Road Safety & Vision Zero Plan

[crs1026]

The technology largely exists already (except the 'rat-out' part); all the vehicles really need is more memory. Currently, vehicle event recorders only capture dynamic inputs for a brief period before a crash. There would also have to be international cooperation since we largely follow US vehicle standards.

However, privilege or not, the Courts' position on the State's ability to access the information (reasonable expectation of privacy, self incrimination, etc.) has been fairly clear for a while now.

The courts have upheld many intrusions into that right to privacy - such as inward facing cameras in railway locomotives etc. - where public safety considerations warrant.

Right now the police officer points a laser beam at your vehicle and measures your velocity. Doesn’t seem that big brotherish to replace the laser with a transponder that asks the car how fast it thinks it’s going. And what its license plate number is. (Tinted license plate covers are a pet peeve of mine, I admit ….. their goal is to impede accountability, not protect privacy or even extend plate life)

I don’t dispute how the courts see things today…. I’m just commenting that one might find solutions that aren’t all that destructive to privacy rights, given the impact on public safety.

- Paul

 

[Towered]

The reason that Kensington does not have more frequent and/or extensive pedestrianization is Mike Layton is afraid of the BIA. It is frustratingly simple and stupid.

I would suggest anyone who is inclined to fill out the survey also flip an email to Mike’s office and the BIA.

I expected more from a progressive councilor with a legacy last name. Gutless pansy. What's he afraid of? It's not like the denizens of Kensington will elect a right-wing politician instead

 

[Admiral Beez]

They missed a big benefit of permeable unit pavers: the added noise and vibration felt by drivers aids compliance with speed limits.

They’re probably easier on the houses as well. I’ve got a big speed bump in front of my house and ever since it was installed my plaster walls crack and the floor vibrates

 

[Admiral Beez]

Doesn’t seem that big brotherish to replace the laser with a transponder that asks the car how fast it thinks it’s going. And what its license plate number is.

If that's not Big Brother IDK what is. I'll continue riding my 1980's motorcycle and 1990's car until they can run no more. I've no interest in the government (and the private contractors they'll firm this out to) knowing my whereabouts or activities.

My first real job was as a customs inspector at Pearson Airport. Even back then in the mid 1990s we had a computer that used an probability algorithm to flag people for greater inspection and enforcement. We could do it because until you cross the customs desk your rights and freedoms are limited in the name of government oversight and national security. And that's why I don't support the government tracking us, because they'll use a probability algorithm to predict what you might have done, or what you might do next.

Back on topic..... to make the streets safer whilst still allowing private car ownership we need better designed roads and sidewalks. We need better driver training and policing (real police, in their cars) as well as speed and red light cameras. Policing sucks in this town, have you ever seen TPS stop someone for rolling through a stop sign or not stopping before turning right on a red light? We have 5,500 TPS officers, where are they?

 

[crs1026]

I expected more from a progressive councilor with a legacy last name. Gutless pansy. What's he afraid of? It's not like the denizens of Kensington will elect a right-wing politician instead

I would actually think the opposite…. if an experienced and activist Councillor with a pretty clear appreciation of and track record around addressing urban issues is ducking this one, maybe they have their reasons. Like avoiding a quid pro quo that could be worse. Or taking something to Council and losing the vote to suburban councillors who are a bigger problem..

Kensington without cars is a lot nicer than Kensington with cars, but it’s hardly a poorly designed wide heavily trafficked arterial road with poor pedestrian protection and high potential risk of pedestrian fatalities. Let’s deal with the problem where it is most dangerous.

Removing cars from Kensington would be great for the district’s aesthetic, and I support it……but it’s not the city’s most pressing road safety situation. (I’m like a broken record in this forum, I know, but this is a good example of my complaint that the Vision Zero agenda is being pushed by people with an urban lifestyle agenda rather than a protecting human life agenda. Follow the data, people!)

- Paul

 

[evandyk]

Yeah, safety is not the main reason to get cars off the street in Kensington. The narrow streets keep speed low anyways. There is just no reason to give all that space to cars when the narrow sidewalks are teeming with people.

 

[picard102]

The courts have upheld many intrusions into that right to privacy - such as inward facing cameras in railway locomotives etc. - where public safety considerations warrant.

Have they ever ruled that your personal property can be intruded upon to tattle on you? It's self-incrimination or a violation of the right to silence.
They can't even compel you to give them your passwords.

 

[vic]

Back on topic..... to make the streets safer whilst still allowing private car ownership we need better designed roads and sidewalks. We need better driver training and policing (real police, in their cars) as well as speed and red light cameras. Policing sucks in this town, have you ever seen TPS stop someone for rolling through a stop sign or not stopping before turning right on a red light? We have 5,500 TPS officers, where are they?

I see the cops pull people over going northbound on Symington approaching Davenport fairly often. I think they're getting nabbed for not stopping at Kingsley. Glad they're doing this. The speed and lack of stopping at that intersection is a problem.

However, yesterday I noticed the cop had parked his car on the sidewalk on Kingsley while waiting to nab people. You win some, you lose some.

 

[Northern Light]

Have they ever ruled that your personal property can be intruded upon to tattle on you? It's self-incrimination or a violation of the right to silence.
They can't even compel you to give them your passwords.

In regulatory (non-criminal) matters, the records of equipment used may be accessed by the government.

An obvious example is Flight Data Records which, in effect, can 'tattle' on pilots.

Does the plane's equipment have to 'tattle' proactively? In certain respects, yet, there is a variety of information automatically communicated to Air Traffic Control; and more is coming:

Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

There is no logical reason that this principle cannot or should not be applied to cars.

 

[crs1026]

There is no logical reason that this principle cannot or should not be applied to cars.

The license plate that is read by a radar or red light camera is already divulging the identity of the car owner (who is accountable under the law). Telemetry just brings that ancient analog data exchange into this century.

Similarly, telemetry that "confesses" the car's speed is just a substitute for the car acting as a reflector and allowing the laser beam to inform the officer of your speed. (Are "stealth cars" a thing?)

One of the principles that needs more prominence is driver accountability. A police officer certainly should not have the power to search your vehicle to see what you are transporting (excepting other probable cause). That's where the basic rights thing begins. But if you intend to speed, you should not expect to have the means to conceal that behaviour. Devices that record and communicate in the short term (without creating a surveillable record of where the driver has been, or that attach to a data bank with other discoverable personal information) are just fine in my book.

A 25-cent LED bulb on the roof of every car that lights up when speed exceeds say 130 km/hour would have an interesting impact on driver behaviour. Are we that insistent that procedures to detect bad driving must be old school and arcane and convoluted?

- Paul

 

[picard102]

Similarly, telemetry that "confesses" the car's speed is just a substitute for the car acting as a reflector and allowing the laser beam to inform the officer of your speed. (Are "stealth cars" a thing?)

Something observed isn't the same thing as self reporting. And yes, there is technology to evade speed sensors, illegal in Ontario.

A police officer certainly should not have the power to search your vehicle to see what you are transporting

My trunk should be able to alert police to it's contents no?

 

[crs1026]

My trunk should be able to alert police to it's contents no?

If you are transporting weapons, or drugs, or a dead body....no, I would not go that far.

I actually think the police have too much power to take a traffic stop for broken tail light and turn it into a criminal investigation. The interaction should stop with the traffic infraction.

But yeah, detection of driving behaviour can be automated in my law book.

- Paul

 

[picard102]

If you are transporting weapons, or drugs, or a dead body....no, I would not go that far.

I actually think the police have too much power to take a traffic stop for broken tail light and turn it into a criminal investigation. The interaction should stop with the traffic infraction.

But yeah, detection of driving behaviour can be automated in my law book.

- Paul

So self incrimination on speed is acceptable, but not murder...

 

[afransen]

A good discussion of how to design low speed zones for safety and to maximize use of space.

 

[crs1026]

So self incrimination on speed is acceptable, but not murder...

If our murder rate exceeded our fatality rate, perhaps that might be proposed.

If you commit a burglary and the property you are entering has cameras and alarms, you are self incriminating. No different if you drive on a public roadway that you know is equipped to detect unacceptable behaviour.

Driving on a public roadway, which is shared with others, using a potentially lethal device that could place them at risk, ought to require the truth to out. Whether that’s by machine or by a human observer is irrelevant. We can put police officers in helicopters to track down stunt drivers, or the machines can find them. It’s not supposed to be an elaborate game of hide and seek.

- Paul