Recent support from the ATA Red Light Cameras

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 22, 2010 at 6:04pm

Clark said:

Bob:
we need to bend over backward to be fair to the ticketed drivers; so that we don't ignite outrage at the whole system causing it to be ripped out in its infancy. Once the Red Light system becomes established, say in 2015, we can fine tune and adjust.

Consider the outrage already fully ignited in this (almost a non) ATA member.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on March 22, 2010 at 6:17pm

Clark said:

Bob:
Your excerpt is a bit unclear...I can't tell which is your input, and which is ATA's. For those interested, the Active Trans info memo is here. You can also add your comment on the ATA website below the memo. But I think I generally agree with Bob...he's saying that ActiveTrans is not pursuing this new Red Light technology aggressively enough...right?

Frankly IMO if the new Red Light cameras successfully ticket even HALF of the drivers who run red lights, or those that block the pedestrian crosswalk when they DO stop, I think we'll be seeing a major change in drivers' behavior. And in order to make sure that this result is attained, we need to bend over backward to be fair to the ticketed drivers; so that we don't ignite outrage at the whole system causing it to be ripped out in its infancy. Once the Red Light system becomes established, say in 2015, we can fine tune and adjust.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joe TV on March 22, 2010 at 7:50pm

Double Post (here and orignal red light forum):

WTF????

From today's Trib:

city engineering plans obtained by the Tribune through the Freedom of Information Act show programming instructions dictate three-second yellows at almost all signals tied to cameras. The instructions for the rest of the signals call for four-second yellows

.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on March 23, 2010 at 12:41pm

OK, maybe I was too harsh when I condemned the endorsements of the Active Transportation Alliance in a recent newsletter. Specifically the items they were endorsing were:

1. Allow red light cameras to be used in the Chicago and St. Louis metropolitan areas.
2. Require tickets issued in Chicago to be reviewed by a technician and a third party that is unaffiliated with the red light camera company.
3, Require tickets issued in communities outside Chicago to be reviewed by a technician and a current or retired police officer
4. Allow anyone ticketed to review the footage online
5. Ticket drivers who pass the stop bar and enter a crosswalk only when pedestrians or bicyclists are present.

All of these items seem to me to be making too many concession to car drivers just to make the red-light-cameras acceptable to them. Instead of making it easier for drivers, I think we should make it harder for drivers.

I did get a nice phone call from Dan Perskey of the ATA, explaining that they were trying to minimize the anti-red-light impact of the car driving group.

With all due respect I'm getting tired of just trying to be accommodated. I want to see us as full and equal. But I can understand their strategy even if I don't agree with it.

There are more car drivers than bike riders, but we're better organized and active than they are. Let me suggest that all of us, each of us individually, contact our state legislators (many of whom are up for re-election this year) and let them know we support the red-light-cameras, that we'd like to see the Right-Turn-On-Red law abolished, that we'd like to see the cameras used for speed monitoring as well as turn monitoring.

You may not even know your state representatives; here's a way to find them:

Go to http://www.chicagojwj.org/ - Chicago Jobs With Justice website
On the right side, "Find Elected Officials"
Fill in your Zip Code - 9-digit is better
Click "Find", Click "State"

Send an email to EACH of your state representatives. Even better, write or call them. Remember that each of you has one Representative and one Senator at the Illinois State level.

We need to "take the lane" in legislative support as well as in the street.

I'll double-post this, since I didn't really know a discussion was already taking place.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chris B on March 23, 2010 at 3:08pm

The mistaken identity is not something of particular concern, technology can and does eliminate the problem of getting a ticket for legally turning right, etc. I used to actually have my own video security business and wrote motion detection code. All it takes is making the camera software company pay the city back for court expenses when people successfully fight tickets, they'll improve the software right away without any onerous regulation or oversight. Accountability always works better and results in the intended behavior.

So I agree these regulations are 1. only going to increase costs but not really protect anyone, and 2. not addressing the core issue of safety at intersections.

• ▶ Reply