Red-Light Cameras Not So Special?
Cubs Combat Casino
PHOTOS: Peaches And Amanda Blank At Metro
County Sales Tax Rollback Vetoed - Here We Go Again
The Return of The Chicagoist Reader Meet-Up
Chicago took another step towards fulfilling Mayor Daley’s vow that by 2016, we’ll have cameras on “almost every block.”
It was announced yesterday that new red light cameras will be installed at 220 intersections, in addition to the 69 red light cameras that are currently in operation, and a ticket for burning a red light will cost you $100 (up from $90 last year). Along with the increased network of red light cameras, cameras will be installed on city street sweepers as well.
City officials claim the cameras drastically reduce the number of accidents at intersections, and that they're a safety measure -- not just a cash cow. But according to a Daily Herald article, the National Motorists Association claims that "photo enforcement isn't even the most effective method to improve traffic safety."
Back in June, Alderman Ed Burke acknowledged that the only real reason for installing cameras is to create another source of revenue for the city. Burke famously argued that radar devices that would warn drivers of the cameras (and increase the likelihood that they obey the law) should be banned, because fewer violations would mean less revenue. "The reality is that people blow through these intersections and they are going to be caught and they are going to be fined. It has become a big revenue source, absolutely," Burke said. In 2008 alone, the city expects to collect about $50 million from the cameras, for which they’re spending $59.2 million – that's a pretty impressive return on investment.
The cameras also have a reputation for issuing tickets to the wrong car. And if you're thinking about trying to contest a ticket, 12 seconds of online video and still photos of violations will be made available so that drivers can decide whether they've been wrongfully ticketed.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Sorry, but I LOVE the idea of robot eyes enforcing the laws!
I am sick of people running the red lights or turning on red when I am in the crosswalk or on a bicycle!
What the city really needs is some sort of rocket propelled grenade launcher to destroy the 80's box-style Chevy's and 90's Rivieras with huge chrome rims that try and pass you on the right at red lights!
"Burke famously argued that radar devices that would warn drivers of the cameras"
False, they don't.
I'm all for these things, as long as they work correctly. It's the most clear-cut way to punish those who violate laws (would bikers get tickets too? That'd be sweet) while leaving the rest of us to go about our business.
However, the potential for abuse (receiving a ticket for running a yellow, or shortening the duration of the yellow by a few seconds from time to time to get more runners) exists.
OK, One more time....
Green Light = GO
Red Light = STOP
Yellow Light = Don't hit the gas.
Do this, and you'll have more money to spend on sales tax.
Some guy on the Tribune said if you spray your plates with something which reflects light well, the camera can't read your plate. I don't know if it is true.
How is NEGATIVE $9 million dollars an impressive return on an investment?
shortening the duration of the yellow
I got one of these tickets and they get you good. You can see the video of you running it online (along with several large photos) clear as day. Thing is tons of lights have ridiculously short yellow lights. In this case it was snowing and North ave. was pretty slick if I would have stopped like I normally would in decent conditions during a yellow like this I'd have just slid into the intersection. I figured going through a yellow/red was safer than sliding out of control. I'm all for this as so many cars just blow through reds around here but they've got to make the yellows long enough to be fair.
How is NEGATIVE $9 million dollars an impressive return on an investment?
Because they've nearly recouped the investment in one year and providing that they don't all break should make a lot more money in the future.
The ticket's $100 by the way.
At least we're not L.A. where it's $381*
*81 what the heck?
shortening the duration of the yellow
yellow lights are intentionally short, this means more violations and more money. don't believe me? check out what happened in Texas: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/16/1621.asp
But that would never happen in Chicago. Wrong. Look what is happening with speed cameras: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/05/552.asp
This is a way for the city to make money without raising direct taxes. It has nothing to do with safety. Yellow lights will get shorter, accidents will increase, deaths will increase, but the city revenues (and the revenue of the companies who make the cameras) will increase.
RED LIGHT CAMERAS CAUSE MORE ACCIDENTS
here is a studies (down by the government) that has looked into the purported claims of "increased safety" and the cameras actually increase accidents:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/news.asp?ID=117&m=print
These articles also say cameras do not reduce accidents:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10/03/AR2005100301844_pf.html
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/17/1728.asp
It makes sense too. Think about it. If people know they face $100 fine, as that light is turning yellow, people will put the gas pedal to the floor to avoid a fine. Not very safe. These are all about making more money, not about safety.
TheNewspaper.com doesn't appear to be a particularly objective source, either; the suggestion that the Virginia Transportation Research Council report "proves" these cameras increase accidents is taken out of the context of "net safety impact", and doesn't include their additional finding of a decrease in "red light running injury crashes".
It certainly is a moneymaker but I don't really buy the arguments that these make intersections more dangerous, or safer for that matter. But I have no problem with people getting fined for breaking the law.
Having said that... I got a red light violation notice a few weeks ago, for turning right on a red without coming to a full stop at Ashland & Division. Reviewing the pictures in the envelope, it looked like I was stopped. I was getting all pumped up to appeal it... but then I realized I could watch video of my violation, which clearly showed I did not stop at the light before turning. Busted!
JoeM, the cameras are not enforcing any laws, which is the problem. All they are doing is punishing you when you break the law, in the hopes that you will change your behavior. I tend to think that they are effective, in that regard, but it's not like they're going to be stopping anyone from hitting you, it'll just send them a ticket later.
And Tower18, Burle was talking about a specific device that would notify you of red light cameras via a GPS database.
Burke, that is, of course.
another article on red light cameras increasing accidents:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/blogentries/index.html?bbPostId=CzBk85YTufXjmB8WpIbqfvm3tCz1Qr4T1q04ihB4fQEgcnKwvr&bbParentWidgetId=B8k88rWwXopuz5STgLeVwBLu
Stephen,
I understand your critique of my argument, and it makes sense for when you are approaching an intersection. You would be more cautious of running a red light. What I am talking about is what happens when the light turns yellow after the point of no return, just as you are entering the intersection? You know if you don't make it across in time you get a $100 fine. Some people gun it. I see it at Division and Ashland all the time.
Just get get one of these:
http://www.phantomplate.com/photoshield.html
and never worry about it again.
Didn't Mythbusters disprove all those plate hiding techniques?
@Registered: That episode only dealt with beating the speed cameras. The plate cover doesn't actually prevent the camera from taking a picture of you car. It just obscures the license plate making it impossible for the city to mail you a ticket.
If red light cameras increase accidents, it's because people slam their brakes to avoid setting off the camera. Then, people following too closely rear-end them. I think most people would rather be involved in a rear-end accident than the t-bone crash you get when run a red light. So, maybe those kind of accidents increase, but I bet there's less fatal accidents.
I just want Clark & Devon, Clark & Ridge and Peterson & Ridge to get them!
At least two cars run the light making left turns every time it turns red at these corners all day long!
Yeah that's a good point often it's all you can do though because the oncoming traffic's going through yellow and red as well and you're stuck out in the middle of the intersection. It's definitely abuse though, around my work at rush hour 4 cars often are turning left *after* the light has turned.
My name is Marly and I'm Mark Saxenmeyer's assistant at FOX News Chicago. We are doing a story on red-light cameras and looking for victims who have been affected by them in the Chicago area. E-mail mark.saxenmeyer@foxchicago.com if you have more information. Thanks!