Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Cheryl on March 19, 2015 at 5:43am

^^^ This.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Patten on March 19, 2015 at 4:40am

Got a reply from the Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras: 

"Hi Renee,

Thank you fir your email and concern about Automated Traffic Enforcement in Chicago.

Your letter is just another testimonial against the system. You say you have been hit both biking and walking and yet you feel safe because of the cameras. Unless you were hit before 2003 those cameras were in place but didn't make you safer. You then say you want the cameras to record when you're hit the next time. Again, obviously you don't think the cameras will prevent you being hit but that's what the city says and somehow you bought although it hasn't been your experience. 

Thank you again for writing and for your interest in the safety of all out citizens, even the ones that drive cars and are hit with these fines of over $70 million a year and a marked increase of rear end collisions.

Don Bransford"

Not super clear what he is getting at, appreciate that he took the time to reply though, didn't think my email would make a point with them anyways. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Patten on March 24, 2015 at 9:12am

Figured why not, had their email, had time at work. At least they can hear from someone who doesn't feel safe on the streets and let them hear that their actions aren't helping. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on March 19, 2015 at 6:23am

I don't feel the redlight cameras do anything but raise revenue for the city and whichever crony-capitalist private entity that is contracted with the city to operate & maintain them. The fact that the city has shortened yellow light times below the federal standards to increase the revenue speaks volumes. 

I'm all for increasing safety on the roads, but I'd like to see something which has been actually scientifically shown to be effective in overall reducing accidents as well as the severity/lethality of them -especially for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-automotive armored road-users.

That solution is simply lowering the speed limit to at least 25mph on all surface streets and enforcing it. 20 would be better but at least 25 would be a good first step.  Red-light cameras are nothing but a money-generating non-safety revenue plan for the city and Blackwater/LAZ or whatever private contractor/partner the city is using to install, operate, and maintain them.

IMHO, without meaningful slowing of traffic to safe speeds of 25mph or less,  red-light cameras are all sound and fury over nothing. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Far'arned Retrogrumpalunkus #63 on March 19, 2015 at 7:39am

Effective enforcement would pay for itself.    They wouldn't even need cops doing it, just "meter-reader' level folks in camera-cars that would record everything on camera act as evidence in court if they try and fight it.  The software would make all the decisions, the human would be just riding along and handing out the ticket after pulling the offender over.   These folks don't need to be full cops, just drive the darn car around town and hand over the ticket to speeders when the computer goes BEEP.   They don't need a weapon, or use any type of lethal or less-than-lethal force other than their simple camera-car full of hard drives and GPS equipment to gather and store the evidence and pass it on to a central office along with the paperwork.   Set up special traffic courts to take the influx until people realize they aren't going to win against the evidence gathered against them.  The fines will pay for the costs. Make them high enough to do this.  Lay them on thick to the speeders.  They deserve it if they want to put everyone's life at risk on the roads.  I'm all for it. 

If a driver refuses to pull over and tries to run then forward it to dispatch and let them bring the hammer down with a real cop in an interceptor, or simply follow them to home/work/whatever and get them when they stop.  Add another fine for eluding an officer to the mix if they don't stop for the meter-reader who tried to pull them over.  That'll pay for the added costs.  Lay it on thick again. 

I think that if they started to actually enforce the speed limits everywhere with no fudge factor and gave out real tickets without any take-backs or warnings with fines of maybe  $25 for 1 each mph over and doubling for each and every MPH over 5mph over and again at 10mph over it'd get the point across that this city is NO LONGER going to accept speeding on its streets.  People will get the message that if they are speeding it is going to be a financial hurt.  Hit them in their pocketbooks. 

Sure, there are going to be folks who can afford to pay any fine but some sort of repeat-offender system could pull licenses for periods of time that increase with each recidivism.   Eventually these folks will be taken off the road, or put into jail or labor-camps to pay off their fines if they just can't stop speeding.  

This isn't rocket science.  Speed enforcement is nothing new if only the folks in charge have the balls to actually follow-through with it like they have in Edinburgh Scotland, then it might actually have some effect.

Whatever they are doing now isn't having ANY effect, on vehicle speeds other than them going UP.   But Emanuel or Chewy aren't gonna do this, because votes.  Democracy works... 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Cheryl on March 23, 2015 at 5:10am

I vote for Self-Sealing Stembolt!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by David P. on March 20, 2015 at 10:54am

Well, speed cameras - this is how it is done in much of the world. Saves patrol officers for more important uses than traffic enforcement.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Patten on March 19, 2015 at 7:46am

I agree with the corrupt points too but I don't think that removing the cameras (speed and redlight) is the best option since there are studies supporting they help safety. I don't feel like finding the studies links but they exist in news articles and blog posts, but then again, anyone can pretty much find any study to back up their own beliefs. 

Plus, the city had to have just put a lot of time and resources into installation, seems more wasteful to now remove them so soon after. 

I mentioned in my email to the alderpeople a better solution is to improve the system (big thing) or reduce monetary fines (easy thing). Less money then less corruption? I think warning notices for the first several offences before starting with any fees seems reasonable and appropriate. 

Love the idea of lowering speeds on all streets too and doesn't having both types of cameras help enforce it? I imagine most of the people on the Chainlink know the difference in injury between a collision at 20mph v. 40mph. 

Logically, having red light cameras reduces speeding because people who would normally speed up to make it through yellow lights, given the monetary consequences of missing the yellow, would be more cautious and slow, stop at the yellow, rather than speed through?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by pistola on March 20, 2015 at 9:37am

Posting lower speed limit signs won't do anything to slow motorists.  Speed cameras may or may not. I know that my behavior as a motorist has changed in the few locations that I'm aware of a speeding camera.

However, in my opinion, the greatest impact on speeding is with actual road design.  Including more speed bumps, decreasing lane widths, changing the distance between lane markers and decreasing distances between stop signs or red lights have been proven to make this happen.

Unfortunately there is not enough political will to reduce speeds on every single road.  I'm not sure if we want every road in Chicago to have these features, but by physically making it more difficult to go fast to do 2 things: 1)Make it less attractive to drive everywhere, 2)increase the safety of other users such as cyclists and pedestrians. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Renee Patten on March 20, 2015 at 2:01pm

"in my opinion, the greatest impact on speeding is with actual road design.  Including more speed bumps, decreasing lane widths, changing the distance between lane markers and decreasing distances between stop signs or red lights have been proven to make this happen."

AGREED. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Chitown_Mike on March 19, 2015 at 7:15am

I'm on the fence on keeping the cameras, I haven't gotten one yet as a driver, but I don't feel they make me safer as a rider.  I think better marked bike lanes and drivers being ticketed for entering them would be more beneficial than speed.  As well as more tickets for distracted driving.

On the flip side I would also like to see more enforcement of cyclists following the rules of the road.  I have had more close calls from other cyclists than people in cars.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tom A.K. on March 19, 2015 at 9:59am

The city of Chicago having shortened yellow light times below the federal standards IS indeed very shady and unfair if it was done just for the purpose of increasing revenue. Do you want an administration who has, through its implementation of an unfair system of revenue generation to continue on this pattern of behavior?

How then do we find a means to calm vehicular traffic. In the 'old days', enforcement of traffic laws where meted out by the feared 'white hatted' (they wore white police hats) Chicago Police Traffic Enforcement officers. Their sole duty would be to lurk around various streets and pop out and ticket traffic violators. Now officers are needed to concentrate on violent crime.

A 25 mph speed limit sounds reasonable, but drivers would not tolerate it and speed regardless. On some main clear roads in the city they are already going at near expressway speeds.

Chicago's system has to be eliminated OR redone to ensure that it is implemented in a fair and even-handed manner. That is the issue of what the candidate who is challenging the current Chicago mayor IS !

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• …
• 6
• Next ›
• Page