam and canal should be going slow and using caution anyway. For the rest of the road, a limit of 40 km/h seems out of place, which is *why* drivers are speeding.
The "logical next step" would be to set the speed limit to 60 km/h (which is clearly what the road was designed for), or if there's an actual reason for the limit beyond entitlement, to install traffic calming devices that will force drivers to lower their speed. Speed cameras introduce ongoing costs for maintaining the equipment, processing the data, sending out fines, collecting fines. As we've seen with more remote radar-based "slow down" signs, local yahoos might even damage the cameras, leading to more expense. Modifying the road would incur a larger initial capital cost, but lower costs for ongoing operation.
Excellent video Alan. If road speeds were supported by road design rather than punitive action, speeding wouldn't be nearly the problem it is. One simple way to slow down traffic at least during non snowplow seasons, Is to place posts in the road that vehicles have to pass through. Cobourg utilizes these on Burnham Street in front of Burnham Public School and they are very effective.
Exactly. We design these places to be car centric and then add on layers of rules and systems to address the problems created because they're car centric! Fix the design, the problem is virtually eliminated.
Since most only read the "trusted" MSN and their mockingbird narratives, here is a read regarding camera speed enforcement.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/drive/mobility/article-why-are-we-so-obsessed-with-photo-radar-when-there-are-better-anti/
In short - its a cash grab. There are better ways.
I live on Trent Island and have a view of Grand Rd and Trent Dr. Cars actually go faster on Trent Drive. The Municipality tried speed bumps but soon removed them. The speed limit should stay the same, one good thing the Municipality did was to remove the picnic tables. Families with small children would use them. I was always fearful that a child would run out onto the road. People now park there and use the benches, no problems. There is a lot of pedestrian traffic. The problem is that there is no radar being run there from a standing position. Approximately ten years ago the police would park just South of the Tennis court and run radar. I haven,t seen them there in years. A number of years ago there was a cruiser parked at the Parkview Intersection. I engaged the officer in a conversation, he said that Trent Drive was a fishing hole. The road has got busier. What could improve enforcement is if the OPP supervisors would direct enforcement to be done. Thanks Art for this article. Call your local councillor and bring this article to their attention. Joe
I'm not against speed cameras and fines per se, but think the first 4 km over is splitting hairs and can only serve to make locals resentful, rather than supportive. I think charges should begin at 5 km over at the rate suggested, so a minimum fine of $25.
Yeah, I think that's the way it works in practice. They allow a certain amount over before charging. I didn't see anything for Brighton or Belleville that said what the allowance would be, so I didn't go into it in this story.
Thanks for the clarification Art.
My semi-educated guess is that the allowance is 14 km/h. Once you hit 15, demerit points start kicking in, and that's the real disincentive.