Media Advisory: WiseUpWinnipeg.com

City’s Modus Operandi Becomes Clear: Lower Driver Awareness = Bigger Dollars

Follow-up information regarding intentionally inadequate speed signage in the City of Winnipeg

Feb. 18, 2011, Winnipeg Mb — The Feb. 16th, 2011 press release by WiseUpWinnipeg.com featured the Grant near Wilton traffic scenario where reduced speed signage (50 km/hr) on westbound Grant in advance of Wilton has been placed too high to properly warn drivers. This is according to the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), the recognized minimum standard in Canada. Ironically, the 60 km/hr signs further east on Grant near Pembina Hwy. are in full compliance with MUTCD standards.

Is the Grant/Wilton situation an anomaly? Apparently not – the exact same scenario replays itself at the #1 cash producing red-light camera intersection in Winnipeg: Main St. at Logan Ave. Once again the nearest single sign dropping the speed limit from 60 km/hr to 50 km/hr is set much higher than the MUTCD standard and it is located more than 2 km further south on Main St. And, in what can only be by design, the 60 km/hr sign prior to the Main St. Bridge is, you guessed it…fully compliant. See the pictures below.

This location is an even more egregious example of inadequate signs because a single speed-limit sign must service 4-5 lanes of traffic whereas westbound Grant Ave. only has 2 lanes of traffic. (Twice as many lanes as Grant but still only one sign posted above the MUTCD height standard)

And what is the City’s explanation for the deficient signage? The Manager of Transportation for the City, Luis Escobar was quoted in the Feb. 17 Winnipeg Sun, “The manual recommends that that’s the height you have to adhere to. But it gives an engineer room to decide if you need to modify the measurements.” The document says it “should” be placed between two and three metres but it does not say “shall”, he said. “Based on the language, that gives us the freedom to use engineering judgement.”

WiseUpWinnipeg thus infers from Mr. Escobar’s statement that signage placement is at the discretion of traffic engineers and that the MUTCD standards are not as much compulsory as they are recommended. If that is indeed the case then what is the rationale based on “engineering judgement” that seems to require that only speed signage in advance of intersection-cameras violate the MUTCD standard when all other signage in Winnipeg meets the height standard? Common sense would dictate that if safety were the objective, signage in advance of high collision intersections should exceed minimum standards to alert drivers to exercise caution accordingly. But for at least these two intersections, which happen to be the highest grossing revenue generators in the city, the opposite is occurring, by design, based on “engineering judgement.”

Apparently, as it relates to camera intersections, Winnipeg drivers are not worthy of even the minimum standard but something several notches below…in the name of safety.

Even the MUTCD itself recommends that improving on minimum standards is permissible where investigation has shown that it is needed for adequate driver emphasis. One would think that nine thousand ticket violations per year would indicate the need for greater emphasis but evidently the City does not concur.

What might be the City’s next excuse for inadequate signage in 50 km/hr zones? You can expect this gem to be trotted out soon (clipped from the City of Winnipeg Public Works Website)…

http://www.winnipeg.ca/publicworks/InformationAndResources/TrafficControl/SpeedLimits/#SpeedLimitSigning

“To selectively post 50 km/h signs on streets upon which the speed limit is 50 km/h, such as on Grant Avenue between Stafford Street and Cambridge Street approaching the Image Capturing Enforcement Device at Wilton Street, or on Main Street approaching Logan Avenue, or on Hespeler Avenue approaching Beatrice Street, as examples, would result in two types of 50 km/h streets – those that are signed at 50 km/h, and the hundreds of kilometres of streets that are not signed at 50 km/h. Such inconsistency in signing would erode the “Maximum 50 km/h Unless Otherwise Posted” rule, potentially confusing motorists. As such, since it is not economically feasible to post 50 km/h signs on all streets with a 50 km/h speed limit, they should not be selectively posted on some 50 km/h streets and not on other 50 km/h streets.”

Confusing motorists? What could be more confusing to motorists than being unsuspectingly flashed in a 50 km/hr zone that they thought was 60 km/hr? But more interestingly, WiseUpWinnipeg has photographed numerous streets in Winnipeg with 50 km/hr signs posted randomly thus contradicting the above statement. And yet, when drivers need to be forewarned of reduced speed zones, the signs are either too high or missing entirely. Again, if safety were truly the objective, common sense would dictate an abundance of caution yet the opposite appears to be the case – devious tactics are instead the norm in Winnipeg.

WiseUpWinnipeg demands an end to this contrived and deliberate deception being perpetrated on Winnipeg drivers. Our group vows to continue to expose the predatory and manipulative tactics that are inherent to the photo enforcement scheme until it is dissolved and signage is made adequate on Winnipeg roads.

New “ground-breaking” research reveals ALL median warning signs preceding camera intersections have been intentionally removed. WiseUpWinnipeg demands a credible explanation from the City of Winnipeg.

April 1, 2011 – Winnipeg, Mb. After observing a disturbing trend of what appears to be intentionally inadequate speed-reduction signs preceding camera intersections in Winnipeg (i.e. Main at Logan and Grant at Wilton) compared to signage throughout the rest of the city, WiseUpWinnipeg has discovered even more physical evidence to verify that the City of Winnipeg is willfully engaged in a “Calculated Campaign to Maximize Violations”. WiseUpWinnipeg.com technical affairs director, Mr. Chris Sweryda, set out to painstakingly chart signage patterns at all camera-intersections in Winnipeg. What he discovered was staggering – prior to 2009, all 32 camera-intersections that involved a median to divide traffic had two “photo-enforcement ahead” warning signs posted, one on the median and another parallel on the curb-side, to optimize visibility for driver awareness and compliance.  However, subsequent to the summer of 2009, each and every one of those locations had their median warning sign removed. Some “before and after” photos are shown below however a complete photo gallery of all 32 median locations can be found at: http://photos.wiseupwinnipeg.com/ (all “before” photos courtesy of Google Maps Street View)

Regardless of whether dual warning signs are required by law or not, their removal raises some very serious ethical and regulatory questions about the rationale to remove anything that would enhance driver awareness. “If the City had already invested the time and cost to install the dual warning signs, what reason could possibly justify the removal of any of them, let alone ALL of them?” asks Todd Dube, co-founder of WiseUpWinnipeg.com. “This is irrefutable evidence of an ulterior agenda by the City to entrap motorists through reduced awareness tactics as part of a desperate strategy to increase revenue.  This abuse of public trust must stop immediately – it’s as though the photo-enforcement program is being operated by a gaming corporation rather than the Winnipeg Police Service,” Dube concludes.

In each set of “before and after” photos it can be clearly seen that the median signs have been extracted from the ground or detached from the pole, leaving only a single and often inadequate curbside sign -  even on roads with multiple lanes. Dwindling net profits per camera over the last few years are forcing city traffic engineers to “pull out all the stops” to wring-out more dollars from the pockets of Winnipeg vehicle owners. “This is yet another devious tactic in a long line of tricks by the City to rake in profits,” explains Larry Stefanuik, co-founder of WiseUpWinnipeg.com. “First it was the short and dangerous amber-times, then came the 250% increase per fine and the lowering of speed tolerances to net more “speeders”, then mobile enforcement of construction zones with no construction workers and school zones not adjacent to schools, then improperly erected reduced-speed signs and now the coupe de grace: deliberately reducing warning signage.”

The City of Winnipeg’s addiction to photo-enforcement revenue is out of control and requires an immediate intervention by the provincial government in the name of true safety and justice,” concludes Larry Stefanuik, retired WPS Traffic Division officer.

As a courtesy, WiseUpWInnipeg representatives will be pleased to attend the location of the warning sign in advance of the Bishop Grandin at River Rd. location at 2:00 PM on April 1, 2011 for further comments.

unfairly capitalizing on motorists’ lack of awareness of the speed reduction.  Placement of consistent and visible signage is critical for driver recognition and compliance which is why all traffic control devices and signage in Canada are standardized under the Manual for Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD). The City of Winnipeg has stated that it does adhere to MUTCD standards yet many deficiencies exist, ironically, at locations associated with photo-enforcement intersections and mobile unit photo-radar enforcement.

The intersection of Grant Ave. at Wilton St. is particularly pertinent given that intersection-camera is among the top producers of speeding offence violations.  Why is this intersection such a money-maker for the City?  Answer: There is only a single sign designating the reduced speed from 60 km/hr down to 50 km/hr zone on westbound Grant Ave. approaching Wilton St. and it violates MUTCD standards because it exceeds the 3.0 meter maximum height set out in the Manual (see pictures below). Placement of the 50 km/hr sign more than 2 feet higher than the MUTCD maximum height limits motorists’ ability to see the sign especially at night because it is beyond the scope of the head-light beam.

“If the City really wanted to alert motorists to slow down here it would post adequate and proper signage on the roadway, but that would reduce the outrageous violation revenue generated by this particular intersection-camera,” says Todd Dube of WiseUpWinnipeg.com. “For signage to be effective it has to be properly and consistently placed as per MUTCD requirement so as to optimize visibility for motorists, otherwise what is the point? Unless of course the point is revenue and not safety.”

In stark contrast to the minimal and often MUTCD-violating speed signage placed by the City of Winnipeg, Manitoba provincial roadways boast much larger speed signs with placement on both sides of the roadway to achieve recognition and compliance. An example is pictured below. The Province of Manitoba strictly adheres to all MUTCD standards. But why would provincial signage be so much more robust and visible than those placed within the City of Winnipeg? If both systems are claiming to adhere to the same MUTCD standards, then why the difference in their application?

“City signage does not meet MUTCD standards by design as a means of entrapping motorists who are unaware of the reduced limit.  The Grant at Wilton scenario is a clear example of the predatory intent behind the program,” adds Larry Stefanuik of WiseUpWinnipeg.com.

By violating the MUTCD standards, which the City itself proclaims to adhere to, the City of Winnipeg has illegally ticketed and fined many thousands of motorists at the Grant and Wilton intersection. WiseUpWinnipeg and all victims that have been unfairly targeted by this “wanton invoicing of Manitoba vehicle owners” hereby demand a full and immediate refund of all fines collected at this intersection. WiseUpWinnipeg also serves notice to the City of Winnipeg that it will continue to expose other examples of inadequate and improper signage related to photo-enforcement zones across the city.

-30-

As a courtesy, WiseUpWinnipeg representatives will attend the location of the discussed speed sign in advance of the Grant/Wilton intersection at 2:30 PM on Wednesday, Feb. 16^th, 2011 to take questions and make further comment.