Smile for the camera? Not so much

Opinion

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 18/11/2024 (328 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Love it or hate it, photo radar is — OK, just hate it.

Because it seems like everyone already has a story about an unfair photo enforcement ticket received by a friend or family member.

Here’s ours.

There’s a grey speed camera enforcement van that likes to set up and hover on Wall Street during the 4-4:30 rush hour, blocking the far right lane by the football fields so that cars speed up to merge into traffic to get around it. And yes, if you speed there, you clearly run the risk of being legitimately ticketed for speeding.

But here’s an obvious question: if a photo enforcement van is creating an enticement for people to speed, isn’t that, well, contrary to the stated goal of photo enforcement, which is ostensibly to make driving in the city safer? (And, to be clear, parking on that stretch of Wall ends at 3:30, so the van is literally breaking the rules to create and then catch rule-breakers.)

Last week, Coun. Markus Chambers, who is the chairman of the Winnipeg Police Board, said the city needs to expand its mobile photo radar program, allowing enforcement vehicles a much broader range than the current rules restricting the vehicles to construction zones, school zones and areas around playgrounds.

Not only is Chambers suggesting that the areas where enforcement takes place should be expanded, he’s also arguing for an expansion of the camera technology at fixed camera sites as well — using improvements in technology to issue tickets to drivers looking at cellphones, for example, or to ticket vehicles with overly loud exhaust systems. (Both of which are laudable goals, though experience says even laudable ends fail to justify all means.)

The old saying goes “if you can’t do the time, don’t do the crime.”

But you have to wonder where the line between safety and revenue generation actually falls.

The police board and the Winnipeg Police Service may well argue that enhanced camera use will serve to make our roads safer — but it’s hard to ignore that the WPS not only receives the revenue from photo enforcement, but also absolutely depends on that particular cash cow. After costs of the photo radar program are deducted, the fines go into WPS coffers: “As the photo enforcement program is part of the Winnipeg Police Service, any net surplus is incorporated into the overall budget to fund other policing activities,” is the way the WPS puts it.

The estimated take in 2023 was $12.4 million, and as sure as night follows day, an enhancement and broadening of photo enforcement will mean an enhancement and broadening of the amount of money the program brings in.

Think about this comparison, which admittedly might border on the absurd: it would be one thing if all vehicles had an anti-impaired ignition interlock, so that you have to blow into the system to start your car, and the car wouldn’t start if you were impaired. It would be something completely different if you had to blow into the tube but the car always let you turn the key to start the vehicle, after which, if you had blown over .08, the car would turn off again, interconnected software charged you with impaired driving, and you were issued an automatic fine.

The police need for the continued revenue from photo enforcement will always add a “gotcha” component to the equation.

You can argue, as we have in this space before, that the simplest way to avoid having to pay for tickets handed out by photo enforcement is to drive with due regard to all traffic rules and regulations, and that is certainly still the case.

But there’s a fine line between claiming safety and harvesting revenue.