Toronto Police Chief wants Photo Radar brought back

[Slade]

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/cityhallpolitics/article/1312277--toronto-police-chief-bill-blair-bring-back-photo-radar-to-save-cash



As Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair searches for ways to save his force money, he says it’s time to consider reintroducing photo radar and expanding red light cameras.

Photo radar, however, has been contentious in Ontario.

The NDP introduced the cameras to catch speeders in 1994, but the practice was killed by Tory premier Mike Harris 11 months later. Later, a private member’s bill that would have allowed municipalities to install the cameras near schools and construction sites was defeated.

But according to Blair, it’s time to take another look at radar cameras, as well as expanding the use of other technology to catch people running red lights and making illegal turns.

“His position is that police officers are a very expensive resource to use for something which technology can do, and much more economically,” said Blair’s spokesman, Mark Pugash, adding the force isn’t looking to increase revenue and there would be large warning signs.

The service’s budget was capped at $927.8 million in December and a hiring freeze was put in place. Blair was told to find $6.7 million in “efficiencies” to accommodate the cutbacks that are being made to his and other city departments.

In the search for cash, there’s been talk of measures that include consolidating police divisions.

More effective use of technology would also improve safety and traffic flow, Pugash said. However, the idea of reintroducing radar is only at a discussion stage, so there are no specifics available on the number of officers it would free up, or the potential savings.

There are already 87 red-light cameras, circulated among 114 Toronto intersections.

Having cameras on site “also means police officers can be deployed in areas where their skills are needed,” Pugash said. “A camera will ensure everybody who breaks the law gets caught.”

I remember the big hopala that was caused by the last time they used photo radar.

I can agree with red light cameras. My biggest gripe with photo radar is that the owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, not the person driving, and with points involved it could get messy. Cops presence is what slows traffic down and keeps it flowing. Mind you I am not surprised the City is trying to get more money for making employees do less work...

Thoughts?

[Johns 08 3 GT]

I can agree with red light cameras. My biggest gripe with photo radar is that the owner of the vehicle gets the ticket, not the person driving, and with points involved it could get messy

I can not agree with red light cameras or photo radar. Both do not prove the driver was the one committing the crime.


The cheif has basicly admited this is just a cash scam to fill the city coffers and not about safety.

[loki]

I can not agree with red light cameras or photo radar. Both do not prove the driver was the one committing the crime.


so it proves it was the person in the backseat who ran the red light?

[yearoftherat]

We have photo radar in Winnipeg and as much as people bitch and complain about it, it does work. If you knew the person that drove the car, get them to pay the fine. Since the photo doesn't show who was actually driving the car, the owner of the vehicle is not penalized points.

[CelestSpeed3]

From what I understand a red light camera ticket is like a parking ticket. I could be wrong though.

[mathew.poulos]

I think red light cameras actually are good. As someone who makes three left turns going to work, I can assure you people constantly run reds/ambers when it is clearly your turn.

[Johns 08 3 GT]

so it proves it was the person in the backseat who ran the red light?

The way Red light tickets work is it issues the owner of the car with a ticket. If you lend your car out to your buddy and they run a Red light how can you be charged with an offence you did not commit? If your buddy gets a speeding ticket in your car they are the one who gets the ticket.

[loki]

The way Red light tickets work is it issues the owner of the car with a ticket. If you lend your car out to your buddy and they run a Red light how can you be charged with an offence you did not commit? If your buddy gets a speeding ticket in your car they are the one who gets the ticket.

you said driver, not owner.

[Slade]

Red light cameras = no points.

Whats going to happen when someone gets trapped doing 55 over the speed limit by a photo radar? Can you prove it was me driving and take me to court?

[Pokaroo Kris]

so it proves it was the person in the backseat who ran the red light?

No. What he's saying is that the owner of the vehicle, despite who's driving at the time, will get fined.

[loki]

No. What he's saying is that the owner of the vehicle, despite who's driving at the time, will get fined.

I know what he's trying to say, but that's not what he said.

[CelestSpeed3]

See I think it works like a parking ticket. The owner gets the ticket and its just a fine. It doesn't affect insurance or anything thwy just don't let you renew your plate if you don't pay.

Can anyone prove otherwise, cause I don't know 100%

[Johns 08 3 GT]

No. What he's saying is that the owner of the vehicle, despite who's driving at the time, will get fined.

Yes. Thats what im saying. Why should I be charged with an offence I did not commit? Thats why Red light tickets have no points attached to them. It's a cash grab. Heck, some citys have had to stop their Red light camera program as it cost too much money to run.

[Pokaroo Kris]

See I think it works like a parking ticket. The owner gets the ticket and its just a fine. It doesn't affect insurance or anything thwy just don't let you renew your plate if you don't pay.

Can anyone prove otherwise, cause I don't know 100%

Yes and no. Yes because it will be the owner of the vehicle who gets the blame, but no because it's a moving violation. Most moving violations you get tickets that charge triple digits which, more than likely, will equal to points.

[loki]

Yes. Thats what im saying. Why should I be charged with an offence I did not commit? Thats why Red light tickets have no points attached to them. It's a cash grab. Heck, some citys have had to stop their Red light camera program as it cost too much money to run.

The cities stopped running the red light cameras because they worked so well that no one was running lights and they weren't issuing any fines, so they disabled them. They did this out in BC.

[citrus]

I'm against this, because with Photo Radar we are denied the right to face our accuser in court.

[silverstarmazda]

Having cameras on site “also means police officers can be deployed in areas where their skills are needed,” Pugash said. “A camera will ensure everybody who breaks the law gets caught.”

so theyre not doing there jobs and actually putting theyre skills where its not needed? this is all BS. not only is the government full of shit but theyre privatizing law enforcement. red light camera's for example, most of the fine that comes from a red light ticket goes to the company that makes the camera. very little actually goes to the city. i can agree with having red light camera's and speed radars within areas such as residential and school zones. and temporary areas such as construction sites. this is another way the government is taking the money out of our pockets while causing more trouble in the city. red light camera's cause more car crashes than prevent them because every one either rushes past them or stop too late for them. speed radars will slow traffic to a crawl as if an officer was out to get you. everyone is late, road rage rises, more fuel is spent and emissions rise. when was the last time you saw anyone follow the speed limit to the km. I personally only see it when the elderly drive or if its a student driver. and when i do see someone below or right at the speed limit, traffic is backed up for almost a block.

im not condoning speeding. but if someone is driving slow, they cause so much problems. if someone is driving at a stupid speed (which would be obvious without a camera) or driving recklessly. thats when the law should step in and take control. not when someone is over the speed limit by 1kmph (depending on tolerances). freedom is not what it use to be, but were being jailed within whats suppose to keep us safe and improve our lives. you cant even go out anymore without breaking a law or two. but when you do, you wont even know it. i love what ever freedom we have here now and im thankful everyday when i wake up. but were slowly losing this freedom. the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer.

thats the end of my rant. if anyone has anything to change or add, please feel free to comment.

[CelestSpeed3]

You could argue you werent moving the instand the photo was taken. Its not red light video. LoL

I've been told it doeant affect your insurance, so if that's true its like a parking ticket ?

[Johns 08 3 GT]

I'm against this, because with Photo Radar we are denied the right to face our accuser in court.

I see what you did there. :D

[Kevin@nextmod]

And then whats going to happen is there will be "redlightticketguys.com"

[CelestSpeed3]

This isn't a big deal. I just see a lot of underground radar dectors going up for sale on kijiji and craigslist. That's how people will protect themselves. Or the new garmin units that warn you of speed and red light cameras.

[silverstarmazda]

This isn't a big deal. I just see a lot of underground radar dectors going up for sale on kijiji and craigslist. That's how people will protect themselves. Or the new garmin units that warn you of speed and red light cameras.

matter of time before they start outlawing them and make the fine even higher than the speeding ticket.

[trulankan]

You could argue you werent moving the instand the photo was taken. Its not red light video. LoL

I've been told it doeant affect your insurance, so if that's true its like a parking ticket ?

a red light ticket and parking ticket are NOT the same. I red light ticket will set you back a cool $300 or more and it will also affect your insurance since its a traffic violation. a parking ticket is cheaper and does not affect your insurance.

[SilentJay]

a red light ticket and parking ticket are NOT the same. I red light ticket will set you back a cool $300 or more and it will also affect your insurance since its a traffic violation. a parking ticket is cheaper and does not affect your insurance.

There's a bit of a disclaimer to your statement. A red light CAMERA ticket will carry no point demerits and will not affect your insurance. A red light ticket issued by and officer will affect insurance.

[FoXy]

I agree with having them. People who whine are just the ones who will most likely get caught. If you lend your car to your friend and they run a light or speed and get caught, that's your problem. Shouldnt have lent it to someone who doesnt like to obey the law.

There are far too many ppl running red lights and speeding in neighborhoods with children around. Screw these ppl, they should get nailed.

I am not for the radar everywhere, but DEFINATELY in areas with schools or 40 zones where people drive like morons.

If you obey the rules then you wont have a problem. There is one thing with speeding on the highway, or in a zone where there isnt much foot traffic, but its not acceptable to speed or run reds in areas where pedestrians are all over the place.

[JD@WhitbyMazda]

I think the overall solution is to not run red lights...

[Sparcas]

I think the overall solution is to not run red lights...

+1

OR to not let your friends drive your car and run red lights...

OR to get better friends...

[Slade]

If you obey the rules then you wont have a problem. There is one thing with speeding on the highway, or in a zone where there isnt much foot traffic, but its not acceptable to speed or run reds in areas where pedestrians are all over the place.

The only place I saw photo radar before, was on the 401. And the cops I did see doing it were in a very dangerous spot, standing against the median.

I agree with it in school zones.

I am OK with red light cameras like said before, my only complaint is when the weather is crappy and you try to stop but slide into the intersection, your screwed if you try to make it through and your screwed if you try to stop.

I know in the last few snow storms I made the attempt to stop and I still ended up with part of the nose in the intersection, with using snow tires and driving cautiously.

[yearoftherat]

I agree with having them. People who whine are just the ones who will most likely get caught. If you lend your car to your friend and they run a light or speed and get caught, that's your problem. Shouldnt have lent it to someone who doesnt like to obey the law.

There are far too many ppl running red lights and speeding in neighborhoods with children around. Screw these ppl, they should get nailed.

I am not for the radar everywhere, but DEFINATELY in areas with schools or 40 zones where people drive like morons.

If you obey the rules then you wont have a problem. There is one thing with speeding on the highway, or in a zone where there isnt much foot traffic, but its not acceptable to speed or run reds in areas where pedestrians are all over the place.

+1

[terapr0]

red light camera's for example, most of the fine that comes from a red light ticket goes to the company that makes the camera. very little actually goes to the city. i can agree with having red light camera's and speed radars within areas such as residential and school zones. and temporary areas such as construction sites. this is another way the government is taking the money out of our pockets while causing more trouble in the city. red light camera's cause more car crashes than prevent them because every one either rushes past them or stop too late for them. speed radars will slow traffic to a crawl as if an officer was out to get you. everyone is late, road rage rises, more fuel is spent and emissions rise. when was the last time you saw anyone follow the speed limit to the km. I personally only see it when the elderly drive or if its a student driver. and when i do see someone below or right at the speed limit, traffic is backed up for almost a block.

im not condoning speeding. but if someone is driving slow, they cause so much problems. if someone is driving at a stupid speed (which would be obvious without a camera) or driving recklessly. thats when the law should step in and take control. not when someone is over the speed limit by 1kmph (depending on tolerances). freedom is not what it use to be, but were being jailed within whats suppose to keep us safe and improve our lives. you cant even go out anymore without breaking a law or two. but when you do, you wont even know it. i love what ever freedom we have here now and im thankful everyday when i wake up. but were slowly losing this freedom. the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer.

Where are you getting your information from? Can you quote any sources that back up your claims?? I really dont believe they're going to nail drivers going 1km/h over the posted limit, the same way speed traps wont bust you for going 101km/h on the highway. I typically drive at 118-119km/h on the highway and routinely pass speed traps at this speed. I've overtaken OPP cruisers going 118 and they've never pulled me over for it. The speed cameras will most assuredly include a "cushion" above the posted limit.

While I'm obviously not in favor of more government intrusion into our lives, if it's their mandate to stop speeding, unmanned cameras are a very cost effective way of doing it. Even a $50,000 camera system is going to be cheaper and more productive than an officer sitting there, idling in his V8 powered car waiting for people. The camera works 24/7/365, never calls in sick, doesnt belong to some bullshit union and treats everyone equally. If I were tasked with enforcing speeding laws you bet your ass I'd have hidden speed cameras, along with more unmarked cars of many different brands. Our current system of enforcement is, for the most part, very reasonable. Most speed traps are easy to spot from far enough away that, if you're actually paying attention to the road, you can slow down in time to avoid a ticket. ie: they're actually giving you a chance. They're going easy on us and only doing a half assed job.

I speed every single day (not street racing, but certainly above the posted limits) and I wont make excuses for myself....I do it because I'm usually running late (my own fault) and I know the system well enough to get away with it. That's not my irrefutable right - it's a privilege afforded to me by the inefficiencies of our system. I, and you, shouldnt complain about them doing their job. We've gotten away with a whole lot for a very long time.

[terapr0]

and while it's not exactly fair that the OWNER gets the ticket instead of the driver, perhaps it'll make people think twice about loaning out their cars. Parents will know that it was their son/daughter driving, and companies should have records of who was driving what vehicle, and when. Professional drivers should be held accountable by their employers and everyone else should be held accountable by whoever the hell they borrowed the car from. If I got a ticket for a friend speeding in my car you can bet your ass I'm making him pay for the damn ticket.

I'm sure it would be possible to get a photo-radar ticket dismissed if you could prove that someone actually stole your car and took it out street racing (absurdly unlikely, but still conceivable, I guess....)

[Lockdown]

Awesome. hopefully there is a larger margin than last time. 1km/hr over = ticket

[Aitch]

One of the things I worry about is that if there are permanent photo radar sites, those routes are going to get more congested during rush hour as people suddenly slow down in those areas. You see this whenever a speedtrap is set up.

Alternatively, people might continue blasting through (or only doing +5km/h) and get the ticket weeks later. Meanwhile they've might get ticketed multiple times without receiving any deterrent. Traditional speed traps provide immediate consequences.

I like the red light cameras. Because there are a pile of them, but not all are active at any given time. It really is a deterrent when you know they are there, regardless of if you are the owner of the car or not. (Seriously, how common is it that you lend your car to someone who isn't related to you and that you don't think will drive responsibly? Come on.) You go through a couple of intersections cutting it close and seeing those signs, and your attitude quickly starts to change. I wish they had those boxes everywhere.

[Takumi616]

http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/funny-cyanide-hapiness-comic-cop-rader-gun-breathalyzer-pics.png

[dietsprite]

A red light camera ticket carries no demerit points, however it does carry a fine of $350 which sucks balls as I got caught once already.

[Olestra]

Having cameras on site “also means police officers can be deployed in areas where their skills are needed,” Pugash said. “A camera will ensure everybody who breaks the law gets caught.”

so theyre not doing there jobs and actually putting theyre skills where its not needed? this is all BS. not only is the government full of shit but theyre privatizing law enforcement. red light camera's for example, most of the fine that comes from a red light ticket goes to the company that makes the camera. very little actually goes to the city. i can agree with having red light camera's and speed radars within areas such as residential and school zones. and temporary areas such as construction sites. this is another way the government is taking the money out of our pockets while causing more trouble in the city. red light camera's cause more car crashes than prevent them because every one either rushes past them or stop too late for them. speed radars will slow traffic to a crawl as if an officer was out to get you. everyone is late, road rage rises, more fuel is spent and emissions rise. when was the last time you saw anyone follow the speed limit to the km. I personally only see it when the elderly drive or if its a student driver. and when i do see someone below or right at the speed limit, traffic is backed up for almost a block.

im not condoning speeding. but if someone is driving slow, they cause so much problems. if someone is driving at a stupid speed (which would be obvious without a camera) or driving recklessly. thats when the law should step in and take control. not when someone is over the speed limit by 1kmph (depending on tolerances). freedom is not what it use to be, but were being jailed within whats suppose to keep us safe and improve our lives. you cant even go out anymore without breaking a law or two. but when you do, you wont even know it. i love what ever freedom we have here now and im thankful everyday when i wake up. but were slowly losing this freedom. the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer.

thats the end of my rant. if anyone has anything to change or add, please feel free to comment.

In Alberta, we've had photo radar and red light cameras for quite some time.
- It may be different in Ontario but there is a leeway for photo radar. It's somewhere between 10-12km/h over the limit.
- For red light cameras, if you get caught for 0.1sec after the light turns red or if you're unable to stop due to poor road conditions, the best thing to do is to fight the ticket.
- There are no points associated with photo radar or red light camera tickets as they cannot associate the owner with the violation, only the vehicle.
- Cameras do provide an objective way of enforcing the law. I see many threads complaining about police trolling on highways or following people"waiting for them to make a mistake. Getting a ticket from a photo radar enforced speed trap is hard to argue in court. The only reason to fight one would be if you had a good reason or you want a reduced fine.
- Photo radar is usually easy to spot. Some are tricky and hide behind a building or pillar. It is almost always a big black truck with a cab. Most people know to slow down when you see one.

From my personal observations, they do seem to work. I tend to experience more speeding in Toronto and in Vancouver than in Edmonton. In Edmonton, most people drive 10 over the limit or less. When I'm 10 over the limit in Edmonton, I seem to pass most people. In Vancouver, 10 over the limit and I'm holding up traffic, so I tend to speed up as well. In general, I find myself speeding if I feel I can get away with it.

[geobur]

http://funnyasduck.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/funny-cyanide-hapiness-comic-cop-rader-gun-breathalyzer-pics.png

LOL!!!!!

[FoXy]

They have the photo radar in Quebec in lots of places. There are signs clearly posted. And it DOES force you to slow down, which isnt such a bad thing.

[terapr0]

Meanwhile they've might get ticketed multiple times without receiving any deterrent. Traditional speed traps provide immediate consequences.

that's actually a really good point....there is something scary & unnerving (for me at least) about getting pulled over by the cops....Its only happened to me a few times for minor things, but I'm shaken up for the rest of the week and drive like a grandma for a month. Simply receiving a ticket in the mail doesnt carry the same oomph as being being handed one by some jackass with a badge & a gun.

[Lockdown]

that's actually a really good point....there is something scary & unnerving (for me at least) about getting pulled over by the cops....Its only happened to me a few times for minor things, but I'm shaken up for the rest of the week and drive like a grandma for a month. Simply receiving a ticket in the mail doesnt carry the same oomph as being being handed one by some jackass with a badge & a gun.

You get over it after a while. First few times, sure but then you realize, who cares, it's not really that bad and away you go but yeah way worse than a mailed ticket.
Soon they will be emailing, just you watch

I can see it now, with all these vehicle integration systems from OEMs,

You drive through a red light, you get an email and your car posts on Facebook and twitter for you that you don't know where the brake pedal is

[CelestSpeed3]

Just GPS speed limit the cars then. No more tickets cause you can't speed. Oh wait . . . We can't do that . . . There's no money in that. . . .

[tmpz]

I think the overall solution is to not run red lights...

Yes, but then it doesn't solve the police budget problem :chuckle

[Kiyomi]

cash grab. nothing to do with safety imo. can u imagine if they enforced this on the 400 series highway. they'd rake in 100's of thousands a day.

[citrus]

cash grab. nothing to do with safety imo. can u imagine if they enforced this on the 400 series highway. they'd rake in 100's of thousands a day.

Exactly.

[JrCanuck]

I gotta say i'm happy that we don't have them down in the Niagara region. In my old car my brakes failed and made a high pitch noise in which the officer heard and saw the spray from the line burst. I bet the red light camera would not have picked up on that.

Got off with a warning and a free tow from the Niagara Regional Police to the nearest scrapyard.

I can't see there being any more or less issues with both Red light cameras and Photo radar as there is radar guns and the forgiveness of the police force (depending of course on how their day was going at that point, or the quota).

The wrong people will get off and the less dangerous slapped with a nice fine just because the car's in their name.

[Pyro]

Where are you getting your information from? Can you quote any sources that back up your claims?? I really dont believe they're going to nail drivers going 1km/h over the posted limit, the same way speed traps wont bust you for going 101km/h on the highway. I typically drive at 118-119km/h on the highway and routinely pass speed traps at this speed. I've overtaken OPP cruisers going 118 and they've never pulled me over for it. The speed cameras will most assuredly include a "cushion" above the posted limit.

While I'm obviously not in favor of more government intrusion into our lives, if it's their mandate to stop speeding, unmanned cameras are a very cost effective way of doing it. Even a $50,000 camera system is going to be cheaper and more productive than an officer sitting there, idling in his V8 powered car waiting for people. The camera works 24/7/365, never calls in sick, doesnt belong to some bullshit union and treats everyone equally. If I were tasked with enforcing speeding laws you bet your ass I'd have hidden speed cameras, along with more unmarked cars of many different brands. Our current system of enforcement is, for the most part, very reasonable. Most speed traps are easy to spot from far enough away that, if you're actually paying attention to the road, you can slow down in time to avoid a ticket. ie: they're actually giving you a chance. They're going easy on us and only doing a half assed job.

I speed every single day (not street racing, but certainly above the posted limits) and I wont make excuses for myself....I do it because I'm usually running late (my own fault) and I know the system well enough to get away with it. That's not my irrefutable right - it's a privilege afforded to me by the inefficiencies of our system. I, and you, shouldnt complain about them doing their job. We've gotten away with a whole lot for a very long time.

1) Kind of ironic that , in the same paragraph you ask for proof, you also make a claim without being able to back it up. As long as it can be proven that the photo radar is calibrated correctly, there absolutely no reason to assume there's any kind of buffer.

2) I think it's pretty sad that the police try to justify instituting photo radar because they have a "limited amount of resources", reading between the lines this means they they knowingly choose to spend taxpayer money to setup speed traps rather taking on real societal problems like gang violence, at risk youth etc

3) I disagree, cops setup lots of speed traps in carefully hidden locations to nab people. They don't setup in easy to see spots like you claim. I know a few places in Markham , and they always setup in hidden spots at the end of hills to nab people who might be going a little faster then normal because of the hill. To me, this means they actually want to trick and catch you as opposed as being visible as a deterrence. It's exactly like all the undercover cop cars I see lately (which I also disagree with as a taxpayer), I would rather the police be visible and PREVENT crime rather then trying to catch people after the crime occurs.

[Pokaroo Kris]

I disagree, cops setup lots of speed traps in carefully hidden locations to nab people. They don't setup in easy to see spots like you claim. I know a few places in Markham , and they always setup in hidden spots at the end of hills to nab people who might be going a little faster then normal because of the hill. To me, this means they actually want to trick and catch you as opposed as being visible as a deterrence. It's exactly like all the undercover cop cars I see lately (which I also disagree with as a taxpayer), I would rather the police be visible and PREVENT crime rather then trying to catch people after the crime occurs.


We would all rather they be visible. But if that were the case, the city would be losing a source of income. They stay hidden to get more tickets, to get more money. Simple. Now they want to get rid of them, put cameras for more money. The police and city will do anything to have more cash to give themselves a nice raise for the up coming year.

[Pyro]

We would all rather they be visible. But if that were the case, the city would be losing a source of income. They stay hidden to get more tickets, to get more money. Simple. Now they want to get rid of them, put cameras for more money. The police and city will do anything to have more cash to give themselves a nice raise for the up coming year.

"said Blair’s spokesman, Mark Pugash, adding the force isn’t looking to increase revenue and there would be large warning signs."

I know the truth and what they say might be different but still. The police force is looking at this as an option due to the hiring freeze, so they can put manpower elsewhere. Not necessarily to increase revenue through fines (although I may be wrong, you can't just claim that its for the cash when they specifically said its not )

[slam525i]

Regardless of whether it is considered a moving violation, there's a fundamental problem here: Jurisprudence.

I want my right to face my accuser. I want my right to a defence.

(I've never had a speeding ticket, nor a red-light camera ticket. This is about the principle of the matter.)

[Pokaroo Kris]

"said Blair’s spokesman, Mark Pugash, adding the force isn’t looking to increase revenue and there would be large warning signs."

I know the truth and what they say might be different but still. The police force is looking at this as an option due to the hiring freeze, so they can put manpower elsewhere. Not necessarily to increase revenue through fines (although I may be wrong, you can't just claim that its for the cash when they specifically said its not )

True. They didn't say it. But come on. We all know what it all comes down to. $$$

[terapr0]

1) Kind of ironic that , in the same paragraph you ask for proof, you also make a claim without being able to back it up. As long as it can be proven that the photo radar is calibrated correctly, there absolutely no reason to assume there's any kind of buffer.

I never said I couldn't, or wouldn't back it up. These link's don't relate precisely to Ontario, but they describe the policies governing photo radar in Scotsdale Arizona, Boulder Colorado and several jurisdictions in BC. Check the links and the interesting snippets of information contained within.

http://www.scottsdaleaz.gov/photoradar/faq#11mph

"Why are speeders allowed an 11 mph buffer?
The margin is intended to address language in the Arizona Revised Statutes related to speed offenses that defines, "...reasonable and prudent..." speed. It also provides a reasonable margin of error/grace for inaccurate vehicle speedometers and short-term lapses of attention by otherwise law-abiding and generally cautious drivers."


http://www.bouldercolorado.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=10740&Itemid=3572

"Why are speeders allowed a 9 mph buffer?
This provides a reasonable margin of error for inaccurate vehicle speedometers and short term lapses of attention by otherwise law-abiding and generally cautious drivers. Boulder's focus is primarily on intentional, aggressive, and negligent speeders."

http://www.strathcona.ab.ca/files/Files/at-lls-arm-110913-report-8-1.pdf

"Presently, the speed tolerance for automated enforcement is set at 20% with the exception of 30 km/h zones
where the enforcement bracket commences when vehicles exceed 39 km/h (30%)."

http://www.sense.bc.ca/photoradar.htm

"Photos will be taken if the vehicle exceeds the tolerance programmed into the computer controlling the camera. This tolerance ranges from 10 km/h to 19 km/h above the posted speed limit. The tolerances of particular locations are not currently publicly advertised.

The tolerance is said to be based on the 85th percentile speed if that speed falls between 10 km/h and 19 km/h over the posted speed limit. The measurement of the 85th percentile speed is done by police officers using a covert set-up of only the camera. "


Of course these policies may not be applied verbatim here in Toronto, but they were the basis for my assumption that our version of photo radar would adopt a similar tolerance or buffer.

I'd still like to see any sources which support his claims that:

a) “most of the fine that comes from a red light ticket goes to the company that makes the camera. very little actually goes to the city.”

b) “red light camera's cause more car crashes than prevent them”

c) “radars will slow traffic to a crawl”

d) “road rage rises, more fuel is spent and emissions rise”

e) “were being jailed within whats suppose to keep us safe and improve our lives” (his wording is unclear, but I think he's claiming that people are being routinely thrown in jail for simple traffic violations)