Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected

countach44 writes that (in the words of the below-linked article) "Chicagoans are costing the city tens of millions of dollars — through good behavior." The City of Chicago recently installed speed cameras near parks and schools as part of the "Children's Safety Zone Program," claiming a desire to decrease traffic-related incidents in those area. The city originally budgeted (with the help of the company providing the system) to have $90M worth of income from the cameras — of which only $40M is now expected. Furthermore, the city has not presented data on whether or not those areas have become safer.

Comments

Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[sinij]

Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate driver's speed. It is virtually impossible to challenge these, and many municipalities already do this with red light and speed cameras.

Also, can we stop pretending these are about anything other than revenue generation?

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[sinij]

>>>You're not even supposed to run the amber, never mind the red.

Incorrect. When you see light turning yellow, you are suppose to stop when it is safe to do so, otherwise proceed through the intersection. If you are a municipality concerned about safety - increase timer on yellow light.

Instead, exact opposite happens - municipality concerned with a budget shortfalls decreases yellow light timer to generate additional red light ticket revenue. As a result, many people slam on the brakes increasing instances of rear-end collisions.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[sinij]

The amber light gets decreased, making intersection less safe. Does it matter what party to this money-grabbing public-private sector collusion actually carried out the work?

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[sinij]

You could also decrease speed limit to something unreasonable. For example, 15mph and issue tickets at 21mph.

You can also hide a max speed sign behind something, like a bush, and install it in otherwise higher speed zone.

You can also install speed trap on the down-slope road, where drivers would naturally speed up without any conscious input.

You can also offer "early payment" discounts on tickets, where if you pay and plead guilty your fine reduced to the point of not worth the time fighting it.

You can establish a ticket challenge procedure that would conflict with working hours, making it logistically difficult for people to challenge.

You can intentionally mail tickets to old addresses, then rake up late fees and interest.

Oh, all of these happened in one or another municipality at some point in time.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[Lumpy]

Easy solution, STOP letting for profit companies run these things. If a community wants red light cameras, they can buy them, install them, and manage them all under heavy citizen oversight.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[operagost]

Life is stranger than fiction.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[TheRaven64]

And then those same elected officials are subject to calls to cut taxes, but keep public services the same. Want to be reelected? It's difficult if you voted against lowering taxes and your opponent promises that he won't. But no one notices when you make a decision that raises revenue at the expense of safety.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[CimmerianX]

You don't increase time on the yellow.... you let the yellow turn red on the same timer, but you leave both directions red for 2 seconds just to ensure the intersection is clear before showing a green light. That's how you make it safer.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[Minwee]

You don't increase time on the yellow.... you let the yellow turn red on the same timer, but you leave both directions red for 2 seconds just to ensure...

...that drivers will feel safe going through the intersection after the light turns red.

It's a nice idea, but the universe will always build a better idiot.

Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate

[Moof123]

There are established laws/standards for how long a yellow should be given the speed limit of the road. Municipalities have been caught violating their own laws/standards to increase revenue. A yellow light needs to be long enough to include a normal reaction time, and still leave a safe stopping distance. The best option for safety is to abide by established standards and law for yellow light times. Yellow lights should be predictable, not too short and not too long, or you stand to cause accidents at intersections that do not obey the norms.

The real issue here is that yellow lights have become a tool to tweak revenue for cash strapped towns, cities, and the companies they contract with. I can see it being a very easy trap to get caught in when you are facing closing schools and delaying pot hole repairs, but it should be off limits. The rules of the road should be optimized for safety and efficiency, not plugging budget holes.

This is good

[0123456]

It proves the cameras are working, and people are speeding less. What's the problem? In an ideal world, the cameras would never go off, and never issue a ticket.

Re:This is good

[mikelieman]

The point of the cameras was revenue, not traffic safety. They've failed at their intended goal, and I don't see evidence for attributing it to traffic safety. The only person who benefited is the vendor.

And that's before the court challenges. Doesn't "Due Process" ensure that the accused can say, "That's faked, Photoshop. The network and servers are hacked, and PROVE THEY ARE SECURE."

Ever seen a municipal vendor who could certify under penalty of perjury complete compliance with all applicable law, regulation and policy?

Re:This is good

[ShanghaiBill]

It proves the cameras are working, and people are speeding less.

No, it does not prove that. Another possible explanation is that people were never speeding much in the first place. They may have overestimated the potential revenue.

It is a common thing right now in other cities

[kaladorn]

The Ottawa Public Library is having a significant budgetary shortfall due to a reduction in late fees.

The sad thing is that these entities have integrated punitive fines into their standard funding expectations and financial plans.

I think that sort of thinking needs to be scorned. It is a poor way to manage an institution. You don't want your model to be 'well, we will depend on and be incentivized to encourage people to break the rules we claim we want them to follow'. It's a rather ethically laughable situation.

there is a solution to law enforement for profit

[Anonymous Coward]

it will require a constitutional amendment

1. no government entity (fees, fines, tolls, tariffs, settlements, and seizures) may use non-tax monies for any of its operating expenses
2. all non-tax revenue are distributed evenly amongst the citizens of the collecting jurisdiction on an annual basis

People who break the law or use limited government services still pay. People who don't break the law and don't use services are rewarded with an extra tax refund. And politicians can't be sneaky about the amount of money they spend since 100% of it will have to come directly from taxes.

Of course this will never happen because of entrenched power and the 1% benefiting from the current system fleecing the general public.

Goal Should Be Zero Revenue

[jratcliffe]

I'm a big fan of both red light and speed cameras, so long as it's clear that the goal, and the only goal, is to improve traffic safety by getting people to abide by speed limits* and obey traffic lights. The ideal scenario would be one in which the cameras generated zero revenue at all, because everybody was following the law.

*I'll be the first to say that speed limits on highways are too low, I'm talking about areas where cars have to share the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.