Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 23, 2011 at 5:31am

Good points...

Anne Alt said:

>>70% of what our tax money pays the police force to do is babysitting motorists and dealing with their mishaps

I don't know what the true percentage is, but I doubt that it's this high.  They spend an awful lot of time dealing with things like shoplifting, residential burglaries, domestic disturbances, armed robberies, bar fights....  You get the idea.  That being said, they do spend plenty of time on traffic violations, and I agree that bad drivers should pay.

 

(98.6% of all statistics are made up...) One officer i know once told me that she spends 98% of her time babysitting 2% of the population - but that's a statistic i can agree with.

Maybe in the 'burbs some departments spend a lot more of their time and effort on traffic control, but based my own observations, the CPD units i see pretty much look the other way at traffic infractions unless  there is actually a collision involved.

Every morning i ride past a CPD unit that's parked facing SB on Sheridan & Juneway. He's reading the papaer and having a smoke whilst waiting to start ticketing at 7am. i regularly see -and dodge- speeders who come winging around the bend passing within inches from his unit, and last week a guy swung out across the yellow line into oncoming traffic to get around a line of cars atthe stoplight at Juneway. Message: it's easier and more profitable to be writing parking tickets than enforcing actual traffic laws.

>>The law would also allow the City to use vans with speed cameras on/in them. The vans could be moved around as needed.

>>Mobile speed units already exist, but there are few of them - not nearly enough to meet the need.  Having more mobile units (with cameras) might actually be more effective than cameras in fixed locations, because drivers won't know where to expect them.

Better solution...

>>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.

>>I agree.  Too many of our streets and intersections are designed for speeding... 

 ... I think that adding giant islands to the middle of these intersections (as indicated by the yellow circles) could significantly reduce speeding, allow drivers more time to see other vehicles before they meet in the intersection, and greatly improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians.  Added islands could also be an opportunity for new community gardening space./p>

 

Yes. But maybe narrowing carriageways and building roundabouts would make cycling more hazardous. The city put in flowergarden medians in such streets as N.Ashland which have limited drivers' sightlines and been a factor in some horrific crashes. i knew the cop who was killed a few years back on Ashland when someone pulled a turn in front of him from behind the planter. Planting a garden in the middle of a roundabout may make a street look good, but it cannot be at the expense of losing sightlines.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on December 23, 2011 at 5:34am

mike w. said:

+1

My point almost exactly. It isn't about safety at all, it's all about the revenue.

 

And who pays?

The speeders!

 

Hooray!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 23, 2011 at 5:49pm

Won't slow 'em down,

won't reduce their numbers ...

Won't save a single life. Everyone pays.

Doesn't matter. Today, speeders; tomorrow, peds; next day, cyclists.

Bob Kastigar said:

mike w. said:

+1

My point almost exactly. It isn't about safety at all, it's all about the revenue.

 

And who pays?

The speeders!

 

Hooray!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin K on December 23, 2011 at 7:49pm

I'm ok with camera footage being used after a violent crime or a theft has been committed, to prosecute the crime, but these traffic violation cameras are bullshit.

Do we really want to live in a city or a country where the government has cameras all over us, monitoring our every move, and if we do something outside of the lines they've drawn the government can just mail us a ticket and take away our property (money), without our say-so?  I don't like people speeding, but this is way too big-brother.  What's next?  What little laws do YOU break, and what if THOSE violations suddenly became enforced by means like this?

These traffic-violation cameras are about one thing, and one thing only -- money.  

If the city or the state really needs the money, then just raise the sales tax or property taxes or the income tax rate.  Don't nickel and dime the citizens with this big brother sh*t.  Did the Founding Fathers put their lives on the line so that one day the government could follow our every move w/ cameras, and then automatically take our money when we "step out of line?"  Hell no they didn't!!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 24, 2011 at 2:35am

Again, the devil is in the details.  I understand your point about sightlines.  The sightlines at these intersections on 109th St. are not long enough to handle the current speeding traffic, which is part of why they are dangerous.  These are quiet residential streets where cars shouldn't be going faster than 20-25 mph.  PERIOD. 

If there is a height/density limit on whatever might be planted in a center island (to preserve sightlines), then the islands could serve their primary function safely - forcing traffic to slow the hell down before going through the intersection so that all users of the intersection have time to see each other before interacting. 

At other added center islands in the neighborhood, planting density is limiting, preserving sightlines.  Medians on major streets like Ashland or Western are much higher than an island type of installation, where hardscape elements are at curb height, not waist height.  Big difference.

mike w. said:

Yes. But maybe narrowing carriageways and building roundabouts would make cycling more hazardous. The city put in flowergarden medians in such streets as N.Ashland which have limited drivers' sightlines and been a factor in some horrific crashes. i knew the cop who was killed a few years back on Ashland when someone pulled a turn in front of him from behind the planter. Planting a garden in the middle of a roundabout may make a street look good, but it cannot be at the expense of losing sightlines.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 24, 2011 at 5:55am

Understood.

i remember this neighbourhood from my high school days (i lived in Ashburn, and hung out in Beverly and M.P.) The traffic density even 40 years ago was high and i  more than once nearly got clobbered along Longwood Dr. , 99th, & 111th, etc.

i'm not against roundabouts, raised medians, etc. per se, i just am concerned that they're designed and engineered properly. i hope the city has learnt its lesson in this regard. i still don't think cameras are the solution that proper traffic control engineering/design can be.

Anne Alt said:

Again, the devil is in the details.  I understand your point about sightlines.  The sightlines at these intersections on 109th St. are not long enough to handle the current speeding traffic, which is part of why they are dangerous.  These are quiet residential streets where cars shouldn't be going faster than 20-25 mph.  PERIOD. 

If there is a height/density limit on whatever might be planted in a center island (to preserve sightlines), then the islands could serve their primary function safely - forcing traffic to slow the hell down before going through the intersection so that all users of the intersection have time to see each other before interacting. 

At other added center islands in the neighborhood, planting density is limiting, preserving sightlines.  Medians on major streets like Ashland or Western are much higher than an island type of installation, where hardscape elements are at curb height, not waist height.  Big difference.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0gwmxbw1v4gk1 on December 24, 2011 at 1:05pm

Wow ok so I just found this thread...

Check out http://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/oct21-speed-limit-camer...

This is a VERY VERY long thread, originally started by Bob complaining about the speed cameras... most of the people on this thread are against speed cameras and we were coordinating over there to write letters to Quinn against the speed camera bill.

On that thread, we established how speed cameras in no way help cyclists. I don't bike too much myself, but I promote the installation of additional bike lanes which will be great for cyclists. I am for reducing the traffic in the city, and the more people who cycle the better the traffic. The speed cameras are only for revenue and to fear monger, nothing more.

Please don't fall into this fear mongering about speed cameras. There is no need for them and they don't benefit cyclists in any way. 

Write Quinn AGAINST speed cameras today!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by 0gwmxbw1v4gk1 on December 24, 2011 at 3:42pm

I don't understand why cyclists would be FOR speed cams. 

I also don't understand why this has to be an "us vs them" thing of motorists vs cyclists. I have no problem co-existing with cyclists - so long as there is a mutual respect. For me, the respect for cyclists comes in giving them a wide berth, regardless of where they are at. 

Cyclists on the other hand, shouldn't purposely dart in front of cars.

If you follow those rules, it will be pretty safe for everyone.

Speed cams are for revenue under the guise of safety. 

For all the cyclists, let me ask you this - what if you were required to have registration and plates on all your bikes? And if you ran a stop or a red light you get a ticket in the mail? Would you support that? Because cyclists do that all the time, and it's fine I have no problem with that, but just as I would be against any kind of cam enforcement relating to cyclists I ask that you be the same about cars. 

A far more effective way to be safe for cyclists would be the installation of more dedicated bike lanes like by Kinzie and Milwaukee, not speed cameras. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by S on December 25, 2011 at 7:26am

The problem is that the thread doesn't establish anything.  Most of it is a bunch of people blustering and trying to justify why they should be able to go 10 or 20 mph above the speed limit because they are such great drivers.  Frankly, I'm fine with the speed cams and if it results in more people driving at or below the speed limits that's great. Even better if it helps to make up some of the city's budget shortfalls.

Frankly, it's a bit creepy that you've found Bob's post here, registered on chainlink to rail against speed cameras, and posted a link on everyblock to get people to come here and argue against the cameras.  Also, the hypothetical you pose about being against red light cams enforcement if bikes were made get license plates and registration to get cyclists to tell Quinn not to sign the law is rather absurd.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 25, 2011 at 7:32am

Geez, wotta trollfest!

h' said:

A bunch of motorists on Everyblock are upset that their right to drive recklessly is being threatened.

*yawn*

Bob, I think you'd have learned by now-- better not to bring some things up over there-- people who care about having a city that's safe for people that aren't in cars are still considered societal fringe-dwellers in 2011 Chicago.

Taras Hryniw said:

Wow ok so I just found this thread...

Check out http://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/oct21-speed-limit-camer...

This is a VERY VERY long thread, originally started by Bob complaining about the speed cameras... most of the people on this thread are against speed cameras and we were coordinating over there to write letters to Quinn against the speed camera bill.

On that thread, we established how speed cameras in no way help cyclists. I don't bike too much myself, but I promote the installation of additional bike lanes which will be great for cyclists. I am for reducing the traffic in the city, and the more people who cycle the better the traffic. The speed cameras are only for revenue and to fear monger, nothing more.

Please don't fall into this fear mongering about speed cameras. There is no need for them and they don't benefit cyclists in any way. 

Write Quinn AGAINST speed cameras today!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 25, 2011 at 9:37am

I'm a pedestrian first and foremost, and I care about the safety of pedestrians above all else. It should be considered a basic human right to walk two blocks to school, or to a store, without flirting with death. ...  When I argue for technological solutions to out-of-control motorist behavior, I'm not thinking about cyclists-- I'm thinking about the children and adults on foot who've been creamed.

Howard - I am 100% with you on this.  There are too many deaths, and way too many close calls and pedestrians who have to wait and wait and wait and then risk their lives - all because a lot of drivers are too selfish to ease up on the gas for just a few seconds.  Most of the time they just won't do it, even though that's all it would take in many cases to allow peds to cross safely.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on December 25, 2011 at 1:30pm

More on this pedestrian issue on EveryBlock at

http://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/dec05-stop-sign-foster-...

Someone wants a stop light/sign on Avers and Foster.  There is NO car control signs for the entire 1/2 mile distance, like many other streets.

 

Naturally there's a lot of opposition to this from the cars-are-first crowd there as well.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page