Speed Cameras in Chicago
Cyclistas:
We need to start a campaign to get Gov. Quinn to sign the law enabling speed-cameras in Chicago. It's sitting on his desk.
His contact-website is:
http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Pages/ContacttheGovernor.aspx
In the "Citizen Question" frame, just put "Speed Cameras"
In the "Citizen Request from just recommend or tell him to sign the legislation. It has already passed both the House and the Senate and was sent to him for his approval.
This has been setting on his desk for some time. My guess is that he wants to see what the public reaction is, and I suspect the car drivers and their clubs are encouraging him NOT to sign it.
You can also contact him at his Springfield office:
Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217-782-0244
TTY: 888-261-3336
or at the Chicago office of the governor:
Office of the Governor
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, 16-100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-814-2121
There are too many speeding cars in Chicago and we need something to slow them down.
Thanks.
Views: 1752
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Gail Garcia on
-
Thank you so much for posting this helpful information. I will write a letter right now. Also, do let your alderman know that you support this initiative.
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
Reminds me of a near accident yesterday right in front of our house, where a habitual speeder and stop sign runner (vehicle #1) was flying down the street towards our 4-way stop and had to slam on the brakes when another equally reckless and clueless driver (vehicle #2) blew the stop sign on the cross street doing about 30, right across the path of #1. I kinda wished they did crash, because I'm sick of those two (and others) flying down these residential streets (where lots of little kids and old people live). Maybe a crash would have been a wake-up call for the two losers. But I'm sure I'll see them both speeding and running the 4-way stop again today and tomorrow and the next day. They won't learn until their actions hurt them - physically and/or financially.
We've been tempted to install our own dog poop cameras, because we're sick of the same problem. We live on a corner on the way to a park - prime dog walking destination. Last summer we fenced in large chunk of our side yard, gaining a nice garden space, which was our main goal in the project. Keeping the dogs out was a bonus. We love dogs, just not the unwanted smelly gifts and torn up lawn.
BTW, speeders are a big threat to pedestrians going to and from that park at all hours of the day. I would love to see speed cameras there.
Brendan said:Oh, big brother...
What would be great is if these speed camera's were also able to detect when cars blatantly roll through stop signs in school areas. I've seen a lot of people not looking both ways and rolling hastily through a stop. Really dangerous combo.
It'd also be great if these camera's could tell me which friendly neighbor was not picking up their dogs poop after he dumps in the back yard.
-
Permalink Reply by mike w. on
-
My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on
-
I don't quite see the either/or relationship.
What you describe is found on side/residential streets. They are always one step from falling out of use by the city due to alleged damage to police vehicles. I can't see speed cameras being placed anywhere but main thoroughfares.
mike w. said:My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on
-
Speed bumps are opposed by the police and fire department - they slow down the response in emergency situations.
They also make snowplowing and street cleaning less effective. They make the streets harder to maintain and the bumps themselves require additional maintenance.
They slow down bicyclists as well, who really aren't part of the speeding problem.
mike w. said:My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
-
A lot of schools and parks are on side/residential streets. IIRC, Hizzoner wants the cameras near said places. So put the berms along the side streets where there are likely to be kids crossing... the whole thing is about the Safety of Children, isn't it? i was only addressing the speeding issues on side streets here.
As for alleged damage to police vehicles, i observe that some of the worst leadfoots out there are cops.
Put just a few more radar units out on the main streets.... just show an effort with the resources already available and perhaps get a handle on the speeding issues.
i maintain that the whole thing isn't about public safety or else conventional enforcement would've been done years ago in meaningful ways. The truth is that cameras are an easy way to generate revenue and the city is broke.
h' said:
I don't quite see the either/or relationship.
What you describe is found on side/residential streets. They are always one step from falling out of use by the city due to alleged damage to police vehicles. I can't see speed cameras being placed anywhere but main thoroughfares.
mike w. said:My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
-
i agree about plowing and see the FD's point, but i wonder if police response time in Chicago could get much slower.
As for the part about slowing down bikes, well, speed bumps do that, but a berm is actually kinda fun to negotiate on a bike... i cross a lot of them on my daily commute and they don't seem to do much to slow me down.
Bob Kastigar said:Speed bumps are opposed by the police and fire department - they slow down the response in emergency situations.
They also make snowplowing and street cleaning less effective. They make the streets harder to maintain and the bumps themselves require additional maintenance.
They slow down bicyclists as well, who really aren't part of the speeding problem.
mike w. said:My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
-
The Emanuel administration's main strategy of dealing with brokeness at the moment is one I fully support: get rid of the huge percentage of folks on the payroll who are stealing a salary.
Considering that 70% of what our tax money pays the police force to do is babysitting motorists and dealing with their mishaps, I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with revenue being recouped via irresponsible drivers.
i maintain that the whole thing isn't about public safety or else conventional enforcement would've been done years ago in meaningful ways.
I don't know what this means. What "meaningful ways?"
The truth is that cameras are an easy way to generate revenue and the city is broke.
I think we need them for their benefit as a deterrent to speeding. Can both be true?
mike w. said:A lot of schools and parks are on side/residential streets. IIRC, Hizzoner wants the cameras near said places. So put the berms along the side streets where there are likely to be kids crossing... the whole thing is about the Safety of Children, isn't it? i was only addressing the speeding issues on side streets here.
As for alleged damage to police vehicles, i observe that some of the worst leadfoots out there are cops.
Put just a few more radar units out on the main streets.... just show an effort with the resources already available and perhaps get a handle on the speeding issues.
i maintain that the whole thing isn't about public safety or else conventional enforcement would've been done years ago in meaningful ways. The truth is that cameras are an easy way to generate revenue and the city is broke.
h' said:
I don't quite see the either/or relationship.
What you describe is found on side/residential streets. They are always one step from falling out of use by the city due to alleged damage to police vehicles. I can't see speed cameras being placed anywhere but main thoroughfares.
mike w. said:My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
-
I oppose speed humps in their current form because they penalize cyclists. If they were redesigned so that they had pass-throughs for cyclists and/or a different profile that didn't slow cyclists down so much, I'd oppose them less. The proliferation of speed humps has ruined many previously good bike routes, like Wrightwood across the west side and most of the side streets in Edgewater.
In watching various types of vehicles navigate speed humps, a thought occurred to me. Have they been a factor in motivating drivers to buy SUVs instead of regular cars - for additional ground clearance? I don't know if there's anything to that, but I have noticed that a lot of SUV drivers slow down less for speed humps.
I really don't think they're the answer, unless they're implemented in a different, smarter way than Chicago is doing them now.
Bob Kastigar said:Speed bumps are opposed by the police and fire department - they slow down the response in emergency situations.
They also make snowplowing and street cleaning less effective. They make the streets harder to maintain and the bumps themselves require additional maintenance.
They slow down bicyclists as well, who really aren't part of the speeding problem.
mike w. said:My personal belief is that speed berms are 'way more effective deterrents to speeders. Evanston has many of these berms on their side streets (e.g.:Judson.) Hit one at over 15 and the rear end of the car smacks down hard... hit 'em a little faster and the car starts losing pieces... sending an instant and efficient warning to the driver. Some side streets in Chicago also have them (e.g.: 1200 block of w. Albion.)
They may not be the revenue-generators cameras are, but in the long run i feel they're cheaper and longer-lived and much more attention-getting.
-
-
The police dept. is understaffed. They have been for a while. It's an issue that's started to get media attention, but it's been the case for years.
Many of us don't think speed humps are fun. If you're pulling a cargo trailer, riding with bad knees or other medical issues that are affected by impacts, or riding with kids (in a trailer or on the back), you probably don't think speed humps are fun. If the city wants to promote the idea of cycling as transportation, speed humps are not the answer, because they make the ride less fun for a lot of people.
mike w. said:i agree about plowing and see the FD's point, but i wonder if police response time in Chicago could get much slower.
As for the part about slowing down bikes, well, speed bumps do that, but a berm is actually kinda fun to negotiate on a bike... i cross a lot of them on my daily commute and they don't seem to do much to slow me down.
-
Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on
-
The law would also allow the City to use vans with speed cameras on/in them. The vans could be moved around as needed.
An alternative to using speed cameras and traffic cops is to redesign our roads so that drivers speed less often. The roadway width, road features, and the built environment all serve as factors that encourage or discourage speeding. Why do people drive so fast on Humboldt Boulevard? Check out how wide the lanes are, the few intersections, no one crossing the street, and few distractions to the side. It's a speeding paradise! It feels *right* to speed here.
"Drivers tend to maintain a speed that feels comfortable, based on the design (lane width, visibility, clearance) and use (traffic volumes, turning activity, pedestrian activity) of each stretch of roadway. As a result, simply reducing posted speed limits may do little to reduce actual traffic speeds. Effective speed reduction generally requires changing roadway design, or significantly increasing enforcement."
http://www.vtpi.org/tdm/tdm105.htm
Charlie Short said:From what I understand, the red-light cameras can also work as speed cameras. A study was done using the existing cameras (there's a lot of them, like 250-300) and the study found that 31% of drivers were speeding through high-crash intersections. I will look for that study and see if I can post a link. Point being, there will be very little camera purchasing when and if this law passes, at least initially.
-
Permalink Reply by Sol on
-
I like the idea of the cameras in theory, but how they are implemented is the problem.
The yellow light time at Peterson and Western was reduced when the cameras were installed. At that intersection, even when not speeding, you either have to start slowing down when the light is still green (which can lead to being rear-ended) or you have to speed up to get through the intersection in order to avoid a ticket. The length of the yellow light at that intersection is apparently in compliance with state law, but yet still not long enough in my opinion to give sufficient warning to people that the light is about to change given the speed limit on that road. I now take my eyes off the road when driving through that intersection in order to look at the pedestrian second counter above the crosswalk in order to see if the light will change rather than focusing on the signal indicator which hangs above the middle of the intersection. This is less safe, but I am convinced that it is the only reason I have so far never received a ticket from that red light camera. Oh, and don't suggest that I ride my bike on Peterson near Western--I am daring, but not suicidal.
The devil is always in the details of the implementation. In my opinion, the red light cameras were implemented in a way to maximize revenue rather than to improve actual traffic safety. I expect that the same will be the case with the new speeding cameras. Until I am convinced otherwise, I cannot support their implementation.
Groups
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Ride of Silence
118 members
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
