Chicago Sends More Than 100,000 "Bogus" Camera-Based Speeding Tickets

Ars Technica, based on an in-depth report (paywalled) at the Chicago Tribune, says that the city of Chicago has been misusing traffic cameras to trigger automated speeding tickets. In particular, these cameras are placed in places where there are enhanced penalties for speeding, putatively intended to increase child safety. The automated observation system, though, has been used to send well over 100,000 tickets that the Tribune analysis deems "questionable," because they lack the evidence which is supposed to be required -- for instance, many of these tickets are unbacked by evidence of the presence of children, or were issued when the speeding rules didn't apply (next to a park when that park was closed).

Comments

Irstfay Ostpay

[Anonymous Coward]

Oink oink

You're welcome --
        Chicago PD

Re:Irstfay Ostpay

[Anonymous Coward]

Stink Stink

You're welcome --
                Chicago Democrats

Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

So why is this news? I've come to expect nothing less from Chicago.

Re:Sounds about right

[Chas]

Chicago is the "Fuck you! Give us our money!" capital of Illinois, the "Fuck you! Give us our money!" state.

Contrary to popular belief, organized crime in Chicago wasn't stamped out in the 20's and 30's.

Nope. All the crooks went into local government because there were more (and more lucrative) opportunities to steal, legally.

Children or not

[NaCh0]

The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well. (and they drive like a-holes)

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this is in Illinois. I wonder how many of the cars ticketed didn't even go through the area they were given the ticket for?

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

False. It can clap a number on any car going by.

Problem is that speeding and red light cameras are easily abused. I remember talking with someone related to this, and even though it shouldn't be possible, he said that the red light cameras he put up had the ability to flip a green light red, pop the picture, flip it back to green, as well as just have varying yellow light timings, so one car may have four seconds... another, late at night, may wind up with a direct green -> red transition and a ticket.

Once you have a private party that can allege something that can't be disproven, it is ripe for abuse.

Re:Children or not

[Kohath]

The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well. (and they drive like a-holes)

When the sign says "Speed limit 25 when children are present" then it's not speeding to go 30 when no children are present. People are afraid of these traps because they don't want their money stolen from them by government thugs under the pretense of "safety".

Re:Children or not

[Archangel Michael]

I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

These cameras are a scam in almost all cases. Speeding in-of-itself is rarely a safety concern. Speed-limits are artificially too low.

Care to cite your source on this information? I mean other than your rectum.

Re:Children or not

[gstoddart]

Well, if the signs say "speed limit is x between the hours of y and z", and the ticket is issued at z+c ... then the ticket isn't valid.

I'm not saying people don't speed (not even a little). But I will readily believe these things don't align with the law, and give tickets which are incorrect because they aren't accounting for time of day.

Often these are set up to just call everything a ticket, and collect extra revenue. If that's by policy or incompetence that's not always clear.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well. (and they drive like a-holes)

Riiight. Government would never lie - especially if lying means you have to pay them money.

What color is the sky on your planet? Cuz it sure ain't blue.

Re:Children or not

[bartle]

Theoretically, it is possible to install a speed camera that measures speed very accurately. That does not mean that the speed cameras that are currently being installed are accurate.

I've received a ticket from a photo radar van that miscalculated my speed. If these systems continue to be installed everywhere, eventually you will too.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember this is in Illinois. I wonder how many of the cars ticketed didn't even go through the area they were given the ticket for?

It's in Chicago. How many of the drivers were dead?

Re:Children or not

[sgladfelter]

People don't like this because its used as a source of revenue generation, not as a tool to benefit the public good. An officer with a speed camera can potentially save lives by stopping an incapacitated driver. The camera does nothing except get the municipality another cheque. My state has revoked the charter for municipalities that have abused such revenue generation schemes.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/ontario-road-safety-annual-report-2012.pdf

Read the reports, especially page 35 of the PDF, sum the total of accidents and the reason for them, realizing that "speed too fast for conditions" means going at or below the speed limit when the road is not safe for that speed, typically due to ice or heavy rain (ie: For conventional speeding, focus on the "Speed too fast" statistic). Tell me where speeding fits. Well, I'll do it for you. It is the third LEAST likely cause of a collision. The only items ranking below it are, ironically, speed too slow, and driving against traffic.

Those stats are from the government itself, and the government of Ontario along with police officers is working to lower speed limits ostensibly because they are too high and are the largest cause of accidents. Yet their own evidence suggests the opposite.

Now have a look at the most likely cause (other than driving properly), following too close. Ask yourself *why* that happens. Because someone is pissed off at someone driving too slowly for them! Psychologically, excessively low speed limits are increasing the number one cause for accidents.

Re:Children or not

[link-error]

http://chicago.suntimes.com/ne... for starters... tons more with a simple search

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems that most jurisdictions have got around the right to face our accusers and cross examine them in court by modifying the statue and removing the criminal penalties for moving violations which makes it strictly an administrative/civil matter. Since there are no longer criminal penalties all of those pesky constitutional guarantees fall to the wayside.

Oh, you didn't pay your ticket? Well the vehicle that the ticket was issued against can't be registered and will be impounded on sight - and the owner driver's license can't be renewed either until the (increasing amount of) fines are paid in full.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Contrary to popular belief, whether or not something can be sourced has no bearing on whether it is actually true.

So, you're just making facts up and when someone calls you on it, you dismiss it with a pithy (and profoundly stupid) remark? Might I suggest a career with Fox News or the Daily Mail?

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

A couple of seconds spent on an internet search shows that speeding is, in fact, a safety concern. Apparently a big one. There are literally reams of data showing that speeding contributes to a significant number of accidents.

Not to mention the fact that for anyone who's ever driven a car, the notion that speeding is dangerous IS COMMON FUCKING SENSE.

Re:Children or not

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.

It exposes the highway robber nature of government, as opposed to the caring safety monitor meme it is wrapped in.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

An officer with a speed camera can potentially save lives by stopping an incapacitated driver. The camera does nothing except get the municipality another cheque.

The camera also uses the pocketbook to encourage people to drive more safely. It can do this much more efficiently than a police officer.

Re:Children or not

[gstoddart]

Yeah, one of the things we've heard cities do is make the length of yellow lights shorter so they can maximize revenue at the red-light cameras.

I once got an automated ticket for running a red light.

Essentially I was doing the speed limit (it was a 4 cylinder Jeep, speeding wasn't really an option) ... when the light went yellow I was close enough to the intersection I had to decide if I would slam on my brakes and make a panic stop, or acknowledge no way in hell I can stop.

At the time I decided in the remaining 30 feet or so no way I could safely stop.

By the time I'd got 35-40 feet, the light had already changed to red. That triggered the threshold for the red-light camera ... it doesn't care, you passed the line after it went red. There was less than 3 seconds between the yellow coming up and the red coming up, and not nearly enough space to stop in.

The problem with law enforcement by automation is there is zero room to say anything about it, or point out how the light was impossibly short.

And then people are left trying to explain how it simply wasn't getting the whole idea of what happened because it's a simple binary decision.

It's actually scary to see how short some yellow lights are, especially when there is a traffic camera involved. It's like they know damned well you have no chance in hell of stopping, but since it generates more revenue they should keep doing it.

With a human police officer I could say "look, I was here, I was going this fast, stopping would have been unsafe and dangerous". Instead you have a computer which spits out something which says you're guilty, and has no context for anything else.

Re:Children or not

[msauve]

"The computer doesn't lie about the speeding."

Apparently, it does, if "speeding' means driving in excess of the speed limit. Even from just reading the summary, one should understand that the speed limit in these locations varies, depending on time of day, or whether children are present, etc. So, what may constitute speeding under some conditions may be a legal speed under others. "The computer" is apparently conflating the two, and sending out speeding tickets when there was no evidence of the lower speed limit being in effect.

The city seems to admit that - from the article: "The city told the Tribune that it is refunding payments made on 23,000 tickets."

Re:Children or not

[Jaime2]

Speeding fines were set back in the days when it required a cop to catch them. The fines were considered fair back then. Deterrent math works out like this:

Deterrent factor = (Likelihood of getting caught) X (fine when caught)

Another reason for fines might be to pay for the cost the society must bear for the fallout from the transgression. This math works out to:

Money available to fix mess = (fine amount) - (cost of catching and processing violators)

In both cases, automating the process of issuing speeding tickets should result in lower fines. If the fine is being used as a deterrent, the likelihood of being caught went up, so the deterrent capability of a given fine amount is greater. If the fine is being used to compensate society, automation should reduce the cost, therefore reducing the amount that needs to be collected.

Here's where your attitude comes in: if the fine amount was acceptable twenty years ago, then it is outrageous in areas with cameras. We should all be fighting against them.

Another thing - these traps don't actually work so well. Violators have much less recourse to address mistakes in the system, and every time someone looks into one of these systems, they are rife with mistakes. Also, they tend to hit the same people over and over again. If they put a camera on your path from home to work, you are thousands of times more likely to be caught than if your path to work didn't happen to go by a camera. Where to put them is a political process, not an engineering process, so it is always abused. Also, going ten mph over the speed limit doesn't raise reduce road safety very much. Almost all of these tickets are bureaucratic victories, not safety victories. Finally, because the same people tend to get hit over and over again, there has been a recent trend of people simply letting the state take their license instead of paying the fines. Once they are driving without a license, there is really not much to hold over them. It's either let them go or put them in jail. Letting them go is admitting that the fines aren't worth it, and jailing them costs way more than the societal cost of speeding was in the first place, so everybody loses.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

People are afraid of speed traps because people like to spend their time driving a tonne of killing machine looking at the road for dangers instead of at their speedo.
I NEVER purposefully speed, i always do my damnedest to stick to the limit but if there are a number of potential dangers ahead, but not severe enough to require braking, it's very easy to drift over the limit by ~5mph.

My issue with the traps is that i don't want to be fined or even lose my license because i'm spending my time watching for kids jumping out into the road instead of staring intently at my dashboard.
That being said people who routinely speed significantly over the limit do deserve what they get.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

The NHTSA?
The recommended practice to set the speed limits to the 85th percentile speed. If the speed limit is lower then that then it's lower then the recommended speed.

Re:Children or not

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

It is government's job to prove the law is useful, not just assert it while mandating ticket quotas.

"But they aren't quotas! They're Minimum Recommended Cash Flow Activation Vector Data Points To Continue Supporting Government In The Manner To Which It Has Become Accustomed!"

Re:Children or not

[Jaime2]

Need citation showing that getting people to slow down to a posted (and usually chosen politically, not scientifically) speed limit increases safety.

Re:Children or not

[alvinrod]

While accidents at higher speeds are likely to be worse simply because more kinetic energy is involved, there's a difference between speed limits being low and speeding causing accidents. It doesn't matter what the speed limit is if they are vehicles that aren't adhering to it (either going too fast or too slow) as that's what tends to disrupt traffic and cause accidents more than the speed itself.

It could also be that if you set the speed limit artificially low, that it makes the problem worse as there are more people willing to exceed it than there would be if it were raised slightly.

Re:Children or not

[Fire_Wraith]

They're betting on the fact that it will usually be more expensive for you to challenge the ticket than to pay it. Even if you convince the judge to throw it out, you're still out the time spent fighting it, which is the better part of a day if you're lucky (worse if not).

Furthermore, they really don't care at all about safety. Studies have shown that while this sort of thing reduces T-bone incidents (which were rare to begin with), they cause a much greater increase in rear-end accidents because people wind up slamming on the breaks to avoid the sudden red light. Studies have also shown that there's a much more effective way to increase intersection safety, such as longer yellow lights, and/or a 1 to 2 second "all red". Of course, neither of those generate tons of money for the municipal government, let alone the camera company.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh thank you thank you thank you!!!! You did it. You showed that you are incredibly lacking in any form of critical thinking. This by using the term "contributes to".

Here, I'll hold your hand. At what point did speed no longer contribute? By definition, any speed which going slower means that the accident wouldn't have happened. By using the term "contribute" means that if you hit a tree while looking at your phone going 0.5 MPH, then speed contributed, because had you not been going 0.5 MPH, the accident wouldn't have happened. Never, ever, ever look at speed being a contributing factor, because it's always a contributing factor. If you use your critical thinking parts, you know the only one that matters is when speed is the PRIMARY factor.

Re:Children or not

[sjames]

The problem is that the speed limit is different when the parks are open than when they're closed. The cameras triggered on the lower speed limit even when it wasn't applicable.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

hmm... well, the person reading the computer data would be your accuser , and of coarse you should have every right to face them. The burden of proof that there computers isn't wrong, should of coarse be on them and be heavy.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

I used to live in Alaska. I was traveling down a busy road one day and saw the light ahead of me turn yellow. This intersection was well know for being covered in ice. I also knew that my vehicle would not be able to stop in time on the ice. I was going to end up in that intersection weather or not I wanted to.

I ran the light.

I was promptly pulled over. The police officer asked me why I ran the light and I told him I saw the light turn yellow, knew I would not be able to stop so I didn't attempt to. I also knew that there was a delay in the winter of 3-5 seconds so that all four directions showed red. I told him I felt it was safer for me and the other drivers if I made it through the intersection instead of skidding and sliding to a stop in the middle of it, with a good chance of me facing the wrong direction or hitting traffic waiting for a green.

He advised me to keep it in mind to slow down some even for green lights in icy weather and told me to have a nice day and to drive safely.

A camera would have sent me a ticket, which gives me the perverse incentive to try to stop even when I know doing so is dangerous.

Cameras are not always the best answer, no matter what you think.

Re:Children or not

[lgw]

I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.

"No, it's a tax." - Roberts

Because you have the constitutional right to trial for both criminal and non-trivial civil cases, the government just invented a third category. These tickets are in the "look at what we made up" category, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution, so it's fine. Just fine. Just a fine.

Once the government decides it doesn't care to be limited by the Constitution in principle, the actual wording of the document becomes sadly unimportant. And that ship sailed decades ago.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

there's a difference between speed limits being low and speeding causing accidents.

True, but if you'll recall, the claim was, "Speeding in-of-itself is rarely a safety concern." Safety is determined not just by the frequency of crashes but also the severity of the crashes. The severity is proportional to the kinetic energy, which in turn is proportional to the square of the velocity. So the original claim is obviously false.

It doesn't matter what the speed limit is if they are vehicles that aren't adhering to it (either going too fast or too slow) as that's what tends to disrupt traffic and cause accidents more than the speed itself.

If people stopped tailgating and otherwise driving recklessly, crashes involving slow-moving vehicles would go way down. Traffic cameras can help, if you believe the fines are a deterrent to speeding.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

Studies have shown that while this sort of thing reduces T-bone incidents (which were rare to begin with), they cause a much greater increase in rear-end accidents because people wind up slamming on the breaks to avoid the sudden red light.

That's true, but understand that T-bone collisions tend to be much more severe than rear-end collisions.

Anyway, this is why red light cameras should also be speed cameras, to help prevent tailgating which is the main cause of rear-end collisions.

Re:Children or not

[darkain]

Did you care to even ready the fucking summary? Just wondering. Because: "[speeding tickets] were issued when the speeding rules didn't apply". So, yes, the computers did in fact lie about the speeding by processing the wrong set of rules for the given time period.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

"Speed limit 25 when children are present"

Fascinating. I was going to reply that there is no such sign, but I tried googling it, and whaddya know, they exist!
Around here, that kind of speed limit sign lights up when it's active (before and after school) and says "when flashing" or something.

Re:Children or not

[Radical Moderate]

I live next an elementary school, posted speed limit is 20 mph between 7:00 and 5:00. A few months ago they installed a sign that displays your speed and flashes a bright strobe if you exceed 20. 24/7. You'd think it would be trivial to add a timer to a device that contains a plethora of LEDs and a radar gun, but apparently not.

Re:Children or not

[The-Ixian]

When I drove for UPS they teach you to always be wary of "stale" green lights.

That is, if you didn't see the light go from red to green, you have no idea how much time is left on the clock and should be prepared to stop.

So they taught us to take our foot off the gas and be ready to apply the brake up until about 30 feet before the light, then, if it still had not changed to yellow, clear the intersection by scanning both directions, then accelerate slightly to the other side of the intersection.

Of course, we were also taught that ALL accidents are your fault no matter percentage the law may assign to an outcome.

Re:Children or not

[fsagx]

It only took 1 ticket to convince me to keep the bike rack on my car at all times...

Re: Children or not

[jimmybuffet]

I believe what is being talked about is mostly school zones and parks that have signage that states something along the lines "speed limit 25 when children are present". The cameras have no view of present children and issue the speeding ticket anyway when in fact the driver may not be driving over the normal speed limit at all.

Re: Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

I actially lost a few points on my Washington driving test for going 20 when the above light was not flashing, even though the speed limit digital display below was flashing.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

AC's statement was true, so why do you call it stupid? Perhaps it is a personal observation.... you know, first-hand research? Your inability to determine the truth or untruth of the statement for yourself has no bearing on whether it is actually true or not. Making knee-jerk personal attacks over someone else's opinion is foolish and only reveals your impotent geek rage.

Re:Children or not

[edtice1559]

Driver psychology is to try to "beat the light." If a driver is expecting a 3 second yellow and you increase it to 4 seconds, they will always make it. Until they realize that the yellow is now 4 seconds. Then expectations will be adjusted and you're back to the original problem without changing psychology. Then what? Extend to 5 seconds? An hour? Why stop there? 24 hour yellow light so everybody has time to text their friends that a red light is coming? Really? If you add red light cameras, you are safer in the short term (lower T-bones, higher rear-end) but then driver psychology changes. The first guy might slam the brakes but the second guy accurately predicts that and is prepared. What *would* be good is a system is that detects that your car is approaching the light and automatically applies the brakes for you so that the driver doesn't have to make the decision. It's hard to do that now because you would need some sort of communications framework that may turn out to be buggy or insecure. With self-driving vehicles, this is going to happen.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it isn't true. And it is stupid. In fact, it's dangerously stupid.

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

If you look at speeding and likelihood of surviving, those speeding are more likely to live. The best result for speed for survival is in the 5-15 mph speeding range. Those going excessively fast are more likely to die if they crash, and have an increasing chance of crashing. And those going 0 mph on an interstate are much much more likely to be in a crash than someone going the speed of traffic.

Those factors combine to a bathtub graph of safety that's centered *above* the speed limit. Generally because the speed limits are set too low, often illegally so. I remember (pre-Internet, so I didn't find a cite, feel free to look it up in a library, none near me carry the Dallas Morning News from the '80s to search) when Dallas set the speed limits on the road so low that they violated state law. Eventually, Dallas changed the limits, after the DMN ran a story explicitly stating that the speed limits on a number of highways in Dallas were illegal, so no speeding ticket would survive a trivial challenge in court. The rules in Texas at the time (I have no idea if they are still the same) were that the speed limit must be based off the 85% speed, as measured by best practices. Dallas didn't do this, and instead just set limits based on what they think the roads should be marked at. And thus, the limits themselves were illegally low.

That kind of illegal activity to make our lives less safe is common. That wasn't the only case, but was the only one for where I lived while it happened.

If people stopped tailgating and otherwise driving recklessly, crashes involving slow-moving vehicles would go way down.

And if slower traffic took slower routes, or just kept right religiously, crashes for everyone would go down even more. Blocking traffic is illegal as well. Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them, and safety will be increased more than removing the fast cars.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a number of problems with the speed cameras in Chicago:

1) Cameras aren't correctly labeled. There are supposed to be signs to warn drivers that there are passing through a zone with speed cameras which are placed one would expect these to be placed on streets where there are actual cameras, not on intersecting roads with little arrows telling you there is camera that-a-way.

2) Camera tickets have 90 days to arrive by mail. That means if you are unaware of the speeding camera you will get your first warning and every time you drive on that road over the next 90 days there is a high probability you'll be getting a real ticket instead of a warning and accumulating them over the 90 day mailing period. If a cop pulled you over and gave you a ticket, you sure as hell wouldn't drive down that same road for the next 90 days speeding....

3) The speed cameras are questionably placed. There is one in a park zone, facing away from the park where there is no crosswalk or expectation anyone would be crossing in that area. The park itself in this area is fenced off and marked as "closed" and the camera is roughly 100ft before a stop light. Why is it there? Because the city is always broke and they need money it doesn't matter if the park is closed, or that there is little to no risk of hitting someone there...what matters is that it's a major artery in the city of Chicago that commuters use on a daily basis, and is also one of the roads out of towners would take to get to Wrigley Field for a concert or a ball game so it's bound to generate revenue.

4) Camera tickets be they from red-light cameras or speed cameras have been rigged to essentially be irrefutable in court. If a cop hands you a ticket for speeding you can go in, explain why you are speeding ("My wife is giving birth....", "I'm driving to the ER...", and so on). If you get caught by a speed camera in there is no explanation which will get you out of the ticket, and there is no leniency like you would get from an officer who saw your driving was clean except for this one time you happened to speed.

In short this is a case where a corrupt politician outsources to corrupt companies to provide a service that is supposed to "Make us safe" by placing cameras in "park zones" with closed parks, and school zones (and making sure everyone who drives through that school zone gets a ticket at 11pm at night). They refuse to provide information to the tribune, they refuse to provide information to the citizens, and they deny citizens their rights that they would have if they had gotten a speeding ticket in any other manner. I'd claim that this is a more heinous criminal act than driving 10mph over the limit.

Re:Children or not

[WalrusSlayer]

Yeah, I got nailed in a neighboring town which couldn't be bothered to do any more than the "when children are present" hiding-in-plain-sight signage. And the school in question was not visible from the road you're on, given it's laterally a full block away, but was apparently close enough to justify the sign. I simply had no idea it was a school zone, and no idea when the school zone hours are enforceable even if I had known. Despite the hard-ass reputation of the local cops for that town, he let me off with a warning.

In the end I had to go look up in the town's by-laws (fortunately web-accessible) to determine what that town's ordinances are for a school zone and what the hours they are in effect. Even with only getting the warning I was feeling entrapped and pretty annoyed.

I'm more and more noticing that my own town seems to actually care about child safety, as the school zone signs are large, with two lights (one above, one below) that alternate in their flashing. It's pretty hard to miss. And all the ones I've seen are actually within sight of the school in question. They do occasionally post a cop at the school to crack down on the inevitable "I'll slow down but not close enough to the school zone speed limit" offenders, which I take to be a good faith effort to demonstrate that they are serious about enforcing speed in the zone.

I had another case where I wasn't let off the hook. Again, this was another "main road, not enough indication the speed zone is in effect", and in this case the zone was so small and the sight lines so short that you all but had to slam on the brakes if you didn't know it was coming, otherwise you were over the limit and they got you. Initially I passed it off as bad luck being in an unfamiliar area during a crackdown period. But I happened to be back that way the next week and saw another unfortunate driver pull over in the same spot. That tells me that particular town is more interested in revenue than child safety.

Re:Children or not

[sexconker]

You're asking a liberal to use their brain. Good luck with that!

I know he's a liberal because he took a position, then googled it to find links that looked like they supported it yet didn't read anything at the links, then yelled at everyone for not having read those same things and unquestioningly believed them - to the point that they were "COMMON FUCKING SENSE" - like he did.

If I had to put my finger on it, I'd guess he's 16-22 years old and white. I'm also sure he has very little driving experience, because anyone with driving experience knows that simple velocity is almost never the primary cause of a collision. Hell, it's rarely even a major contributor.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

These cameras are a scam in almost all cases. Speeding in-of-itself is rarely a safety concern. Speed-limits are artificially too low.

OK. If that is the case, is the proper course of action to set speed limits correctly, or is the proper course of action to remove speed cameras?

Re:Children or not

[ShanghaiBill]

People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.

The main problem with these systems is that they issue too many tickets to middle class white people. If they worked like human cops, and just focused on teenagers and black people, they would be more acceptable.

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

But they don't encourage safe driving. Places with speed cameras haven't seen a drop in crashes.

Re:Children or not

[silas_moeckel]

Your confusing the chance of an accident and severity of accidents. Speeding increases the severity but not in moderation the chance.

Speed limits have their issues, the limit should vary significantly by vehicle, driver and road conditions. Safe following distances are a function of speed, reaction time of the driver and the breaking performance of the vehicles involved (which varies greatly with road conditions). Safe speeds outside of highways generally relate sight distance + the previous bits.

But realy do we need laws to mandate roads be safe or just reasonably so. Driving by a park at 4pm at 50mph while soccer practice is going on is not reasonably safe at 3am sure. Out in the burbs your effective sight distance increases at night as you can see headlights before you can actually see the car. If you always want to be safe your designing for the worst case of a kid standing in the road around a blind corner. Reasonably safe is the better standard as to be safe robs everybody of incredible amounts of aggregate time via overly cautious speed limits.

Traffic camera do nothing but further erode our civil liberties and as a hidden tax.

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

The computer doesn't lie about the speeding.

TFA says the computer is lying about the speeding.

People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.

No, people hate them because they don't work. They don't change behavior. Sending someone a ticket weeks after an event will not work to modify that event. And hiding them to try to catch as many people as possible makes them less of an immediate deterrent as well. Post a "speed camera 50m" sign (as I've seen in some places outside the US) and paint them bright yellow, and you'll do much more to reduce speeding than hidden cameras mailing out tickets long after the event in question.

But they don't want people to change behavior. They only want people to pay the "speed tax" and for that to work, they encourage speeding, while punishing it. That's why people find them frustrating.

(and they drive like a-holes)

Stop projecting.

Re:Children or not

[silas_moeckel]

Amazing you mean people can by themselves determine the correct speed? That's also a 10-15mph bump on all roadways and a much bigger in the burbs land of 25.

Re:Children or not

[Gr8Apes]

The most effective way to improve safety is to do what Austria does - a blinking green light indicating it is about to turn yellow, and an appropriately timed yellow for the speed limit of the road. Note that Austria also has no "All Red" lights. When the light turns yellow, those waiting also get a yellow, like the countdown to green for a drag race.

The one thing I'll note - very very few red light runners in that area of Europe. Oh, they also use red light cameras, and the "entered on a yellow" is not an excuse, but an admission of guilt.

Re:Children or not

[bjdevil66]

You're trolling, and I'll bite. Though there are cases where speeds have been calculated incorrectly, they're usually correct.

They have also, however, been just as efficient at exposing the problems with hard speed limits. Sometimes 45 is too fast; other times it's too slow - and machines can't (yet) calculate that. Many speed limits are set due to politics/fearmongering, environmental views, and revenue streams - not science/facts. It's a mini-miracle that we aren't still under the shackles of the 55 MPH national speed limit. (I could see Pres. Obama vetoing any legislation to repeal it if he'd been in office at the time, citing the environment and openly mocking anyone who couldn't see his point of view - while never driving a single mile between far-distant cities in the Western US on wide open roads in desolate areas.)

Re:Children or not

[Kohath]

Also, many red light camera tickets are for right turns. Accidents caused by people turning right at red lights are very rare -- and serious accidents from this are even more rare.

Re:Children or not

[bsolar]

That is, if you didn't see the light go from red to green, you have no idea how much time is left on the clock and should be prepared to stop.

After turning green from red, how long will it stay green? 50 seconds? 10 seconds? 4 seconds? Basically you have no idea either.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

because anyone with driving experience knows that simple velocity is almost never the primary cause of a collision. Hell, it's rarely even a major contributor.

Over 40 years of driving experience here, and I assure you that simple velocity is often the primary cause.
The type of accident that comes to mind is failing to negotiate a curve or turn.
Inability to stop on wet/snow roads is another.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

It only took 1 ticket to convince me to keep the bike rack on my car at all times...

What does bike racks have to do with this? Seriously have no idea.

Re: Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Fun story, I lived in crook county for a time, whilst going to school. One day I received a letter informing me of a parking ticket, alleging a vehicle with my plate number blocked a receiving dock at some theater I've never been to, and that they were going to send it to collections for being unpaid. I called the campus cops to dispute the ticket, and they wouldn't have any of it.

Fortunately, I was at work l that day, and had my time sheet as evidence. They still gave me shit.

Re:Children or not

[Jaime2]

Makes sense... why would driving a few mph faster lead to more accidents? I have no idea why so many people think going over the speed limit is so dangerous. Compare to the insane level of "unsafeness" of other behaviors like driving through the middle of a red light (not the first two seconds that red light cameras collect money for).

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

They maybe drive slower, not necessarily safer for the 1 minutes it takes to pass the cameras view, then they go right back to driving how the usually drive

Re:Children or not

[bjdevil66]

Also - not everyone that drives fast is an ahole. And not everyone who drives the speed limit is NOT an ahole.

Agressive and inattentive drivers are the problem - slow or fast. Speed cameras and other forms of photo enforcement, however, are just safety theater that happen to make a buck or two for the camera companies.

On Arizona's ugly history with speed and red light cameras (short, short version):

Former governor Janet Napalitano signed a contract for Redflex to put up cameras (fixed and mobile) everywhere in 2008. Janet actually labeled her statewide speed camera system as a revenue source in one of her AZ budgets - but still claimed it was all about safety. Peace didn't ensue, however, and accidents didn't suddenly drop way off (they dropped, but that was ultimately proven to be because of the recession dropping the number of drivers). While some drivers noted that it was "a nicer drive" and not as crazy on the roads, other drivers just accelerated and slowed down between cameras. Angry pro-camera people started driving like self-righteous assholes - refusing to "bow" to speeders. Some of them set their cruise control to just over the speed limit to avoid tickets, while blocking all lanes ("Move over for faster drivers? WHY? JUST SLOW DOWN!"). Anti-camera and/or aggressive drivers got really pissed off and were madder and more aggressive than ever. The rest of AZ just ignored the whole thing - unless they suddenly got flashed in the "high revenue" locations where they weren't "speeding" in their minds. (Cameras were being placed in locations to maximize revenue (where 65 dropped to 55 on interstates, at the bottom of declines/hills, etc.) Soccer moms and grandparents who loved the cameras early on would suddenly turn on the system when they got a ticket they felt like was nothing more than a speed trap. The public debate on and offline turned ugly, with vandalized cameras (including an axe wielder on an interstate), monkey mask rebels ignoring cameras, freeway and local/city protests, court backlogs (years behind), dodged process servers, etc. There was even a fatal freeway shooting of a camera van operator by a really angry "patriot" (he's still in prison, AFAIK). When the CEO of Redflex wasn't bribing city councils, she was weaving tales of blood and gore on the highways if the cameras were ever turned off.

After Janet bailed on AZ in late 2008 to cash in her chips in DC, any attempts by certain GOP state legislators to get a bill on the Gov. Brewer's desk to ban photo enforcement were blocked by camera company lobbyists and a GOP state house speaker that loved photo radar. The tech was seemingly here to stay.

Then Gov. Jan Brewer - yes, the Obama finger wagger and racist-sounding SB1070, "unshackle the police to catch illegals" signer - did the right thing and refused to renew the statewide contract with Redflex - effectively pulling the plug, and turning the heat down. One group (Camerafraud) was coming close to getting a ban on the ballot as a proposition for statewide vote, but after Brewer's contract cancellation they came up about 40K signatures short (120,000 were gathered) because removing the state speed cameras seem to calm enough people down as a compromise. It never ONCE came to a full vote.

Now the state is seemingly in a ceasefire state on the issue. Most people don't care about it anymore - at least as long as the state speed cameras don't come back. At the city level, certain municipalities have stubbornly held onto them for revenue, but most AZ cities got tired of getting screwed over by Redflex and ATS contracts where they actually lost money while the camera companies made serious coin.

Amazingly, after all of that occurred, there are STILL plenty of Arizonans who believe their short-sighted, 90IQ beliefs about photo enforcement, like: "if you don't do anything wrong, you won't get a ticket," "I don't speed - so who cares?",

Re:Children or not

[gstoddart]

What does bike racks have to do with this? Seriously have no idea.

My guess ... from a certain angle it blocks the license plates -- no plate, no ticket. ;-)

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

I looked at the fatality by driver action numbers out of table 28.8 in that pdf. (Which is page 33 of the document, 35 of the pdf reader)
I think you should take another look at those numbers.
Out of 833 fatalities, there are "driving too slow = 2" and "driving too fast" + "too fast for conditions" = 98 and "lost control" = 136
together, the speed-related accidents = 234 out of 833, That's a large percentage.
Also, how do they get almost half of the accidents are "driving properly"? What the heck are they doing in Ontario?

From the document:

Driving Properly 341
Following Too Close 5
Speed Too Fast 47
Speed Too Fast for Conditions 51
Speed Too Slow 2
Improper Turn 16
Disobey Traffic Control 18
Fail to Yield Right of Way 59
  Improper Passing 10
Lost Control 136
Wrong Way on One Way Road 3
Improper Lane Change 11
Other* 87 (Includes actions such as hit and run, driving on the wrong side of the road, improper parking and illegally parked.
Unknown 47
Total 833

for accidents:
"speeding" and "too fast for conditions" are both accidents due to excessive speed. So is "lost control".
Those total 36,458 with "speed too slow " = 126

Driving Properly 147,890
Following Too Close 29,974
Speed Too Fast 2,026
Speed Too Fast for Conditions 14,509
Speed Too Slow 168
Improper Turn 13,126
Disobey Traffic Control 8,361
Fail to Yield Right of Way 23,052
Improper Passing 3,068
Lost Control 19,923
Wrong Way on One Way Road 216
  Improper Lane Change 10,196
Other* 17,075
Unknown 12,853
Total 302,437

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

> Perhaps it is a personal observation.... you know, first-hand research?

I am sure that AC had exceeded to speed limit _thousands_ of times. As he may have crashed or maimed someone only a few times then obviously his "Speeding in-of-itself is rarely a safety concern." is true - less than 1% probably.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

> Out in the burbs your effective sight distance increases at night as you can see headlights before you can actually see the car.

Only if they have their headlights on. Effective sight distances _decrease_ for pedestrians, cyclists, dogs and much else.

In my experience, those that speed and defend the 'right' to do so, fail to notice the actual problem. The problem is that others on the road, non-speeders, pedestrians, children, have an expectation that cars will be driving at or around the limit for that area. Seeing a car at a certain distance they estimate the time available on that expectation. They step out on a crossing, or turn into the road with that expected time available. The speeder arrives sooner and there is an accident. The speeder thinks it is the other person's fault because they don't understand the problem.

> Traffic camera do nothing but further erode our civil liberties and as a hidden tax.

Speeding may be eroding _other_peoples_ right to be safe.

Re:Children or not

[CanadianMacFan]

The reason for lower speed limits near parks, schools, etc isn't to do with kinetic energy. It's so that drivers have more time to react to unexpected events such as a child running out onto the street.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

You're asking a liberal to use their brain. Good luck with that!

I know he's a liberal because he took a position, then googled it to find links that looked like they supported it yet didn't read anything at the links, then yelled at everyone for not having read those same things and unquestioningly believed them - to the point that they were "COMMON FUCKING SENSE" - like he did.

How on earth does any of that indicate what a person's politics are? Oh, I get it...you read something you don't like and automagically conclude that the writer's politics are the opposite of your own.

Conservative? Liberal? Those aren't the first words that come to mind when reading your tripe. Stupid pretty much nails it in your case.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Inability to stop in adverse road conditions is part of the primary cause of accidents - following too closely. If something happens unexpectedly and there isn't enough time to react safely, that's a direct result of inadequate following distance.

The fact that 100% of people do it 90% of the time and don't get into accidents doesn't change the fact that it's rare to see a safe following distance on most roads.

Safe following distance isn't a distance either, it's a combination of factors. Each of the following can stop notably faster than the subsequent vehicles:
- Sport bike
- Sports car
- Car
- Truck
- Semi

Re:Children or not

[operagost]

Since there are no longer criminal penalties all of those pesky constitutional guarantees fall to the wayside.

Except for the one that says we're not supposed to deprived of property without due process... that applies whether it's "civil" or not. And of course, if the fine's over $20 you could ask for a jury trial. Gee, maybe the founders were on to something there... oh yeah, they tried to pull crap like this back in the 18th century too.

Re:Children or not

[desdinova 216]

why not both?

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Go back to moo'ing, it's more intelligent.

Re:Children or not

[operagost]

So basically, your yellow is an "all red", and the blinking green is a yellow. That's the ultimate effect. The only good feature is the yellow for people waiting.

Re:Children or not

[desdinova 216]

I think google is working on that.

Re:Children or not

[Frosty Piss]

I believe it is possible that the ability exists, but in every state and jurisdiction, this sort of thing would be highly illegal, and extremely unlikely due to the fact that sooner or later a citizen with pick up on it, document it, and people would go to jail.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

If you look at speeding and likelihood of surviving, those speeding are more likely to live. The best result for speed for survival is in the 5-15 mph speeding range.

I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?

The rules in Texas at the time...were that the speed limit must be based off the 85% speed, as measured by best practices. Dallas didn't do this, and instead just set limits based on what they think the roads should be marked at. And thus, the limits themselves were illegally low.

Do you think the fastest 15% of the people on the road (the speeders) should determine the speed limit? That sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.

Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them...

And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.

Re:Children or not

[marka63]

Which is illegal in many jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions you can actually get a "bike plate" for the bike carrier/rack. It's about the size of a motorcycle plate and carries the car's number.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.

It actually is ticketable to impede the flow of traffic in some states and those tickets are handed out to tractor-driving farmers and the Amish.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

> If you look at speeding and likelihood of surviving, those speeding are more likely to live. The best result for speed for survival is in the 5-15 mph speeding range.

If you are using that as an excuse for speeding then that is a gross misuse of statistics. The _reason_ (if it is true) that there is a small increase in survival for that speed range is most likely because the speeder is far more likely to hit other cars by ramming into them frontwards. This utilises the seat belts and air bags more effectively than those in the cars they hit in the side or rear. So in a collision between a speeder and another it is the other that is more likely to die. Of course if the speeder hadn't been speeding then it is less likely that there would have been an accident and total survival rates would be higher all round.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

>. Because someone is pissed off at someone driving too slowly for them!

That 'too slow' may, in fact, be the speed limit, or the best safe speed to drive. The car following too close is wanting to drive faster, faster than the limit.

People driving too close behind _want_ to be speeders and are causing accidents.

> Psychologically, excessively low speed limits are increasing the number one cause for accidents.

No, it is speeders, or wannabe speeders, that are causing more accidents in the number one _and_ number three spot.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

The law says if you're on a 2-lane road and five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind you, you have to pull off where it's safe and let traffic pass. It also says if you're driving slowly, you should be in the rightmost lane. And implied is that you're allowed to drive slowly if it's necessary for safety or to be in compliance with the law.

The law does NOT say you can't ride a slow-moving tractor or a bicycle or a buggy on the road. So the idea to "Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them" is ridiculous.

Re:Children or not

[gstoddart]

Why, gee officer ... I had no idea you couldn't see my plate from the red-light camera ...

Re:Children or not

[Gr8Apes]

Not exactly... as long as you clear the intersection when your side turns green to yellow prior to the red, you're good to go. Yellow means the same thing there that it means legally here - stop if you safely can. They just enforce it.

Re:Children or not

[freeze128]

Can't you still contest the ticket in a court of law? That is where you face your accuser.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

In which cases have law enforcement and/or traffic ticket writing systems and people ever been reprimanded, jailed or prevented from abusing their power to fuck with ordinary people?

Zero. In America, if 'the authorities' accuse you of something (like writing a ticket), you're automatically guilty.

Re:Children or not

[nobodyknowsimageek]

I don't believe that speed limits being too low is the primary cause of people following too closely. The primary cause of tailgating is poor driving habits. Most drivers that tailgate will do so REGARDLESS of the prevailing speed of traffic. They either don't know any better, are not paying attention, or are just raging a$$holes (mostly this).

In fact, it is my opinion that raising the speed limit will actually increase the incidence of people following too closely, because most drivers don't seem to have a CLUE that following distance should increase as speed increases.

Re:Children or not

[sudnshok]

Not sure where you are from but for here in the US, here are a ton of sources on this topic which back up AC's post: https://www.motorists.org/issu...

Re:Children or not

[youngone]

I don't live in the same place you do, but where I live the cameras are run by the Police, not private companies. My sister got a speed camera ticket, and she was really sure she had not been speeding at the time so she spoke to a lawyer she knew. His answer was to indicate on the ticket that she was going to plead not guilty, and request the maintenance records for the camera involved. No lawyer is needed at this time as the forms are all online. She got a letter a few weeks later saying that the matter had been dropped, and she's never paid a ticket since.

Re:Children or not

[volmtech]

Just don't drive too slow in front of a school bus. I had to drive a barely functional Gradall excavator from one farm field to another along a country road. I had to go a quarter mile around a long curve. The bus couldn't pass so the driver called the cops on me. Farm equipment is allowed to go slow. The cop just gave me the once over and left.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

The state of Illinois is bankrupt. They still sell lottery tickets and aren't paying out winners too. (which is fraud)

So I'm not surprised they are doing this too.

Re:Children or not

[Asgard]

I am willing to believe that yellows are shortened at camera-intersections, but a system that randomized the timings / flipped red just long enough for a picture would be quickly caught by someone on video and the local news outlets would have a field day.

Re:Children or not

[whoever57]

Your confusing the chance of an accident and severity of accidents. Speeding increases the severity but not in moderation the chance.

Actually, speeding can often reduce the chance of having an accident. The safest speed to travel at (defined as least likely to die) is the median traffic speed. Often this median speed is above the speed limit. Yes, if you get into an accident at higher speeds, you are more likely to die, but the reduction in the likelihood of being involved in an accident outweighs the other factors.

Re:Children or not

[whoever57]

Essentially I was doing the speed limit (it was a 4 cylinder Jeep, speeding wasn't really an option) ... when the light went yellow I was close enough to the intersection I had to decide if I would slam on my brakes and make a panic stop, or acknowledge no way in hell I can stop.

Not in California then? California has laws that specify the minimum time the yellow light must be active, based on the speed limit in force at the intersection. A city near me had to refund thousands of tickets when it was caught operating a set of traffic lights with the yellow light time too short.

Re:Children or not

[HiThere]

Speed is ALWAYS a concern, and faster is generally worse due to limits of reaction time and increase in stopping distance. (The exception is some times when you need momentum to traverse some terrain. It's rare, but it does happen, and it may be less rare in Chicago where snow and mud are (were?) frequent.)

That said "too low" is a judgment call, but the comment about "Speeding in-of-itself" cause me to doubt your judgement.

Still, the assertion in the article is that the tickets were issued in a way that appears invalid. This may well be true.

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.

All of those are banned from the interstate. They are limited to slower and smaller roads, ones appropriate to that type of vehicle.

Do you think the fastest 15% of the people on the road (the speeders) should determine the speed limit? That sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.

I'm telling you what the traffic safety experts recommend after years of study. That you object to reality will not change it.

Common sense is rarely right when applied to a subject you don't have actual knowledge of. That you think it's a bad idea is proof that you are both ignorant of the topic, and arrogant about your ignorance at the same time. A lethal combination.

I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?

You obviously have no idea what you are talking about. Where to start? Go to http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS and run 1000 or so search queries on every topic you want. Most of the "studies" are re-statements or analysis of FARS data, as it's one of the most complete databases of its kind in the world (yes, much of the rest of the world builds local law based on US-only data, as it's the best source for the data). Then go to https://www.motorists.org/ and see what they have on how to set a proper speed limit. The NMA will have lots of cites, no need to repeat them all here for someone that's demanding "citation needed" as a dismissive, rather than an honest query. If it was and honest question, why did't you google https://www.google.com/search?... or https://www.google.com/search?... ?

The answer is, you don't actually want an answer, you just want to argue. When the two most obvious search strings I think of give first links to TXDoT and USDOT manuals recomending setting the limit at 85% for optimal safety, why would you question it? Where did you get your traffic engineering degree? TTI, as an engineering extension to Texas A&M is a good place to start.

There, cites, and hundreds of hours of work to educate yourself. Thousands of hours of work if your mind is as closed as it appears.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

It doesn't surprise me how Arizona drivers reacted. I used to live there. Road rage is all too common there. I used to ride my bike to school, and people would throw things at me as they drove by.

Arizona drivers are a spiteful, entitlist bunch, even more than usual. So the kind of aggression you described is entirely in character for Arizona drivers. It's the wild west out there!

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

So the idea to "Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them" is ridiculous.

So we shouldn't pull them over even when blocking others and in the wrong lane? That's ridiculous. Obviously the "illegally slow" was implied. Most places have laws against slow traffic in one form or another. But the police don't *ever* enforce them. Speeding is easier to catch, even if not any more common. If, rather than focusing on the safe speeders, if the super-slow were targeted, then safety would be improved for all.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

I'm telling you what the traffic safety experts recommend after years of study.

The 85th percentile rule is based on a study done in 1964 by David Solomon, back when car crashes were much less livable and people had drive more carefully. Have any studies been done recently to demonstrate that the 85th percentile rule is still pertinent today?

I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?

Go to http://www.nhtsa.gov/FARS and run 1000 or so search queries on every topic you want.

Instead of telling me to google it, could you point to a specific study?

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

it doesn't care, you passed the line after it went red

In Australia, the activation occurs when you leave the line after the light turns red and not a moment before. You are allowed to be in the intersection whilst it is red in the direction you are headed but only if you left the line before it turned red. If you leave whilst red it then snaps 2 shots; 1. when the first induction loop is "left" (has detected the metallic object has left the loop (ee students could come up with a gadget to nullify this effect ;) )) and light is red, and 2. when you reach the loop in the mid point of the intersection to the direction you are headed (may be a turn, or going straight). Speeds can be determined from this as the variables are known between how long it takes to make the first shot when you hit the loop, the second shot and obviously the time between shots and where you are in-between those shots.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe most if not all of Europe does this (maybe except for the "no all red" time).

Thanks for pointing this out, I didn't really get what the hell the previous people were babbling about.

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

Instead of telling me to google it, could you point to a specific study?

4 links, 2 of which Google. The Google links have top results agreeing with me, the TxDOT and USDOT. Your opinion is that everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right, and if I don't adequately support my stance with citations you approve of, you'll dismiss the massive amount of evidence I presented and continue to believe everyone else on the planet is wrong, and you are right?

As I indicated, a waste of my time. There exists nothing that can change your closed mind. So why should I waste my time trying? That'd make me the fool, to match your troll. Why didn't you click on my second link? https://www.motorists.org/issu... should be what you were looking for, and is only one click off the main page. You can't be bothered to make two clicks to find what you claim to be so desperately looking for, even when pointed to it. And we should bend over backwards to not only give you what you are looking for, but in a manner you wish to receive it. I can think of no explanation other than you are a troll.

Re:Children or not

[Ichijo]

So I went to the motorists.org link to try to find evidence to support your claim that "The best result for speed for survival is in the 5-15 mph speeding range." I couldn't find that evidence. I even clicked on the first link, but it basically said neither raising nor lowering the speed limit has much of an effect on actual driving speeds.

I suppose that article disproves my concern that allowing the fastest 15% of drivers to determine the speed limit is a bad idea, but it also does nothing to support yours that the antiquated 85th percentile rule is still a good idea.

Let's call it a draw.

Re:Children or not

[LynnwoodRooster]

The only ticket I've ever received was for doing 40 in a school zone. The arterial I was on is normally 40 MPH except when children are present. Cop pulled me over, gave me a ticket, and against my protestations told me to "take it up with the judge". So I did. I explained to the judge that the ticket was bogus because as it was easily seen on the ticket it was:

A. 11:17 PM at night

B. Saturday

C. July 9th, the heard of summer.

Judge tossed the ticket in a heartbeat. But I did get the "pleasure" of paying a $125 "administrative fee" to contest my $195 ticket in court. So 4 hours, $125 - and I got the ticket tossed. There really is no loser in the story other than me; the police got credit for another ticket, the municipality (Lynnwood, WA) got $125 scott-free, and I got the shaft all around...

Re:Children or not

[LynnwoodRooster]

Lots of municipalities have administrative fees to contest tickets. Sure, you get the ticket tossed, but you still pay big money (in my case, $125) to get a completely invalid ticket tossed. Driver's record is completely clear - but the pocket book is substantially lighter...

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

False. It can clap a number on any car going by.

Problem is that speeding and red light cameras are easily abused. I remember talking with someone related to this, and even though it shouldn't be possible, he said that the red light cameras he put up had the ability to flip a green light red, pop the picture, flip it back to green, as well as just have varying yellow light timings, so one car may have four seconds... another, late at night, may wind up with a direct green -> red transition and a ticket.

Once you have a private party that can allege something that can't be disproven, it is ripe for abuse.

If only ISIS had this level of paranoia.......

Re:Children or not

[MaestroRC]

Shouldn't have been less than 3 seconds. Federal Highway Administration Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices (FHWA MUTCD) minimum is 3.0 seconds for an approach speed of 30mph (minimum tabulated). If you were contemplating slamming on brakes to make a panic stop, I would make a guess that the intersection was at least a 45mph approach speed, which translates to a minimum yellow phase of 4.3sec.

Most states (excepting CA, UT, TX, MO, IN, MI, OH, MN, MD and DE) have adopted the MUTCD or the MUTCD with a state supplement. The states that haven't have their own standards but are typically in-line with the MUTCD.

If the yellow phase was less than 3 seconds, you probably had a case to protest and win. But in reality it was probably a half-second or second longer than the MUTCD minimum, depending on traffic volume and other factors. People are notoriously bad at estimating time and distance.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

You were going good with your logic, AK Marc, but you kind of lost control of it (pun intended) in the end by failing to fully account for the behavior of speeders.

And if slower traffic took slower routes, or just kept right religiously, crashes for everyone would go down even more. Blocking traffic is illegal as well. Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them, and safety will be increased more than removing the fast cars.

That's cute, in theory. However, back in reality land, the people who are willing to tailgate and push you to go faster in the left lane are the same people who are willing to do it to you in the right-most or "slow" (i.e. THE POSTED SPEED LIMIT) lane. Why? Because: "Fuck you, and your desire for safety and ticket avoidance. I want mine." That's why.

This highlights the distinction between sociopath and psychopath behaviors. The sociopath simply doesn't care about you; they are not trying to get you killed in an accident, but they simply don't care about how the consequences of their actions affect you. The psychopath will actively want to harm you. However, when the end result of both behaviors can be tragically the same, why should we treat those sociopath speeders as anything but hostile psychopaths that need to be removed from harming greater society? Focus on the human being inside the vehicle, not the vehicle as an abstract obstacle.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, if you didn't see the light go from red to green, you have no idea how much time is left on the clock and should be prepared to stop.

After turning green from red, how long will it stay green? 50 seconds? 10 seconds? 4 seconds? Basically you have no idea either.

Thanks for reinforcing his overall point so aptly: When in doubt, err on the side of caution. In other words, you should ALWAYS be slowing down when crossing intersections... ALWAYS. In fact, I am pretty sure not doing so nearly counts as an automatic failure during any driving test that is worth a damn, yes?

Re:Children or not

[AK Marc]

the people who are willing to tailgate and push

Those aren't safe speeders. Those are unsafe assholes who also speed. Note, if you go 55 in a 55 at 2 inches off the bumper of the car in front of you, you'll never be pulled over at a speed trap. The cops are looking for speeders only, and ignore all other infractions. When they stop sleeping in the bushes, waiting for the beep of a car over a certain speed, they might actually look at traffic and pull over those dricing unsafely, whether too slow, or tailgating.

Oh, and nobody can "push" you, unless they commit assault. That you are intimidated by others is a psychological problem with you, not a "push".

Re:Children or not

[david_thornley]

My observations are that driving at different speeds makes accidents likelier, and if everybody around you is speeding then matching their excess over the speed limit is the safest thing. Of course, if the traffic is moving at the speed limit, then by speeding you are not only increasing the chance of an accident but adding more kinetic energy to be dissipated if one happens.

Re:Children or not

[david_thornley]

It's a very common human reaction, so I don't see it as a psychological problem as much as a fact of life.

When I'm being tailgated, I often slow down slowly to try to get them off my tail. Failing that, if possible I'll put on the cruise control. Let them try to push that.

Re:Children or not

[david_thornley]

I believe that different speed limits for different vehicles and/or drivers on the same road at the same time is going to be really unsafe. It nearly forces a large disparity in traffic speeds.

If you're a pedestrian as a car approaches at night, you feel very visible and brightly illuminated. If you're driving, it's often very difficult to spot pedestrians. If you drive as if nothing without a light is worth dodging, you're going to badly injure or kill someone sometime.

What's far-fetched about a kid in the road just around a blind corner? If you're smart, you'll take blind corners very carefully. There could be anything there, and you want to be able to stop before hitting it (or him or her).

Re:Children or not

[david_thornley]

First, there is a difference between going at a speed appropriate to road conditions that happens to be above the speed limit (often the safest speed, depending on how fast other traffic is going), and going at a speed inappropriate for conditions.

Second, is this an account of what the people in accidents are doing? Driving slower than prevailing traffic disrupts it and increases the chance of other people having accidents.

Third, this looks like totals of accidents caused by X, not how safe or dangerous X is. I'd imagine that driving the wrong way on a one-way road would be pretty dangerous, but very few people do it, so it's low on the scale. If many more people exceed the speed limit than drive below the minimum speed, there will be more accidents while speeding than going slow even if it's safer.

Re:Children or not

[david_thornley]

Also, if you ignore a ticket too long, it effectively turns into a warrant for arrest. Once an asshole blocked our driveway so my wife couldn't get out, and when the police officer she called got the guy to move the car, he arrested the guy for having lots of unpaid parking tickets.

Re:Children or not

[Cederic]

Curious justice system, in which an innocent person has to pay to prove their innocence.

You can't sue the police for the costs? Surely the person making the mistake should be liable for the administrative fees.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

That's true when the UPS driver is new to a route, but once they've been driving it for a while, they'll begin to know what the timings are. Back where we used to live, I could call most light timings with sub-second accuracy along the routes I frequented, and I was no UPS driver. Of course, some lights are sensor actuated, and most of those could not be predicted, but I knew which ones those were. I could do the same in a different city decades before once I had delivered enough pizzas. Should be easy for most UPS drivers on a given route for long enough.

- T

Re: Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

The only time anyone is driving at the speed limit in Chicago is during a brief instant while accelerating from "traffic was stopped" to "at least ten over."

Re: Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, although I'm not the poster you responded to. The design speed of the interstate system is 100 mph. Have a nice day.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally agree.

However, you left out the most important factor in determining safe following distance: the speed of the vehicle
For the benefit of others,
A major reason we have speed limits is that most, if not nearly all, people cannot judge safe following distance except at low speeds.
If people were able to correctly judge, and acted upon that, then speed limits could be safely raised.
But that is a non-starter. People can't and won't.

Consider the numerous slashdot posters that go on about red light cameras and how they think they can't stop in time and have to go through the light and get caught by the red. Or, they're afraid of being rear-ended if they try to stop.

A competent driver that can accurately judge his speed and distance will be able to either safely stop or get through under the yellow.
Few people can do the math in their heads in time to make a decision.
How many self driving cars have gotten tickets for running red lights because they could not decide and/or stop in time, or got rear-ended because they stopped too quickly at a yellow? It doesn't happen because the computer can do the math easily. Why can't people do as well?

What happens is we have to learn to how to seat of the pants guess due to having been in the situation countless times. As I mentioned, I've been driving over 40 years. I don't have the on-noes-a-yellow-light-what-should-I-do problem so many slashdot posters seem to have, and so I don't inadvertantly run red lights and get my photo taken. I can't claim to be a great driver (I'm not) but so many years of practice makes the stopping distance problem a trivial matter of solve by experience rather than calculation.
I bet that when I get to be much older, and as my eyesight changes (glasses change distance perception) and brain slows down along with reaction times, I'll have the yellow light problem again. And I'll still be driving with the numerous other seniors on the road.

Laws have to be written to take in account what people actually do, not what the ideal driver would do.
Real people follow too close and are followed too closely everywhere.
Real people are beginning drivers with no ability whatsoever to judge speed and distance.
Real people are seniors with a what? huh? uuuhhhh, reaction time.

The speed limits need to be low as they are to take that into account - not just for red lights, but also so people can get out of their driveways, so people can cross the street, so people can dodge potholes, and countless other things that happen in real life on real streets.

BTW, I'm not talking about Interstate highways.

Re:Children or not

[Anonymous Coward]

False. It can clap a number on any car going by.

Problem is that speeding and red light cameras are easily abused. I remember talking with someone related to this, and even though it shouldn't be possible, he said that the red light cameras he put up had the ability to flip a green light red, pop the picture, flip it back to green, as well as just have varying yellow light timings, so one car may have four seconds... another, late at night, may wind up with a direct green -> red transition and a ticket.

Once you have a private party that can allege something that can't be disproven, it is ripe for abuse.

So you were talking to someone who gave you a bucket of bullshit.
Are you always this credulous?

Re:Children or not

[silas_moeckel]

The Autobahn lets drivers choose what is safe and is a rather safe roadway. Drivers in general pick safe speeds regardless of speed limits.

If your a pedestrian in the middle of a rural/suburban road at 3am your a fsking idiot. Your pretty much wanting to put all the responsibility onto the car driver while letting others act recklessly. It's reasonable to assume nothing should be on a road at 3am besides a car outside of cities. Stop trying to require absolute safely it's an impossible and unworkable goal.

It is not reasonable to require that everybody always assume the worse and drive accordingly. You end up wasting incredible amounts of peoples time to account for a very low probability. In effect it's the death of many tiny cuts wasting in aggregate more life than you save.

Re:Children or not

[silas_moeckel]

Correct and those faster than posted traffic speeds as few people are driving in a semi with retreads etc. Modern tires alone (except that high milage garbage) has increased the safe driving speed since the 70's yet were still setting limits at or below those levels on highways.

Re:Children or not

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, you CAN sue the police and win - if you can prove malicious intent. In other words, if you cannot prove the police officer did it out of spite or a desire to personally harm you - he's immune. And yes, many (and more and more all the time) US jurisdictions do this. You can go to court - but you have to pay very high court fees, sometimes nearly as high as the ticket you're challenging. The State wins either way!

Re:Children or not

[Cederic]

The UK charges court fees only to people found guilty. Right now magistrates are resigning because the charges are different if you plead innocent or guilty, so justice is not happening due to people with no money pleading guilty to avoid the risk of the higher fees.

Charging innocent people seems impossibly punitive.

Re:Children or not

[LynnwoodRooster]

Well, see it's not charging them for being guilty or prosecuted. It's a "user fee" to use the courts. At least that's the usual justification. I completely agree with you - it's impossibly punitive and IMHO immoral. But Government, in its quest to ever grow and expand, will do whatever it can to increase its revenues. Including charging you a "user fee" to use the Courts to protect yourself from that same Government!

Putatively

[harshath.jr]

word of the day

Re:Putatively

[Anonymous Coward]

"Putative" is an actual word in the school dictionary picked by the Texa School Board.

Re:Putatively

[GungaDan]

No doubt derived from the Spanish "puta."

Re:Putatively

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that's the joke? I can't figure out the point of the comment otherwise. Not THAT uncommon of a word.

I'm shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

Shocked I say. Who would have expected this outcome?

Camera companies are raking it in

[Virtucon]

With so many cities banning the cameras, I'm still wondering how these companies can get their costs back?

Re:Camera companies are raking it in

[Widowwolf]

Doing exactly what the article states. Cheating people from their money with questionable tickets..I believe you should be able to fight them, and either A: Get monetary damages or your attorney fee's paid by the state if you used one and you win the case..that will solve a lot of issues right there.

Re:Camera companies are raking it in

[SQLGuru]

Illinois needs some way to raise enough money to pay its lottery debts.......

Re:Camera companies are raking it in

[bobbied]

Even this won't help that... First, it is the City of Chicago that's collecting the fines and they won't share with the state. Second, the state claims to have the money but until the state has a budget so it can buy the blank checks, the envelope and the stamp to put on it (not to mention pay the person to print it, stuff it and drop it in the mail) NOBODY except the state legislators will a check from the state....

waze early, waze often

[Anonymous Coward]

seems appropriate for chicago, no?

Chicago involved in racketeering...I am shocked!

[mschaffer]

Wow. Who would ever expect a city like Chicago to be involved in something that is essentially racketeering?

Chicagoland

[Anonymous Coward]

When I lived there, you had to pay each suburb for public parking. For example, if you wanted to shop in Highland park and didn't have their sticker on your windshield, you would get a ticket.

I even got a ticket for a bicycle without a registrarion sticker

Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[mi]

The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.

Absolutely! I, for one, welcome camera-based and other automatic enforcement of speeding and other traffic-laws (such as based on the toll-road receipts). The complaints against the particularly-effective enforcement techniques are misguided and stupid — the laws need to change instead.

I drove on a German "highway" in March. Compared to America's interstates, it is, actually, a pathetic road — mere two or three narrow lanes. But they don't have a speed-limit on many of them anyway... BMWs and Mercedeces were passing me like I was standing — because my rental Jetta could not exceed 200 km/h.

I don't know, why the Germans are so lucky in this regard, but for American elected officials and electorate to get to that, the laws have to apply equally to all — a heartless computer will not "go easy" on a big-busted girl or a resident of the same town (who may have influence on the local police department). It is not going to be racist — nor even accused of being such.

One's "prosecutorial discretion" is another's "selective enforcement" — whatever you call it, it is what allows bad laws to stay on the books... Once all citizens — however upstanding — start getting these tickets, the rising concern will up the limits and cause other sensible changes.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[mwvdlee]

The complaints against the particularly-effective enforcement techniques are misguided and stupid — the laws need to change instead.

Yeah, if we could just change the laws to a zero mph speed limit everywhere, all the time, then all speeding tickets would be valid and nobody would complain about that.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[sjames]

The problem is that the cameras cost money. Many cities pay for them by shortening yellows to the point that they're unsafe. That is, they REDUCE safety in order to use civil penalties as revenue. In other cases (such as in TFA), where the speed limit varies based on time of day or other conditions, they are triggering for exceeding the lower speed limit even when it isn't applicable (fraud).

These issues come up sufficiently frequently that it's best to just not allow the cameras at all.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[mi]

The problem is that the cameras cost money.

Sure. But police officers are much more expensive.

Many cities pay for them by shortening yellows to the point that they're unsafe.

Even if this really is a wide-spread problem, it does not detract from my point and is not too relevant either — a shortened yellow would be just as helpful to a human ticket-issuer as it is to a robotic one.

they are triggering for exceeding the lower speed limit even when it isn't applicable

A problem easily fixable with a software update.

These issues come up sufficiently frequently that it's best to just not allow the cameras at all.

By this logic, personal cars (and weapons) should be banned outright and all immigration closed — for just a few examples...

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Actually, I do RTFA]

Compared to America's interstates, it is, actually, a pathetic road â" mere two or three narrow lanes. But they don't have a speed-limit on many of them anyway

A traffic engineer once explained that the American highway system was designed so that cars would be able to go 100 MPH safely (with regard to curves, etc.) And that was using assuming the tech of the time.

Re: Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Anonymous Coward]

Congratulations, you're now the front-runner in the Republican nomination race...

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[sjames]

You should look at what cities are paying for the cameras. Oddly enough, real cops really aren't more expensive. Using real officers also avoids pressure from the camera provider in a revenue sharing contract (very common) to up the revenue.

They shouldn't be used for the same reason we find it suspicious when a group of people wearing ski masks and carrying shotguns gather outside of a bank.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that to the idiot engineer that approved the turn just outside town (55 limit) that is sloped away from the curve.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Gryle]

Italy has these too, particularly on small roads away from major population centers. Interestingly, most of these are painted bright orange with little flashing lights at the top so you know exactly where they are. The Italians routinely spraypaint over the lenses or cover the lenses w/ stickers. The Italian government takes at least two months to get around to fixing them. I've routinely seen Italian drivers zip by a camera in a 50 kph zone doing 80 kph because it's assumed the speed cameras aren't working.

I've seen photos of newer cameras designed to look like garbage bins or something similarly innocuous but I've yet to come across one on any of the roads I bike on.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Anonymous Coward]

I drove on a German "highway" in March. Compared to America's interstates, it is, actually, a pathetic road — mere two or three narrow lanes. But they don't have a speed-limit on many of them anyway... BMWs and Mercedeces were passing me like I was standing — because my rental Jetta could not exceed 200 km/h.

And yet, the mortality rate per 1 billion vehicle km is only 4.9 in Germany and 7.6 in the US. I'd claim it's the more stringent driver education, but there are still too many assholes on the German roads who attempt to run one over whenever they mistakenly believe they have the right of way.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Anonymous Coward]

Complain and petition.
Petition and complain.
Tell your auto insurance company. Many have 'hazard mitigation' departments that petition local/state governments when there are accident causing problems that can be fixed. They sometimes even self fund studies and even repairs for poor communities that have some hazardous intersections and the like because they pay less fixing the problem than in insurance payouts for the accidents caused by the problem.
Write into the local paper.
Do an open records request for the road plans and the approvals. Nothing like some good public snooping to get someone in charge worried.

After a big interchange project in my area about 15 years ago they had an interstate entrance ramp that was sloped the wrong way also. My dad (safest, slowest driver in the world) rolled his normal mini-van getting onto the interstate and missed a 50+ foot drop by 2 feet.
He couldn't understand what happened, until he read that there had been 3 or more other roll overs in the week or so the ramp was open. One week later it was closed and torn up. Week after that it was redone with a proper slope into the curve.

Other people were injured and my dad could have died because of that fuck up. Don't let it happen to you or your community.

Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion"

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that the cameras cost money.

Sure. But police officers are much more expensive.

Another poster has addressed the relative costs, but there is a bigger problem. The cameras don't stop the unsafe drivers on the spot, while police do, potentially removing a serious safety hazard to other drivers. The cameras generate revenue, but fail to eliminate the immediate road hazard. In places where the fine is a civil rather than criminal penalty, which is increasingly the case due to various legal challenges, the road hazard may not even be belatedly eliminated as long as the unsafe driver is willing to pay the penalties.

Many cities pay for them by shortening yellows to the point that they're unsafe.

Even if this really is a wide-spread problem, it does not detract from my point and is not too relevant either â" a shortened yellow would be just as helpful to a human ticket-issuer as it is to a robotic one.

No, since the red-light cameras generate more revenue over time, because there are no periods when bad drivers modify their behavior upon seeing the police writing a ticket for the prior bad driver. And the point is very relevant - the purported intention of the cameras is to increase safety, whereas some localities have been caught reducing safety in favor of increased revenue generation.

they are triggering for exceeding the lower speed limit even when it isn't applicable

A problem easily fixable with a software update.

Right, the same officials who are willing to sacrifice safety for increased profit by shortening yellow light durations are sure to be eager to apply that revenue-reducing update.

These issues come up sufficiently frequently that it's best to just not allow the cameras at all.

By this logic, personal cars (and weapons) should be banned outright and all immigration closed â" for just a few examples...

Except that we're talking about the people banning the government from (ab)using a kind of tool, not the government banning the people from using a kind of tool. Otherwise, totally the same thing, really. And tossing immigration into this isn't even and apples-to-oranges comparison, just a non-sequitur.

Best not to have a means for local governments to siphon money from citizens' pockets for little gain in safety and with limited oversight. Sufficient yellow light durations combined with minimal all-red intervals have been demonstrated to be effective at increasing intersection safety for essentially no added cost. Other approaches include replacing intersections with roundabouts where appropriate. Except where there is a specific safety hazard, set speed limits at the 80th percentile of natural traffic speed, and ignore minor speed violations. Combine those mitigations with increased traffic policing as needed for ticketing, overall safety, and handling the truly dangerous drivers on the spot.

- T

Crazy

[lukevgs]

That's so ridiculous!

Need to use the system against itself

[FeatherBoa]

(1) go to the local police station, city offices, courts, city hall and make a note of a bunch of license plates in the employee lots.
(2) print out paper license plate sized versions of the plate numbers
(3) park a car at the speed sensor.
(4) tape a paper copy on the back of the car
(5) cover a softball with tin-foil
(6) play catch in front of the speed sensor
(7) repeat for all your fake license plates
(8) ?????
(9) Profit!

Re:Need to use the system against itself

[WinstonWolfIT]

That's one of the most inspired posts I've ever seen. 1) Find out the douche who approved the cameras. 2) Hire a car closely matching what he drives. 3) Passable cutout plates with metallic paint. 4) Get him enough points in varied locations in a single night to get his license suspended. 5) Retire.

The douche gets it dismissed but it takes him a court fight to do so.

Re:Need to use the system against itself

[Anonymous Coward]

Chicagoland works like this: if you have the political clout to approve cameras, you do not need to worry about traffic tickets

Re:Need to use the system against itself

[AK Marc]

Is there a location where the camera tickets give points? Where I've seen them used, they are yet another class of crime. Speed tickets used to be actual real crimes. Jury trials and all that. They started as misdemeanors. There was no other legal classification to put them under. Then "infraction" was created. It was a sub-crime that didn't have any of the protections, but had lower damages as well. Then, where speed cameras have been used, I've seen those as a lower crime than the non-crime infringements. You don't get points from a speed camera, so you can get 1000 tickets in a month and not lose your license. They are non-moving violations given to the car, with no proof of driver. If you want to contest because you weren't driving, that argument will only be accepted if you identify the driver. So they ticket the car for moving too fast, not the driver for doing it (unless the driver was not the owner, and the owner gets the ticket re-assigned to a human). For that even lower class of non-crime, they don't use points, as those go to the driver. If they did that, many more people would fight them. And they want the cash, not the hassle.

Re:Need to use the system against itself

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Chicagoland works like this: if you have the political clout to approve cameras, you do not need to worry about traffic tickets

This. Plus the state helps by issuing specially numbered license plates to the connected so that any cop or other official can tell who not to ticket/bother from distance.

Re:Need to use the system against itself

[david_thornley]

That's basically why they didn't get adopted in Minnesota when proposed some years ago. They didn't fit into any legal category. There are parking violations, which are things you can ticket a car for. There are moving-vehicle violations, in which you ticket the driver and cause other bad things, and so the government had to prove who was driving instead of the owner being guilty until proven innocent. I was expecting the next legislative session to create a new category, for cars that were going too fast, that would only carry a fine and nothing worse, but they didn't.

Re:Need to use the system against itself

[AK Marc]

In most places, they are parking tickets. You fine the car (well, the car's registered owner), for the car moving too fast on a road. You don't fine the driver. So you don't assign points or otherwise treat it as a speeding ticket, as they aren't.

Private operators and traffic cameras

[smoothnorman]

I don't know the case for Chicago, but Seattle's traffic ticketing cameras are run by a private contractor. It works like this: the city doesn't have to pay to install or monitor or maintain the equipment and doesn't even own it, but is assured of its accuracy and, of course, a substantial cut of the revenue. Reports roll in of notably increased 'safety' at the monitored intersection, (yet it's not clear who prepares this data). Does a private interest which understandably wants to maximize its profits being able to assess violation fines from the public concern you? it sure as hell does me.

Re:Chicago involved in racketeering...I am shocked

[Widowwolf]

They didn't arrest Capone for his criminal acts, They brought him in to teach the Government how to do it so well

Re:Chicago involved in racketeering...I am shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

It's all those conservative Republicans running the place. The racist Republican mayor and all those racist Republicans on the city council are oppressing Chicago minorities. This sort of thing never goes on in towns were Democrats completely dominate the government for 50 years.

A criminal charge of obtaining money by deception?

[Bruce66423]

Bringing such a criminal charge would ensure that it NEVER HAPPENED AGAIN.

Seattly

[Etherwalk]

I believe Seattle does this as well.

Re:Chicago involved in racketeering...I am shocked

[msauve]

Close. They prosecuted him for not giving the government their share of the loot (tax evasion).

Re:Chicago involved in racketeering...I am shocked

[Widowwolf]

I would say both

I live in Chicago, and you HAVE IT WRONG...

[BUL2294]

So, if you actually bothered to look into the laws of Illinois, you'd find that a school zone sign says the following:

"SPEED LIMIT 20 ON SCHOOL DAYS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT"

No flashing lights indicating when (e.g. in Ohio, it's a school zone when the MPH is lit and the yellow lights are flashing), and so on. To add to the confusion, good luck finding "regular" (non-school zone) signs in Chicago. Supposedly that's 30 MPH when no sign is present, but unlike the suburbs, they don't have that info on signs at the city border...

To add, back in the early 80s, due to the confusion over this sign, a state attorney general put out some guidance saying that a police officer needs to see a "student" (e.g. a child under 18) within eyeshot, when school is in session. These speed cameras don't do that. (Of course, state law could be changed to have times or flashing lights, but that hasn't happened). Then, Rahm & the camera companies wanted to put wide-angle lenses to see what "children" could be found, but then parents started filing lawsuits about faceless red-light camera companies taking pictures of their children, for the benefit of the camera companies. (Not sure what happened with that...)

To add, about a year ago, a lawyer filed a class action on these cameras, because people got school zone speed camera tickets on a Sunday evening in July...

So, sooner or later, a court will rule against the city, and quite badly... Heck, refunds are already happening en masse...

Re:I live in Chicago, and you HAVE IT WRONG...

[CanadianMacFan]

I was under the impression that the "when children present" meant that when one could reasonably expect a child to be in the area. So during the week in the day and during the school year for a school but not on weekends, nights, or summer vacation. For parks you would basically assume anything during the day. Just because you don't see a child doesn't mean that there isn't one there that can walk into your path.

Re:I live in Chicago, and you HAVE IT WRONG...

[swb]

I would "reasonably" expect children to be present in a school zone an hour before school starts and maybe a couple of hours after school ended.

I wouldn't consider it reasonable to expect children to be present while school was in session -- I mean, they're inside being taught, right?

Re:I live in Chicago, and you HAVE IT WRONG...

[mister_playboy]

I would "reasonably" expect children to be present in a school zone an hour before school starts and maybe a couple of hours after school ended.

I wouldn't consider it reasonable to expect children to be present while school was in session -- I mean, they're inside being taught, right?

Exactly my complaint with these zones.

If a playground area is directly adjacent to a road, then there is an argument for enforcing the lower limit through the whole school day on that road.

Otherwise the limit should only be in place during the start and end of the school day.

Not just cameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Despite numerous times cops have tried to give me a DUI because I've been the only guy on the road in the wee hours of the morning and they've had a slow night... (non drinker, laughed and gladly took every breathalyzer) My most memorable ticket ever was being pulled over for driving the speed limit on labor day in a construction zone where the cones were all off on the curb and no construction was being done because... IT WAS LABOR DAY!!! The charges were I was suppose to drive 15 under in a construction zone, and oh because it was a construction zone and holiday I had double the fine.

To serve and protect = to fleece and abuse in my book.

Illegal Here.

[Matheus]

One of the best perks of living in MN:
These got their day in court a number of years ago and LOST! Photo traffic enforcement is unconstitutional according to MN's version. A real cop has to do his job for you to get a ticket. :)

Not the first abuse

[Whorhay]

I seem to remember a few years back when there was a particularly snowy winter they were handing out tickets for illegal right turns like candy. The city wasn't able to keep up with snow removal and had just been plowing snow and slush to the side of the road. This eventually caused the right hand turn lanes at most intersections to be covered in banks of snow and ice several feet tall. Drivers did the common sense thing and were turning right on red, normally legal, from the right most lane that was passable. The red light cameras couldn't adjust for the road conditions though and were spitting out tickets at an obscene rate. The City acknowledged that this was not proper and that the drivers were in the legal right. The catch though was that they refused to just shred those tickets, or filter them out. Instead it was up to each driver that received a ticket to either pay the fine(s) or show up in court to contest the ticket. This was particularly egregious because the city ordinances for the cameras required a human police officer to review each and every proposed ticket from the camera system and verify it before sending the ticket out. So the city was in essence continuing to take specific action to charge people fines for imaginary traffic ordinance violations even after acknowledging no such violation happened, and insisted that to clear it every wrongfully fined individual had to make a court appearance.

Re:A criminal charge of obtaining money by decepti

[Anonymous Coward]

By who? The government which has a financial interest? hahahahahah

Yea- that's never going to happen short of massive public protest. The only reason there is massive public protest is because of the number of people who are harmed by these cameras!

typical Chicago bureaucracy

[JimmyHauser]

Speeding certainly leads to accidents. But these ticket cameras are not the solution. But what you expect from the cesspool of corruption and incompetency that is Chicago. I stay my ass out of the city, but it's already creeping into the suburbs. I am very close to getting out of Illinois altogether.

Re:typical Chicago bureaucracy

[Jaime2]

Speeding certainly leads to accidents.

Are you sure about that?

Re:typical Chicago bureaucracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Only in the sense that *driving* leads to accidents, and you have to be driving to be speeding.

Cash Registers

[CanEHdian]

These devices are nothing more than cash registers. I remember there being a site in The Netherlands or Belgium, that showed pictures and made fun when people decided to attack these devices; sometimes with gasoline-filled car tires, taking them down like trees with angle grinders, using heavy fireworks, etc. Because of the locations these devices were most profitable weren't of course really busy, chances of getting caught were slim (and potential witnesses might even cheer the perpetrators on). Went on wayback machine and voila an example.

Not the 1st time for Chicago, cameras & corrup

[bjdevil66]

Don't forget that Redflex's CEO was bribing Chicago officials to help get her cameras in there.

It's not the gov't thugs

[rsilvergun]

it's the folks that have been cutting taxes for 30 years without any new sources of revenue. They still want roads, and police, and fire departments and all that nice stuff. So cities have to find other ways to pay for it. This is the sort of twisted mess you get when you drink the kool-aid at the tea party...

Or we could just make the yellow longer

[rsilvergun]

and have a half second or so of a 4 way red to clear the intersection. It doesn't add any congestion and it makes the intersection completely safe except for drunks (who you weren't going to stop anyway).

Great story on this!

[Zeorge]

In Montgomery County MD they use traffic camera vans that they drive out and park on the side of the road. Locals obviously know but outsiders do not. Any ways, out in Poolesville, MD they took the plate off of the traffic camera van, put it on a similar van, and sped past many times racking up huge points and fines.

We had that problem in Az

[rsilvergun]

they just put cops in vans and had them "issue" each ticket. They also tend to keep them out of wealthy neighborhoods where people have the time and money to fight something like this.

We have time-based speed limits?

[damn_registrars]

This is probably a state-by-state thing, but I had not seen them before, excluding "limit of X mph when children are present". I for one would really love to see time - or otherwise triggered - based speed limits in other situations as well. A situation that comes to mind in particular is construction zones; they leave the cones up all weekend after leaving at 2pm Friday and there isn't a worker or equipment there again until 8am Monday.

Can't Site Your Parents Love

[Anonymous Coward]

So it must not exist? .... I'm using this correctly, right?

Sounds about right

[Anonymous Coward]

I've got issued multiple citations/tickets, essentially all of which were spurious. I'm a stubborn bum who was willing to fight them, so the only one that I ended up eating for my car was the one that I got the wrong court appearance time for. Particularly for the parking ones, when I arrived back at my car, I immediately snapped several photos of the vehicle as well as the immediate signs in the area instructing users on parking regulations in the area -- I had a family member who failed to do such, and they went back after writing the ticket and moved the signs.
Honestly, though, if they really wanted to they could have made a fuss about verification of when the photos were taken.

The state attorney general?

[Bruce66423]

He SHOULD be enforcing such law, and if he were to do so in an election year when he's standing for higher office, it could do his poll ratings a LOT of good...

Depends on the light...

[Anonymous Coward]

While you have a point given that I know a 15-second green light nearby, there are some lights where you can tell. With the new crosswalks, they have a countdown and at least around here, after the countdown ends, the light turns yellow. So I use the countdown on the crosswalk to time my lights and it has made things a lot easier by warning me of lights that are likely to turn yellow at a bad time. This was especially useful when I was transporting some fragile items and was far more interested in stopping and accelerating gently than in making any particular light.

What else is new...

[Macdude]

Photo-radar and red lights cameras being used to generate revenue rather than to increase safety? What else is new.

Oh noes

[JustAnotherOldGuy]

"...the city of Chicago has been misusing traffic cameras to trigger automated speeding tickets.

My my, this certainly is shocking news. *cough*

Scameras

[Anonymous Coward]

Many of these scameras are posted in areas where there is no park or school.

Example: Archer Avenue near Ashland, is a park about a block away from Archer. Surrounded by buildings. You can't see it from Archer. Lo and behold, a scamera is located on Archer (and not on the side street the park is located on with no traffic on it) tagging people for a park zone. Local alderman refuses to do anything (he must get a cut of the money from cronies).

Solution: Get a radar detector. Legal in Illinois. And there is a state law that prohibits the mentioning of your radar detector in court. One of the few things Illinois does right.

Ferguson

[John Jorsett]

One of the raps on Ferguson, MO is that the town used fines as a major revenue source, not for actual safety or law enforcement reasons. Looks like the phenomenon isn't limited to Southern backwaters.