Chicago's Red Light Cameras Now a Point of Contention for Mayoral Candidates

The same system of red-light cameras in Chicago that was shown last year to have been generating bogus tickets is still around -- but now, reports Reuters, it's a political punching bag for opponents of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel in an upcoming election. "[Emanuel], who supports the nation's largest automated camera system, is polling slightly under the 50 percent plus one vote he needs to avoid a run-off against the second-highest vote-getter. Three of the four challengers seeking to topple Emanuel say the cameras should go. Emanuel's closest rival, Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, who is polling at about 20 percent, said he would only keep cameras that have been proven to reduce accidents. .... Chicago has red-light cameras at 174 intersections and 144 speed cameras near schools and parks around the city. They have brought in $500 million since 2003, according to media reports, a figure Chicago has neither confirmed nor disputed.

Comments

its all about the $$$

[ganjadude]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good. how can anyone still support such bad use of tech???

They have brought in $500 million since 2003, according to media reports,

Ahhhh, its all so clear now.....

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct.

A Congressional investigation and study showed that the Yellow lights were shortened to ensure people running Red lights. The Congressional finding were a condemnation of every politician trying to increase cashflow at the expense of safety.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good. how can anyone still support such bad use of tech???

They have brought in $500 million since 2003, according to media reports,

Ahhhh, its all so clear now.....

If it's so fucking clear, I'm wondering how much more "clear" it needs to get for the average taxpayer. Will another $500 million do, or should we just kick that right on up to 3 or 4 billion and really get things cooking. Could elect a few more traffic Czars with that kind of money you know.

Let's hope the voters in Chicago do more than just sit around and bitch about it.

Re:its all about the $$$

[sound vision]

Instead of pulling this traffic light crap (which can increase accidents), they could just legalize marijuana... seems to be bringing in quite a bit for Colorado, in spite of the industry not being fully developed, and the banking problems the industry still has from the federal prohibition.

Re:its all about the $$$

[ShanghaiBill]

Correct. A Congressional investigation and study showed that the Yellow lights were shortened to ensure people running Red lights.

Umm ... that is not evidence that "cameras cause accidents". It is evidence that "shortening yellow light duration causes accidents".

Re:its all about the $$$

[tugboat0902]

But then you would have the opposite problem. People stopping at green lights.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Ichijo]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good.

And the opposite has also been proven:

"Crash effects detected were consistent in direction with those found in many previous studies: decreased right-angle crashes and increased rear end ones."

(Right-angle crashes are much more dangerous to the occupants than rear end crashes, so exchanging the former for the latter results in a net improvement in safety.)

To further improve the safety of red-light cameras, consider that almost all rear-end collisions are caused by people tailgating. If each red-light camera were turned into a combination red-light and speed camera, people would slow down when approaching intersections, so someone slamming on their brakes at the last minute would be less likely to be hit from behind.

Re:its all about the $$$

[bondsbw]

Here you go.

Re:its all about the $$$

[OzPeter]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good. how can anyone still support such bad use of tech???

OK .. simple question for you then. Given your position that red light cameras are simply a money grab, and do not do any good (something that I dispute, but is beside the point), what is your solution for controlling all the people who run red lights? I am regularly at a traffic light, watch it turn green, and then see some idiot fly though against the red well and truly after the light has changed. These people need to be "educated" about the dangers of their actions, and short of a T-bone accident I can see nothing other than a camera system to teach them.

So what is your alternate solution?

Re:its all about the $$$

[ganjadude]

my solution is stronger penalties for those who cause accidents at red lights. not a slap on the wrist and a fine but a real penalty

Re:its all about the $$$

[newcastlejon]

To further improve the safety of red-light cameras, consider that almost all rear-end collisions are caused by people tailgating. If each red-light camera were turned into a combination red-light and speed camera, people would slow down when approaching intersections, so someone slamming on their brakes at the last minute would be less likely to be hit from behind.

Emphasis mine.

I don't think you were saying that rear-end collisions are the fault of the car in front, even when they brake suddenly, but I think it's important to say that any rear-end collision is the fault of the car behind. It doesn't matter how sharply the car in front brakes, you should never be so close that you can't also stop safely. Suppose that instead of a red light there's a child running into the road; the car ahead may brake very sharply indeed, but if you're behind and you give them another push you might just make the difference between near-miss and tragedy. Tailgating needs to be treat more severely than speeding if you ask me, or at least enforced... at all.

Re:its all about the $$$

[sumdumass]

It would be evidence that their use causes accidents.

The cameras on thier own, probably not, as implemented by shortening the yellow lights, yep. And I do not think we can separate the cameras and the shortening of the light because the shortening seem to be only due to the cameras in place.

Re:its all about the $$$

[penguinoid]

Umm ... that is not evidence that "cameras cause accidents". It is evidence that "shortening yellow light duration causes accidents".

Installing the cameras cause the yellow light duration to be shortened, so as to increase revenue.

Just one of the many problems caused by the hidden tax of fines. If you think otherwise, consider how quickly fine revenue would drop if all fines by law had to be given to the taxpayers as reduced taxes, instead of lining the coffers of the department/city/state that collected them.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure it's just that though it's a huge contributor. I absolutely alter my behavior whenever I'm around one of the damned things, but not exactly in the way these "safety" idiots think. I end up paying a LOT of attention to the equipment, to any crosswalk countdowns, to anything that will give me an edge in avoiding the one thing these cameras are good at, which is catching people unlucky enough to be right at the line when the light changes. Now, at a regular intersection, if somebody happens to be right at the line when the light changes it's not really a big deal because traffic in the other direction hasn't started moving yet. However, stuff like this plus of course the whole not-stopping-for-some-arbitrary-time at right turns are what red light camera revenues are made of.

In other words, I stop driving properly and start driving with defense against the technology in mind. I get tunnel vision, and doing that has saved me money on more than one occasion because I've never gotten a ticket at one. However, it is not really safe driving to do that as you lose situational awareness to the sides and to the rear.

I've never seen that sort of thing studied, mostly because the yellow light issue is such a disgusting thing it deserves the attention for right now. So too does the fact that at "normal" intersections you tend to get a yellow light when the crosswalk timer goes to zero, and yet somehow magically at red light camera intersections that doesn't happen, or in the year 2015 there mysteriously is no timer, or other bullshit these camera companies talk cities into doing in order to artificially raise revenue.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's important to say that any rear-end collision is the fault of the car behind.

Sorry, but that's just more garbage spewing forth from someone who seems to believe that the law somehow should alter reality. There are several attitudes about driving that need to change, this being one of them.

I am not arguing that one shouldn't leave proper spacing between vehicles. Far from it actually. However, I need to point out that at least in some areas if you do exactly that what you get treated to is car darting and weaving into that "extra" space, which of course causes you to now not be spaced properly even if it was your intention to do so. So you slow down to leave proper space and---it happens again.

I think we can all agree that smooth driving is better and safer than constantly changing speeds, lanes, etc. and the only way to achieve smooth driving in such a circumstance is to do the exact opposite of what the driving books say to. I wish that were not so, but in order for that to be the case what we need is less speed traps and red light cameras and more bad driving enforcement. That includes people who drive too slow or too erratically due to lack of skill also.

We need to get away from this "whoever did X is always, always at fault" nonsense and start looking at whose behavior caused the accident in the first place.

True story: I was driving on a 4 lane road in the left hand lane in fairly busy traffic going slightly but not grossly faster than the speed limit. Some absolute idiot was tailgating me because he seemed to think I was in his way--the extreme kind of tailgating that's extremely dangerous. I could not move over if I wanted to on account of a large flatbed truck to my right, and although I was passing the truck steadily, doing so rapidly would mean exceeding the speed limit to a great degree which I was unwilling to do. So I slowed down to the speed limit, which just enraged the idiot behind me. The truck driver noticed this little drama and slowed down too. Nothing like road justice I suppose. We were all still moving at the speed limit, about 60mph or so, so it's not like anybody slowed to half speed or anything like that.

Eventually the road turned into a 6 lane road, which meant the road raging idiot could now go around both of us by passing illegally at high speed on the right. When he finished this maneuver, instead of proceeding on to whatever was so important as the newly-appeared right lane was pretty empty, he changed lanes right in front of the truck and from not more than 15 feet in front of him slammed on his breaks for no reason long enough that the truck had to lock his breaks up and swerve into the thankfully-empty right lane to avoid a collision.

So tell me...if the truck driver had not been very skilled (or the right lane not empty) and had instead pancaked this idiot like he richly deserved, would you hold the truck driver responsible? After all, you said that ANY rear-end collision is the fault of the vehicle behind, right?

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Anything that isn't mandatory must be prohibited, with ruthless, omnipresent, automatic enforcement. Because we know how you should live your lives. You should be happy to pay us to make your choices for you.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Ichijo]

he changed lanes right in front of the truck and from not more than 15 feet in front of him

That's an unsafe lane change.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Solandri]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good.

And the opposite has also been proven:

If you do nothing but add red light cameras, the intersection tends to become safer.

But inevitably, the government agency which authorized the cameras suddenly realizes it's getting more revenue from traffic violations. And it starts shortening the duration of the yellow lights at the intersections to artificially increase the number of violations, and thus increase its revenue even more. This makes the intersection more dangerous, moreso than the cameras initially made them safer.

I've thought about these types of situations a bit. The best idea I could come up with is that fines for breaking the law should not go to the government. They should go into an escrow account held by the government, which gets equally redistributed to taxpayers when they get their tax refund (or converted to a tax credit if the person owes taxes). The idea behind these fines is that the offender needs to be penalized for the bad behavior. As the public was the party which was harmed by the behavior, and ostensibly the government is acting on behalf of the public, the fine goes to the government. But that leads to a conflict of interest on the part of the government in situations like this. So the best solution is to remove the conflict of interest - if the government makes no money from traffic violations, then its only motive for enacting traffic control is to improve traffic flow and safety.

Re:its all about the $$$

[mrchaotica]

Shortening yellow light duration causes accidents. Installing cameras causes shortening yellow light duration. Use the transitive property.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good. how can anyone still support such bad use of tech???

Fortunately, now that citizens have caught onto the scam, maybe they'll vote accordingly. The one thing a politician fears more than losing a revenue source is losing an election. If the red light camera companies can no longer buy enough advertising time to sway enough swing votes to elect camera-friendly politicians, the camera companies have no incentive to remain in town. And the politicians that took their donations will come to regard the camera companies as political liabilities, not assets.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Paradise Pete]

Installing the cameras cause the yellow light duration to be shortened, so as to increase revenue.

It may give financial incentive, but "cause" is not the right word.

Re:its all about the $$$

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

actually it's often not the government agency, but the company who owns the cameras that are tampering with the lights. They also get to run the automated ticketing systems too, and can issue tickets like their a cop.

Re:its all about the $$$

[penguinoid]

Installing the cameras cause the yellow light duration to be shortened, so as to increase revenue.

It may give financial incentive, but "cause" is not the right word.

Compare this to eg putting a bounty on a guy. It had nothing to do with the murder, it was just a financial incentive, right? And yes, a comparison to murder for hire is appropriate as we are talking about assholes who put other people's lives at additional risk for their own financial gain.

The duration of a yellow light ought to be based off of maximum safety, not financial gain from additional tickets.

Re:its all about the $$$

[thegarbz]

my solution is stronger penalties for those who cause accidents at red lights. not a slap on the wrist and a fine but a real penalty

You're applying a punishment after the fact. That never works. People are behavioral monsters who have a horrendous ability to think ahead and predict consequences for their actions. You could apply the death penalty for having an accident and you still won't stop accidents as people have an ever increasing view of their abilities and believe they get better and better at not getting caught. .... Until an accident.

This has been proven not just for driving but for all manner of human behavior. People build up their behaviors as they get more and more confident in their abilities, be it asking people out on a date, running a drug lab, or driving faster and closer to the person in front of them (funny story is that surveys show time and time again that 90% of drivers on the road believe they are better than average).

The solution needs to come in the form of behavioral change, and the only way to do that is change behaviors before they lead to an accident. Hence a lot of countries have this insane focus on "safe driving", speeding, tailgating and running red lights. We have behavioral cameras in my country. They look for tailgaters, people on their phones, and police can leverage fines based on video evidence (submitted a video to police of some idiot tailgating then overtaking on an unbroken line on a dangerous mountain road which cost the person his license as he was a repeat offender).

I don't want to be on the receiving end of the incident, do you?

Re:its all about the $$$

[AthanasiusKircher]

So tell me...if the truck driver had not been very skilled (or the right lane not empty) and had instead pancaked this idiot like he richly deserved, would you hold the truck driver responsible? After all, you said that ANY rear-end collision is the fault of the vehicle behind, right?

Good grief -- what was the point of this rant? To teach an exercise in formal logic?? Obviously one can come up with exceptions to almost any practical real-world ruie or statement. Obviously most real-world statements like GP's come with a bunch of implicit assumptions -- like, for example, that the rear-end collision didn't result from a car being dropped suddenly in front of another car from a helicopter, or from a car magically appearing suddenly out of quantum foam... or, as in your common example, as a result of clearly illegal driving behavior by the person in front, namely an unsafe lane change.

Moreover, in your lovely example of road etiquette, I dare say after the moron who did the unsafe lane change, the next person I personally would hold responsible is not the truck driver, but YOU.

I was driving on a 4 lane road in the left hand lane in fairly busy traffic going slightly but not grossly faster than the speed limit. Some absolute idiot was tailgating me because he seemed to think I was in his way--the extreme kind of tailgating that's extremely dangerous. I could not move over if I wanted to on account of a large flatbed truck to my right, and although I was passing the truck steadily, doing so rapidly would mean exceeding the speed limit to a great degree which I was unwilling to do. So I slowed down to the speed limit, which just enraged the idiot behind me. The truck driver noticed this little drama and slowed down too. Nothing like road justice I suppose.

In other words, you were going along happily driving faster than the speed limit in a passing lane, and when someone expresses a desire to pass as well, you SLOW DOWN just to prove a point ("road justice")?? Sorry, but that's completely unacceptable behavior. You saw somebody acting like a jerk. Rather than just getting out of his way, you decided you'd try to "teach him a lesson" while operating a machine that could easily become a high-velocity projectile weighing over a ton and (as you admit) no room for maneuvering. Therefore, you endangered the lives of all of you and potentially everyone around you... FOR WHAT?

That's the kind of crap that gets people killed. Yes, the guy should not have been tailgating you. But you went and deliberately made the situation worse (and if you are correct about the truck driver, so did he). As far as I'm concerned, all three of you deserve to have your licenses suspended until you can stop "playing games" during dangerous high-speed situations... and perhaps be sentenced to a few months of traffic school.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Martin Blank]

The law is generally stated that for two vehicles traveling in the same lane with no immediate changes before a collision, the trailing driver is at fault in case of a collision. However, it's a valid defense if the leading driver performed an unsafe maneuver prior to the collision, such as changing lanes with insufficient spacing.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

In my state, the driver who slowed down committed a moving violation equivalent to driving on the wrong side of a double-yellow stripe. It was unsafe driving and contributed to a near-miss. You should generally be moving faster than everyone to your right and no slower than the person behind you. It's simple.

Re:its all about the $$$

[tompaulco]

I don't see anything wrong with red light cameras per se. The problem is the money grubbing on the back end which entices the shorter yellows. There should be a standard measurement for how long a yellow is, and it should be based upon the speed limit, reaction time and the length of the intersection. If the yellow is not as long as that, then the road is closed until it is fixed.
Since people who blast through red lights two seconds after it turned red are plenty numerous, I for one am more than happy that they get busted. Perhaps the red light can snap all the license plates of the people who observed the guy blowing the red light and didn't crash into him. Then some large percentage of the fine can be awarded to the people that the red light runner placed in harm's way so that he could avoid another 45 second light cycle.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Evidence of that? Also, in Texas at least, all red light camera tickets have to be reviewed by an officer prior to issuance.

Re:its all about the $$$

[davester666]

Chicago is getting off easy. Only $500mil in 10 years [roughly] = only $50 million a year.

Here in Edmonton, a MUCH smaller city, we were bled $30 million a year
And of course, with the same red-light-camera kickback scheme...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/45/4506.asp

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

" turned into a combination red-light and speed camera"

That's a terrible idea. Under real world conditions this would only lead to more panic induced emergency breaking.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

But a shorter yellow is what we want - less time with traffic stopped in all directions. Too long yellows cause people to drive through when they know they're in the early part of the long yellow. The sane way is to time the lights so people just barely can stop before it goes red - but no. The yellow is much longer than that.

So the shortening is good by itself, making traffix more efficient. And if people stop trying to run a yellow, they won't have problems. You are not supposed to anticipate the length of a yellow light. Stop if you can, that is the rule. Those driving a lot will surely notice the shorter periods anyway.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Slowing down is a perfectly fine way to deal with tailgaters - as long as you don't do it so abruptly that you deliberately cause the accident to happen right there.

Nothing wrong in easing off the accelerator and (slowly) dropping to 20 below the posted speed limit. Sure, this may irritate the tailgater, but this driving with a very short distance between the cars is much safer at lower speeds. So such behaviour increase safety, it does not create a dangeraous situation. Slowing down is also nice in that the tailgater will have a much easier time passing, if a (safe) opportunity should appear. The tailgater has no right to be enraged (or at least to allow rage to influence behavior), and he can easily get out of this situation by keeping more distance.

Some countries outlaw tailgating, for safety reasons. As in "less than one second between you and the car in front, and you loose your drivers licence." And of course the cops enforce this when they are out doing the speed trap thing.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

Punishment after the fact works in some cases. Notably when the 'crime' does not always lead to accident, only to increased risk. Lots of people run red lights with no accident happening.

But catch them, and apply steep punishments. Not necessarily fines - fines are punishments for the poor and merely small annoyances for the rich. But take their driver licence away for an extended period, and you get behaviour change on two levels. First, the offenders are removed from the road. Having to walk will give them some time to think. Second, the slightly smarter ones don't run reds because they're afraid of loosing their precious licence. They may not care about accident risk or the (small) risk of fines - but even a small risk of loosing the licence is acted upon. (For this to work, driving without a licence needs worse punishments. Such as imprisonment and confiscation of the car. Not your car? - You owe someone a car then . . .)

Re:its all about the $$$

[bzipitidoo]

Red light cameras are a money grab. Safety is just an excuse. A former CEO of RedFlex, the contractor Chicago engaged to run their red light cameras, as well as an employee of the city of Chicago, and a few others have been indicted on corruption charges over these cameras.

First, make sure the cameras are functioning correctly. That includes stopping authorities from tinkering with them to boost violations. These devices have been very erratic, more erratic than can be explained by technical glitches.

Next, make sure that the yellow is an acceptable duration. There's an informal standard of 1 second per 10 mph of speed limit. Studies show that's not quite enough. There's also a lower limit of 3 seconds, Can't have the yellow shorter than that. The only formal standard on this is circa 1977, a rather involved formula that takes into account the slope of the approaches, as well as the speed limit. May also have something for whether there is a curve on the approach. We don't have anything more, most likely for political reasons. A few times, cities have shortened the yellow, and been caught. Now they search out badly timed lights that already have too short yellows, so they can deny that they shortened the yellow.

Getting punitive about a problem should be the last resort. Every other solution should be tried first. Even worse is making up a problem to get punitive about. There is no epidemic of red light running for the simple reason that nature may deal out a far harsher punishment to violators than a traffic ticket, and everyone understands that. You want to get your car wrecked? Break some bones? Risk death? Then run those red lights! The majority of red light violations are for missing the light by under 1 second, and nearly no violations are over 3 seconds. Punishing people over a 1 second judgment call is unfair. A few more violations are for honestly not seeing the traffic light, and sometimes that can't be entirely blamed on the driver. Years ago, I saw a traffic light a little ways west of the small downtown that was thoroughly obscured by trees (Olney, TX on state hwy 114). It was not visible at more than 20 feet, and the intersection was not in any way distinct from the dozen or so intersections on either side that didn't have traffic lights. The city should have gotten in trouble for that. Only reason I was able to stop for it is because I knew the light was there and was watching for it. Another town (Charles City IA, US 218, before the bypass was built) had 3 lights in a row, in which the 2 at the ends were on arms hanging over the street, but the middle one was on a post and was somewhat camoflaged by buildings, signs, and other lights. Of course they were mistimed so that the middle turned red at the same time the other 2 turned green. Tricky. Only a very few violations are deliberate, and even there, the driver could have good reason, like being on the way to the emergency room.

What happens when intersections are run fairly is that red light violations drop so low that cities take the camers down to save money.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Pascoea]

I was driving on a 4 lane road in the left hand lane in fairly busy traffic going slightly but not grossly faster than the speed limit.. Some absolute idiot was tailgating me because he seemed to think I was in his way...So I slowed down to the speed limit, which just enraged the idiot behind me. The truck driver noticed this little drama and slowed down too. Nothing like road justice I suppose.

Let's go through those one at a time: So, you were already breaking the law (traveling over the speed limit). Somebody wanted to break the law more than you (getting on your ass for not going fast enough). So you switched breaking one law for breaking another (not overtaking someone while in the passing lane). Then colluded with another driver with the express purpose of being an asshole?

Yup, CLEARLY the other driver is 100% at fault.

The tailgater's behavior in the entire encounter was unacceptable, but what exactly did your actions do to make the situation any safer? Do you think your "road justice" did anything to correct his future driving habits? Or do you think the adult thing to do would have been to continue breaking the law for another 30 seconds, or heaven forbid drive 2 MPH faster than you currently were, then get the fuck out of his way?

Re:its all about the $$$

[drinkypoo]

Slowing down is a perfectly fine way to deal with tailgaters - as long as you don't do it so abruptly that you deliberately cause the accident to happen right there.

The best way to deal with tailgaters is to get out of the way in the first place. This is the strategy I've been using for the last decade or so, and it's served me well. If I'm on a canyon road, and someone comes up behind me, I do my best to be on the shoulder before they even reach me. I don't pull into unsafe or even annoying turnouts, but I do try to get out of the way so that the other driver can proceed apace.

Here in California, you are legally obligated to get out of the way any time there are five or more cars behind you, held up by you, regardless of speed and speed limit. If they want to go faster, you are obligated to permit them to pass. That's why, when signs are put up to remind you, the signs say "SLOWER TRAFFIC MUST PULL OVER TO PERMIT PASSING". They don't accompany a speed limit sign. They're informational on their own. In this state, the same is true of the passing lane. Regardless of speed and speed limit, you are obligated to yield the passing lane to passing traffic.

Now wait, you might say, you aren't obligated to pull onto the shoulder to permit passing until five people are behind you! So they can just sit back there and wait, because it would be inconvenient for me to pull over! Well, that would make you an asshole twice over. It would make you an asshole first for even citing the legal requirement as if it meant anything to the people behind you, and again for not just getting the hell out of the way.

With just a little consideration, we can share the road and we can all go more or less as fast as we want to go. It won't cost you much money, and it will improve the driving experience for everyone including yourself. So just get the hell out of the way, and let the other people go by.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Anonymous Coward]

The duration of a yellow light ought to be based off of maximum safety, not financial gain from additional tickets.

No one here is disputing otherwise, only your use of "cause" is being disputed. Installing red-light cameras causes yellow light durations to shorten, like buying a new car causes gas prices to go up.

Re:its all about the $$$

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I don't think you were saying that rear-end collisions are the fault of the car in front, even when they brake suddenly, but I think it's important to say that any rear-end collision is the fault of the car behind.

Long ago when I was a new driver I had someone in front of me slam on their brakes for no apparent reason on a completely clear country road (they had missed their turn). I was far enough back that I didn't hit them, but I did end up on the shoulder. That incident taught me to leave enough room to be able to evade the car in front of me should they do something stupid.

That being said, there really is no excuse for things like slamming on your brakes when the left-turn arrow turns from green to yellow.

Re:its all about the $$$

[thegarbz]

That's a load of crap. People are no more averse to the risk of losing their license as they are to the risk of a fine being leveraged against them. Just look at places like Australia which operate on a demerrit system. People have ample warning of how many points they have left on their license, yet people have their licenses suspended for driving offenses every day. People are even constantly caught driving under suspended license, and repeated offences which typically land them short term jail sentences. That doesn't stop people either. Heck 2 Australians are about to get hung in Bali for attempting to smuggle drugs into the country via standard airtravel. They decided to do it to one of the very few countries where it is known to carry a death sentence and did it anyway. That's the kind of mentality you deal with.

You can't change behavior by manipulating risks. A more real example is countries like Sweden where fines are indexed against your yearly income so they hurt all people equally. The Nokia CEO famously got done speeding twice within 3 months about 10 years ago despite the first offence landing him a fine in the order of $100000.

People are a piss poor judge or risk which is why the Health and Safety industries have moved the focus away from risk management and towards behavioural change. In other news I'm going bungee jumping this week, in China, with all their safety standards behind me. My girlfriend is freaking out, I'm excited. The risk is the same yet we both have two very different views of the activity. See the problem?

Re:its all about the $$$

[AvitarX]

Roosevelt Blvd needs them in north east Philly (may have them now).

There are decent amounts of people that blatantly run the redlights at night, making it a dangerous rd to cross (it's already dangerous being approximately a million lanes wide, but there are cross walks). It's not the people that barely miss that are the problem there though.

Perhaps all the people running with zero regard for the light have unregistered cars though, I would guess there's at least a strong correlation.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Toshito]

(Right-angle crashes are much more dangerous to the occupants than rear end crashes, so exchanging the former for the latter results in a net improvement in safety.)

Sadly they're both almost as dangerous for motorcycle riders.

Me?

[Anonymous Coward]

The amount of cameras I'd keep would be directly correlated to the amount of bribe money offered to me by Redflex.

Re:Me?

[Anonymous Coward]

God bless America.

Political pressure can work

[Kohath]

This is how we got rid of red light cameras in San Diego. It became an issue in the mayoral race and soon after the election they were gone.

If Chicago had legitimate elections, they might be able to solve some of their government-related problems too.

Re:Political pressure can work

[ShanghaiBill]

If Chicago had legitimate elections, they might be able to solve some of their government-related problems too.

This isn't the 1960s. Chicago does have legitimate elections. Although Rahm Emanuel is wrong about this issue (in my opinion), he is WAY better than the alternative candidates on more important issues, such as education reform and infrastructure.

Re:Political pressure can work

[ganjadude]

the other candidates must be eat babies if he is WAY better than his opposition because what i can see chicago has been pretty crappy for a long LONG time

Re:Political pressure can work

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't eat them. The babies that aren't aborted are made clients of the government unions' preschool to prison education to incarceration system. Why eat a child once when you can exploit them for their entire life?

Re:Political pressure can work

[Anonymous Coward]

If Chicago had legitimate elections, they might be able to solve some of their government-related problems too.

This isn't the 1960s. Chicago does have legitimate elections.

AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

ROFLMAO. Best joke I heard today.

Re:Political pressure can work

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be why Chicago has 110% voter turnout.

Re:Political pressure can work

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

This isn't the 1960s. Chicago does have legitimate elections.

I suppose it depends on what you consider legitimate. All of the mayoral candidates for Tuesday's election are Democrats. There are no candidates from any other parties on the ballot. Do you consider that legitimate?

privatizing big brother

[Anonymous Coward]

The insidious thing about red-light cameras (and similar devices) is, at least as far as Seattle is concerned, they are not owned or installed or managed by the city itself. The city just gets a relatively small cut of the take. So eeeevil-corp comes in and says "let us mount our devices, we'll slow down your traffic/"make your streets *safer*", and you'll get (small) percentage of the fines collected". Now the question: what can eeeevil-corp do to maximize its profits? well for starters: sneak down the amount of time of a yellow light until as many as possible cars are caught.

Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[seven of five]

Over the past 10-15 years we've seen the politicians sell the Chicago Skyway, the parking meters, and the red light/speeding cameras to private interests. The money is gone and the city is still stuck with deficits in the hundreds of millions. Maybe the mayor and councilmen should get those jackets with ad patches like NASCAR.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is how it is across USA politics. The politicians get bought out by campaign contribution bribes. Then they run up huge public deficits to pay off private interests. It is a huge slash and burn game at the public's expense and the future of the country.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[0123456]

This is how it is across USA politics.

You seem to believe it's somehow different in other countries.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well USA was supposed to be founded on the idea that you can't buy a vote, and that people born from other countries can't get into presidency to stop outside influence. But you get a billion times worse than buying votes when you can buy a politician. And foreign influence runs amuck when any politician can be bought out. The idea that the guys in charge are supposed to be out for the public's best interest is nice, but more in more its like they're all in it for themselves at the cost of the country. Things aren't running as originally designed.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well USA was supposed to be founded on the idea that you can't buy a vote, and that people born from other countries can't get into presidency to stop outside influence.

Please point to the words in the constitution that would protect against buying a vote. If you look at the election standards of the time, buying votes doesn't seem to have been a consideration.

The USA was founded on the principle of government limited by checks and balances. Their primary fear was abuses by a tyrannical government. They don't seem to have had much conception of how voting could be perverted. Important safeguards like private voting didn't become common until much later.

They did insist that the President be a citizen from birth (not an immigrant). This may have been aimed at George III, who was a German monarch of England.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's USA politics and then there is Chicago politics.

Chicago belongs in a special category with Greece and India.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[number6x]

Chicago's, motto translated from Latin, means "We make Louisiana's government look honest", or something like that.

And all of the pedants out there don't have to correct me, I know what the motto really means

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[nicoleb_x]

Bullshit, very few governments run up huge deficits! That's the whole point of these money grabs. They CAN"T trivially borrow money (like the Federal government) so they do all kinds of horrible things to raise revenue.

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[CrimsonAvenger]

Chicago's, motto translated from Latin, means "We make Louisiana's government look honest", or something like that.

Well, then, they suck at that too. NOONE makes Louisiana's government look honest.

And I say that in the nicest possible way, being a longtime resident of N'Awlins....

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[Carewolf]

This is how it is across USA politics.

You seem to believe it's somehow different in other countries.

It is. As always the US is "leading" ;)

Re:Selling Chicago one chunk at a time...

[Anonymous Coward]

There's USA politics and then there is Chicago politics. Chicago belongs in a special category with Greece and India.

It's amazing how much more corrupt Chicago became after Obama took office.

?: lasers & cmos sensors

[Anonymous Coward]

just curious - how sensitive are cmos/ccd sensors to lasers (red, green or blue)?

not that this has anything to do w/rlc(s) which we all know are only about public safety, not revenue - I'm just wondering if I bought a dj phantom, etc how worried would I have to be about angry people w/laser pointers...

I'll take "things that create a lynch mob" for 500

[Anonymous Coward]

The best way for a campaigning individual to usurp an incumbent is to contest the thing that pisses off the public the most.

More revenue

[ArchieBunker]

Giving politicians more money is like giving an alcoholic more booze.

Re:More revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't like roads? Oh right, you don't need roads if you never leave the basement, am I right? But if someone doesn't pay money to maintain the roads, how will the Jimmy John's delivery driver drive to your house when you get hungry?

Re:More revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess you don't like roads? Oh right, you don't need roads if you never leave the basement, am I right? But if someone doesn't pay money to maintain the roads, how will the Jimmy John's delivery driver drive to your house when you get hungry?

Are you that much of a moron?

You should immigrate to China. They love infrastructure there. They have tons of roads and infrastructure, even entire "ghost" cities built with no residents.

How about infrastructure like Keystone Pipeline to avoid all the accidents, deaths, and pollution from sending the petroleum by train & truck?

Ah, so some infrastructure is more equal than others, then?

Geez, it's amazing to me that some of you people can remember to breathe.

Re:More revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

You should immigrate to China. They love infrastructure there. They have tons of roads and infrastructure, even entire "ghost" cities built with no residents.

Sounds like an improvement over Chicago where residents literally shit in the streets because they know Streets&San will clean it up!

Re:More revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh gee, a basement dweller jibe. How original.

Re:More revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

Roads are paid for by the people who use them, using fuel taxes.

What happens to all the other money we pay in taxes? It doesn't go to build roads.

Re:More revenue

[ArchieBunker]

Hey if you're feeling guilty about paying too little you could always donate some more cash yourself.

Re:I'll take "things that create a lynch mob" for

[Anonymous Coward]

Lynch mob? The public pays no attention to lynch mobs. When Rahm successfully crushed the Occupy movement in his city, there were loud mobs protesting Rahm, and the mobs accomplished absolutely nothing. The public doesn't get pissed off. The public asks only, how may I Obey today?

John Politician

[pipingguy]

At first I wondered why mayoral candidates would be worried about cameras in Chicago's red light district.

Also parking tickets, but...

[Chappsterr]

I was invited to Fioretti's office to talk about a non-trivial number illegal parking tickets I found. Their campaign manager said that it would be "golden" for the campaign. Yet, a week later, they completely stopped contact with me by not returning my calls/texts/emails. They even stopped contact with the person that introduced me to their campaign team. My first thought was that they're busy, but Fioretti keeps bringing up ticketing, so they're obviously interested in the idea..

The only reason that I could think of is that Fioretti's team found a bunch of illegal tickets in their ward for one of my search criteria. Out of the 50 wards or so, his ward tended to pop up more than others...

Also, why in the hell do I still need to insert HTML into a fucking comment?! This should have been fixed years ago, FFS.

Re:Also parking tickets, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

...Also, why in the hell do I still need to insert HTML into a fucking comment?! This should have been fixed years ago, FFS.

Fix this, and the next thing out of your mouth will be:

Spoiled kids these days, don't even know how the hell to code HTML anymore. And you call yourselves nerds, FFS.

Time for some traffic problems

[rossdee]

In Chicago

Some sort of protest could be organised , like having a go slow at those intersections that have the cameras, and snarling up the whole city.
Alos if possible find alternate routes even if it takes longer.

Re:Time for some traffic problems

[Anonymous Coward]

Go ahead, try it. Police will just arrest everyone, and the state's attorneys will be overjoyed to force so many people into community service.

RLCs are not a big issue in this race

[mea2214]

Chicago resident here. Rahm Emanuel has a 45% to 20% lead over his nearest rival and all rival candidates are grasping at straws. The red light camera program here has been a success at reducing red light running which used to occur on a routine basis in almost every intersection. Since reckless driving here is so rampant they make up a good percentage of the population of voters who want their driving unenforced. They make for an easy target for challengers to Rahm who have no other agenda to offer. Odds are there won't be a runoff and Rahm wins in a landslide. RLCs are far from an issue that will determine the outcome of this election but they make for good click through bait.

I'm hoping for camera tech to improve enough where stop sign and crosswalk camera systems become feasible to install and manage.

Re:RLCs are not a big issue in this race

[Anonymous Coward]

I've lived out in the suburbs for decades. I seriously don't understand why all you city dwellers are down on your knees for Emanuel. I wouldn't elect the guy dog-catcher out here in the burbs. And not to mention, he has to be the creepiest looking asshole in the country. He makes most pedophiles and axe-murderers look honest and harmless in comparison. Red-light cameras are nothing but a nanny-state money printing machine for the city, but since all city liberals just love being told what's important from on high, I suppose it works for you.

Enjoy the "new, improved" city. I liked it the way it used to be, you can keep it the way it is now.

Re:RLCs are not a big issue in this race

[Tailhook]

Yes, Emanuel will win this. Emanuel has Obama in his pocket. The campaign is running Obama's ad for Emanuel practically on a loop on Chicago radio. Obama is in Chicago right now stumping for him — multiple press events per day. Given Chicago demographics Obama is a trump card; those voters follow Obama without question.

I'm hoping for camera tech to improve enough where stop sign and crosswalk camera systems become feasible to install and manage.

I'm hoping for that as well. I'm hoping for cameras that monitor every square inch of your city to automatically enforce every whim and dream of your money grubbing public unions and their bought-a-paid-for politicians. You deserve it.

Re:RLCs are not a big issue in this race

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

I'm hoping for camera tech to improve enough where stop sign and crosswalk camera systems become feasible to install and manage.

I'd love it if the stop sign on the corner in my neighborhood issued tickets to vehicles. Drivers constantly blow through the stop. I've even had to honk at cross-traffic that was not going to stop even though I was already in the intersection! I suppose I should get a few days worth of video and then take it up with my Alderman.

They still get the money

[140Mandak262Jamuna]

The way the contracts are structured, these companies have so many escape clauses and poinson pills. "If the red light cameras were removed by a future government, the red light camera company should be paid xyz million dollars". It is an outrage officials elected in elections with tiny voter turn out and small margins sign contracts on behalf of the city or county stretching to millions of dollars over the coming decades

City of Chicago sold all its parking meters for a one time payment for the next 99 years. The clauses are so egregious, City can not create new parking spaces, no new parking garages by the city etc etc. And the enforcement is so bloody aggressive.

The city (or the state) nearly sold the Midway airport for peanuts. Luckily the buyer went bankrupt in the last financial crisis.

Re:They still get the money

[bluegutang]

If self-driving cars get popular, that parking meter agreement is going to look pretty good...

Re:They still get the money

[Anonymous Coward]

The way the contracts are structured, these companies have so many escape clauses and poinson pills. "If the red light cameras were removed by a future government, the red light camera company should be paid xyz million dollars". It is an outrage officials elected in elections with tiny voter turn out and small margins sign contracts on behalf of the city or county stretching to millions of dollars over the coming decades

City of Chicago sold all its parking meters for a one time payment for the next 99 years. The clauses are so egregious, City can not create new parking spaces,
no new parking garages by the city etc etc. And the enforcement is so bloody aggressive.

The city (or the state) nearly sold the Midway airport for peanuts. Luckily the buyer went bankrupt in the last financial crisis.

The first six words of your entire post here summarize exactly what is wrong with this entire fucked up mess.

And clearly defines the need for public oversight during contract negotiations. This doesn't just smack of corruption. It defines it.

I don't see what the problem is.

[OneRealSmartCookie]

Just put your lawn chair in the intersection when it's yellow.

Chicagoans don't stop at red lights...

[Applehu Akbar]

...For the same reason that South Africans don't: because the odds of being T-boned are somewhat less than the odds of being shot.

When pigs fly...

[TiggertheMad]

An excellent suggestion. It combines logic and wisdom. It will never be implemented.

It doesn't matter whether the cameras do harm

[Anonymous Coward]

The real issue here is illegal government activity.

The right to ethical government arises under the 9th Amendment, as a right retained by the people.
It is double protected by the 10th Amendment, as a right reserved to the people.

Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided.

For government at any level to put money from fines into its primary budget creates an ethical conflict of interest.

There is no way around this. The money must be put into an entirely separate fund that is NOT used to do anything
that one could reasonably expect to be funded from the primary budget. Schemes that fail to do this end up being
a form of money laundering, involve ethical conflict of interest, and are illegal. We've all seen many examples of
governments having problems with their budgets, and every police officer, district attorney, and judge knows that
every dollar going into the primary budget for any purpose is freeing up a dollar (that might not otherwise be available)
to pay their salary and benefits.

So long as this is not done, every government lawyer prosecuting traffic violations, every police officer enforcing the
traffic laws, and every judge ruling in favor of the government, is in violation of their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights,
the highest law in the land. The legal professionals are also engaging in unethical practice of law.

It's time for government -- whether federal, state, or local -- to stop breaking the law.

Red Light Cameras, not about sex-workers?

[Optali]

LOL, when I read "Red Light Cameras" I thought they had installed a CCTV system in Chicago's Red Light district, ROFL

IL Traffic Camera Ban

[Hulfs]

There's actually been a bill proposed in the IL State House/Senate to ban traffic cameras throughout the state. There's probably no chance of it passing, but there's enough political traction to be made by proposing shutting them down that we MAY see some pullback on putting them up all over around here.

http://chicago.suntimes.com/ne...

Glad something is poking at Rahm

[cant_get_a_good_nick]

I grew up in chicago, and even though I live in the suburbs now, I do realize a healthy chicago is very important to a healthy suburban ecosphere. Therefore i don't like Rahm's policies. Other than being sociopathic at times (picks a fight with the teachers union, gets so pissed they actually fight back that he turns on heat lamps in the Chicago summer when they march) he really does things that screw the city.

The problem is, no one seems to care. Millions to TIF while the schools get closed? Nobody seems to care. That TIF money going to an unneeded hotel and arena? no one seems to care. The parking fiasco that he could have pushed back on and helped chicagoans? well, we care, but most blame on Daley and Rahm gets off scott free. Close schools so his cronies in charter schools get more cash, threatening kids safety as they now have to cross new gang borders? You get the point.

So here is an issue that i hope energizes a subset of the people to vote against him. I actually am a friend of Chuy Garcia (well, friend of a friend really - he's my best friend's godfather) and I hope he wins of course, but there are quite a few people that would be better than Rahm