School Zones

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, Rod Black said:

Photo enforcement is contracted out. The problem with this particular contract is, that the contractor is paid “commission” per ticket. The enterprise  benefiting with commissions from citizens violations of a law, is a capricious and lazy method of enforcement. 

So in reality there is absolutely no incentive to create a safe school zone.  The incentive is to catch people speeding.  Its about money not safety.

[Mark H.]

5 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So in reality there is absolutely no incentive to create a safe school zone.  The incentive is to catch people speeding.  Its about money not safety.

You make this sound like it's a black and white issue - it's not.

I agree that it is a cash grab, but it also forces people to slow down.

You'll never find an issue that isn't about the money - because there aren't any.

[The Unknown Poster]

15 hours ago, Mark H. said:

You make this sound like it's a black and white issue - it's not.

I agree that it is a cash grab, but it also forces people to slow down.

You'll never find an issue that isn't about the money - because there aren't any.

Was there a burning need for slower traffic?  There has been no issue with kids being hit by cars.  And I suspect the reckless drivers still exist.  There is no safety issue with a car going 45 at 5:15 with zero kids around vs a car going 50 at 5:45 when an after-school program lets out and kids are everywhere.  Thats why targeted enforcement by the police is much better.  Plus better signage and education about slowing down when kids are present (whether its during strict hours or not.  There are plenty of times kids are around schools on the weekends too.

My point being, it was done for cash not safety and is unfairly enforced to maximize revenue.  That's unfair to taxpayers and car owners.

[Mark H.]

10 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Was there a burning need for slower traffic?  There has been no issue with kids being hit by cars.  And I suspect the reckless drivers still exist.  There is no safety issue with a car going 45 at 5:15 with zero kids around vs a car going 50 at 5:45 when an after-school program lets out and kids are everywhere.  Thats why targeted enforcement by the police is much better.  Plus better signage and education about slowing down when kids are present (whether its during strict hours or not.  There are plenty of times kids are around schools on the weekends too.

My point being, it was done for cash not safety and is unfairly enforced to maximize revenue.  That's unfair to taxpayers and car owners.

I agree with most of what you're saying, especially about after school hours.  

But yes, there had been some issues with kids being hit by cars.  I guess if you don't know, then you don't know. I shared one in a post further up.

Enforcement by police and better education both cost extra money - which is exactly why neither of them will happen

Budgets and the almighty buck always come before better ways of doing things.

I was happy to see this change, because I knew it was the only change we were going to see.

And yes, I have been ticketed in one of those 30 km/h zones. I was going to another school for Professional Development, there were no kids in class all across the province on that day.  It sucked, but that's life, and it only happened once. 

 

[The Unknown Poster]

On 2018-09-06 at 7:25 PM, Mark H. said:

I agree with most of what you're saying, especially about after school hours.  

But yes, there had been some issues with kids being hit by cars.  I guess if you don't know, then you don't know. I shared one in a post further up.

Enforcement by police and better education both cost extra money - which is exactly why neither of them will happen

Budgets and the almighty buck always come before better ways of doing things.

I was happy to see this change, because I knew it was the only change we were going to see.

And yes, I have been ticketed in one of those 30 km/h zones. I was going to another school for Professional Development, there were no kids in class all across the province on that day.  It sucked, but that's life, and it only happened once. 

 

Kids get hit by cars.  As long as there are cars, there will be incidents involving pedestrians.  Thats the way it is.  Sure, a car going 30 will hurt less when it hits someone, but its not eliminating the issue.  I told two stories of kids being hit by cars  from my school days.  One, for sure, was outside the school zone so today's efforts had no bearing.  Im not sure where the other incident was along the school route...I *think* it was outside the school zone as well.  My experience was always most cars do slow down during school zones because of the presence of kids, patrols etc.

My issue with this is, the motivation is revenue, not safety and therefore it's wrong-minded and is a tax on citizens.  More productive ways to make the streets safer around school zones exist, including better signage but the fact the city ignores most requests for better signage (some that violate their own by-laws) is proof of the motivation.  We're all for keeping kids safe.  This was a tax wrapped up in a feel-good "kid safety" blanket which makes it even more gross.  Kids shouldnt be pawns for the government.

[The Unknown Poster]

Hmmmm why is there a need for this if the photo enforcement works? 

Also if this is better and works why do we need photo enforcement? 

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Hmmmm why is there a need for this if the photo enforcement works? 

Also if this is better and works why do we need photo enforcement? 

 

That and it would take away the lower cost from the peeps who were sitting in their cars .

[The Unknown Poster]

The cops do traffic enforcement all the time.  Hiding behind lamp posts, fences and trees.  Pretending to be homeless, taking money at intersections.  If kids' lives are in danger in school zones, I expect the police to have a serious desire to do traditional enforcement there.  Maybe it doesnt generate as much revenue as photo enforcement but the idea is supposed to be safety, right?