Opinion

Before the provincial government gives the city of Winnipeg permission to install speed cameras wherever it wants, it should ask the question: Does it really reduce collisions and injuries?

The answer to that question is that no one knows because the city refuses to collect collision data where photo radar is used.

There are some statistics for intersection surveillance cameras (or “red light cameras” as they have come to be known), but they are sketchy. The data shows that overall collisions are down at the original 12 intersection camera locations compared to when the program began in 2003.

Adjusted for the increase in the number of vehicles on the road since then, overall collisions are down 23 per cent at those locations, according to the Winnipeg Police Service’s 2023 annual photo enforcement report. There is no comparative data for the other 37 intersection camera locations.

The data also shows that right-angle collisions were higher in 2022 and 2023 (adjusted for vehicle growth) at the original 12 locations than in 2003 and 2004. So does it work? Do intersection cameras reduce collisions and injuries? It depends on what statistics the police choose.

However, there is no accident data for mobile photo-radar units. There is no mechanism to determine whether the program is achieving its stated goal of reducing collisions and injuries.

For the record, this is what the annual photo-radar report says: “The purpose of the Photo Enforcement Program is to reduce the number of speed-related fatalities, collisions and injuries.”

So how does the city know if the photo radar is achieving this goal? It is not.

They could collect that data if they wanted to. Crash data exists where a speed camera is used, but the police and city choose not to collect it. The question is, why?

If photo radar were, indeed, to improve road safety, it would be deployed mostly in high-collision areas, data would be collected over time to determine if it reduces crashes and injuries in those locations, and those statistics would be published every year in the annual photo-executive report. But I’m not.

The reality is that speed camera, or at least how it’s used in Winnipeg, has little, if anything, to do with road safety and everything to do with generating revenue for the city. It’s a money maker, plain and simple.

That’s why mobile photo-radar vehicles are often parked in proven money-making locations, not necessarily in high-accident areas.

The city, again, is calling on the provincial government to amend the Highway Traffic Act to allow for the installation of speed cameras on any street or road. He made this request in the past and was denied.

Right now, according to the act, photo radar can only be installed in school, playground and construction zones. Cops have been asking for years to use it wherever they want. They claim it’s to improve road safety, but refuse to collect the data needed to show if it actually reduces crashes and injuries.

Before the province decides whether to grant the city its wish to expand the speed camera, it should first ask the city to conduct a thorough study of the speed camera to determine if it achieves its stated goal. It should demonstrate that the program is not just about money.

That report should include an analysis of whether police are relying more on photo radar and less on traditional traffic enforcement than before.

Police have said in the past that they have scaled back traditional traffic enforcement in favor of photo radar. This is a problem because the speed camera is not aimed at drivers, but at vehicle owners. Drivers do not receive demerits when they receive a photography ticket. I do it when I get a speeding ticket or other ticket from a police officer.

That means drivers can rack up as many radar tickets as they want and keep their driver’s license. Not so with traditional enforcement; if you get enough speeding tickets or other traffic violation tickets written and handed out by cops, you will eventually lose your license.

Also, photo radar cannot monitor other crimes like traditional enforcement can. It can only determine if a vehicle is speeding.

These issues would need to be resolved between the province and the city before any expansion of photo radar is allowed.

[email protected]

Tom Brodbeck
Columnist

Tom Brodbeck is a columnist at Free press and has over 30 years of experience in print media. He joined Free press in 2019. Born and raised in Montreal, Tom graduated from the University of Manitoba in 1993 with a BA in Economics and Commerce. Read more about Tom.

Tom provides commentary and analysis on policy and related issues at the municipal, provincial and federal level. His columns are built on research and coverage of local events. The Free pressHis editorial team reviews Tom’s columns before they are posted online or published in print – part of Free pressits tradition, since 1872, of producing reliable independent journalism. Read more about Free pressits history and mandateand learn how our newsroom works.

Our newsroom depends on a growing readership to fuel our journalism. If you are not a paid reader, please consider becoming a subscriber.

Our newsroom depends on its readership to fuel our journalism. Thank you for your support.