Blandford-Blenheim Council received correspondence regarding Oxford County’s Automated Speed Enforcement Program Update report during their regular council meeting on Wednesday, October 16, 2024,
According to the September 25 report, “Initial development of a proposed county-wide Automated Speed Enforcement (ASE) program will proceed in 2025 and will include benchmark traffic data collection, ASE site assessment, execution of agreements with service providers and detailed financial analysis for potential implementation starting in 2026.”
An ASE program would see cameras and speed measuring devices being used to identify speeding vehicles in both school zones and community safety zones, effectively allowing a municipality to collect administrative monetary penalty [fee] from vehicle owners for spending.
During the regular Council meeting on Wednesday, November 6, 2024, two Oxford County residents, Marie Russell and Jim Robson, spoke as delegations in regards to the potential program, both citing their concerns about cost in regards to development, implementation, management and administration, privacy and effectiveness.
“This is a program that will negatively impact our communities, and profoundly change the face and the feel of Oxford county without any notification or public consultation. My request, and the reason I came to you today, is I’m calling for public consultation on the proposed automated speed enforcement program in Blanford-Blenheim and every municipality of Oxford County,” said Russell. “I believe it’s important that all Oxford county residents are made aware of this program that is being introduced as a traffic calming solution, but in reality, is part of a climate action plan designed to target and reduce vehicle ownership, and control and limit personal mobility, while at the same time leveling heavy penalties on local residents. ASE will impact our community, our finances and our freedom.”
Noting that the number of speed cameras can be expanded at any time, the addition of red light cameras included, she said she was concerned about the possibility of future surveillance being built into the programs framework.
Russell then brought up concerns regarding the potential for high Administrative Monetary Penalties (AMP), the broad definition of “Community Safety Zone,” camera vandalism, and those who will be affected by the program such as those living close to schools and safety zones.
Finishing off her delegation, Russell asked the Council to not only consider a public consultation process, but if there were any grassroots speed reducing initiatives they could use as an alternative.
Agreeing that the logistics of operating the program are quite extensive and costly, Councillor Bruce Banbury asked Russell what kind of alternative speed reducing efforts she had in mind.
“Occasionally, we get people coming as delegations wanting us to do something about the speed because people are speeding and kids are in danger,” said Banbury. “…So what do we do? People want to have people slow down so it’s safer for everyone. …I do agree with you about the cost of doing this, but then you have to weigh the value of lives. When you lose one youngster to a fatal accident, no matter where, you have to kind of discern an equilibrium there somewhere. …It will be costly, time consuming and challenging, there’s no doubt about that, but what are the alternatives?”
In response, Russell noted that in her old community of Nilestown, Ontario, the residents made wood cutouts depicting who lived in that particular neighbourhood and that not only did it become a public art piece, but it encouraged people to slow down. She also suggested the use of speed humps as many people are worried about damaging the under carriage of their cars.
Councillor Tina Young also agreed that she thought the program was costly but had yet to hear a solution that would actually have an impact on people to change their ways.
“I think what we’ve learned after hearing from many people is that, it’s actually the people who are living in the small communities who need to change their behaviors,” said Young. “We can put up signs and we can put up speed humps, but ultimately, if it doesn’t impact people, they’re not going to change their behaviours and money is what impacts people, which is unfortunate. I agree it is very costly, but the people who are speeding are the people who are living in those communities, so that’s my worry. I agree it’s going to be costly, but …I’ve yet to hear a solution that will actually have an impact on the people.”
Later, Robson echoed many of Russell’s statements, adding his own concerns for drivers becoming too distracted if their sole focus is policing their speed.
“There is much more to driving than the speed of the vehicle and trying to control the speed of a vehicle in the presence of a camera that is not forgiving and lacks judgment. This is a distraction to everything else the driver has to do to remain focused on driving. … 30 km/h is very slow for the public that is continuously pushing ten over on all major roads and is allowed to do it, and has to do it to not hold up traffic,” said Robson. “The goal should be the reduction of personal injury and serious crashes and fatalities, not just speed reduction and revenue generation. Photo radar is unforgiving and a trap. …If the priority is safety, then actions to do that should be taken that are not distracting, and get immediate results working with the drivers as opposed to fining people after the fact.”
Robson provided his own suggestions for speed calming measures such as “horizontal solutions like narrowing the streets, adding curves, or vertical solutions, like the speed humps that are raising street levels.”
He also brought up concerns regarding the camera’s accuracy, especially for those who aren’t financially set to deal with the fines in the first place.
“This is a form of taxation and harms the financial health of the community. …The fines will hit the lower income people the hardest, and it’s an ongoing burden for everyone,” said Robson. “The economy is not strong, and many people are living paycheck to paycheck. …A more cost effective solution would be to make a one time investment, modify the road for lower speed and safety, and not nickel and dime the public.”
Robson also wondered where the community safety zones with the ASE programs would be, and as well, brought up his concerns for where the money from the AFPs would go.
Mark Peterson, Mayor for the Township of Blandford-Blenheim, said that while the ASE program is more of a Oxford County initiative than the Township’s, community safety zones would likely be near school zones.
“In general, this would be going to be in school zones, so Drumbo for sure, possibly Plattsville,” said Peterson.
As far as where the money would be going, Josh Brick, the Township’s CAO, said that money would not go into the Township’s tax coffers, but to the best of his understanding “the money would go towards the capital and operating costs of the Provincial Offenses Act court that we’re beneficiaries of in terms of our residents being able to access those services.”
Noting that he was unsure if the ASE program would be included in the Oxford County budget for 2025 just yet, he would find out soon.
The delegation’s presentations were then unanimously received as information.
Kimberly De Jong’s reporting is funded by the Canadian government through its Local Journalism Initiative.The funding allows her to report rural and agricultural stories from Blandford-Blenheim and Brant County. Reach her at kimberly.dejong@brantbeacon.ca.
