Alberta
New Photo Radar rules will move radar sites from freeways to school zones
Protecting drivers from photo radar fishing holes
Alberta is changing photo radar rules to ensure the focus is on traffic safety, not revenue generation.
Many Albertans have expressed growing frustration with the purpose and use of photo radar. To respond to these concerns, Alberta’s government implemented a pause on new photo radar equipment and locations on Dec. 1, 2019.
After receiving data from across the province, Alberta’s government is taking the first step of banning photo radar on ring roads in Calgary and Edmonton starting Dec. 1. At the same time, Alberta’s government will be engaging with municipalities and law enforcement over the next year on removing all “fishing hole” locations across the province. Albertans can be confident that going forward, photo radar will only be used to improve traffic safety.
“Alberta has the highest usage of photo radar in Canada, and these changes will finally eliminate the cash cow that affects so many Albertans. Photo radar must only be used to improve traffic safety, and with theses changes, municipalities will no longer be able to issue thousands of speeding tickets simply to generate revenue.”
The cap on any new photo radar equipment, programs or new photo radar locations will be extended until the one-year consultation with municipalities is complete on Dec. 1, 2024. Edmonton and Calgary will have the option to redeploy the photo radar units previously used on the ring roads to areas in their cities where they have a safety impact – in school, playground and construction zones.
“I am very pleased to see this change to allow our police force to redeploy photo radar from Stoney Trail into high-risk areas in our communities such as school zones, construction zones and playground zones due to changing traffic patterns. This will result in increased traffic safety for all Calgary drivers and pedestrians.”
“Photo radar is about keeping people safe, not money. It is one tool the City of Edmonton uses to protect people on the roads. We will continue to engage with the Government of Alberta and law enforcement to ensure we are achieving the intended outcome of making our roads safer.”
Alberta’s first photo radar units were introduced in 1987 and now there are about 2,387 photo radar sites across the province. Calgary’s ring road has eight photo radar sites and Edmonton’s ring road has 22. These ring road photo radar sites can be relocated to sensitive areas. This means that Calgary can select eight high-risk areas and Edmonton can select 22 high-risk areas to redeploy these sites.
“I am pleased to see this change will focus on using Automated Traffic Enforcement as a tool in the toolbox to improve traffic safety and driver behaviour, as we have done in Spruce Grove. We look forward to the upcoming consultation on this topic.”
“I am happy to see this important change to ensure that photo radar is focused on driver safety rather than revenue generation. This one-year consultation with municipalities will support Albertans by clearly identifying where the need for traffic safety improvements are most necessary in our communities.”
Quick facts
- Photo radar generated $171 million in 2022-2023.
- Traffic fine revenue is split between the province and municipalities, with the province receiving 40 per cent and municipalities receiving 60 per cent.
Related information
Alberta
On gender, Alberta is following the science
Despite falling into disrepute in recent years, “follow the science” remains our best shot at getting at the truth of the physical sciences.
But science, if we are to place our trust in it, must be properly defined and understood; it is at its essence an ever-changing process, a relentless pursuit of truth that is never “settled,” and one that is unafraid to discard old hypotheses in the face of new evidence.
And it is in this light—in the unforgiving glare of honest science—that Alberta Premier Danielle Smith’s three new legislative initiatives around gender policy are properly understood, notwithstanding the opprobrium they’ve attracted from critics.
Bill 26, the Health Statutes Amendment Act, proposes to prohibit the prescription of puberty blockers and cross-gender hormones for the treatment of gender dysphoria to youth aged 15 and under. It would allow minors aged 16 and 17 to begin puberty blockers and hormone therapies for gender “reassignment” and “affirmation” purposes only with parental, physician, and psychologist approval. The bill also prohibits health professionals from performing sex reassignment surgeries on minors.
Bill 27, the Education Amendment Act, seeks to enshrine parents’ rights to be notified if their kids change their names/pronouns at school, and it gives parents the right to “opt in” to what sort of gender and sex education their kids are exposed to in school.
And Bill 29, the Fairness and Safety in Sports Act, is designed to protect females in sports by ensuring that women and girls can compete in biological female-only divisions, while supporting the formation of co-ed opportunities to support transgender athletes.
Each of these initiatives is entirely reasonable, given what we know of the science underpinning “gender care,” and of the undeniable advantages that a male physique confers upon biological males competing in sports.
The notion that the trifecta of puberty blockers, cross-gender hormones, and revisionist surgery is a pathway to good health was a hypothesis initially devised by Dutch researchers, who were looking to ease the discomfort of transgender adults struggling with incongruence between their physical appearance and their gender identities. As a hypothesis, it was perhaps reasonable.
But as the UK’s Cass Review exposed in withering detail last spring, its premises were wholly unsupported by evidence, and its implementation has caused grievous harm for youth. As Finnish psychiatrist Riittakerttu Kaltiala, one of the architects of that country’s gender program, put it last year, “Gender affirming care is dangerous. I know, because I helped pioneer it.”
It’s no accident, then, that numerous European jurisdictions have pulled back from the “gender affirming care” pathway for youth, such as Sweden, Finland, Belgium, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom.
It makes perfect sense that Canadians should be cautious as well, and that parents should be apprised if their children are being exposed to these theories at school and informed if their kids are caught up in their premises.
Yet the Canadian medical establishment has remained curiously intransigent on this issue, continuing to insist that the drug-and-surgery-based gender-affirming care model is rooted in evidence.
Premier Smith was asked by a reporter last month whether decisions on these matters aren’t best left to discussions between doctors and their patients; to which she replied:
“I would say doctors aren’t always right.”
Which is rather an understatement, as anyone familiar with the opioid drug crisis can attest, or as anyone acquainted with the darker corners of medical history knows: the frontal lobotomy saga, the thalidomide catastrophe, and the “recovered memories of sexual abuse” scandal are just a few examples of where doctors didn’t “get it right.”
As physicians, we advocate strongly for self-regulation and for the principle that medical decisions are private matters between physicians and patients. But self-regulation isn’t infallible, and when it fails it can be very much in the interests of the public—and especially of patients—for others to intervene, whether they be journalists, lawyers, or political leaders.
The trans discussion shouldn’t be a partisan issue, although it certainly has become one in Canada. It’s worth noting that Britain’s freshly elected Labour Party chose to carry on with the cautious approach adopted by the preceding administration in light of the Cass Review.
Premier Smith’s new polices are eminently sensible and in line with the stance taken by our European colleagues. None of her initiatives are “anti-trans.” Instead, they are pro-child, pro-women, and pro-athlete, and it’s difficult to see how anyone can quibble with that.
Dr. J. Edward Les, MD, is a pediatrician in Calgary, senior fellow at the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and co-author of Teenagers, Children, and Gender Transition Policy: A Comparison of Transgender Medical Policy for Minors in Canada, the United States, and Europe.
Alberta
Alberta mother accuses health agency of trying to vaccinate son against her wishes
From LifeSiteNews
Alberta Health Services has been accused of attempting to vaccinate a child in school against his parent’s wishes.
On November 6, Alberta Health Services staffers visited Edmonton Hardisty School where they reportedly attempted to vaccinate a grade 6 student despite his parents signing a form stating that they did not wish for him to receive the vaccines.
“It is clear they do not prioritize parental rights, and in not doing so, they traumatize students,” the boy’s mother Kerri Findling told the Counter Signal.
During the school visit, AHS planned to vaccinate sixth graders with the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines. Notably, both HPV and hepatitis B are vaccines given to prevent diseases normally transmitted sexually.
Among the chief concerns about the HPV vaccine has been the high number of adverse reactions reported after taking it, including a case where a 16 year-old Australian girl was made infertile due to the vaccine.
Additionally, in 2008, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration received reports of 28 deaths associated with the HPV vaccine. Among the 6,723 adverse reactions reported that year, 142 were deemed life-threatening and 1,061 were considered serious.
Children whose parents had written “refused” on their forms were supposed to return to the classroom when the rest of the class was called into the vaccination area.
However, in this case, Findling alleged that AHS staffers told her son to proceed to the vaccination area, despite seeing that she had written “refused” on his form.
When the boy asked if he could return to the classroom, as he was certain his parents did not intend for him to receive the shots, the staff reportedly said “no.” However, he chose to return to the classroom anyway.
Shortly after, he was called into the office and taken back to the vaccination area. Findling said that her son then left the school building and braved the sub-zero temperatures to call his parents.
Following his parents’ arrival at the school, AHS claimed the incident was a misunderstanding due to a “new hire,” attesting that the mistake would have been caught before their son was vaccinated.
“If a student leaves the vaccination center without receiving the vaccine, it should be up to the parents to get the vaccine at a different time, if they so desire, not the school to enforce vaccination on behalf of AHS,” Findling declared.
Findling’s story comes just a few months after Alberta Premier Danielle Smith promised a new Bill of Rights affirming “God-given” parental authority over children.
A draft version of a forthcoming Alberta Bill of Rights provided to LifeSiteNews includes a provision beefing up parental rights, declaring the “freedom of parents to make informed decisions concerning the health, education, welfare and upbringing of their children.”
-
Brownstone Institute3 hours ago
The Most Devastating Report So Far
-
Economy15 hours ago
COP 29 leaders demand over a $1 trillion a year in climate reparations from ‘wealthy’ nations. They don’t deserve a nickel.
-
Alberta13 hours ago
On gender, Alberta is following the science
-
Energy14 hours ago
Ottawa’s proposed emission cap lacks any solid scientific or economic rationale
-
Bruce Dowbiggin2 hours ago
CHL Vs NCAA: Finally Some Sanity For Hockey Families
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
First Amendment Blues
-
Crime2 days ago
Mexican cartels are a direct threat to Canada’s public safety, and the future of North American trade
-
Business2 days ago
DEI gone?: GOP lawmakers prep to clean house in federal government