Connect with us

Opinion

Speed on Green?

Published

4 minute read

Hey everyone,

As of August 11 the intersections in our city that currently have red light cameras will also now have the ability to issue tickets for speeding through them on green lights.

What do you think of this?

Could we frame this discussion as a speeders tax or a fee-to-speed? Perhaps.

But either way let’s not fool ourselves; these cameras are only marginally effective at making our roads safer. As soon as drivers learn where these cameras are they slow down temporarily and then they defiantly speed up again as soon as they’re out of range. So, yes, these cameras probably do make specific intersections safer. But on the other hand I suspect the gains might be lost if drivers are dangerously slamming on their brakes to avoid having their picture taken as soon as they catch a glimpse of the camera as they speed by. I suppose the data will bear out the fact of the matter. My mind will remain open.

Also, while the focus on catching speeders does give us a good feeling of accomplishment, the question remains; how do we address the other major factors such as distracted and impaired driving? I hear Police ride the bus in some cities and call in distracted drivers they see through the window as they cruise around the city. But that’s a whole other topic.

One thing that has worked well is installing timers at many intersections around our city. I really like how I can see from a distance that I have enough time to safely slow down and stop. So I’d like to put it forward that, if we must have speed-on-green cameras then we should use the money to pay for things like timers at intersections and other things that improve traffic safety.

I also wonder if we should be having the conversation about timing traffic lights better? “Red-Light-Deer” is a social media meme which is growing in popularity. So the bigger picture question here is how can we make traffic flow better in our city?

Lastly, another discussion that we should be having is how to improve safety in our school zones. Since we know that traffic cameras only temporarily slow drivers down and we also know that many drivers are unwilling to temporarily slow down near schools, it seems like there is an obvious solution to the problem, let’s put traffic cameras in school zones. Can we do that? Call it a cash grab, sure, just please don’t run my kids over. The scariest thing to a parent is a speeding car in school zone!

With all of that said, the reality is that we can’t legislate the sort of cultural change that needs to happen. I recently became a defensive driving instructor and this is something that I talk about a lot. People need to obey the rules of the road not because they’re afraid of getting a ticket but because they care about their own safety and respect the safety and well-being of everyone else in their community. This is the ultimate way to be proactive when it comes to road safety. It starts with you and the attitude that you choose to have when you get behind the wheel.

Cheers,

I have lived in Red Deer since I was a child. This is the community that I choose to raise my family in and where I choose to operate my business. I am grateful for all of the opportunities I have had in this city and I will give back to the community through service, passion and conversation. I am curious. I am personal. I am BOLD.

Follow Author

More from this author

Business

Ted Cruz, Jim Jordan Ramp Up Pressure On Google Parent Company To Deal With ‘Censorship’

Published on

 

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Andi Shae Napier

Republican Texas Sen. Ted Cruz and Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan are turning their attention to Google over concerns that the tech giant is censoring users and infringing on Americans’ free speech rights.

Google’s parent company Alphabet, which also owns YouTube, appears to be the GOP’s next Big Tech target. Lawmakers seem to be turning their attention to Alphabet after Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta ended its controversial fact-checking program in favor of a Community Notes system similar to the one used by Elon Musk’s X.

Cruz recently informed reporters of his and fellow senators’ plans to protect free speech. 

Dear Readers:

As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.

Please consider making a small donation of any amount here. Thank you!

“Stopping online censorship is a major priority for the Commerce Committee,” Cruz said, as reported by Politico. “And we are going to utilize every point of leverage we have to protect free speech online.”

Following his meeting with Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai last month, Cruz told the outlet, “Big Tech censorship was the single most important topic.”

Jordan, Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, sent subpoenas to Alphabet and other tech giants such as RumbleTikTok and Apple in February regarding “compliance with foreign censorship laws, regulations, judicial orders, or other government-initiated efforts” with the intent to discover how foreign governments, or the Biden administration, have limited Americans’ access to free speech.

“Throughout the previous Congress, the Committee expressed concern over YouTube’s censorship of conservatives and political speech,” Jordan wrote in a letter to Pichai in March. “To develop effective legislation, such as the possible enactment of new statutory limits on the executive branch’s ability to work with Big Tech to restrict the circulation of content and deplatform users, the Committee must first understand how and to what extent the executive branch coerced and colluded with companies and other intermediaries to censor speech.”

Jordan subpoenaed tech CEOs in 2023 as well, including Satya Nadella of Microsoft, Tim Cook of Apple and Pichai, among others.

Despite the recent action against the tech giant, the battle stretches back to President Donald Trump’s first administration. Cruz began his investigation of Google in 2019 when he questioned Karan Bhatia, the company’s Vice President for Government Affairs & Public Policy at the time, in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. Cruz brought forth a presentation suggesting tech companies, including Google, were straying from free speech and leaning towards censorship.

Even during Congress’ recess, pressure on Google continues to mount as a federal court ruled Thursday that Google’s ad-tech unit violates U.S. antitrust laws and creates an illegal monopoly. This marks the second antitrust ruling against the tech giant as a different court ruled in 2024 that Google abused its dominance of the online search market.

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

PRC-Linked Disinformation Claims Conservatives Threaten Chinese Diaspora Interests, Take Aim at PM Carney’s Debate Remark

Published on

 

As polls tighten in Canada’s pivotal federal election, a Chinese-language website has published multiple editorials suggesting that a Pierre Poilievre government could threaten Chinese Canadian interests with so-called “anti-China” policy clauses—claiming it could bring “inconvenience to the lives of Chinese people, such as restrictions on the use of social media, reductions in return air tickets, etc.”

During the 2021 federal election, then-Conservative leader Erin O’Toole and MP Kenny Chiu were widely attacked with similar arguments across Chinese-language news and social media. CSIS reporting from 2022, cited exclusively by The Bureau, warned that Chinese-language media in Canada is effectively controlled by Beijing and weaponized during election periods to spread Chinese Communist Party-aligned narratives.

One of the new articles also criticizes Prime Minister Mark Carney’s debate remark that Beijing poses the greatest threat to Canada’s national security—a comment that prompted the Chinese-language editorial to question whether Carney’s statement was “a gimmick to attract attention.”

The articles, published Thursday and Friday by 51.ca, have raised deep concern among some community members. One longtime Chinese Canadian journalist, who requested anonymity due to fear of retaliation, told The Bureau they were alarmed by the messaging and suspected the coverage was driven by election-interference motives.

One of the pieces claimed that “the Conservative Party has written anti-China clauses into the party platform,” referencing a prior story that quickly circulated on Chinese-language social media and triggered fearful discussion.

Citing WeChat commentary on the same article, the journalist pointed specifically to a politically connected figure previously associated with CSIS investigations into election interference networks in the Greater Toronto Area—allegedly tied to clandestine funding channels linked to the Chinese Consulate in Toronto.

Sharing a WeChat forum screen-picture, the diaspora journalist noted:

“The writer said, according to the Conservative’s campaign platform, China’s definition is ‘enemy.’ So what is the impact on Chinese Canadians’ daily life? Facing more discrimination? Fewer flights going back to China? How about using social media? If there is a war, what will happen to Chinese Canadians—like Japanese people were sent to the concentration camps or deported?”

The journalist said the messaging is not only inflammatory, but dangerously manipulative—casting the Conservative Party as a threat to the civil rights and safety of Chinese Canadians, while exploiting historical trauma to provoke fear.

The same 51.ca article—while quoting from the Conservative Party’s platform documents—shifts sharply into misleading commentary. It contrasts the party’s current positions with historical discrimination enacted by the Liberal government of the 1920s.

One of the recent 51.ca articles warns that the Conservative Party’s stance “can easily cause ethnic tensions and even exacerbate anti-China sentiment.”

A second article delivers a similar critique of Conservative policy while also taking aim at Prime Minister Mark Carney, who, in last night’s nationally televised debate, stated:

“I think the biggest security threat to Canada is China.”

That comment, consistent with assessments from Canadian intelligence services and allied Five Eyes partners, was immediately seized upon by 51.ca’s editorial board.

“Carney blurted out that China is Canada’s biggest threat. Is this a deep-rooted idea or a gimmick to attract attention? It is not known yet. But what is certain is that when other party leaders are talking about how to deal with the problems facing Canada itself, Carney is talking about China being the enemy. I really don’t know what’s going on in his mind.”

Both 51.ca articles strategically focus their sharpest criticism on the Conservative Party, portraying its platform as existentially dangerous, while the second treats Carney’s one-line debate comment as a moment of rhetorical overreach.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

Continue Reading

Trending

X