Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Red-Light Camera Grace Period Goes From 0.1 To 0.3 Seconds, Chicago To Lose $17 Million (arstechnica.com)

Posted by BeauHD on from the back-in-line dept.

The Chicago Department of Transportation announced a new policy earlier this week that will increase the "grace period" -- the time between when a traffic light turns red to when a ticket is automatically issued. The decision has been made to increase the time from 0.1 seconds to 0.3 seconds, following recommendations part of a recent study of its red-light cameras. Ars Technica reports: This will bring the Windy City in line with other American metropolises, including New York City and Philadelphia. In a statement, the city agency said that this increase would "maintain the safety benefits of the program while ensuring the program's fairness." On Tuesday, the Chicago Tribune reported that the city would lose $17 million in revenue this year alone as a result of the expanded grace period. Michael Claffey, a CDOT spokesman, confirmed that figure to Ars. "We want to emphasize that extending this enforcement threshold is not an invitation to drivers to try to beat the red light," CDOT Commissioner Rebekah Scheinfeld also said in the statement. "By accepting the recommendation of the academic team, we are giving the benefit of the doubt to well-intentioned drivers while remaining focused on the most reckless behaviors."

19 of 258 comments (clear)

  1. Hey guys. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Did you hear?
    Going faster through a red light means the camera won't get you!

    1. Re:Hey guys. by jandersen · · Score: 4, Funny

      You may have to go fast enough to red-shift the wavelength of the reflected light below infra-red. If your car is that fast, I think you will have more pressing matters to attend to, like staying on the planet.

    2. Re:Hey guys. by daid303 · · Score: 3, Informative

      If you go fast enough. Yes.

      I don't know for the US. But speed cameras in The Netherlands are usually certified up to 250km/h, but some are 350km/h now. If you go over that, the camera is not allowed to give you a ticket as it is not certified at those speeds.

      But, if you go over 250 at most of our speed camera locations, you have other problems that involve death.

  2. Conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Seems like any fines going to the department that makes them fines is a conflict of interest. These things should clearly be decided by direct democracy, at least how the money is spent, and should not go to their budgets by default.

    1. Re:Conflict of interest by Solandri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've maintained that fines, tickets, and penalties (for traffic citations, violations of regulations, punitive damages from court cases, etc) should go into an escrow fund. On April 15 when everyone files their income taxes, divide the amount in the escrow fund by the number of tax returns filed (doubled for married filing jointly). That amount becomes a credit on each tax return. So basically all the money the government has collected as fines and penalties is distributed evenly to all taxpayers. That money was collected as compensation for crimes against society, and this way it gets distributed back to society.

    2. Re:Conflict of interest by Kokuyo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In Switzerland, the fines go into the municipality's budget.

      Problem with that is that the municipalities have started budgeting the fines and are now treating them like normal income and thus the police receives quota.

      Which leads to police putting mobile cameras where they can get most money not where there might be a security issue.

      It also led to police wasting a lot of time on fines rather than actually doing important things.

      I like the escrow idea.

    3. Re:Conflict of interest by Lumpy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      easy solution, raise the taxes. if your taxes are not high enough to pay for Fire,Police and road maintenance then you should absolutely pay more.
      If your taxes are not being used for that but instead, holiday decorations, more pay for someone to choose to buy more decorations then it's time to start voting for officials more wisely.

      Yes, Yes, I know the irony of an American saying to vote more wisely to another country.... I'm not happy with our Toddler in Chief, but then he is not much different than the ones we have in congress and local government all over here. Recently in my home town we had one of the commissioners demand that a law be passed so that anyone in government can not be criticized or go to jail.

      It seems that we either elect very evil people, or stupid ones that have never read the constitution. From my experience, it's the latter, only the dumb want to be in political office.

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    4. Re:Conflict of interest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Surely the first step isn't to raise taxes? That's the sort of thing somebody who hadn't thought things through says. That's like saying "well, I don't have enough money to pay my bills, guess I need to make more money". No, the first thing you do is look where the money is going and see if any of it is being wasted on unnecessary things. And if none of it is being wasted on pointless things, then look at why the things that it's being spent on cost as much as they do, and see if any of it is being wasted within those organizations. If there isn't a large amount of waste, only then should you look at raising taxes.

      Why is it that there seems to be a large number of people who don't seem to care about waste? Like for example, the local schools where I live are constantly asking for more money. The local paper pulled up their staff list and found that there were 50% more administrators than school staff (administrators were considered people who weren't directly involved with students or the upkeep of the buildings). Surely you don't need more managers than employees? Raising taxes should be a last resort, not the first thing you jump to.

    5. Re:Conflict of interest by fuzznutz · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The escrow idea really is very good. It's not supposed to be about money, after all. It's supposed to be about safety.

      The lie that "it's only about safety" was disproven in Ohio. When the governor lost the first court battle with banning cameras, he proposed reducing state funding to cities who used cameras by the amount assessed in fines by the cameras. The immediate howling by the cities who obviously only cared about money was hilarious.

      But... But... But.. It's about safety, not money... You get to keep your safe streets, but you can't profit from it. Bastards. It was obvious to everyone that it was always about the money.

  3. "Lose" by fph+il+quozientatore · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I hate when people use the word "lose" to mean "not anymore have the opportunity to gain as additional income (under certain additional conditions)". See also: "the machine that will utterly bankrupt the music industry" by Peter Sunde: https://boingboing.net/2015/12...

    --
    My first program:

    Hell Segmentation fault

    1. Re:"Lose" by Scutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's more accurate to say that the citizens of Chicago get to keep $17 million of their money that is annually stolen from them by the city.

      --

      "Tell me doctor, with all of your defenses, are there any provisions for an attack by killer bees?"
  4. A way better solution by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Informative

    The maybe best solution ever I've seen in Austria. Here is a quick comparison between US vs. Austrian traffic lights.

    Basically, their lights flash green 5 times before they go to yellow, giving you ample time to know that the green period ends. Also, before switching to green, it shows red and yellow for about a second or two to give you an idea that you should put your car into gear and prepare to accelerate, thus improving the reaction time of people and improving the usage of the green phase.

    All in all, a WAY better solution. Of course their law also says that there is ZERO grace period for entering with a red light. You have ample time to know it's going red. Actually, I don't even know whether there isn't already some kind of provision that you're supposed to not enter when it goes yellow.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:A way better solution by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's similar to the Greek solution: The traffic light is mostly seen as a suggestion or guideline, and whoever honks the loudest moves first.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:A way better solution by Imrik · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So long as the yellow phase is a legally-safe period of time to come to a safe and controlled halt from the maximum speed of the road, everything else is moot.

      This is part of the problem in the US, once red light cameras are installed, municipalities often shorten the length of the yellow light to increase their income.

    3. Re:A way better solution by krupicka · · Score: 3, Informative

      Exactly. It is well documented Chicago shaved the yellow light times to increase red light violations.

      http://www.chicagotribune.com/...

  5. Re:Stupid by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 4, Informative

    No, he's actually right.

    Red means "do not enter intesection. If you are in the intersection, exit as quickly and safely as possible".

    --
    Eat the rich.
  6. Re:40.000 deaths by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody died because someone crossed the intersection 0.3 seconds after it turned red. The other light isn't even green yet. Your statement implies a correlation between traffic enforcement and road safety, but this correlation is frighteningly weak. Unfortunately, enforcement is concentrated on things that are easy to measure instead of things that are most dangerous.

    Red light cameras are a great example of ineffective enforcement. Red light running generally falls into two categories: people that push the boundary and people that make mistakes (not paying attention, drunk, didn't clean windshield, etc.). Cameras can make people choose not to push the boundary, but they are very bad at correcting the latter behavior. So, they shift a lot of money to the government and the camera operating company, without having much of an effect on safety.

    You can tell a government is serious about safety when they start redesigning bad intersections instead of wagging their fingers at people driving 36 in a 35 or going through intersections one second after the light turns red. Research has shown time and time again that if there is a trend of people running the beginning of a particular red light, the best solution is to make the yellow longer. Often blatant red light violations come from intersections with no left turn arrow. Frustrated drivers wait an entire light cycle (or four), and then finally just go when the opposite lane clears as the light turns red. Once again, the correct solution is to change the intersection. Yelling at (or fining) the drivers does nobody any good.

  7. No-no-no, light speed is too slow! by Widowwolf · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, we're gonna have to go right to... Ludicrous speed!

    --
    ~~"Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be wrong." ~~Dennis Miller
  8. still bullshit by jsepeta · · Score: 3, Informative

    Problem is, the way traffic flows in chicago, left turning motorists often are in the middle of the street when the light changes, and can only complete their turn once the light has turned red and the ticket has been issued.

    --
    Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.