Map Shows How Speeding Cameras Will Cover The City

this is complete bullshit! i can see a ticket for someone who is doing like 20 miles per hour over the speed limit. anything under that is rediculous!

I do have so say, I am not familiar with lots of these intersections, but the ones I am familiar with are pretty much speedways. 

 I think it's funny that they're supposed to be near parks and there's only one of them close to one corner of Humbolt Park (the actual park).

Hmmm, the wealthy strongholds of the city get off noticeably light....

You are never lacking a source for your righteous indignation, are you?  Look at the south side on that map and get back to me.  The only cameras down there are in hyde park and on stoney island (how hyde parkers get to the tollway).

And, while there is definitely a lack of cameras in and around downtown, the wealthy northside neighborhoods and major corridors aren't getting off easy.  I mean look at Ashland!  6 cameras between North and Foster.

You are really scraping the bottom of the barrel here, man...

Oh hi Tafter. 

Hey guys, it's the always overwrought, always histrionic Tafter.  Thanks for stopping by Tafter.  How's your day?

That seems odd, as my understanding of this is that it's a function of school and park locations. I can't think why there would be more school and parks in poor neighborhoods. I'd actually expect the opposite to be true.

Maybe wealthy people drive a little more responsibly. Also, Peterson from Pulaski to Cicero ain't exactly the projects. Ditto Clark/Fullerton and Illinois/Columbus.

You've GOT to be kidding, right? That's a joke, right? Some of the WORST driving I've ever encountered has been from people in BMWs, Mercedes, spendy SUVs (Range Rovers, Cayennes*, etc.), Audis, Saabs, and the like. Between driving recklessly fast, they often act as if they own the road.

*Why, oh why, would Porsche make an SUV? I know they had to stay competitive, but for God's sake, it's a Porsche! The furthest thing from an SUV!

I must be kidding because "JDG" has some anecdotes to tell us all about.

Also, notice that I picked specific intersections.

No, your comment was "Maybe wealthy people drive a little more responsibly."

Which seems a ridiculous statement to make. Yes, I have anecdotal evidence that I've seen people in expensive cars drive irresponsibly. Since I haven't started an official research study on the matter, that's what I've got on the ball on that one.

But, I also don't get the conclusion that wealthy = responsible.

Unrelated: I thought these were supposed to go up within 1/8 of a mile of a school or park. So, why should the neighborhood matter? It's still an arbitrary decision where to put them? There are plenty of wealthy neighborhoods that I've driven around in that I don't live in. So, even if us poor people drive like shit, we're still driving all over the city, so I don't see how it matters where the cameras are. It would seem you're either going to universally protect all schools and parks, or you're not. Not to mention, I'd think Rahm would want to get his hands on all the money he could get.

Sigh. You're right. Go away from me now, OK?

Oh, yay. The Chicagoist comments section is as friendly as its ever been. I'll be happy to "go away from you." My mistake for my 3rd or 4th comment in as many years.

Feel free to direct future comments to any of the other nice and gracious denizens of the board. I, for one, am not interested in a 200 post argument about a facetious comment.

Click through to the map on the site where you can see how it looks writ large, you're choosing exceptional locations on purpose.  The neighborhoods nearest downtown, and nearer the lake look pretty sparse compared to everywhere else.  It's kind of noticeably obvious.  I don't know if that's a coincidence or not, but I think it's funny/curious.  Let's not argue for the sake of it ok?

I have no problem with the cameras so it doesn't bother me that they're in my hood.  In fact I know a few locations where they're not that I wish they were. 

I did hear an interesting interview on WBEZ yesterday, where a guy was saying that without the signs telling you your speed, these are not very good at changing driving behaviors.  I'd love to see those all over.  Apparently they actually slow people down by themselves, without even the threat of a camera/ticket.

http://www.wbez.org/episode-se...

I wonder if it is also a function of congestion. Some spots along the lakefront are speeding proof because you can never go faster than a crawl.

I mean, ultimately it's about the money, but still.

 No, I thought about that too.  Too traffic congested in those areas to speed.  Like I said, I don't know if it means anything, just thought it was funny.

Are you proud of me for not arguing for its own sake? I'm feeling very actualized at the moment.

There's a sign as you exit from 70/55 to 44 in St. Louis that flashes when you're speeding. I feel like I have not been doing my job if it isn't flashing.

Well, maybe they will need to post more speed limit signs around the city as well. I often can't remember which streets are 25, which are 30, and which are 35. There's a method to the madness, but I can't ever keep them straight.

 I said a similar thing in an earlier thread.  I have absolutely no problem with speed limit cameras as long as the speed limit in that zone is clearly posted and marked.  But that's not going to happen.

So the a-holes who want to ride my bumper are going to just have to live with me doing 25.

You can always toss a golf ball out your window.

Foster seems relatively clear, yay!