The current city council doesn't fail to continue to amaze me with their extremely narrow-minded and naïve strategic decisions based on staged and flawed results to justify those decisions.
There have been some pretty lame bylaws and decisions changing laws within this city over the past many years, and it continues. James Burrows appears to be the only member of council that doesn't have a problem with speaking the truth surrounding the "cash cow" better known as photo radar — way to go Burrows. I'm not sure if the remainder of the council figures everyone else in the city is just plain naïve or stupid. Photo radar is exactly that — a means of generating revenue for the city. If the city had any interest in speed reduction, they would direct the photo radar vehicles to stop hiding behind the trees and get out from behind the signs and be visible.
Those "special constables" and RCMP need to be visible doing their jobs. I wasn't aware hiding behind signs, trees and posts was in the training of conducting speed/traffic control. One thing for sure they need to be more visible, more often and not only on fair weather days. Speeders are out there and they are doing it in all weather and all times not just 8 a.m. to 4 p.m., Monday to Friday. There is no way that the community and protective services general manager is going to say no to another methodology to try and generate revenue for the city administration. I would question the validity of stats used by the council to justify the decision they have taken.
Don't misunderstand me — there are speeders out there and they need to be caught and they will be eventually. The accident stats at the various intersections used to justify the decision to go ahead to allow red light cameras to now issue photo radar tickets are flawed and premature. How many of those collisions were really the result of speeding and not that of a distraction? This fact was not presented. The sitting council does not figure putting a bylaw in place on banning cellphone use by drivers is important enough for them to take action on, but they had time for the lame and ill-thought-through decision to rubber stamp red light camera dual usage.
Once again don't misinterpret my chain of thought — speeders need to be caught, but one thing I believe should run hand-in-hand is that that intersections should also have the countdown lights installed which forewarns drivers of the amber light. Why is it that the city did not exercise good judgment and already have these countdown lights installed at all those trouble intersections? My question to the city would be, how is this new law is going to stand up in a court of law if the current photo radar vehicles need to be continually monitored and now an unmonitored system is being allowed? I find this questionable. How far is this going to erode the use of unmonitored technology to collect revenue, as this certainly is not prevention or a deterrent by any means.
Keep in mind, not everyone is as gullible as city council and administration would like us all to think.
Name withheld by request, St. Albert
