Poll Shows High Support for Electronic Enforcement
A serious car crash can happen simply because a driver breaks the law - and people are far less likely to break the law when they know they'll be caught.
The Canada Safety Council commissioned a survey to find out how Canadians feel about traditional traffic enforcement and how receptive they are to the use of high tech devices to enforce traffic laws. The results of the September 2003 poll closely parallel a similar one done in January 2001.
The survey found that Canadians are very positive about traffic enforcement by police. Fifty-five per cent felt the current level is about right. A further 35 per cent said they'd like to see more. Only nine per cent felt there was too much.
"There's no substitute for strong police visibility in problem areas," says Canada Safety Council president Emile Therien. "But the police can't be everywhere."
That's where electronic enforcement comes in. Cameras, instead of police, identify vehicles that speed or run the traffic lights. They are installed in locations with a high number of collisions. The owner of the offending vehicle is fined but no points are assigned to anyone's driving record.
The purpose of red light cameras is to prevent collisions at controlled intersections by stopping motorists from running red lights. The Decima teleVox poll found that 78 per cent of those surveyed support the use of cameras to identify vehicles that go through intersections after the traffic light has turned red.
Photo-radar identifies vehicles that break the speed limit. One out of every six fatal collisions involves speeding, but it can be very dangerous for police to chase speeders on busy highways. Nationally, 84 per cent of Canadians support photo radar in school zones, and 66 per cent support photo radar on the highway. When asked if there should be warning signs to advise of the possible presence of photo enforcement 68 per cent said yes.
A standard sign for photo enforcement is supposed to be installed on approaches to an intersection or along roads where cameras may be present. When drivers know they could be caught if they speed or run the traffic light, fewer choose to break the law - making the location safer.
A few jurisdictions in Ontario, including Ottawa, have been using red light cameras but have opted not to use the signs. The Canada Safety Council is concerned that the absence of signs jeopardizes the preventive benefit of the cameras.
"The real purpose is not to catch people breaking the law," explains Mr. Therien. "It"s to stop them from offending in the first place. The measure should not be how many offenders are caught or how much is paid in fines but rather the decrease in offences and collisions."
2003 survey findings
Return to top of page
|
