Slashdot Mirror
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).
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.
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".
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.
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.
No doubt derived from the Spanish "puta."
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!