• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

MaggieD said:
Pishaw. If you don't think the first time you're caught by a red light camera you are more cautious next time? I don't know what you're thinking. The only thing people understand is $$. This brings the point home rather nicely, I think.
Click to expand...

At the end of it all, lacking any credible evidence that the program has increased safety, or was even honestly intended to do so, you're still left making excuses for government engaging in fraud and extortion as a means of raising revenue.

If the program truly “worked” from a safety perspective, then very few drivers would be caught and fined, because very few would ever run red lights, and the program would probably lose money because it would not be collecting enough fines to pay the cost of maintaining it. Such a system can only be profitable by failing to stop people from committing the violations that it is intended to catch.

After all, someone who runs a red light, and is caught on one of these cameras and fined, did not create any less danger to himself and others than someone else who runs a red light and is not caught.
 
MaggieD said:
Well, I won't doubt your statistics. But I'd say that a rear-ender is better than a T-bone. And people will learn. Don't follow so damned close and watch for stale greens. It's really not that hard if people are paying attention.
Click to expand...

People will learn? Which planet do you live on? :D
 
The Prof said:
No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million Last Year | CNS News

more from the ig:

there is "little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the city or the general public”

there is a “lack of basic record keeping for a program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue"

those ticketed are charged $100 each
Click to expand...

The ship has long sailed on the bull**** argument that camera's used by city governments against their citizenry are anything but a revenue source.
 
MaggieD said:
Sounds like the same logic people used when wearing seat belts became law.

Slamming on one's breaks should never cause an accident from the rear. If one doesn't recognize "a stale green light" as they're approaching it? They need more driver's training.
Click to expand...

Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tickets for you

A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida's rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations -- and the revenue they create.​
 
Last edited:
There's something I just realized about a claim made in the title of the article. “System made $71 Million”

What does it mean to “make” money?

In legitimate business, money is made by producing and selling goods and/or services that are more valuable than what it cost to provide them. People and equipment working to turn less valuable materials into more valuable products are what create wealth. If a company spends a million dollars in materials, labor, and other expenses, to produce products which it is able to sell for two billion dollars, then it has created a million dollars in wealth.

So, how did Chicago's red-light camera system “make” seventy-one million dollars? It didn't. It just took it. It created a situation in which otherwise diligent motorists are tricked into running red lights, caught them doing so on camera, and fined them. It didn't create seventy-million dollars worth of new wealth. It didn't even create a penny of new wealth. It just took wealth from others, leaving those from whom it was taken poorer, in total, by exactly the same as the amount by which it thus enriched itself.
 
poweRob said:
Florida quietly shortened yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera tickets for you

A subtle, but significant tweak to Florida's rules regarding traffic signals has allowed local cities and counties to shorten yellow light intervals, resulting in millions of dollars in additional red light camera fines.

The 10 News Investigators discovered the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) quietly changed the state's policy on yellow intervals in 2011, reducing the minimum below federal recommendations. The rule change was followed by engineers, both from FDOT and local municipalities, collaborating to shorten the length of yellow lights at key intersections, specifically those with red light cameras (RLCs).

While yellow light times were reduced by mere fractions of a second, research indicates a half-second reduction in the interval can double the number of RLC citations -- and the revenue they create.​
Click to expand...

That's bull****. Not directed at you, but at the information here. Among politicians, Diogenes would have a really.tough.time.
 
The ship has long sailed on the bull**** argument
Click to expand...

absolutely

it's all about safety

we're only looking out for YOU

and looking out for YOU can be expensive

LOL!

watch your language
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There's something I just realized about a claim made in the title of the article. “System made $71 Million”

What does it mean to “make” money?

In legitimate business, money is made by producing and selling goods and/or services that are more valuable than what it cost to provide them. People and equipment working to turn less valuable materials into more valuable products are what create wealth. If a company spends a million dollars in materials, labor, and other expenses, to produce products which it is able to sell for two billion dollars, then it has created a million dollars in wealth.

So, how did Chicago's red-light camera system “make” seventy-one million dollars? It didn't. It just took it. It created a situation in which otherwise diligent motorists are tricked into running red lights, caught them doing so on camera, and fined them. It didn't create seventy-million dollars worth of new wealth. It didn't even create a penny of new wealth. It just took wealth from others, leaving those from whom it was taken poorer, in total, by exactly the same as the amount by which it thus enriched itself.
Click to expand...

If you're going to argue semantics, I'd point out that no business "makes" money. They just move it around. Treasury "makes" the money.

Or maybe there's something of substance to talk about instead.
 
The Prof said:
No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million Last Year | CNS News

more from the ig:

there is "little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the city or the general public”

there is a “lack of basic record keeping for a program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue"

those ticketed are charged $100 each
Click to expand...

I recall some advice George Will gave to his daughter and revealed on TV years ago. Paraphrasing: He told her that red lights don't mean what they used to and she should be overly careful at intersections.

A story I recall from a guy in Helsinki... he was coming into an intersection and the light went from green to amber and he was on the late side of amber so he stopped. The car behind him didn't and he got nudged from behind. When he got out of the car the guy who hit him said... WTF'd you stop for... it was fresh red!

I don't like the cameras and like almost all things government... it's about the money. Another way to strip people of it.
 
zimmer said:
I recall some advice George Will gave to his daughter and revealed on TV years ago. Paraphrasing: He told her that red lights don't mean what they used to and she should be overly careful at intersections.

A story I recall from a guy in Helsinki... he was coming into an intersection and the light went from green to amber and he was on the late side of amber so he stopped. The car behind him didn't and he got nudged from behind. When he got out of the car the guy who hit him said... WTF'd you stop for... it was fresh red!

I don't like the cameras and like almost all things government... it's about the money. Another way to strip people of it.
Click to expand...

Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049
Red Light Cameras save ~$40,000 in accidents per year. A red light camera costs more than $100,000 to install and operate. (presumably per year). It's fairly obvious that the cameras cost the public more than they save, especially considering that almost all evidence shows that extending yellow lights produces better results and costs essentially nothing.

Red Light cameras appear to be a scheme between private companies and local municipalities to fleece the public. Not that this is a huge surprise. We all know towns and stretches of roads that are designed to give tickets. But something should be done about it.
 
zimmer said:
I recall some advice George Will gave to his daughter and revealed on TV years ago. Paraphrasing: He told her that red lights don't mean what they used to and she should be overly careful at intersections.

A story I recall from a guy in Helsinki... he was coming into an intersection and the light went from green to amber and he was on the late side of amber so he stopped. The car behind him didn't and he got nudged from behind. When he got out of the car the guy who hit him said... WTF'd you stop for... it was fresh red!

I don't like the cameras and like almost all things government... it's about the money. Another way to strip people of it.
Click to expand...

Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049
Red Light Cameras save ~$40,000 in accidents per year. A red light camera costs more than $100,000 to install and operate. (presumably per year). It's fairly obvious that the cameras cost the public more than they save, especially considering that almost all evidence shows that extending yellow lights produces better results and costs essentially nothing.

Red Light cameras appear to be a scheme between private companies and local municipalities to fleece the public. Not that this is a huge surprise. We all know towns and stretches of roads that are designed to give tickets. But something should be done about it. 1 in 10,000 Americans die every year in auto accidents. Traffic laws designed primarily for the purpose of raising revenue should be illegal,
 
Mithros said:
Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049
Red Light Cameras save ~$40,000 in accidents per year. A red light camera costs more than $100,000 to install and operate. (presumably per year). It's fairly obvious that the cameras cost the public more than they save, especially considering that almost all evidence shows that extending yellow lights produces better results and costs essentially nothing.

Red Light cameras appear to be a scheme between private companies and local municipalities to fleece the public. Not that this is a huge surprise. We all know towns and stretches of roads that are designed to give tickets. But something should be done about it. 1 in 10,000 Americans die every year in auto accidents. Traffic laws designed primarily for the purpose of raising revenue should be illegal,
Click to expand...

Some tickets are collected quite by accident. Most are earned through carelessness and irresponsibility. I enjoy the fact that other motorists subsidize my police department and traffic courts. It's not that hard to remember to rock back at stop signs, right-turns-on-red, etc. Not difficult at all to recognize a stale green and be prepared to stop. And certainly not difficult to drive the speed limit.

If people think they can get away with it or think the laws don't apply to them? Make 'em pay. I'm all for it.
 
MaggieD said:
Some tickets are collected quite by accident. Most are earned through carelessness and irresponsibility. I enjoy the fact that other motorists subsidize my police department and traffic courts. It's not that hard to remember to rock back at stop signs, right-turns-on-red, etc. Not difficult at all to recognize a stale green and be prepared to stop. And certainly not difficult to drive the speed limit.

If people think they can get away with it or think the laws don't apply to them? Make 'em pay. I'm all for it.
Click to expand...

If the traffic laws are designed based on what is safe, then you have my full agreement. Unsafe driving should be penalized.

But what about places where that's not true? For example you might have a 4 lane highway that inexplicably drops from 55 mph to 45mph. There's no reason for the drop, and police will sit at the border and give motorists tickets. This is the exception, not the rule. But it does happen.

I think that any law or action the government takes should have a clearly discernible purpose. If you want to raise money, make the road toll. Charge everyone $1. Otherwise it turns it into a kind of tax lottery where 1 in a 400 motorists has to pay a $400 fine and the rest pay nothing.
 
MaggieD said:
I have absolutely no problem with red-light cameras. If it's producing positive cash flow, that's good enough for me.
Click to expand...

I absolutely have a problem with not being able to face my accuser, which is why many states have found them unconstitutional.

Especially when most of said cash for isn't even going to the state but to the private camera companies.
 
Mithros said:
If the traffic laws are designed based on what is safe, then you have my full agreement. Unsafe driving should be penalized.

But what about places where that's not true? For example you might have a 4 lane highway that inexplicably drops from 55 mph to 45mph. There's no reason for the drop, and police will sit at the border and give motorists tickets. This is the exception, not the rule. But it does happen.

I think that any law or action the government takes should have a clearly discernible purpose. If you want to raise money, make the road toll. Charge everyone $1. Otherwise it turns it into a kind of tax lottery where 1 in a 400 motorists has to pay a $400 fine and the rest pay nothing.
Click to expand...

Sure, there are speed traps. Probably many fewer than years ago, I would guess. But that's not where the majority of tickets are issued. Far and away, most tickets are issued due to scoff-law driving or carelessness. The same two reasons for most accidents, I'm sure. It's not that hard to obey traffic laws.
 
Deuce said:
I vaguely recall some indications that they might actually increase accidents, because people freak out when the light turns yellow and slam on the breaks when they might otherwise have safely gone through the intersection during the switchover.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Several studies, including one conducted by the U of South Florida some years ago, show that while the classic "T Bone" type collision was reduced, the number of rear end collisions increased.

The red light cameras are a complete ripoff. I was very involved in local efforts to stop them, and surprise surprise, we actually prevailed in that effort.

Highway robbery conducted by the state is all they are.

Recently here in Florida, several municipalities were caught shortening the duration of the yellow lights at various intersections. That generates more revenue.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There's something I just realized about a claim made in the title of the article. “System made $71 Million”

What does it mean to “make” money?

In legitimate business, money is made by producing and selling goods and/or services that are more valuable than what it cost to provide them. People and equipment working to turn less valuable materials into more valuable products are what create wealth. If a company spends a million dollars in materials, labor, and other expenses, to produce products which it is able to sell for two billion dollars, then it has created a million dollars in wealth.

So, how did Chicago's red-light camera system “make” seventy-one million dollars? It didn't. It just took it. It created a situation in which otherwise diligent motorists are tricked into running red lights, caught them doing so on camera, and fined them. It didn't create seventy-million dollars worth of new wealth. It didn't even create a penny of new wealth. It just took wealth from others, leaving those from whom it was taken poorer, in total, by exactly the same as the amount by which it thus enriched itself.
Click to expand...

In the course of fighting a RLC system proposed in my city, over the course of several months I was briefed by 2 different police officers on just how these systems are designed and implemented.

They must have an intersection with sufficient volume of traffic, or they won't install it. But with the properly designed intersection with the proper number of cameras (5 is ideal), they can generate revenue of about $1000 per camera per 24 hour period. That's why ATS and others are in the business--it is a statistical certainty that, given the volume, at any given time a certain number of unwary drivers will be caught "in the box". Only tail end of the car or truck need be "in the box", and it's like shooting fish in a barrel.
 
MaggieD said:
Pishaw. If you don't think the first time you're caught by a red light camera you are more cautious next time? I don't know what you're thinking. The only thing people understand is $$. This brings the point home rather nicely, I think.
Click to expand...

What you're failing to realize is that the POINT is profit.

That is, the point is NOT safety, it is revenue. The point is NOT fairness or justice, it is revenue.
 
Henry David said:
What you're failing to realize is that the POINT is profit.

That is, the point is NOT safety, it is revenue. The point is NOT fairness or justice, it is revenue.
Click to expand...

Unlike others, apparently, I have no problem with profit.

If you've never seen the end results of a truck running a red light while a young teen driver made the assumption that, since the light was red, he was safe to make a left turn in front of it, you've been missing something. Red light cameras save lives. That they make a profit is just an added bonus.
 
MaggieD said:
Unlike others, apparently, I have no problem with profit.

If you've never seen the end results of a truck running a red light while a young teen driver made the assumption that, since the light was red, he was safe to make a left turn in front of it, you've been missing something. Red light cameras save lives. That they make a profit is just an added bonus.
Click to expand...

A camera wouldnt prevent an accident in which the driver made such a fundamental error
 
MaggieD said:
Unlike others, apparently, I have no problem with profit.

If you've never seen the end results of a truck running a red light while a young teen driver made the assumption that, since the light was red, he was safe to make a left turn in front of it, you've been missing something. Red light cameras save lives. That they make a profit is just an added bonus.
Click to expand...

I'm really sorry that people are killed in auto accidents, including failure to yield accidents, but you are absolutely wrong that RLC save lives. It is a corrupt system that is concerned only with revenue.

Consider this Maggie: if it's true that RLC save lives, why do they not install them at every single intersection with a traffic light? If they really deliver improvements in safety, why is the state not implementing them at every intersection in town?
 
MaggieD said:
Unlike others, apparently, I have no problem with profit.

If you've never seen the end results of a truck running a red light while a young teen driver made the assumption that, since the light was red, he was safe to make a left turn in front of it, you've been missing something. Red light cameras save lives. That they make a profit is just an added bonus.
Click to expand...
I have to agree with you. I say let them all the profit they want from these people.

Now I do understand that some lights are too short, but that's a small share of them, and if a tailgater hits you... was he going to intentionally run it?

The last accident I was in, I was doing 40 MPH, and a Dodge caravan rolled right through a stop sign, not seeing me. I could have been hurt bad, but slammed on the brakes and collapsed the front of both cars.The reason is when the speeds of our two moving vehicles kept the driver from seeing past the door frame. That was about 8 years ago. Now last year, my ex was in a crosswalk, and hit by a driver rolling through the stop sign. Same thing. Her walking speed and his driving speed kept her invisible to him by the door frame...
 
Deuce said:
A camera wouldnt prevent an accident in which the driver made such a fundamental error
Click to expand...

Red-light cameras tell drivers not to run reds. They are clearly posted. To assume a red-light camera in that instance would have made no difference is to belie the reason they're there.
 
Henry David said:
I'm really sorry that people are killed in auto accidents, including failure to yield accidents, but you are absolutely wrong that RLC save lives. It is a corrupt system that is concerned only with revenue.

Consider this Maggie: if it's true that RLC save lives, why do they not install them at every single intersection with a traffic light? If they really deliver improvements in safety, why is the state not implementing them at every intersection in town?
Click to expand...

I don't know what the criteria is for installation, but I'm assuming it has to do with number of accidents and tickets issued at particular intersections. For instance, in the accident I referenced about the truck and the teen? A red-light camera was installed shortly after the teen died.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom