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 $$$

[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 $$$

[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 $$$

[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 $$$

[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 $$$

[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 $$$

[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 $$$

[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.

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.

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...

[0123456]

This is how it is across USA politics.

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

More revenue

[ArchieBunker]

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

John Politician

[pipingguy]

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

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.

When pigs fly...

[TiggertheMad]

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