Chicagoist: Red Light Cameras Increase Safety Revenue Accidents?

joseph_dunphy_in_chicago

Sat, 29 Mar 2008 11:16:31 -0600

"Most of these recent teenage fatalities are not from speeding, but from following other vehicles. In a crowded city like Chicago, this is one of the most dangerous things you can do as a driver, and you think a cop would have 'sent them on their way?'" Tayto - Chicago has narrow streets, with two lane roads serving as major thoroughfares, and an overabundance of car traffic. Traffic ends up packed too tightly for to be safe as a result. That's just a fact of life. Improve public transportation enough that no so many people feed the need to drive, and then your criticism will make some sense, but until then, no matter how cleverly you try to argue to the contrary, so many cars per so many feet of roadway will translate into an upper bound on how far those cars can be apart, on the average.

Chris F

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 11:06:22 -0600

I've made my case as "government apologist" on this issue on previous posts, so I won't get too into it again, other than to agree with those calling for a decrease in overall asshole driving. jdsmith- I believe the city just purchases the equipment from the manufacturer, but I don't know for sure. An interesting articl would be a look at the entire process- from the camera being triggered through the appeal process. Is a violation automatically sent out everytime the flash goes off, or is there someone who views the footage and determines if it's actually a violation? How often do the appeals board trained monkeys get a coffee break?

jdsmith99

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:51:30 -0600

does anyone know if/how the company that manufactures the cameras is compensated? i lived in san diego, and a judge required the city to turn off the cameras because the manufacturer (lockheed martin) was compensated on a "per ticket" basis resulting in a (potential) conflict of interest. i believe the contract was eventually changed to flat-fee and the cameras were turned back on. curious how the chicago camera contract works - is it fixed fee or per ticket? http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/1274872/detail.html

matilda

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:33:51 -0600

Howard: Fuck Orwell. "1984" does not apply to the USA and most of the West. Citizens have willingly given up their privacy through various methods and enabled such crap, rather than the government forcing it down our throats in a Stalinist manner, as Orwell described (and in any case, he was mainly describing Stalin and Orwell's disillusionment with hard-core socialism, and, to some extant, the recently destroyed Nazi regime. If you don't believe me, read more Orwell, including his newspaper columns). Anyway, if you want a more accurate view of how America might develop, you are better off reading "Brave New World"--it's a shitty novel, but if you pretend it's a narrative political essay, it works better.

thirdshiftdave

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:20:51 -0600

Yeah, Howard1, we all need to go back to junior high, read 1984, smoke weed, talk about the man oppressing us, and then we'll be government experts.

mojowen

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:17:19 -0600

Silly Chicagoist. Alderman can't read.

Howard1

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 10:12:36 -0600

I agree Seanfeld, lots of government apologists here. People need to read some George Orwell and see where we're heading here. Between Bush and Daley, we're heading there quickly and easily.

Registered Guest

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:50:07 -0600

Oh lordy, people. Sure, it's a "tax." On running red lights. So don't run red lights. Avoid the tax. Don't do illegal things = don't get fined. This is ridiculous to argue over.

tayto

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 09:09:20 -0600

Mary Pat, That is absolutely the worst anecdote I have ever heard. If any cop were to hear that story, he should add another ticket for illegally following another vehicle. I cannot believe you are justifying running a red light. Most of these recent teenage fatalities are not from speeding, but from following other vehicles. In a crowded city like Chicago, this is one of the most dangerous things you can do as a driver, and you think a cop would have "sent them on their way?" If you have issues with the cameras, so be it, but don't try to justify running a red light. The only justification for running a red is a life-threatening emergency. Now think about it, would you rather talk to a cop for 5-10 minutes in a life-threatening emergency, or would you rather deal with a fine two weeks later? The answer seems easy to me.

thirdshiftdave

Thu, 13 Mar 2008 03:36:02 -0600

Good, call it a tax if you like. If Chicago just needs revenue, at least here they're "taxing" something you do that's illegal while using a privilege(the right to drive). If you've spent much time driving, biking, or walking anywhere, you may have noticed that it's a privilege too easy to obtain. This isn't like the increased sales tax that affects everybody in the city, it's more like a reckless asshole tax that affects the thousands of reckless assholes that clog our streets every day. I know it's a pipe dream but sometimes when I'm sitting on the Edens wanting to cut my wrists, I imagine a city where people don't gridlock intersections, use their turn signals, stay in one lane at a time, don't cause miles of heavy traffic to gape at someone changing a flat tire, and so on. Hipocrisy Disclaimer: I actually got one of these tickets a couple years ago and was, in fact, pissed because they never even sent it to me. Found out from the cityofchicago website months later so that was kind of bullshit. I'm still ok with it in principle though.

smussy

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:52:48 -0600

cameras on LSD would be a cash cow beyond cash cow. wow.

Tower18

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 23:06:38 -0600

Lots of rumors on this thread. Anyone got sources?

fed up

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:46:56 -0600

Well get ready for more big brother. Daley is so happy with the revenue the cameras generate that the city is studying the idea of speed cameras on Lake Shore Drive and other high speed routes. Keep your credit card ready the city needs to pay for the olympics.

matty

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:40:07 -0600

I'm always distracted when the flash goes off. I can see myself getting into an accident because of it.

Seanfeld

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 18:32:15 -0600

I honestly cannot believe how many government apologists there are on this site who cannot see that these cameras are simply a tax and nothing else. I will state again from previous red light camera posts, I have never received a moving violation, been involved in an accident or even been pulled over ever in my entire life so I am not bitter about having gotten one of these tickets. Are there tragic accidents involving red lights, yes, do these stop them, no, they just film them. What I don't like is the proliferation of government monitoring of its citizens for reasons other than safety simply just for the creation of revenue, a hidden tax, just like the inflation caused by the out of control policies of the federal reserve over the last decade. Not standing up to these abuses by our government is leading to increased government revenue to pay for increased government waste, rather than facing the problems we have we are hiding from them being led by a bunch of fools who don't have the balls to give it to us straight and all of you who support these policies are being hoodwinked in your naivety. If things continue on this path you will be the first to be equipped with your government issued decision and taxation monitoring brain implants. I on the other hand will be living in the deep woods of Canada with a small band of non-cyborg freedom fighters. Now if all revenue from these types of systems were specifically allocated to transportation and transportation safety improvements then you will convince me it is not the government's intent to tax us into slavery until then, give me liberty or give me death. WHO'S WITH ME. COME ON. WHO IS WITH ME.

Mary_pat

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:27:39 -0600

Are Red-light cameras just another City of Chicago tax on law abiding citizens? Recently, the Chicago City Council explored the idea of enabling citizens to call-in, submit a credit card payment and then receive a code which would release a high-bred kind of “Denver Boot” from their vehicle. I don’t know where this idea is going, but it is interesting, on a lot of levels. What is the purpose of the “boot”? These are fastened onto cars restricting the owners use of the vehicle and forcing the owners to pay their outstanding parking fines. I suggest that we will soon see an expansion of the use to these “Boots”, and that is the reason for the need for the quick-release option. As our City Council purchases and installs more and more traffic enforcement cameras, the need for collection impetus will become more pronounced. When Chicago first introduced cameras to its citizenry, they were touted as extra eyes for the police, always on alert, and the flashing blue lights let all the bad guys know exactly where cameras were and that they were working. The automatic camera mission is being extended by our City Council every week, every time funding is available the aldermen are fighting to get the largest allotment of these cameras in their Wards. Chicago has had red-light running (RLR) cameras for about two years and is now considering expanding to “Speed-on-green” technology, photo radar-enforced speed limits as well Why? “Robo-cop is better than no cop”, says one alderman. A Chicago Sun-Times headline reads: “Aldermen set sights on residential speeders”. The alderman are pointing to the in-place cameras and leading their constituents to believe that that there will be fewer accidents in the intersections and that their streets, neighborhoods, and their children will be safer. That’s not quite the whole story. What is true is that the law-abiding citizens, who concerned about scofflaws running or jumping off on red lights or speeding down residential streets, are now likely to be paying fines for traffic violations which would have most likely have been waved off by a traffic cop, and probably not stopped for by the beat cop. A great anecdote from the University of Chicago’s blog follows: An envelope arrives at the home of a professor, it contains a ticket and two photos, the first photo is of the family minivan proceeding through what might be a red-light (the professor contends the photo is not clear enough to tell which light is lit), and the second photo is the minivan’s license plate. The professor remembers the incident, his wife was following him to a car dealership, he in a loaner, she in the family van. He was returning the loaner to a remote lot and he made the light and she followed through, probably, he admits through a red. Now, had this been a traffic stop, a reasonable Police officer would have seen two mini vans pull to the side when he lit the gumballs and he would have listened to the wife’s story, waved the husband back into the minivan with the dealer plates, and sent them on their way. There’s no opportunity to make a plea, to cry; or for the officer to offer a pass, warning, or courtesy waive. You don’t even know you’ve received a citation until days or weeks later. Now we get to the nitty gritty of the matter: The professor sums up, saying, “you can pay and be done with it, or go to court and dispute . . . there are no points charged to your drivers license . . . Given the time involved, we paid our money, even though it isn’t clear to us that the light actually was red.” This is a tax, almost a punitive tax on law-abiding citizens. Who is going to get a ticket? People whose vehicle license plate is clean and in good condition, readable. People whose cars are properly registered, people whose license plates and vehicles are registered to their proper addresses. Next: Who is going to pay a ticket they receive? People who are law abiding. People who work for the City of Chicago, because their boss is going to call them in and have a disciplinary hearing regarding indebtedness to the City, that will be very persuasive. People who are not going to bother to file the paper work to fight the ticket (see the story above). People whose time is more important then their money. Good Citizens, who most likely did not jump off the red with any kind of regularity, who did not speed through every yellow they saw from a block away, these people are paying their camera-issued tickets. Some people tout the fairness of the system, saying it is color blind, and that it will eliminate courtesies and warnings which they fear that police officers do not evenly distribute through the population. But, in reality we never want laws with no gray areas. We give judges the ability to set discretionary sentences. And, where we could easily just tack speeding fines on to your Ipass as you speed down the Illinois tollway in the new “Open Road Tolling” lanes which can read your Ipass at speeds exceeding 85 mph (or so it appears from some monthly statement’s I’ve seen), we don’t do it. The City of Chicago contends that just the presence of the cameras makes the intersection safer, making drivers more aware of and attentive to, the stop-and-go lights, that the cameras cut down on collisions. This is, at best, a half-truth. Studies have shown there will be fewer side impact crashes at photo-enforcement intersections, and that there will be an all but equal number of additional rear-end collisions at the intersection. There may be some evidence that fewer right angle crashes is more economic even if the cost is more rear-end collisions, but there is not enough research on the evidence done. And, I suspect that again, law abiding citizens are just living with dented bumpers from rearenders while they have to file insurance claims for the more severe body damage to passenger side doors. The studies conducted so far all do have a couple of conclusions in common. The same or increased safety benefits can be obtained by lengthening the time of the yellow, and ensuring that there is an all way red period. Unfortunately, these safety measures do not have the revenue enhancing features of the photo enforcement.

Navin

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:26:26 -0600

I want to see a study on how quick different yellow lights are around town.

jimbo

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 17:11:12 -0600

that study's application to chicago is pathetic at best - greensboro, ontario, and virginia streets/intersections are in no way, shape, or form similar to ours. i'd love to see some data on chicago's red light cameras that have already been put into place. let's not forget that the reason florida doesn't want them is that their drivers don't exactly react well.

This is Awkward

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:59:58 -0600

I've given the Florida study to my Alderman and our point person on traffic issues in the Ward. The study is brief and pretty solid if anyone was concerned about a 55 page endeavor.

thirdshiftdave

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 16:45:18 -0600

Hmm, maybe the increase in accidents will be temporary and after all the idiots who don't know how to drive are killed off or lose their licenses or are finally trained to stop when they can't make it through the yellow, camera or not, we will ultimately be safer. @2 Agreed that the system of appealing or contesting wrongly issued tickets in this city is a joke. On that note, I urge everyone to contest your tickets in person! If you mail it in, it will be handled by a retarded blind monkey.

celerysalt

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:58:52 -0600

can we add inaccurate to the list of reasons not? my boyfriend got a $90 ticket for making a legal right turn on madison in the loop in my car. we paid it, then realized that it was a screw up on their part, then gave up when we realized what appealing our fine would take. chicago really succeeds in the baffling you with b*llshit department when it comes to "generating revenue".

Howard1

Wed, 12 Mar 2008 15:55:22 -0600

Yes, people need to read this. Print it out for your alderman to read. There have been other reports like this too. This is one of those public policies that on its face seems like a good idea, but when you see the results, it actually increases accidents rather than decreasing them. Red light cameras need to be abolished.