Slashdot Mirror
Google Maps Adding Photo Radar Warnings For Drivers In Canada (huffingtonpost.ca)
Google Maps is warning drivers in Canada as they approach some photo radar camera locations. "The feature, which is currently being rolled out by Google, allows users to see speed limits, speed cameras and mobile speed cameras on the map before they leave," reports HuffPost Canada. "It also gives a verbal warning -- an automated voice saying 'speed camera ahead' -- when drivers are near a fixed speed camera." From the report: Police in Calgary say the feature is useful to them. "The biggest thing we love ... is we place those (cameras) by collision statistics," said Sgt. Joerg Gottschling of the Calgary Police Service traffic section. "If we do a new site, if we are going to install a new camera, the next site is always selected by the next highest crash site. "Our intersection locations are all determined where we are trying to eliminate collisions."
Gottschling said they've had up to a 50 per cent reduction in collisions in some areas where those cameras are stationed. With Google Maps, he noted, all drivers approaching the fixed camera intersection get the warning. "That camera is only facing one way," said Gottschling. "Let's say it's only facing northbound, but you can approach southbound or eastbound ... you are still going to get Google telling you caution. "So you're going to go slowly and cautiously through there which, lo and behold, is actually what we want." Google said in an email that there will also be an ability for android users to report mobile speed cameras and stationary cameras.
Gottschling said they've had up to a 50 per cent reduction in collisions in some areas where those cameras are stationed. With Google Maps, he noted, all drivers approaching the fixed camera intersection get the warning. "That camera is only facing one way," said Gottschling. "Let's say it's only facing northbound, but you can approach southbound or eastbound ... you are still going to get Google telling you caution. "So you're going to go slowly and cautiously through there which, lo and behold, is actually what we want." Google said in an email that there will also be an ability for android users to report mobile speed cameras and stationary cameras.
It seems they are interested in reducing collisions not in increasing revenue.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Literally came here to say, "I can't wait for the usual cynics to come out of the bushes and moan about how the police must be lying that they actually want to reduce collisions because We All Know it's about the money" -- and lo and behold you were already here.
Entirely depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places the local police do not get the income from cameras, so those jurisdictions tend to use them as they should be used.
Not every country does it like the US, where traffic police are seen as a revenue source by their management.
What's the big deal? Waze already gives those warnings in the USA; is it the "in Canada" part that''s special?
In Korea, speed cameras are spaced out and clearly marked in advance. The intent is partly to catch speeders but mostly to annoy you into slowing down since they're spaced out around every 5-7km
Or they could just install fake cameras. This greatly reduces the cost of the camera, eliminates the need for wiring, and there is much less maintenance required.
I have six cameras around the perimeter of my house. Only one is real. It is the one that isn't easily visible.
All i can say, is that i hope that it is because canadian police departments are better funded.
Thing is, that most police sit in the same spots all the time. There is only so many spots in the city to sit at. Its never about surprise. Most people quickly learn where to speed and where not to. And yes i do find they place speed traps in the city at high collision locations most times if i think about it, which of course makes sense. Almost always at a light at the end of a long straightaway.
If you are looking to catch a fish, head down to the water. If you are looking to stop collisions, enforce more at high collision locations.
-
It varies according to local police budgets and priorities. In Canada they are not trying to raise money to pay for their next armored assault vehicle. Google may get a different reception for this feature south of the border.
Literally not a single one of the stories provided on that page provides any evidence that cities shortened the lights after installing the cameras. On the contrary, most of them are along the lines of this excerpt:
"Dallas likewise installed the cameras at locations with existing short yellow times. A total of twenty-one camera intersections in Dallas had yellow times below TxDOTâ(TM)s bare minimum recommended amount."
It seems much more likely that - as the police officer in this story suggested - cameras are installed in response to danger. If the people responsible for setting up the lights are incompetent (as several of the stories on your linked page suggest) then some intersections will have shorter lights. Those intersections will be much more likely to have a disproportionate number of accidents. Therefore they will be more likely to receive cameras.
Of course it's stupid to just slap a camera on an intersection without first looking at why so many accidents occur at that location ... but stupidity is common, so why are you assuming malice?
Maybe Google should just cut out the middleman and show the accident data directly so drivers know which intersections are the most dangerous.
Go Canucks :)
[($)]
AI will help with that :P
[($)]
thats all you need :)
[($)]
You should be ready for the car ahead to jam on the brakes, especially at intersections, in case there is someone or something in the road. So if the cameras are revealing that people are dangerously tailgating with insufficient attention why do you think the solution is to remove the cameras?
There would be no money to grab if drivers obeyed the speed limit.
Canada - warning drivers about speed traps is great it gets everyone to slow down and avoids wrecks in high traffic areas. US - We'll sue you and everyone one associated with you to the point where you're homeless and on the streets.
In Calgary the police already post the locations on their website, so the fact Google is showing it too doesn't really change much.
When Australia first got speed cameras this is exactly what they did. They would move the camera from box to box, so most boxes were empty. That was until the cameras started paying for themselves of course,
You asked for citations, here are some from CBC (Canadian equivalent to NPR or BBC):
Photo radar under review in Alberta due to widespread misuse
Municipalities go after engineer for speaking up about unsafe amber lights used to maximize red light camera revenue
Senior successfully challenges red light camera ticket after demonstrating it doesn't meet ITE guidelines
We have it in the UK and in addition to there being lots of fixed cameras not on it it'll warn you of ones on the opposite side of a motorway (freeway) which only detects traffic going the other way and there are false positives too. It is pretty much THE WORST at doing speed camera warnings and if anyone is relying on it to keep their license they may want to think again.
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Generally ticket revenues (except parking tickets and such covered by city by-laws) go into the Provinces general funds rather straight to the cops. This may vary in different Provinces.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
The difference between Canadian jurisdictions implementing this kind of thing vs. US jurisdictions is that Canada properly funds its police departments and ticket revenue doesn't go directly to the police department, but into provincial coffers. Revenue from traffic citations doesn't comprise a significant amount of provincial revenue, so the public safety argument is actually the most feasible one.
Entirely depends on your jurisdiction, and in many places the local police do not get the income from cameras, so those jurisdictions tend to use them as they should be used.
Since the number of tickets written can be used as a metric for police productivity sans any monetary reward, your assumption is unwarranted. It buys the police points with non-violators since the police are "doing something" about a safety problem. It buys points with the local jurisdiction that does get the money. And it buys points with their supervisors who see documented proof that they are "doing something".
It is interesting to note the obvious lie: "With Google Maps, he noted, all drivers approaching the fixed camera intersection get the warning." No, only those drivers who are currently distracted by a mobile electronic device talking to them through Google Maps will be notified. Everyone else will not. When the percentage of drivers using Google Maps reaches 100%, you can claim that "all drivers" will get a warning.
While it is possible to use Maps hands-free, what percentage of people will start using Maps without concern for that? We just tightened up the distracted driving laws here in Oregon so that it is now a primary offense to be using your cell phone while driving, and I see the same number of people chatting away holding a phone to their ear while tooling about town. "Primary offense" means the cops can stop and ticket you for no other reason than seeing you using your phone. Put a positive monetary incentive on driving while distracted and you'll entice more people to do it -- making the roads less safe.
Your first link talks about photo radar and is completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Your second and third link talk about making amber lights longer than 4 seconds on high-speed roads, and do not even remotely suggest that the light duration has been lowered after bringing in cameras.
Nice "citations".
Ah, anonymous coward is upset. What an unexpected turn of events.
That's never happened before, weird.