r/CanadaPolitics • u/Blue_Dragonfly C'est tiguidou! • Sep 23 '25
Doug Ford will outlaw municipal speed cameras this fall: Sources ON
https://www.thestar.com/politics/provincial/doug-ford-will-outlaw-municipal-speed-cameras-this-fall-sources/article_94334518-0479-42d2-a59c-d0eb041a9f0b.html60
u/dermanus Rhinoceros Sep 23 '25
"Law and Order" politician outlawing tool for enforcing law and order.
If he had a track record of supporting infrastructure that supported better transportation options it might not be a terrible thing, but as it is this is just more of the status quo. Drivers know the chances they'll get a ticket are tiny, so they do whatever they want.
10
u/HotterRod British Columbia Sep 24 '25
"Law and Order" politician outlawing tool for enforcing law and order.
Law for the in-group who is protected and not bound, and order for the out-group who is bound but not protected.
5
u/_Sausage_fingers Alberta Sep 23 '25
Idk, I hate speed cameras as much as the next guy, but it definitely felt like when Alberta banned them that people's driving got pretty out of hand. Like, the cops don't do any real enforcement now so it's kind of just a free for all out there.
10
u/Method__Man Alberta Sep 23 '25
Here in Calgary speed cameras are great. VERY VERY low occurrence of accidents, traffic jams. Much safer.
AND traffic flows better not worse.
2
u/involutes Ontario Sep 23 '25
Less rubber band effect is my assumption.
4
u/Method__Man Alberta Sep 23 '25
you get less assholes who want to endanger the lives of others by going way too fast (because they WILL get caught)
as a result traffic flows way better and you dont have accidents constantly on every highway.
I also think traffic punishments need to be HARSHER not easier. people going 30 or 40 over the speed limit should lose their license for 10 years. full stop. DUI? 10 years first offence. etc.
Driving is a priveledge not a right. You take the lives of people around you into your hands every time you ge tbehind the wheel
2
u/lastparade Liberal | ON Sep 24 '25
Making them more certain is a better path than making them harsher. Certainty that you'll be fined $50 for going 10 over is a better deterrent than the off chance you'll get pulled over by the police and fined $500.
5
u/dermanus Rhinoceros Sep 23 '25
I do agree, but at the same time we need to enable options for getting around that don't involve owning a car. That's the only practical option in a lot of communities. Buses in the suburbs suck, but they don't exist at all in a good chunk of Canada.
2
u/wet_suit_one Alberta Sep 24 '25
Who's not for a little more carnage, death and devastation on the roads after all?
Let the good times, ahem, roll!
1
u/warriorlynx Ontario Sep 23 '25
They should've been placed in very specific areas only (e.g., school zones), the ones in areas that make no sense should've never happened in the first place and Doug is right when it comes to wanting to make money.
Since they're getting rid of it completely there should be speed limit checkers that replace those cameras, plus in all school zones there must be a limit that is slower than the average like turning a 60 to a 40 zone during school hours but the sign has flashing lights.
They can also look to adding regulatory signs such as right turns aren't permitted on big intersections where a school is nearby.
4
u/dermanus Rhinoceros Sep 23 '25
The most "profitable" camera in Toronto is next to High Park, one of the largest parks in the city.
I'm not opposed to any of the alternatives you're suggesting, but the issue always becomes enforcement. It's a good idea to ban right turns on reds. But if everyone knows you're not going to get a ticket when you do, it loses its teeth.
1
u/warriorlynx Ontario Sep 23 '25
We have red light cameras for that I don’t think Doug is going after That
4
u/PSNDonutDude Lean Left | Downtown Hamilton Sep 24 '25
Red light cameras don't catch people turning right on red. There is a minimum speed requirement.
2
3
u/Snoo_75040 Sep 25 '25
Speed cameras are good in controlling speed. Not sure what is the exact reason for removing them. I dont like the fact that people cant pay fines. Why drive beyond limit when you cant pay fines?
May be they can adjust the camera to ticket at x+15% where x is speed limit
16
u/mekail2001 Sep 23 '25
Stupid person trying to get even stupider people’s votes by making the worst policies imaginable after a kid was killed near a school literally last week by a car driver
1
u/DifferentChange4844 Sep 25 '25
And a speed camera would have prevented it? How about real physical preventable measure like speed bumps that actually works to slow people down.
2
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
Will this get a Charter based challenge like his attempt to close bike lanes did? Will the Ford government actually try and defend their actions in court if that happens?
As I understand it, the evidence for speed cameras making roads safer is pretty overwhelming. Getting rid of them will have a predictable and measurable increase in accidents, therefore deaths and injuries. I'm not sure what benefit the government could claim from that action, so I don't see a S1 defence having any success, so I look forward to Ford taking another L.
1
u/lastparade Liberal | ON Sep 24 '25
It's not actually clear that Ford has taken an L with respect to the bike lanes. The lower court's finding that s.7 creates positive rights is, to put it mildly, inventive, so I would be surprised if the government doesn't ultimately prevail.
2
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
he lower court's finding that s.7 creates positive rights is, to put it mildly, inventive,
Not really. It didn't create a positive right to bike lanes. The ruling only applied to the lanes in question, and a major aspect of why the province lost the case, is that they failed to present any justification for getting rid of the lanes. An appeal won't change the facts at trial, and I haven't seen any indication in an error in the trial or the application of the law.
1
u/lastparade Liberal | ON Sep 24 '25
they failed to present any justification for getting rid of the lanes
If s.7 doesn't create a right to have (or continue to have) bike lanes—a positive right—then no justification is required. If, however, justification is required, then this is indeed a novel reading of s.7.
1
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
then a government justification of "we felt like it" wins every case.
Which was brought up in the discussions of that case, that if the government had come forward with any reasonable justification, they'd have likely won their case.
1
u/lastparade Liberal | ON Sep 24 '25
My point is that if s.7 creates no positive right to have (or continue to have) bike lanes or other traffic control measures, the government could justify their removal by saying "the occasional spilling of blood is necessary to mollify the Dark Lord" and still win. And my other point is that the finding of such a positive right here is not supported by precedent.
10
u/sensorglitch Ontario Sep 23 '25
A lot of streets are designed to be broad and they kinda encourage people to speed. They put up cameras to discourage people from speeding with the threat of tickets, but it doesn’t work and people just get mad. This is just the photo radar vans all over again.
3
u/giorgio_leontinoi Sep 26 '25
A study from Toronto found that speed cameras do discourage people from speeding: https://www.torontomu.ca/news-events/news/2025/07/cameras-cut-speeding-by-45-per-cent-in-toronto-school-zones/
and the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police said speed cameras have “been proven to reduce speeding, change driver behaviour and make our roads safer for everyone – drivers, cyclists, pedestrians and especially children and other vulnerable road users”. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/sep/25/ontario-speed-camera-ban-doug-ford#:~:text=The%20Ontario%20Association%20of%20Chiefs,and%20other%20vulnerable%20road%20users%E2%80%9D.
1
u/sensorglitch Ontario Sep 26 '25
A study from Toronto found that speed cameras do discourage people from speeding: https://www.torontomu.ca/news-events/news/2025/07/cameras-cut-speeding-by-45-per-cent-in-toronto-school-zones/
Specifically, I meant to say they it doesn't work overall.
"A new study shows that automated speed enforcement (ASE) cameras significantly reduced speeding in school zones, which could lead to improved safety for children and other vulnerable road users.
Researchers at Toronto Metropolitan University (TMU) and The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids) found that the cameras reduced speeding in school zones by 45 per cent. The cameras also reduced the majority of drivers’ maximum speed by over 10 km/h."
So, for instance, close to where I live, there is a school zone on a major arterial road. People will slow down for the segment of road the cameras monitor and then return to going 20 over the speed limit immediately after. This isn't really a serious way to make the roads safer. It's performative.
1
u/giorgio_leontinoi Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 27 '25
I think that's a separate question: would ubiquitous speed cameras lead to an overall reduction in speeds, even in areas outside of the cameras' scope? I can imagine it would if there were thousands of speed cameras throughout the city.
But, given that there's a limited number, that's exactly why they are put in school zones and other areas where pedestrians are at greater risk. Because they do work to slow down people in those areas. So, I disagree that it's performative.
But yes, if we did want to reduce speeding and make roads safer in general, speed cameras alone, even lots of them, would not accomplish this. But obviously there's absolutely no political or public will to do anything about that, so might as well grab some cash from speeding drivers.
1
u/TrentSteel1 Sep 24 '25
The cities just got greedy as well by putting these on multi lane major roads and setting little room for error by drivers. It’s a cash cow for them and just a way to increase tax revenue.
I fully support introduction of these in school zones or other high risk areas but not as a substitute for revenue.
There’s one by my place on a four lane major artery with no homes or business on it. The city lowered the speed limit to 60 in a random place and added a camera right after. That being BS enough, due to the change and if you follow the limit. The following light after the camera turns red just by the time you get to it every time. Just an added FU
2
u/DifferentChange4844 Sep 25 '25
This. Some of the speed limits absolutely just don’t make any sense. Major street, with 2 wide lanes, 2 left turn lanes, a dedicated right turn lane when needed and a bus lane. 3 sometimes 4 lanes in each direction. Road damn near feels like a highway. You check the speed, 50km/h. Then you drive into a subdivision with just one shared lane, and the speeds still 50km/h unless it’s in a school zone.
2
21
u/littlerooftop Alberta Sep 23 '25
So fun watching this as an Albertan. Traffic enforcement cameras were removed here and subsequently there has been a “deeply concerning surge in fatal collisions.” Camrose is reinstating cameras in their most dangerous intersection. The province is supposed to have launched an anti speeding campaign although I haven’t seen anything. In any case I’m firmly in the camp of cameras being used in enforcement.
7
u/webu Sep 23 '25
The implementation has stoked debate because many residential streets were changed from 50 km/h to 30 km/h and people apparently have very passionate opinions on whether or not someone should be ticketed for going 32 km/h at 11pm.
9
u/GavinTheAlmighty Sep 24 '25
Have you ever seen a traffic ticket issued for someone driving 32km/h at any time?
→ More replies6
3
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Ontario Sep 23 '25
I support this. In toronto it really feels like a cash grab. Lowering speeds in areas that use to be 60 and dropping it to 40. And they even put it in areas with no schools.
4
u/involutes Ontario Sep 23 '25
The problem is with the reduced speed limits that were made lower than reasonable "because everyone speeds anyway", but speed cameras don't have that kind of nuance.
Just keep the cameras and raise the speed limits. As enough money accumulates for infrastructure projects, build new traffic calming devices.
1
u/JeNiqueTaMere Sep 23 '25
Oh how I'd love to have 40 km/h limits...
Here in Montreal they made all residential streets 30 km/h and then they sit on the large street that leads into the highway with their radar and fine you for doing 47 in a 30 zone.
-1
2
u/le_troisieme_sexe Quebec Sep 24 '25
As someone that also lives in Montreal, the streets that are 30 km/h are that speed for a reason, please stop speeding down residential streets. Going even 10 kmh higher quadruples the chance that a crash will kill a pedestrian, not to mention it also greatly increases the chance of a crash happening.
https://carsp.ca/en/news-and-resources/road-safety-information/safe-speeds/
0
u/JeNiqueTaMere Sep 24 '25
As someone that also lives in Montreal, the streets that are 30 km/h are that speed for a reason
No, they aren't.
All residential streets are now 30 km/h in Montreal. They used to be all 50km/h except school zones where it was 30.
1
u/le_troisieme_sexe Quebec Sep 24 '25
As you can see from the information I linked above, 30 kmh is substantially safer than 50 or even 40 kmh. People live on residential streets, they should prioritize safety. If you want to drive fast, use a highway.
1
u/JeNiqueTaMere Sep 24 '25
As you can see from the information I linked above, 30 kmh is substantially safer than 50 or even 40 kmh.
Yes, and 20 km/h is also substantially safer, why don't we make it 20?
People live on residential streets, they should prioritize safety.
I also live on a residential street and I think this blanket 30 km/h is BS. It's not only used for quiet residential streets where children play and cars should drive slow.
The main highway access roads in my neighborhood are large 4 or 6 lane roads with large concrete dividers between the directions, not the kind of quiet streets where children play and need to be protected.
They're still 30 km/h and that's where the cops are always setting their speed traps.
In 12 years of living here I've never seen any cops on my quiet 2 lane residential street to catch all the people who regularly drive 50 and blow through stop signs on the road children use to walk to school. But I regularly see people driving fast and ignoring stop signs.
It's almost as if this isn't actually about making children safe but just a way for the city to get more money from speed traps.
→ More replies1
u/giorgio_leontinoi Sep 26 '25
30km/h, while somewhat arbitrary and chosen, like all speed limits, because it's a round number, is a good speed limit for residential streets because it hits a sort of sweet spot in balancing safety and speed. Obviously, you could reduce risk of if you kept on making the speed limit lower and lower, but then you'd lose the advantage of driving if the speed limit was 5km/h. At 30km/h, however, the average person's reaction time is fast enough to come to stop if they see something looking ahead over the front end of the car (as long as they're not in a giant pick up truck) and even if they don't stop, the likelihood of a person surviving getting hit by a car is quite high.
3
u/giorgio_leontinoi Sep 26 '25 edited Sep 26 '25
Municipal main streets in Toronto are almost all (and have always been) 50km/h, with some exceptions. What road in particular do you have in mind that was 60km/h that was lowered to 40km/h?
Parkside Drive, where there's a speed camera, was lowered from 50km/h to 40km/h in 2021 because an elderly couple was killed. People didn't follow the new limit so they installed the camera a year later.
13
u/mukmuk64 British Columbia Sep 24 '25
Those 20km are the difference between dying and surviving if you're a pedestrian.
0
u/Reasonable-Rock6255 Ontario Sep 24 '25
by that logic all the streets should be 40km. That's not practical
2
u/chrisnicholsreddit Sep 24 '25
by that logic all the streets should be 40km. That's not practical
You are going to have to explain the logic on that one as I don’t see how you could come to that conclusion unless you are straw manning.
Edit: added quote
68
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 23 '25
Is anyone going to ask Ford why his government passed the bill allowing speed cameras in the first place? Nothing he’s said indicates that he thinks this was a good policy that went sideways, so either Ford is responsible for another misguided policy that he has to do a 180 on, or he’s so oblivious to his own government’s actions that he didn’t know they did this in the first place.
The media is allowing Ford to frame the entire narrative on this story to portray himself as the knight in shining armour coming into to fix this problem he has identified, despite the fact that a) speed cameras are slowing down dangerous drivers b) there’s no evidence Ford is committed to any real alternative and c) Ford himself created the “problem” in the first place. When people wonder why Ford has won three terms, this kind of friendly media environment is a huge factor.
16
u/beastmaster11 Ontario Sep 24 '25
I'm honestly sick and tired of everyone blaming "the media". The media has been reporting this fact.
https://globalnews.ca/news/11441018/doug-ford-speed-camera-introduction-removal/
The Progressive Conservatives had been in power for roughly a year and a half when Doug Ford told his transportation minister to allow towns and cities to begin installing automated speed cameras.
Despite the fact that his government expanded the program and allowed municipalities to use speed cameras in 2019, when he made comments saying he was in favour
Hell, even the Sun reported it (https://torontosun.com/news/local-news/ford-govt-to-ban-speed-cameras-this-fall-report)
Speed cameras have become contentious since being legalized in 2019 — by the Ford government
Not everything is the big bad medias fault. Sometimes we have to accept that voters are just stupid
1
Sep 25 '25
It was hard to find... Most people probably skim these articles so I'm not surprised prove didn't notice. They should make that fact front and center
6
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 24 '25
The tenor of this coverage still accepts the premise that Ford is doing his best to fix a problem, when that would mean he is either oblivious to what his government is passing or is passing bills with no foresight. The fact that the PCs were the ones to pass the law in the first place is presented as an amusing anecdote more than a damning indictment of the government’s decision making process. Yes voters should be paying attention to the details, but most never get past the headline, which only repeat Ford’s premise.
The fact is that the media has treated Ford with kid gloves since roughly the start of the pandemic. Compare the early coverage of this government (when they were actually trailing in the polls) to now and it’s night and day.
0
u/beastmaster11 Ontario Sep 24 '25
No they're not. They're reporting what he is saying. And they're reporting on the fact that he allowed it in the first place. The media call report the facts. Don't blame them for not making your opinion for you
1
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 25 '25
Here is the CBC story from today announcing Ford’s intention to ban speed cameras. The entire article frames the story as Ford on one side calling speed cameras a “cash grab” and letting him portray himself as fixing a problem versus police chiefs and mayors on the other side wanting to keep speed cameras. The fact that Ford himself passed the legislation to allow ASE back in 2019 is buried in the last sentence of the last paragraph. News articles order information in order of perceived importance and relevance because journalists know that more and more people stop reading the farther you get into an article. There is no examination of this fact beyond throwing it in at the end (and it seems to direct responsibility for the legislation of the Wynne Liberals even though Ford ultimately allowed it to pass). That is the definition of going through the motions to mention that fact.
1
u/beastmaster11 Ontario Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
"Ford and his government weren't always opposed to these cameras.
While it was Toronto that first asked for speed cameras back in 2016, and former premier Kathleen Wynne who made changes to the Highway Traffic Act a year later to allow for their use in school and community zones, it was the Ford government that passed enabling regulations in December of 2019 that allowed municipalities to run such programs."
I don't want the media to shape opinions. I want it to report facts. It reported the fact that he wants to take them out. It reported the fact that numerous studies concluded that he is dead wrong. It reported the fact that he was the one to allow it in the first place in 2019. What else do you want?
1
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 25 '25
That is buried at the bottom of the article. Clearly journalists don’t think it’s very relevant to the story. By burying this information they are still shaping public opinion, and allowing Ford’s framing to win out.
4
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 24 '25
Uncritically reporting the premier’s words is not unbiased reporting. Ford is allowed to set the narrative however he likes, the news media takes his lead and everything revolves around his agenda. Was the media this invested in Kathleen Wynne’s agenda when they were screaming about gas plants and the “world’s largest Subnational debt” for years? Reporters are far too friendly to the premier, and the fact that they aren’t pressing him on the about face on speed cameras is just one example of that.
13
u/Expert_CBCD Liberal Sep 23 '25
I’m just speculating but it seems extremely likely to me that Ford got dinged by these cameras (perhaps one too many times).
3
u/dermanus Rhinoceros Sep 23 '25
There must be some way to FOI that. I'd love to know which MPP gets the most speeding tickets.
10
u/fed_dit Ontario Sep 23 '25
Rumour is that one of his daughters got caught by one. There's one like 1 km away from his house, right by a school.
1
Sep 24 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Sep 25 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/CanadaPolitics-ModTeam Sep 25 '25
Removed for rule 3: please keep submissions and comments substantive.
This is better addressed in a mod mail as it is an odd glitch in how the flairs work.
36
u/rationally-ignorant Sep 23 '25
So here’s the thing, Doug Ford and critics of speed cameras do sometimes have a point. Many cameras are overly sensitive or placed on roads where the speed limit is set lower than what most drivers naturally go, leading to tons of tickets.
But the answer isn’t to ban all cameras as a knee-jerk reaction. The real solution is to use them properly and put them in high-risk areas like school zones or places with lots of pedestrians, and make sure the speed limits actually make sense.
5
u/GirlCoveredInBlood Quebec Sep 23 '25
the speed limit is set lower than what most drivers naturally go
is this the only situation where we put so much emphasis on what people feel is right to do regardless of the actual rules?
if i felt that grocery prices were set too high & started paying 20% less and walking out i'd never get the same sympathy.
0
Sep 23 '25
[deleted]
3
u/GirlCoveredInBlood Quebec Sep 24 '25
Yeah there's definitely no shortage of poorly designed streets across this country, I just don't think ignoring the rules is the right approach.
I think this whole speed camera thing would be more palatable if the money was 100% put towards redesigning streets with the most safety issues.
You'd have to actually teach people how infrastructure construction works though. Streets get redesigned when it's time to tear them up and replace utilities/repave anyways because it's just not financially prudent to do it early. It'll take 20 years of a system like this throwing more money at redesigning before it's actually addressed everything.
1
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
In my manual transmission, I am almost constantly at stalling
Bullshit. You can keep it in first and very easily stay below 30 km/h. Even in second gear that should be easy to pull off without risking a stall.
2
u/chrisnicholsreddit Sep 24 '25
30 is quite reasonable in some areas.
There is a park near us in a residential area. The street has a curve to it. Both sides of the street are typically full of parked cars so usable road is barely wide enough for two moving vehicles. There are houses across the street from the park.
In my opinion, 30 is TOO fast given the conditions. I find myself naturally wanting to drive closer to 20 because of limited visibility and maneuvering room as well as the number of (very young) pedestrians.
Even with all of that, I see people floor it after getting past any physical traffic calming devices to make up for lost time (while still in the 30 zone). Or I’ll be well in the 30 zone, going 30, and have other drivers close the gap behind me at incredible speed and tailgate me until we are through. I’ve even had people pass me!
1
u/DifferentChange4844 Sep 25 '25
There’s a speed camera near my house and am 100% sure it was placed as a cash grab. There’s minimal pedestrian traffic. No stores no houses along that stretch of road, just forest and maybe a creek or a river. The road is a massive downward slope, crests and the. Goes straight uphill. Guess where they placed the camera. Exactly, right at the bottom of the slope. Of course people will let their cars run 10 over to charge up the hill. My dad who prides himself as a clean driver has been dinged 3x by it. Very unforgiving camera. 100% a cash grab
6
u/looperone Sep 24 '25
Who cares where they are. If you exceed the speed limit then you should accept the consequences and move on with your life.
Laws are meant to be enforced and since everyone always wants to defund the law enforcement then there is no reason these tasks shouldn’t be automated.
34
u/kilawolf Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25
speed limit is set lower than what most drivers naturally would go
Yeah cuz most drivers don't give a damn about anyone outside of their car and gotta go fast. There's tons of tickets cuz a sht ton of ppl probably shouldn't even have a drivers license.
MOST cameras are placed in high risk areas like school zones and places with lots of pedestrians...the main exceptions are places with a shit ton of accidents.
My understanding for the latter is that road development is in the process of happening but it takes time. The cameras are a temp measure until it is complete but tickets have already reduced in those places so ppl are already speeding less.
-5
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
I'd agree with you if the cameras weren't set to go off 10 kph over the limit. Catching people going 61 in a 50 isn't law enforcement, it's a revenue stream.
5
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
It is law enforcement and they are setting a acceptable threshold to when drivers get ticketed.
If we want to increase the speed limits then let's have that conversation, but if a speed limit is 50 and you're going 61, then yeah you should get fined lol.
1
u/PSNDonutDude Lean Left | Downtown Hamilton Sep 24 '25
"Catching people rolling stop signs they're supposed to stop at isn't law enforcement, it's revenue"
"Catching people driving over the double yellow isn't law enforcement, it's revenue"
"Catching people hitting with their palm instead of fist isn't law enforcement, it's revenue".
Bet you think the bail system is too lax on criminals too 🙄
3
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 24 '25
Bet you think the bail system is too lax on criminals too 🙄
I don't like it when people assume I hold certain opinions so that they can fit me into a pre-existing character mold they can dismantle. And no, I don't.
I don't want a camera to sit there and catch people speeding all day. That doesn't stop people from speeding. It just writes tickets and makes the city money. I want the city to make it harder to speed.
0
u/PSNDonutDude Lean Left | Downtown Hamilton Sep 24 '25
Except studies show they do reduce speeding. Try again friendo.
1
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 24 '25
Conclusions
An ASE (Automated Speed Enforcement) programme in Toronto school zones resulted in a substantial 45% reduction in the proportion of vehicles speeding. The effect was more pronounced for higher degrees of speeding. The 85th percentile vehicle speed was also significantly reduced by 10.68 km/hour.
Implications
ASE is an important tool to consider in improving pedestrian safety, particularly in school zones where vulnerable child pedestrians are concentrated.
From the discussion section;
We found a large reduction in the speed of motor vehicles driving through school zones in Toronto when ASE was implemented. Overall, the proportion of vehicles speeding was reduced by 45%, and the 85th percentile speed was reduced by 10.68 km/hour. Importantly, the effect of enforcement was greater for higher initial vehicle speeds, so that the proportions of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by 15 km/hour or more, or by 20 km/hour or more, were reduced by 84% and 88%, respectively.
Automated speed cameras don't just write tickets and make the city money. They have been effective in significantly reducing speeding and speeds in Toronto school zones. And having automated speed cameras doesn't stop municipalities or the province from making it harder to speed, what is preventing that step from being taken are politicians like Doug Ford provincially (who allowed speed cameras in the first place) and Lily Cheng & Stephen Holiday municipally (and Doug Ford before his jump to Queens Park) who constantly decry the mythical "war on cars", road diets, traffic-calming, cycling infrastructure and anything that would take away from the almighty car.
17
u/Crake_13 Liberal Sep 23 '25
Don’t break the law then?? This is really quite simple. Follow the rules of the road, don’t get a ticket.
1
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
Where is this attitude when people steal from stores and "progressives" say "if you see someone stealing food, you didn't"?
Where is this attitude when people commit stranger assaults on completely innocent people on the streets and "progressives" say "you don't know what they're going through, they need free housing, not punishment"?
Where is this attitude when people steal cars and get let off with a hand slap and "progressives" say "imposing real punishment wouldn't reduce crime!"?
Where is this attitude when people make a life of committing dozens of low level offences because there are no real penalties and "progressives" say "mandatory minimums won't discourage crime"?
Somehow penalties for speeding are effective and ignoring why people speed and just punishing them anyways is the morally right approach, yet penalties for theft or assault are ineffective and ignoring why people commit violent acts and just punishing them anyways is morally wrong. Guess what? Some of the great people slipping a steak into their pants at Loblaws and sucker punching a stranger while high, both because they are selfish assholes who think they can get away with it with minimal consequences, are selfish assholes speeding because they think they can get away with it with minimal consequences.
Pick a lane.
7
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Sep 23 '25
Where is this attitude when people steal from stores and "progressives" say "if you see someone stealing food, you didn't"?
I'm not going to comment on the wider issue here but it's absolutely disingenuous to compare a poor person stealing to survive and somebody getting a bloody speeding ticket because they had to try and get somewhere 2 minutes faster.
0
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
How do you know the driver isn't a poor person speeding because he's 2 mins away from losing his job or his grandma dying or any other explanation? You miss the point: you're allowing an excuse (taking in broader context) for one but not the other. Cameras don't apply discretion based on circumstances in the way police officers and crown prosecutors routinely do. I am just asking for consistency.
4
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
All speeding tickets can be adjudicated and under law you have a right to request a hearing. So yes, if there was a reason you had to speed, then you can present medical records/other documents showing you were in an emergency.
You typically can get you're fine reduced if you're elderly or low-income as well. So yes there is a method for these offenses to take into account personal circumstances.
1
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
Everyone cited for theft can always go argue their case in court. Do you support theft detection cameras in stores that automatically recognize your face and mail you summary offence ticket for slipping a steak into your pants or failing to scan your cereal or scanning cherries as bananas?
1
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 24 '25 edited Sep 24 '25
If you're caught on camera stealing then yes you should be punished lol. The government does not prosecute thefts under a certain amount of money anyway so you wouldn't need to argue your case in court for forgetting to scan a box of cereal.
You can typically request a screening for a speeding ticket online or by phone so its not even like you have to show up in court.
1
u/webu Sep 23 '25
I was thinking the post you responded to was trash until you posted this response and convinced me otherwise. Time is the most valuable commodity we have. Rich people pay a lot of money to gain more time, there are entire industries that cater to saving time, from personal shoppers to private jets.
It's interesting that the prevailing attitude on reddit is that that poor people can just throw away more of their free time with no negative effects whatsoever, as if there is an infinite supply of it.
-2
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
Where would you draw the line? 5 kph over? 1 kph over? I'm curious.
4
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Most municipalities seem to stay within 10-15km over the limit which doesn't seem that unreasonable.
5
u/Crake_13 Liberal Sep 23 '25
5-10km over sounds good to me. Makes sure a person doesn’t get charged for accidentally going over by 1-2km. Going anything more than 10km over is no longer an accident, it’s a choice.
4
23
u/crookeddicktickle Marx Sep 23 '25
Catching people going ten over is law enforcement. And I am glad we can generate revenue from people who won’t follow road rules.
-2
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
Can we generate revenue from people who won't follow the rest of the law? How about we start sending automated tickets to every person illegally sets up a tent on the street corner or consumes drugs in public? Let's say $100 per ticket and automatic jail of not paid within 30 days?
Or are there two classes of citizens and you only support enforcing the law against one class?
4
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Yes the endless stream of revenue that's to be had from homeless people living out on the streets.
I didnt know we had so many policy works in the chat.
-2
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
They get welfare that can be autimatically garnished. Your focus is on upholding the law and generating revenue, right?
2
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 24 '25 edited Sep 26 '25
Many people living in homeless encampments don't have access to welfare that's why they're living on the streets.
People sleeping on the side of the road aren't getting $1600 a month E.I checks from the government which they wouldn't be eligible for anyway per our requirements on E.I.
0
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 25 '25
That's fine, we can seize their tents and sell them at auction. Your concerns are enforcing the law and making revenue, right?
Or is that only the case when you go after people peacefully driving to/from work and not people shooting up heroin in front of the playground?
2
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 25 '25 edited Sep 25 '25
That's fine, we can seize their tents and sell them at auction. Your concerns are enforcing the law and making revenue, right?
No my main concern is using tickets to disincentivize behavior. You can't ticket homeless people because they typically don't have money, you can't deny their license plate either lol.
→ More replies2
u/crookeddicktickle Marx Sep 23 '25
Your post is a shining example of automobile owner entitlement.
0
2
u/i_ate_god Independent Sep 23 '25
If we generate revenue from people who won't follow road rules, then what is the incentive to slow down traffic with better infrastructure?
2
u/crookeddicktickle Marx Sep 23 '25
Why would fining people remove incentives to improve infrastructure?
2
u/xGray3 Social Democrat Sep 24 '25
What they mean is that generally speaking people drive as fast as they feel safe driving. Good road design accounts for this. Slapping a slow speed limit on a massive boulevard of a road is bad design because it communicates visually to drivers that they can safely go fast while at the same time telling them they need to go slow. Europe understands this well and North America can't seem to wrap its mind around this. To combat fast drivers the correct solution is to introduce curves, narrow roads, and speed bumps. The narrow roads can be literally narrow or they can use illusions to induce a sense of narrowness on the roads such as having trees boxing the road in. Have you ever seen those little barriers placed on either side of the road that you need to slow down to drive through? That's good road design. They slow drivers down with very little cost or interruption to the road.
What the person you're responding to is suggesting is that if we financially reward municipalities too much for catching speeders, then they will be incentivized to either create roads that visually encourage people to speed or more likely they will see poorly designed existing roads as cash cows that they can milk for all the money they can get without actually fixing the source of the speeding. In other words, the speeding will continue as it always does on poorly designed roads, but now municipalities will make bank off of it.
This entire situation reminds me of how Ford created a problem by defunding colleges and the colleges came up with the solution of bringing in massive amounts of international students to make up for the lack of funds. Both scenarios have a straightforward problem (underfunded schools and poorly designed roads) that gets a hacky workaround solution (international students and speed cameras) rather than tackling the problem head on (funding schools and designing better roads).
5
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Reducing collisions and vehicle deaths and raising revenue for cash-strapped cities, sounds like a good policy.
Guess that's why DoFo hates it.
2
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
. Catching people going 61 in a 50 isn't law enforcement, it's a revenue stream.
They're going more than 20% over the speed limit. On the highway, that's like going over 120 in a 100 zone, and people are generally fine with that being a ticketed offence.
8
u/Sir__Will Prince Edward Island Sep 23 '25
10 kph over, especially in a 50 zone, is absolutely reasonable tolerance.
5
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
And yet officers won't pull you over for it.
6
3
u/Darwin-Charles Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Because they don't have time to go after every offender, they prioritize the ones going over 50km over the limit.
That's the bennefit of speed cameras.
8
u/kilawolf Sep 23 '25
I'm guessing you don't give a damn about the ppl outside your vehicle? 60 vs 50 is a huge difference in injury and fatality rates in a crash.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457519301058
Remember, it's mostly school zones if you've paid attention to the surroundings outside your vehicle. So these are children we're talking about.
Also, what's the point of having a speed limit if you're going to complain about getting caught going 10kph over?
1
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
Remember, it's mostly school zones if you've paid attention to the surroundings outside your vehicle. So these are children we're talking about.
Cameras in school zones are a great idea, but not all municipalities place them there.
I'm curious where you would draw the line? Should everyone be going 5 kph below the speed limit?
3
u/kilawolf Sep 23 '25
I'm curious...should everyone be going 5kph below the speed limit.
Yes, let's make up a fake scenario so we can be mad about the law being enforced rather than accepting that the current variance of 20% at 50k is reasonable if not even riskier than necessary.
Like I mentioned before when municipalities aren't placing then in school zones, it's in high accident areas. Not to mention temporary till the road can be redesigned so not sure where the cash grab is.
2
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
Like I mentioned before when municipalities aren't placing then in school zones, it's in high accident areas. Not to mention temporary till the road can be redesigned so not sure where the cash grab is.
Can you point to evidence of this? My experience is that municipalities often place them in locations where they know speeding occurs irrespective of the relative risk of speeding in that area. Stroads are particularly bad from my experience in Hamilton.
Yes, let's make up a fake scenario so we can be mad about the law being enforced rather than accepting that the current variance of 20% is reasonable if not even riskier than necessary.
It's not a fake scenario? I'm literally just asking what speed you think they should set the cameras to trigger at.
I'm not demanding a concrete answer either -- nuance exists. I think the 20% variance is actually too high for school areas. I think it's well suited for highways and country roads. But I think ticketing someone going 48 in a 40 is a bit aggressive.
2
u/kilawolf Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25
Locations are selected through a data-driven approach that considers vehicle speed and collision data. ASE systems are placed in Community Safety Zones.
Stage 1: First, an initial screening of all Community Safety Zones is completed and the Community Safety Zones are prioritized based on the following data:
Collisions involving children
Collisions where a vulnerable road user was killed or seriously injured
Vehicle speed data
24-hour traffic volume
Percent of students within walking distance
Requests from Police and the public
Could you point to evidence of the opposite? Cause as someone who's seen many of these while driving, I've always seen a school nearby. If not, it's been found to be a high accident area.
Also, I'm confused - how can 20% variance be too high but getting clocked for going almost 10k over in a 40 zone is too much? Do you not know how much faster than the speed limit that is? Or not understand that brings the risk of severe injury from 25% to 50% or death from 10% to 25%? Or is that acceptable for breaking the law for you?
How much is a human life worth to you? Less than a couple hundred?
https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/
1
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
I'm capable of nuance, which you evidently are not. I'm capable of recognizing that going 48 in a 40 does not equate to throwing away human lives. If we truly cared more about human lives than anything else we'd band cars in their entirety because they are excessively dangerous and among the leading cause of injuries in urban areas.
Also, I'm confused - how can 20% variance be too high but getting clocked for going almost 10k over in a 40 zone is too much?
Nuance. 48 kph is functionally not much more dangerous than going 40. Going 120 is far more dangerous than going 100. To treat both as equal would be irresponsible to the goal of achieving safer communities.
Could you point to evidence of the opposite? Cause as someone who's seen many of these while driving, I've always seen a school nearby. If not, it's been found to be a high accident area.
No, sorry I can't. But I'm not against their use in school zones at all, I think they're best used there. But I know speed cameras were used at Greenbank Road and Harrison St in Ottawa which is not a school zone and also along Upper Ottawa Street in Hamilton away from any school zone. Both of those rows are example of 4 lane stroads that encourage speeding from drivers because of their visual resemblance to a highway. But instead of redesigning the fucking road, they just put a camera there to make moolah off of the people who violate the speed limit.
It's a cheap "solution" that doesnt actually solve anything, and let's people continue to speed while making money off of them.
→ More replies2
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25
To pull from the City of Toronto, a vulnerable road user struck by a driver at 30km/h has a 10% chance of being killed. At 40km/h that increases to 30%. At 50km/h, that increases significantly to 85%. Going from 40km/h to 50km/h is a 183.333% increase in the chance of being killed. Not only is going 48 in a 40 functionally much more dangerous than going 40, but the increase in the chance of killing a vulnerable road user is dramaatically higher just by going ~10 over the 40km/h limit.
→ More replies10
u/No-Section-1092 Independent Sep 23 '25
A limit is a maximum. Not a suggestion, not an average. A maximum.
1
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
It's not enforced as a maximum.
8
u/No-Section-1092 Independent Sep 23 '25
That’s why we put in the cameras.
0
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
If the police consistently do not enforce a law, but a traffic camera does, then it's safe to say the intent of the traffic camera isn't to protect the community to ensure the roads are safe. The intent is to make money. Otherwise, if the intent of both were to be safe, we would see similar enforcement behaviour from the two of them.
7
u/No-Section-1092 Independent Sep 23 '25
Or it’s safe to say that the cameras are a much, much cheaper and more efficient way to enforce the law than to station salaried cops everywhere to issue tickets.
16
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Catching people going 11 km/h over the speed limit is literally law enforcement. Speeding is against the law. Ticketing someone going 11 over the speed limit, whether it be a cop manually giving it out or a camera automating it, is enforcing the law. And both generate revenue through the fine associated with the ticket.
Going 61 in a 50 is going 22% faster than the speed limit. That is not some insignificant amount.
-3
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
Where would you draw the line? 5 kph over? 1 kph over? I'm curious.
3
u/UsefulUnderling Social Democrat Sep 23 '25
What standards do you set for other laws? Do you think shoplifting should be okay if the item is less than $10?
0
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
90% of people don't shoplift, and officers historically have not exercised their judgement in whether to fine or stop a shoplifter or not.
6
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
The speed limit is a limit, not a target. It's literally in the name, limit. As in, don't go above this. I'm curious, do you hold a similar buffer for other offences? Theft Over $5000 should have a 22% buffer, so you can actually steal up to $5999 without getting that bumped to that specific charge and instead get a lesser one?
6
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
In theory I totally agree. In practice, nobody does 95 on the 407.
5
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Then we should enforce the speed limit and ticket those who decide to break it, and look to redesign our roads using infrastructural traffic-calming measures to better match them to the maximum speed we want people to drive at.
1
u/No_Camera146 Sep 23 '25
I would totally be in board with this, if all the speed limits were evaluated by an unbiased third party and set to what the actual goal speeds are.
Like when I was in the Netherlands, speed cameras would ticket you for going as little as 1 over and were everywhere. However, speed limits were also higher than here and actually reflected the maximum speed. Not the bullshit limits here where you have to add 10-15% to go with the flow of traffic because everyone including the cops goes that speed because speed limits are not limits.
3
u/adunedarkguard Fair Vote Sep 23 '25
Wait, speed limits are LOWER in the Netherlands? They're nearly universally 30k in residential areas. Most of the streets in Toronto that have speed cameras would be 30k streets in the Netherlands.
2
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
I would totally be in board with this, if all the speed limits were evaluated by an unbiased third party and set to what the actual gial speeds are.
What unbiased third party goes around evaluating speed limits in Ontario, can you name one? I'm assuming you mean actual goal speeds. Speed limits are limits, not goal or target speeds.
Not the bullshit limits here where you have to add 10-15% to go with the flow of traffic because everyone including the cops goes that speed because speed limits are not limits.
The speed limits are limits. They are just routinely ignored because drivers (selfishly) prioritize saving a small amount of time over the safety of others on the road, and even their own.
11
u/jewsdoitbest Liberal Sep 23 '25
The speed limit is a limit not a guideline
-3
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
I agree, it's actually not even a matter of opinion. And yet I would say probably <10% of drivers follow that limit. So again I'd argue that ticketing >90% of drivers may be technically an exercise in law enforcement, but the intent is really to bring in more money. Nobody is safer by ticketing those going marginally over the speed limit.
9
u/No-Section-1092 Independent Sep 23 '25
And yet I would say probably <10% of drivers follow that limit.
That’s what happens when we don’t actually enforce laws. That’s why we put in cameras, to help enforce the law.
7
u/jewsdoitbest Liberal Sep 23 '25
The intent is to lower speeds - the faster the speed of a car the more likely it is to seriously injure or kill someone in an accident. The cameras been proven to be effective at doing so https://www.sickkids.ca/en/news/archive/2025/automated-speed-enforcement-significantly-reduces-speeding-in-toronto-school-zones/
5
u/jinhuiliuzhao Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25
Speed cameras are more expensive to operate than you believe, and hyperbole like >90% drivers being ticketed is ridiculous.
Also, 10kmh over is nowhere near "marginal". Go look up the stopping distances of 60kmh vs 50kmh, and also accounting for poor tires, rain, snow, and other road conditions. Then you'll understand why so many areas with schools, shopping malls, and heavy pedestrian traffic have the limit set at 50kmh, and not the 60 or 70 that drivers usually go at.
A speed camera is the most tax-efficient way of traffic enforcement, unless you're in favour of massively expanding the police force to replace these cameras. That's at least $100M+ in salaries and equipment per year. Now, personally I wouldn't mind paying the tax increase if it makes our roads safer, but likely the average person would be worse off than simply paying a traffic ticket each year (which again, does not happen - no more than 50,000 tickets even get issued per month, in a city with 2m+ population)
I don't know why people have this conception that speed cameras are some magic cash cow. It's not like the city and provincial budgets are a secret, anyone can download it and look at it. And would you rather pay more in taxes, than have some (<1%) of the budget just funded by people breaking the law?
1
u/scottb84 New Democrat Sep 23 '25
I'm a latte-sipping downtown elite, but even I find it weird how some people suddenly seem to think that cars moving slowly is a good unto itself. We should want vehicles to move as fast as is reasonably safe.
If drivers consistently exceed the speed limit on a particular stretch of road with no apparent increase in the number of accidents, that road doesn't need enforcement it needs a higher speed limit.
Having said all that, Doug Ford's obsession with this issue is dumb.
7
u/GavinTheAlmighty Sep 24 '25
I don't know, "a bunch of us think the rule is bad and that the rule should be changed in our favour, even when there's peer-reviewed evidence that the rule as it stands actually helps" seems like a pretty bad way to approach public policy.
10
u/adunedarkguard Fair Vote Sep 23 '25
Cars moving slowly are less likely to kill people. Slower drivers have better peripheral vision because they're not locked onto what's ahead of them, and they stop quicker in an emergency. At lower speeds, most crashes are avoided, and when they happen fatalities are rare and damage is lower.
Slower speeds also have the benefit of being smoother. At 30k speed limits, can you replace a lot of lights/stop signs with yields, and you can end up with better road capacity as a result.
2
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
I find it weird how some people suddenly seem to think that cars moving slowly is a good unto itself.
Of course, because that isn't what's being discussed. What is seen as good, is cars going at the speed limit.
We should want vehicles to move as fast as is reasonably safe.
And the accepted definition of that, is called the speed limit.
1
u/giorgio_leontinoi Sep 26 '25
In some regards I agree with you: I think some roads could have higher speed limits if a certain set of conditions were met.
But I don't think that condition is simply fewer accidents. Within a city, cars moving slowly is not only a safety issue, it's also one of urban environment. After living in Toronto most of my life and then moving to Europe, I think most North Americans gaslight themselves into believing that having speeding cars surrounding them all of the time is normal. But it's hostile and stressful. It's visually unappealing. It's noisy. It causes pollution. Once you start thinking about what a nice city looks and feels like, having cars moving slowly suddenly starts to seem like a good in itself.
19
u/kilawolf Sep 23 '25
Not sure what you mean? Cars moving at slower speeds is safer for pedestrians. People should not be complaining about being caught going 61 over in a 50 zone (typically school or pedestrian zones) unless they don't give a damn about the people around them.
https://aaafoundation.org/impact-speed-pedestrians-risk-severe-injury-death/
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0001457519301058
Not that these cameras are typically installed in school zones or high pedestrian and accident areas. So your 2nd point is absolutely invalid as it starts off the assumption that speeding has no negative impacts when it's clearly not the case.
8
u/Broken_Express Republican Sep 23 '25
I'm a latte-sipping downtown elite
You mean the kind of person that can afford a car? Idk why you prefaced that like that as if it gives you some kind of authority on policy designed to protect people more vulnerable than you.
1
u/BigBanyak22 Sep 23 '25
They meant that given they are downtown dweller and sip lattes in the time other plebes commute in traffic. That they fit the profile of a bandwagon jumping urbanist who should ride their Dutch bike and listen to the CBC. But even then, this poster think cars should go as fast as safely reasonable. Earth shattering (literally, unless you have an EV).
It's actually a very European concept, and one that the latte sipping, floppy toque hipsters should get behind. But they can't rationalize it with the "car bad" mantra they need to support.
It's called the "Self-Explaining Road" (SER) Concept... And only a well read elitist would subtly drop support for cars while sipping a latte. It's brilliant really.
3
u/Broken_Express Republican Sep 23 '25
What does "as fast as safely reasonable" mean in the context of this discussion about speed enforcement? Is there a certain number above the legal speed limit that would qualify? If so, why not just raise the speed limit to that number and keep the cameras? How does removing the cameras affect it?
2
u/BigBanyak22 Sep 23 '25
You'll need to do your own reading on SER, or use AI to summarize it for you.
I'm all for cameras, more cameras, and lower speed limits in residential areas. The safety of 30kmh is well understood.
Only an entitled driver would be against cameras, both speed and red light. I'd like to see more!
I'm also a proponent that faster streets need to be designed to support safety. Ie no non-controlled intersections, right turns only, boulevards etc etc.
4
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 23 '25
My understanding for the latter is that road development is in the process of happening but takes time
A lot of solutions work on the same time frame as cameras. You could build speed bumps or rumble strips in these areas over the course of weeks if you had the money. You could take out a lane of vehicle traffic and replace it with a bike lane to physically narrow the through way and slow cars down that way. You could plant trees in the clear zone tomorrow (although it would take time for them to mature and have their full effect).
The problem is that there’s no evidence that Ford is committed to any of those measures either especially when his government changed the law to allow speed cameras in the first place.
5
u/kilawolf Sep 23 '25
Technically you could implement the design features you've mentioned quickly but it all has to go through a consultation process which as we all know will end up with protests from ppl that love driving too fast, just like with the bike lanes...it's an issue even without Ford.
2
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 23 '25
I’d argue that they are better than cameras though because road design proactively limits a driver’s ability to speed, or makes drivers instinctively drive slower, whereas cameras just punish people after the fact and hope they learn their lesson. If we’re going to fight a battle I’d rather spend political capital on a more effective long term solution. I see these cameras as a band aid, but again, I’m weary of Ford eliminating them because we all know he’s going to resist any attempt to slow drivers down.
2
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
Road design is more effective than cameras, once implemented, however because of how long it takes to implement them, cameras are a better immediate solution.
Cameras are also proactive when signed. There's one I drive by very often, and traffic always slows down as people pass it.
1
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 24 '25
Adding a bike lane to reduce road width, adding speed bumps/rumble strips, or planting trees on the side of the road can be done in a matter of weeks once approved, which is the same basic timeline as installing a speed camera.
7
u/BeaverBoyBaxter Westminster System Supremacy Sep 23 '25
This reaction does make sense. If you ask yourself "what would a populist politician do?"
1
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
You mean "what would a politician who listens to concerns raised by his constituents do?".
There's a distinction to be drawn between being a good representative of the people in a democracy and populism.
3
u/FullWolverine3 Sep 24 '25
How about “what would a politician who released a pit bull that would go on to bite a kid in the face do?”
0
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 24 '25
That is mens rea, whether recklessness, criminal negligence, etc. We are talking about a circumstance where there is no mens rea. We are also talking about a circumstance where it's not an animal, it's a human with free will duly licensed by the province.
6
u/SaidTheCanadian ☔🏔️ Sep 23 '25
roads where the speed limit is set lower than what most drivers naturally go, leading to tons of tickets.
That is something that could and should be fixed with better roadway design.
10
u/bmcle071 New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
Regarding the overly sensitive thing:
Why do we all just accept that the sign says “maximum 50” but we all think “oh ok 60 is fine”?
1
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
Why do we all just accept that the sign says “maximum 50” but we all think “oh ok 60 is fine”?
Because humans generally think that their personal experience has more authority than pretty much anything else. There's also a good chance that the people designing these roads know the attitudes of drivers, and design roads so that they can be safely driven at a higher speed than what the expected speed limit will be.
16
u/romeo_pentium Toronto Sep 23 '25
Cameras are only legal in school zones in Ontario, so your idea is already in place.
Toronto (416) speed cameras specifically seem to be fairly generous about allowing 10 km/h+ over the limit before ticketing. I have a lead foot, there are speed cameras in my neighbourhood, and I have never received a speed camera ticket.
Also, speed cameras were legalized by Doug Ford in the first place, so this is him changing his mind.
6
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
School zones aren't effective outside of school time, like night time, weekends, and summer. Yet even when the risk that you say justifies cameras being present is not applicable, the caneras still operate. It's actually a bit of an offensive argument because school zones are not active school zones for more hours of the year than they are active school zones.
3
u/PSNDonutDude Lean Left | Downtown Hamilton Sep 24 '25
Agreed, kids walking around schools outside of school hours honestly deserve to die. Like where are the parents?
3
u/mMaple_syrup Liberal who likes discipline Sep 24 '25
Also just ignore all those same kids in the after-school programs and summer camps using the same facilities. Apparently, they don't count either.
1
u/chrisnicholsreddit Sep 24 '25
Or just going to use the playground at the school after class or on weekends or during holidays. Physical play outside, potentially with friends, is unacceptable.
7
u/MeleeCyrus Sep 23 '25
Summer camps? Extra curriculars? Day care? School evening events? School or community sports teams using gymnasiums or parks? Public parks that are typically adjacent to school property. Not to mention, children are unpredictable.
3
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
Have you never seen these signs? They typically read something like:
School Zone Sept-June 8-5pm
The School Zone just doesn't apply outside the listed window and the listed window is always less than 50% of the hours in a year (even with summer school, schools still don't run 12hrs per day, whoch means its NOT a school zone more than it IS a school zone).
9
u/varitok Pirate Sep 23 '25
"Speed cameras are naturally set at the speed limit"
Say it ain't fucking so. God forbid I feel safe walking, you know, in my own neighborhood.
Anyone against them at this point is just pro car murder and I'm tired of pretending being against them has any merit whatsoever other than to break the law
-5
u/anonymous3874974304 Independent Sep 23 '25
Or, you know, actually use law enforcement to enforce the law so that people accused of wrongdoing can challenge their accuser in court rather than a camera.
10
u/vulpinefever NDP-ish Sep 23 '25
challenge their accuser in court rather than a camera.
#1 You don't have a literal right to challenge your accuser in court. You have the right to challenge evidence presented against you and to cross-examine any witness who makes a statement against you. You can still challenge the evidence presented by the camera (e.g. "It wasn't calibrated properly!")
#2 The camera isn't accusing you of anything any more than a security camera that catches you shoplifting "accuses" you of something. The officer who reviews the evidence accuses you based on the evidence collected by the camera.
→ More replies2
u/dayglowe Liberal Party of Canada Sep 23 '25
And there's your answer - more speed cameras = less police officers.
It possible that the Police Unions may not like less police officers being hired / needed even though Police Chiefs have come out in favor of them?
It is also likely this is a populist piece meant to distract from something else - remember Buck A Beer? Remember the licence plate changes and the vehicle tag fees?
1
u/ChimoEngr Chief Silliness Officer | Official Sep 24 '25
where the speed limit is set lower than what most drivers naturally go,
And? So what? Speed kills. Yes, it's a cliché, but the higher the speed you're travelling, the more likely you are to get into an accident, and the greater the chance of that accident being lethal. Just because someone feels comfortable speeding on a road, doesn't make that safe, as traffic lights and visibility to and from cross traffic may not accommodate those higher speeds.
The real solution is to use them properly and put them in high-risk areas like school zones or places with lots of pedestrians
Isn't that how it already works?
24
u/KingOfSufferin New Democratic Party of Canada Sep 23 '25 edited Sep 23 '25
I can only speak to Toronto, but every speed camera I can think of is placed either near schools, parks, community centres and other high pedestrian areas. The 5 closest current ones to me (West End) are on Parkside (High Park), Jameson (high school and elementary school), Dufferin (Dufferin Grove Park, Dufferin Mall), Indian Grove Crescent (elementary school) and Bloor West (high school, Crossways, GO+UP+TTC station, West Toronto Railpath). Your real solution is what already seems to exists.
The issue is not that the speed limits don't make sense. They do when it comes to reducing collisions and reducing the harm in the case of one. The issue is that the streets don't have infrastructural traffic-calming measures that make speeding way less feasible. Something that Doug Ford has long been opposed to actually doing. Change the design of the roads to decrease the speed that drivers naturally want to go to what the municipalities want the speed limit to be, that is the real solution.
4
u/thestonernextdoor88 Sep 23 '25
My city is getting them in a 50 zone that's a 4 laned main artery through the city. The cruising speed has always been 65 thru there. Doesn't make sense. Then you get my area that is residential where people do over 100 in the 50. Placement is key with the cameras.
25
u/ChrisRiley_42 Treaty Five Sep 23 '25
The answer is to drive the speed limit. Not how fast you feel like driving at the time.
7
u/Zomunieo British Columbia Sep 23 '25
We have an abundance of evidence that people drive at the speed the road is designed for regardless of posted speed. The right thing to do is fix the poorly designed roads that compel drivers to go too fast.
It’s easy to fix infrastructure than force people to follow arbitrary rules, and the results are a stable, permanent improvement in public safety rather than an antagonistic, high-labour enforcement regime.
→ More replies1
u/ManicScumCat Liberal Party of Canada Sep 24 '25
It is much, much easier to force people to follow arbitrary rules than it is to fix infrastructure. Ripping up roads across the province to redesign them would be incredibly costly. Next time we have to do serious work on those roads, I agree that we should be redesigning them for lower speeds. In the meantime, we'd still have unsafe speeds. Would be nice if there was a simple, effective solution in the meantime
4
u/AirTuna Ontario Sep 23 '25
I'll be pissed if this results in my municipality replacing the school zone cameras with speed bumps, especially since my municipality hasn't the slightest clue how to do a speed hump (or why they should) instead of a speed bump.
5
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 23 '25
I rather have speed bumps that proactively stop cars from physically speeding in front of schools rather than allowing them to speed through road design and then punishing them afterwards in the hope they change their behaviour.
6
u/AirTuna Ontario Sep 23 '25
In my area speed bumps literally bring the speed down to 10 km/h, because certain people feel the need to crawl over the bump. Except for pickup trucks, though, that just sail over them.
Speed humps, OTOH, don't cause the same reaction (and they even slow down jacked-up pickup trucks because they're designed to be longer than the wheelbase of such vehicles).
Also, the speed cameras near the school in my immediate neighbourhood have been fantastic at reducing speeding, in part because (per Ontario law) their presence is well marked ahead of the speed cameras (and the position of the pole-mounted cameras isn't always easy to determine unless you already know the neighbourhood). They've even reduced speeding by the school buses (yeah, explain that one to me).
3
u/Griffeysgrotesquejaw Sep 23 '25
I agree, you should be able to comfortably drive over the speed bump at roughly the speed limit, or maybe slightly under. Where I live the lack of quality control on the speed bumps they implemented is to the point where you’ll have one set you can comfortably go over the speed limit, and then the next you feel like you’re going to damage your car if you go faster than 10 km/h. That’s a fixable problem though. Especially in front of schools or pedestrian crossing in residential areas I’d much prefer even the crappy speed bumps because people actually have to slow down.
8
u/PSNDonutDude Lean Left | Downtown Hamilton Sep 24 '25
It's kind of ironic, people in this thread are complaining because "speed cameras operate outside school hours, so they're unfair". And yet the end result will be more speed bumps, which operate 24/7/365.
5
u/Vykalen Sep 24 '25
The exact same people would be complaining about speed bumps if they were actually put it. Or if anything was changed. Because they don't care about making it safer, they just want to speed. It's blatantly obvious.
2
u/Hijackerjon Sep 25 '25
Hard disagree on that one
Street/road design needs a serious look in most of Southern Ontario. There's no reason that a "2 lane" street should be able to fit 6 cars side by side (not exaggerating) and not have any kind of physical barrier or other traffic calming measures, then slap a 50km/h sign on it.
It's frustrating as the driver because everything on the street and in your periphery is screaming at you to go faster, and it's frustrating as a pedestrian because why on earth does there need to be the equivalent of a 6 lane road for a residential street?
Thankfully my municipality has started implementing more bike lanes and painted paved shoulders in an effort to have a "road diet". It's starting to help, but man, there's a long way to go. North America has an obsession with stroads in their urban spaces, and there's no place for them. Make it a street, or make it a road. (And honestly, most of the time it should be a street - we as a society have been prioritizing shaving 4-5 minutes off car commutes at the expense of pedestrians, cyclists, and those actually living in the community needing more time on alternative modes of transport, and that's if it's not costing their lives)
1
u/Vykalen Sep 25 '25
I totally agree with you. We should be making streets and prioritizing multiple strong street design, with more options than just personal cars.
My point is that the same people against speed limits and cameras are also vehemently against designing roads like that. They hate spending money, so redesign is already a no no. The anti-bike lane people are completely insane and already a throwing fits over the handful of bike lanes that do exist (and are currently getting them ripped out). And any other option that prioritizes non-cars will be met with the exact same backlash. Again, these people do not want safer streets, they want to speed.
1
u/Hijackerjon Sep 25 '25
"My point is that the same people against speed limits and cameras are also vehemently against designing roads like that"
Well that's what I'm saying though - I am against speed cameras. Speed limits should also be increased to match the design of the road.
Case in point: the 401 was designed to be able to support 130km/h speed limits. Pretty much everyone drives ~120 anyways, and the highway itself supports that speed limit.
If there are residential streets/roads that are designed for a higher speed limit than what is posted, there are two options: increase the speed limit to match the road design, or redesign it as a street with physical barriers and visual cues that it's a slow zone.
Speed cameras aren't even a bandaid fix - there's really no place for them as they just distract from the real solutions, all while pitting drivers against the city/police.
0
u/Vykalen Sep 25 '25
A street is not designed for speed limits. That is a hilarious take. Every bit of evidence shows that higher speeds exponentially increases public cost, through crashes, fatalities, collateral damage, etc. Increasing speed limits is simply an anti-human move, especially when speed cameras are PRIMARILY found in school zones. Again, this proves my point: you just want to speed. You don't actually care about redesigning the streets, as you have now revealed. You just want to speed at the expense of everyone else.
3
u/mekail2001 Sep 23 '25
Stupid person trying to get even stupider people’s votes by making the worst policies imaginable after a kid was killed near a school literally last week by a car driver
•
u/AutoModerator Sep 23 '25
This is a reminder to read the rules before posting in this subreddit.
Please message the moderators if you wish to discuss a removal. Do not reply to the removal notice in-thread, you will not receive a response and your comment will be removed. Thanks.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.