REPLY: Thanks for being the fist person to throw your hat in the ring. I think you've summed it up quite well.
REPLY: I am always glad to hear from someone at the NMA. Among other issues, Ontario's Solicitor General Bob Runciman has been back pedaling on the government's stand on photo radar recently. He has publicly stated that, "Maybe we have been too hasty in canceling the study. RE:(Photo Radar)". In fact the provincial government has been softening their position. Provincial M.P.P. Gary Guzzo (PC) supported the Ottawa city council's vote on introducing photo radar in that city. Photo Radar is a big buck shell game. Whenever asked how much they are making in fines, government or company officials normally say they do not have the numbers on that. They do however, turn around and state how many lives they may be saving.
REPLY: I haven't head of it myself. If anyone has drop this page a line as well and I'll include a link or mailing address, if it has one.
REPLY:I've seen two different types. The first holds the plate in it and it has two bent tabs on either side of it. When viewed from behind you see the whole plate, but when you see it at a 22 degree angle it blocks out the last letter of the plate. The second uses a sheet of polarized film that is clear from the rear but fades to black as you move from to the side.
REPLY FROM SHELDON: Well I wrote a while ago about have the plate cover that bends the light in order NOT to see the plate numbers completely. Looks like the cops did after all get into my pocket to try to get some money.
REPLY: The constitutional problem is one of inequity before the law. If you get a regular speeding fine, you get a fine and loose points. If the photo radar fine doesn't affect a drivers points, the same offence is treated differently. That's a constitutional no no.
REPLY: Thanks for the feedback. To answer your question as to why someone would have a problem with getting a speeding ticket, there are basically 4 reasons:
1- There is a serious question at to its constitutionality under Canadian law. (RE: Photo Radar)
2- In many cases, speed limits do not reflect the true safe speed of the road in question and is set arbitrarily low.
3- Contrary to popular belief, speed is not the main cause of accidents.
4- Focusing the brunt of traffic enforcement on the smallest contributor to accidents is a misallocation of resources.
As to why would any one who is breaking the law should be upset in receiving a fine, the answer is simple. Enforcing an artificially low speed limit is bad practice and law. To add an automated fine system merely compounds these problems and takes this from a safety issue and turns it into one of unfair taxation.
As a side note when some states raised their limits from 55 to 65 miles an hour, the number of head on collisions dropped as much at 70%. The reason for that was that people who were driving the limit were no longer holding up the flow of traffic. Since traffic was not being held up there were fewer incidents of passing and lane changing.
The magistrates cited the fact that there as no police officer involved in the situation that there were serious due process issues in the fact that in the use of photo radar, the machine is the accuser not a human being that can be cross-examined ie the right to face one's accuser is circumvented by photo radar.
Another case will be heard this Thursday that may end the program altogether in Alaska if the magistrates repeat their findings. The Municipality of Anchorage has stated that it will appeal the case to State Superior Court should the case against the defendant to be heard Thursday is dismissed. If the Superior Court upholds the lower court's dismissal photo radar will not be tenable in any jurisdiction in the State of Alaska.
Photo radar was introduced this last winter as an enforcement tool for limited to school zones only. However, although the school zone only enforcement was upheld the hours of enforcement were extended well after all school activities ceased. This caused an uproar in Anchorage. Hopefully the district court on Thursday will uphold the Monday findings and dismiss the charges thereby setting the stage for the Municipality's appeal to Superior Court. The way in which traffic radar usage of any sort has evolved in Alaska courts is that the police officer must visually assess the speed of the accused and use the radar to confirm the speed of the offending vehicle. Photo radar obviously violates this principle.
Photo radar was introduced by an out of state contractor from Arizona on a split with the Municipality of Anchorage. Anchorage receives the 30%25. Pretty good deal since the average ticket is $246 . Over 2,000 tickets were issued within the first TWO WEEKS using three units at various school zones throughout the city. I estimate that the city is making a minimum of 243,000 per day. Photo radar is not a safety tool it is a revenue enforcement tool. The justification for using photo radar by the Anchorage Assembly was that it was cheaper than a 24,000 year cop.
My problem is that the police officer still has to be on the street although now they can go to the coffee shop during the time the kids are going to and from school whereas before a marked patrol was the deterrent to speeding. Photo radar will not stop someone doing 60MPH in a 35MPH zone when kids are present but the cop can. MONEY IS THE BASIS FOR THIS ENFORCEMENT NOT SAFETY.
Larry Wood State Chapter Coordinator Alaska State Chapter National Motorists Association.
REPLY: Probably the stupidest application of photo radar is in school zones. Such a sensitive area requires ACTIVE enforcement, (ie:someone to stop an offender) not passive. Just imagine for a moment, a police chief explaining to grieving parents and the media that a child had been killed. Compound that with the person that hit the child had been caught earlier same week, speeding in the same area on photo radar!.
REPLY: No, no, no, money and no! Seriously though the only bright spot of th NZ program is that they were setting their cameras to the 85th percentile. In fact one little highway in the north of the country had an 85th percentile the was over double the posted limit!
REPLY: Well Blaine it all depends on the equipment used and the laws of a jurisdiction. Its just as easy to train Joe average as an officer, but a lot of areas require that charges and fines be laid by an officer. Don't worry though there is a solution to concern. American Trafic Systems has a unit called the SP-200. Its a pole mounted unit that doesn't require any operator. It will simply take electronic pictures and video tape its area all by itself. If it is configured like their RL-200 unit it would be able to communicate with HQ via phone, cellular, fiber optic or even satelite. Violation data can be downloaded real time and fines could be issued within minutes! Give it a couple of years and who knows, your driver's liscence renual will require that you give your bank/credit card number, so that fines could be processed even faster! ;-> Our best defence against this is as you pointed out, let the politicians and policy makers know who is the boss at election time and be VERY clear of the concequneces of ramming policy down the public's throat!
REPLY: As far as I know Jerome, the vans are not grouped together. This is my most current information on deployment in B.C. There are only 11 operational units deployed in the province. Victoria has 4, Kamloops and the Okanagan have 4 and Prince George has 3. The manufaturer has 7 more units parked and more than likely WILL NOT be released to the government. In another week or so I will be devoting a large section of the page to British Columbia with a few surprises,hopefully! Not only to keep people informed but to keep people from commenting that, as a damn easterner I'm ignoring the west! :-)
Sirs; My main opposition to the use of the MultiNova radar system is purely on the basis of abuse of process. Why more Canadians are not outrage by this blatent break with the principles of common law is a good indication as to how well we are informed as to our legal, contitutions rights. In Alberta challanges to photo radar never get beyond traffic+court. The reason being if a case did make it to provincial cout the citizens would realise what abuse of due process is being supported by the tories. The main points are; A summons not directly issued by a peace officer is of dubious validity. Who exactly is being accused of the+crime? It appears they charge an inanimate object and fine the owner. Burden of proof is shifted to the defendant without proper evidence. For these reasons I will challenge any photo radar ticket I recieve. In the mean while I will avoid that scenerio by purchasing a detector so I may go about my dayly business without being arbitrarilly selected to render public revenue.
....P.S. got any leads on which is the best detector for catching the multinova??
REPLY: All good points Dave, I couldn't agree with you more. I find it stange, that around only 5% of people fight their tickets. When you consider studies indicate that 20-30% of tickets are in error depending on whether the police vehicle is moving or not, a lot of people are being falsely accused. The best way of fighting photo radar is to make sure it isn't adopted in the first place. Barring that our best defence is to make the photo radar programs a financial disaster for the government. Governments know from their own statistics that speed does not kill, if the program becomes costly it will whither on the vine. Don't concern your self with the multi nova units. Calgary is going to be purchasing ATS PR-100's and Edmonton will be evaluating them this month as well. In about a week, I will be adding a new section to the page dedicated to B.C. and the equipment being used including specs, so check back.
Photo radar' test period in the province of BC has ended as of August long weekend. All speeders will now recieve tickets randing from $100- $150 dollars depending on the speed. When I recieve my first picture of myself speeding... wether I'm on my motorcycle or in my car, I will be sure to send the ministry my picture of the money that I owe. If we all did that, I think that government would get the picture (no pun intended).
REPLY: Don't forget to give a picture of yourself to your family. They can remember what you look like when the judge throws you in jail for contempt. :-) People who paid their fines with quarters in Ontario were treated similarly.
I would greatly appreciate anyone's advice on how to beat a photoradar ticket. Constitutional or otherwise. Please e-mail me with your pointers. Thanks,
REPLY: If any lawyers out there care to share their expertise, I'd be glad to hear from you as well.
I understand that you think it is a cash grab, but let's think about this. If you are speeding and a police officer pulls you over, you get a ticket "right?" Next time, you probably will not speed. Same principle. If you don't want the ticket, take your foot off the gas. We all know what the speed limit is, we have just gotten away with speeding for so long, that we are used to it. If you steal candy from a store everyday and don't get caught, is it wrong? The answer to that question is the same for if you speed and don't get caught. Still makes it wrong.
REPLY: I see your point, but it is wrong if you scratch trough the surface a bit. Point number one, there is no proof anywhere that speed kills on highways. Point two, enforcing speed limits for safety reasons is therefore wrong. Compounding the problem by an automated ticket dispenser merely makes matters worse not better.
To quote New York mayor, David Dinkins, "I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to comply with the law". Dumb laws should be challenged and it is our right and responsibility to do so. For instance photo radar in Alaska is now dead since the State supreme court ruled it unconstitutional on the basis that the accused can not cross examine his accuser.
The bottom line is that traffic laws must promote safety in order to be effective. To do otherwise undermines the whole system and is dumb and will in the end cost lives.
Hi, I'm an unfortunated owner of an BMW M5 with only 348 HP. That is the cause of my pains and my collection of tickets. The tickets say that the speed was catching with a MULTINOVA model 6F. Do you know the exact band of this "monster"?. Do you know the best radar detector for the infamous mentioned "monster"?.
REPLY: Well I don't know off hand, but you can check out S.E.N.C.E's homepage. The URL is in the links section of this site.
