[Jabberwalker]

They don't need to do any of that ... just monitor the computers operating your cars. They could be programmed to download telemetry data at intervals via radio or to "dump" any information at intervals ... weekly, end of trip, monthly, etc.

I'm surprised that they don't subpoena our billing information from the 407 because each and every trip is a timed run over a known distance ... and NO ONE drives anywhere near the speed limit on that road.

[peck420]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

They don't need to do any of that ... just monitor the computers operating your cars. They could be programmed to download telemetry data at intervals via radio or to "dump" any information at intervals ... weekly, end of trip, monthly, etc.

I'm surprised that they don't subpoena our billing information from the 407 because each and every trip is a timed run over a known distance ... and NO ONE drives anywhere near the speed limit on that road.

If they are forcing you to update your vehicle...do they have to pay for it?

There is 600,000+ registered vehicles in Edmonton. Less then half have the hardware requirements to give telemetry data.

Your looking at another 25 years before the majority have the required hardware, from factory.

They could pay to install trackers in our vehicles, but that would cost substantially more then the cameras.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

If they are forcing you to update your vehicle...do they have to pay for it?

They can mandate compulsory emissions tests without us paying for the test or the remedy of the results.

I would expect it to become a new vehicle requirement (like daylight running lights) that must be part of the vehicle upon licencing (grandfathered to let off the '57 Chevys). The NSA in the U.S. would love that technology because it would be used as another backdoor method of keeping tabs on the comings-and-goings of their citizenry. I could see them forcing the car manufacturers to add some sort of transponder to the onboard computers.


Your looking at another 25 years before the majority have the required hardware, from factory.

Cars don't last that long on the salty, black-iced roads here in the mysterious East.

[peck420]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

They can mandate compulsory emissions tests without us paying for the test or the remedy of the results.

Doubtful. It would be very, very difficult to mandate installation of telemetry data + transmitters as regulatory maintenance.

$1:

I would expect it to become a new vehicle requirement (like daylight running lights) that must be part of the vehicle upon licencing (grandfathered to let off the '57 Chevys). The NSA in the U.S. would love that technology because it would be used as another backdoor method of keeping tabs on the comings-and-goings of their citizenry. I could see them forcing the car manufacturers to add some sort of transponder to the onboard computers.

Already comes equipped in every new vehicle, although I am not sure if that was by mandate or by manufacturer's choice. (I could be wrong here, but I have yet to see a modern car that can't give you your mileage, avg. speed, and some form of optional communication with emergency and manufacturers...think OnStar)

$1:

Cars don't last that long on the salty, black-iced roads here in the mysterious East.

Then that would make Edmonton's situation even worse. If the cars on the cost are , on average, newer, then the cars on the prairies must be, on average, older to get the average that we currently have (actual average is 9.62 years, per AIA Canada).

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

Bootlegga, Dr. Caleb,

The EPS and the CoE have floated the idea of permanent PR on every 5th or so light pole.

I can see a run on 1/4 sheets of plywood and bungee cords then. It's also illegal to have Photo Radar 'unmanned'. There must be an operator verifying the readouts, or the ticket is invalid.

peck420 peck420:

Will reducing speed make us any safer with idiots weaving in and out of traffic? Or, with that nice old lady doing 50 kph...in the left lane...on the Henday...etc, etc.

I think speed is an issue, but is it the biggest issue?

Not by far. I think speed is just a small part of it. Aggressive drivers, as I've said before, are the worst. I've been tailgaited to work from the West End on the Yellowhead - at 4:30 am. 3 lanes of open road, and the bastich still had to tailgait me because he wasn't thinking about what he was doing!

Like Motorcycle riders say - if you can't remember the last few minutes of driving - park.

[Jabberwalker]

$1:

(I could be wrong here, but I have yet to see a modern car that can't give you your mileage, avg. speed, and some form of optional communication with emergency and manufacturers...think OnStar)

That's all that is missing that "Wi-Fi connector" that must be a really cheap chip, these days. Imagine, having you car download it's history whenever you enter a highway, for instance. I have a toll transponder that goes part way to doing that on the 407 every trip. Big brother issues the car licences and can mandate anything that he wants to. That is why Alberta has photo radar. There was no popular outcry to get it, was there?

[peck420]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I can see a run on 1/4 sheets of plywood and bungee cords then. It's also illegal to have Photo Radar 'unmanned'. There must be an operator verifying the readouts, or the ticket is invalid.

How do they circumvent this with the red light / speed cameras placed at intersections?

[Public_Domain]

[bootlegga]

peck420 peck420:

Bootlegga, Dr. Caleb,

The EPS and the CoE have floated the idea of permanent PR on every 5th or so light pole.

Last time is was put back in the 'maybe later' cabinet, as the malfunctioning red light/speed cameras had just become public.

It's coming, one way or another. Whether it is PR on every pole, or immediate issuing of ticket when your car's computer notifies the local authorities that you are speeding, which, of course, would only happen if you illegally disabled the real time speed limiter.

The question is, will that make us safer? I don't know. Well, I do know that faster = higher chance of fatality, but let's be realistic here, even at 80 kph, head to head, your going to hurt. Will reducing speed make us any safer with idiots weaving in and out of traffic? Or, with that nice old lady doing 50 kph...in the left lane...on the Henday...etc, etc.

I think speed is an issue, but is it the biggest issue?

Speed is probably #2, but only marginally behind #1 (aggressive drivers) IMHO.

I see it everyday. People crossing double solid lines to pass people doing the limit instead of 20 over, people roaring down the Henday like its a racetrack, people blowing through construction and school zones, you name it.

As for the nice old lady doing 50 in the left lane, I'll just say go around them - that's why there are two lanes. I assume you're talking about city streets, because I have NEVER seen anyone doing 50 kmh on the Henday...and even if one person does it occasionally, there are far more people doing 30 or 40 over the limit anyways.

[DrCaleb]

peck420 peck420:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I can see a run on 1/4 sheets of plywood and bungee cords then. It's also illegal to have Photo Radar 'unmanned'. There must be an operator verifying the readouts, or the ticket is invalid.

How do they circumvent this with the red light / speed cameras placed at intersections?

Good question. I'll have to ask my friend who operates photo radar. I'd assume a higher standard of calibration for the speed-on-green cameras.

[Jabberwalker]

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

I'm thinking the unmanned photo radar rule is Alberta-only. AAs far as BC is concerned, there's a shit ton of cameras and no indication of who's in charge of them

I'm surprised that rootin-tootin, I-ain't-gonna-take-no-crap-from-nobody, git-yer-gun, manly-man Alberta ever put up with that level of state surveillance.

[DrCaleb]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

I'm thinking the unmanned photo radar rule is Alberta-only. AAs far as BC is concerned, there's a shit ton of cameras and no indication of who's in charge of them

I'm surprised that rootin-tootin, I-ain't-gonna-take-no-crap-from-nobody, git-yer-gun, manly-man Alberta ever put up with that level of state surveillance.

It's because you hold that atypical Eastern attitude of us that causes your confusion.

[Tyler_1]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

I'm surprised that rootin-tootin, I-ain't-gonna-take-no-crap-from-nobody, git-yer-gun, manly-man Alberta ever put up with that level of state surveillance.

It's because you hold that atypical Eastern attitude of us that causes your confusion.

He got the manly-man part right.

[DrCaleb]

DonnaWho DonnaWho:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

I'm surprised that rootin-tootin, I-ain't-gonna-take-no-crap-from-nobody, git-yer-gun, manly-man Alberta ever put up with that level of state surveillance.

It's because you hold that atypical Eastern attitude of us that causes your confusion.

He got the manly-man part right.

And Womanly Women too. Unlike the Womanly Men and Manly Women he's used to in Montreal.

[martin14]

Jabberwalker Jabberwalker:

Public_Domain Public_Domain:

I'm thinking the unmanned photo radar rule is Alberta-only. AAs far as BC is concerned, there's a shit ton of cameras and no indication of who's in charge of them

I'm surprised that rootin-tootin, I-ain't-gonna-take-no-crap-from-nobody, git-yer-gun, manly-man Alberta ever put up with that level of state surveillance.

No doubt too many of those damn pussy Easterners have moved in.