Chicagoist: A Fool and His Money are Soon Parted Anyway

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 14:47:28 -0600

If the city of Chicago were purely interested in safety, they would increase the length of time for yellow lights. Studies repeatedly show that a) longer yellows mean fewer red light runners and b) people do not get used to the longer yellow. Since that isn't a revenue generator, they of course opt for the cameras. @JimInLoganSquare: That didn't prevent some dick cop from giving me a red light ticket at that same intersection for running a yellow light. (I took the case to court and, not surprisingly, the lying pig didn't bother showing up.)

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 13:34:23 -0600

"unless of course you suspect the City is putting up fake signs rather than paying for cameras." Pretty sure they've done this at Western and Irving Park. I can't find a camera for the life of me, yet there are signs. No one seems to care though, as there are at least 3 followers turning left at every red light.

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 12:02:17 -0600

As a proponent of traffic cameras, I think these detectors are actually a good thing. What they really do is extend the influence of the cameras beyond the intersection they are installed at. I doubt very many of the drivers who habitually speed through red lights will take alternate routes just to avoid cameras. Their whole reason for speeding through lights is that they perceive a time savings. Besides, if they do change routes, eventually, accidents will rise at intersections that reckless drivers have begun to favor, making those intersections targets for guess what? More cameras. Anyway, claiming that the city installs cameras just to claim revenue from tickets is completely disingenuous. OBVIOUSLY the city loves the revenue moving violations generate. So what? The safety argument in favor of traffic laws is just as compelling. I don't see how there can be any doubt that speeding and ignoring signs and lights that everyone relies on to orchestrate multimodal traffic flow leads to increased numbers of accidents. More speed equals less time to react. Combine less reaction time with densely trafficked yet often narrow city streets and you get accidents. Similarly, violating stop signs, traffic lights and such are intended to allow maximum traffic flow while at the same time reducing exposure to accidents by timing out when the contested space will be occupied by traffic from each direction. Introduce an unexpected element and the whole system breaks down for everyone, leading to? More cars hitting pedestrians and each other. Do you people doubt assertions that drunk driving leads to more accidents too? God, the selfishness of people is just overwhelming.

E

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 11:10:29 -0600

#12- This device doesn't actually "detect" cameras, it just uses GPS and a database to warn folks if they are approaching one. I'm not sure where they get the info for this database, but one would assume that if the city claims to have a camera in a particular location, it would be in the database. That being said, I really doubt that they would put up signs and those big black camera housings just to fool people. They want that revenue!

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 10:02:09 -0600

Chicagoist fails to understand that those with the new detectors will avoid the intersections with cameras, or at least avoid running red lights--thus making those intersections "safer." And if that's all Chicagoist wants, then it has no beef with the detectors and Alicia Dorr should amend her post.

guest

Tue, 26 Jun 2007 07:09:16 -0600

Guess the change in commenting policy is new... Sorry this is off topic, but could you add a disclaimer to the "American Apparel" ads --- buying these clothes won't prevent STD's, broken hearts or other unwanted consequences if you randomly follow the behavior in these ads JP Paulus

guest

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:37:31 -0600

Accident? It's an "on purpose" when someone runs a light. The powers that be have stopped using the word "accident", and now call them what they are: "crashes".

guest

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 23:35:34 -0600

Since these devices are giving out info that is already public, that the camera locations have been publicized in news stories & there are signs at the camera locations. It then follows that these devices are merely a form of information distribution, which means they and the info they pass on are protected by the First Amendment. Which means that Eddie Burke, former cop is a fascist moron!

JimInLoganSquare

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 18:25:18 -0600

At the intersection of Kedzie and Fullerton, there are prominently placed signs alerting drivers to the presence of the traffic light cameras. Assuming these signs are present at all camera-monitored intersections, they clearly obviate the need for a "camera detector," unless of course you suspect the City is putting up fake signs rather than paying for cameras.

steven

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 16:19:28 -0600

is there data out there that supports the claim that the cameras decrease the number of accidents? Until then, I'm not convinced that these things are anything more than revenue generators.

jocelyn

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:49:08 -0600

i gotta say, where radar detectors seem to be a license for people to speed, i hope these WILL be what the commenters above think they will be. and what i think they will achieve as well. it's a weird way to get it to happen, but people afraid of facing a fine will be forced to slow down. in the last five years, i have really seen more and more drivers just BLATANTLY blowing red lights, and it's been way more than 'pressing their luck' against a yellow light. more like ... umm. i'm not even close to the intersection, i'm seeing it go from yellow to red and i'm hitting the gas anyway. i've been in cars with my friends who pull this bullshit maneuver. same with turning left. it used to be the person with their nose in the intersection and the person behind them (MAYBE one more). now it's those three and somehow TWO more people think they can turn too. ?? what? not so much. if we need green arrows at crazy ass big intersections, then we need green arrows. if these detectors get people to slow down, then this is one time when the ends justify the means.

J

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:14:08 -0600

>"encourage people to drive more safely." Ha! Ha! Ha! These cameras are a tax for alderman too chickensh*t to put their name no a tax hike.

Simon

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:05:34 -0600

While it's true that this amounts to a regressive tax on our stupidest citizens -- hitting hardest those with the least mental capital to spare -- there seems to me to be a benefit of synergy, a social symbiosis between host and parasite, if you will. Signal-flouting scumbags buy detectors and begin to apply caution (and even the brakes) around target intersections, which get safer as a result. By definition, other intersections become the most dangerous in the city, and City Hall is forced to respond by putting in more cameras, starting the cycle all over again. Eventually, every traffic control light is fitted with an enforcement camera and the city either becomes a haven of courteous, safe driving, or it can at least afford plenty of high-powered hoses for washing down accident sites.

JP Paulus

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 15:00:23 -0600

i agree with the thought that the camera detetcors INCREASE awareness, and slow people down. Sure that will bring down ticket revenue. But doesn't it also decrease EXEPNSES caused by accidents , whether unpaid ambulance costs, or clean up after the accident, rapairs of signs, etc., overtime for staff People complain that Joe moore brings up frivoulous ordinances, but it seems like Ed Burke does the same, but he has enough clout to deflect the frivolity of his proposals.

E

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:24:09 -0600

It seems that you are basing your opinion here on the supposition that people who use these devices will only buy them in order to know which intersections they can blow through with impunity. While I'm sure that there's a grain of truth to this, try thinking about it this way. If there were no cameras, these people would blow through every intersection given the chance. By making them aware of the cameras, they'll be more likely to stop when the light changes. Now, I understand the idea that some want these people to learn a lesson by having to pay a stiff fine, but wouldn't you rather have someone come to a complete stop at a busy intersection than to have them plow through and hurt someone? I'd rather bet on safety than hoping someone learns their lesson before somthing tragic happens. In that regard, even if this device only stops it's owners from speeding through 5% of all intersections (most of which will be the most dangerous ones) I say let them have it.

Jeremy

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 14:06:09 -0600

So, you've never pressed your luck against a yellow light? I don't think that people having the camera detector are going to drive around, blasting through red lights at will, but rather aren't going to press their luck in sticky situations. I don't know if vendors in Chicago are doing this, but in other municipalities, there's language in the contract that a camera intersection's yellow light cannot be longer than a certain (short) time. As the yellow time goes up, fewer people run the red. Revenue goes down. Accidents are prevented without generating cash.

hmm

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:49:06 -0600

The city definitely has no business banning these detectors. I don't see how it can hurt anyway...if knowing a camera is up ahead is going to make you slow down and drive carefully, then maybe thats a good thing. This city is already overran by stupid bans.

Eric

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:42:47 -0600

Well we know one thing for sure: Fast Eddie Burke must not own any stock in that company! And when will he give back Baby T!

Greg

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:30:49 -0600

My guess is that the city is not paying for these cameras. There is a company that will put these into your hometown/city on the company's dime and they will collect a portion of the ticket as their fee. So it's a win / win for company and city usually. Not sure if this is the case in chicago - but I wouldn't be too surprised if it was.

Giant Rabbit

Mon, 25 Jun 2007 13:19:43 -0600

I don't see why the City has any business banning such detectors. There's evidence that the information garnered from these cameras can be pretty suspect, and tickets the City issues using such information pretty suspect as well. Moreover, people might use detector information to drive more carefully at what the City itself describes as dangerous intersections.