Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 21, 2011 at 2:30pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on December 21, 2011 at 3:13pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 21, 2011 at 4:12pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 21, 2011 at 4:18pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 22, 2011 at 2:14am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 22, 2011 at 2:18am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Steven Vance on December 22, 2011 at 8:57am

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sol on December 22, 2011 at 11:05pm

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 23, 2011 at 2:56am

You make a very good point.  I also have a problem with the shorter yellow times at many intersections, for the same reasons. 

Sol said:

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on December 23, 2011 at 3:09am

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.

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.

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.  Here's an example from Morgan Park.  There are many businesses on Western and a stoplight at 109th.  109th is a quiet residential street here.  The two intersections immediately to the east (Oakley and Bell) are enormous and have no stop signs.  Corners of the intersections are rounded off, enabling fast turns.  This area is a secret speedway.  I've nearly been hit at these intersections while riding my bike, and it's happened too many times.  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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Joel on December 23, 2011 at 3:15am

Red light cameras are only viable when people are running red lights.  Period.  The city has to pay the contractor a minimum fee every month to use the cameras, and the only way to make money is have people run a red.  The cameras cannot pay for themselves if people aren't running red lights.  How do you get someone to run a red?  You shorten a yellow.  Red light cameras also encourage rear-end collisions, and the result has been shown over and over.  

If you want to improve safety you increase the length or the yellow and design better intersections.  Red light cameras are never an answer.  

Sol said:

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.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mike w. on December 23, 2011 at 5:10am

+1

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

 

Sol said:

(edit...)

...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.

• ▶ Reply

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