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

MaggieD said:

You aren't forced to testify against a family member. It's your choice. And even then, YOU, as the car owner, are responsible for paying the ticket. A ticket issued for a red-light camera violation isn't a moving violation. The owner of the car is responsible for paying the ticket. You either ran it yourself or lent your car to someone who broke the law with it...both of which are your responsibility.

As for proving your guilt? You are automatically guilty because you own the car. Your responsibility. Your ticket.

Click to expand...

Repugnant.

MaggieD said:

You aren't forced to testify against a family member. It's your choice. And even then, YOU, as the car owner, are responsible for paying the ticket. A ticket issued for a red-light camera violation isn't a moving violation. The owner of the car is responsible for paying the ticket. You either ran it yourself or lent your car to someone who broke the law with it...both of which are your responsibility.

As for proving your guilt? You are automatically guilty because you own the car. Your responsibility. Your ticket.

Click to expand...

A red light violation is a moving violation, at least in Virginia and accordingto Wiki. I'd bet the same holds true in Illinois. A movng violation is a trffic violation while the car is in motion. How do you run a red light in a stationary vehicle? And you are not guilty of a violation because you own the car. The driver is.

In this country, you are never automatically guilty. You are innocent till proven guilty. That applies to murder, that applies to auto related violations. That applies to spitting on the sidewalk. It's the basis of our judiciary system,

jimbo said:

In this country, you are never automatically guilty. You are innocent till proven guilty. That applies to murder, that applies to auto related violations. That applies to spitting on the sidewalk. It's the basis of our judiciary system,

Click to expand...

You're not supposed to be automatically guilty of anything, but due to mindless rationalizations such as some have displayed in this thread, we keep losing that benchmark bit by bit.

The notion that the owner of a vehicle is somehow responsible for the actions of the driver if the driver is different is simply repugnant and flies in the face of everything our society and justice system is supposed to be about. Might as well just randomly assign penalties to people for what they did without actually getting caught. Same difference.

MaggieD said:

Please share with us a "valid reason" for blowing a red light.

Click to expand...

To make way for emergency vehicles.
Rushing someone to the hospital.

Those are just two that instantly come to mind.

Gaius46 said:

To make way for emergency vehicles.
Rushing someone to the hospital.

Those are just two that instantly come to mind.

Click to expand...

Some people here have gotten tickets for making a right turn on a red, and that's legal. Yet, the camera doesn't know the difference and the mindless bureaucrat reviewing the ticket doesn't care because there's no proof that you were actually doing something legal.

How about the person sitting in the intersection waiting to make a left turn. They can't because of traffic, so they do have to wait until the opposing traffic stops because their light turned red. The left-turn car is perfectly legal as they were in the intersection when the light changed... but the camera doesn't know the difference and the mindless bureaucrat reviewing the ticket doesn't care because there's no proof that you were actually doing something legal.

jimbo said:

A red light violation is a moving violation, at least in Virginia and accordingto Wiki. I'd bet the same holds true in Illinois. A movng violation is a trffic violation while the car is in motion. How do you run a red light in a stationary vehicle? And you are not guilty of a violation because you own the car. The driver is. If your car is EMPTY and coasts from its parking spot into another vehicle? You may not have been the driver who left it in gear, but . . . as the owner? You're going to pay the damages.

In this country, you are never automatically guilty. You are innocent till proven guilty. That applies to murder, that applies to auto related violations. That applies to spitting on the sidewalk. It's the basis of our judiciary system,

Click to expand...

A red-light camera ticket is not a moving violation. If you have proof that it is, please post it. If one is ticketed by a police officer for blowing a red light, then it is a moving violation. Please cite your Wiki source.

In this country, you are automatically guilty of LOTS of things just like this. Your car is given a parking ticket. You may not have parked it in the illegal spot, but guess what? As the owner? You're responsible. Your car is parked in a handicapped spot. You may not have parked it in that spot, but guess what? As the owner? You're responsible.

Edit: If your car was left in gear and is EMPTY, rolls down a hill into someone's car or a little kid, guess who's responsible? You. As the owner of the car.

radcen said:

You're not supposed to be automatically guilty of anything, but due to mindless rationalizations such as some have displayed in this thread, we keep losing that benchmark bit by bit.

The notion that the owner of a vehicle is somehow responsible for the actions of the driver if the driver is different is simply repugnant and flies in the face of everything our society and justice system is supposed to be about. Might as well just randomly assign penalties to people for what they did without actually getting caught. Same difference.

Click to expand...

Please see my response to Jimbo.

Gaius46 said:

To make way for emergency vehicles.
Rushing someone to the hospital.

Those are just two that instantly come to mind.

Click to expand...

It is not legal to go through a red light in either of those instances.

radcen said:

Some people here have gotten tickets for making a right turn on a red, and that's legal. Yet, the camera doesn't know the difference and the mindless bureaucrat reviewing the ticket doesn't care because there's no proof that you were actually doing something legal.

How about the person sitting in the intersection waiting to make a left turn. They can't because of traffic, so they do have to wait until the opposing traffic stops because their light turned red. The left-turn car is perfectly legal as they were in the intersection when the light changed... but the camera doesn't know the difference and the mindless bureaucrat reviewing the ticket doesn't care because there's no proof that you were actually doing something legal.

Click to expand...

22% of all traffic accidents in the United States are the result of people running red lights, causing some $7 billion in property damage.

Your car is ticketed for entering the intersection after the light changes to red. Even if your car is still in the intersection after the light turns red, no photograph (or video) will be taken and no ticket will be issued. At legal right-turn intersections, the camera will only take a photograph (or video) of your car if you fail to stop before turning.

A photograph of the violation is mailed to the car owner. Usually, a video or additional stills are available on line.

In some states, if you aren't the driver of the car, you have to appear in court to establish "by photo comparison" that it wasn't you. Not in all, because it's a civil violation, not a moving one.

I have absolutely no sympathy for people who run red lights. They kill people every day.

MaggieD said:

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.

Click to expand...

People not paying attention to a red light are also probably not paying attention to signage.

In aviation, runways are marked by lines on the pavement and red signs to go "hey! runway here. do not enter without permission." People still enter. So they enhanced the markings, highlighting them better, putting big red painted signs on the pavement. People still enter. Then they put flashy yellow lights next to the markings. People still enter. Once the person has decided "go," warning systems tend to just be filtered out by the brain.

Is it possible this scenario could be prevented? Sure. But it's also possible for it not to be prevented, or to even have the sign cause some sort of other accident. "Oh ****, camera! Slam the brakes!"

In the end, the statistics tell the story, not anecdotes or logic or plans or ideas. The safety benefits seem ambiguous.

Deuce said:

People not paying attention to a red light are also probably not paying attention to signage.

In aviation, runways are marked by lines on the pavement and red signs to go "hey! runway here. do not enter without permission." People still enter. So they enhanced the markings, highlighting them better, putting big red painted signs on the pavement. People still enter. Then they put flashy yellow lights next to the markings. People still enter. Once the person has decided "go," warning systems tend to just be filtered out by the brain.

Is it possible this scenario could be prevented? Sure. But it's also possible for it not to be prevented, or to even have the sign cause some sort of other accident. "Oh ****, camera! Slam the brakes!"

In the end, the statistics tell the story, not anecdotes or logic or plans or ideas. The safety benefits seem ambiguous.

Click to expand...

Even though the positive effects on angle crashes of RLC systems is partially offset by negative effects related to increases in rear end crashes, there is still a modest to moderate economic benefit of between $39,000 and $50,000 per treated site year, depending on consideration of only injury crashes or including PDO crashes, and whether the statistically non-significant shift to slightly more severe angle crashes remaining after treatment is, in fact, real...The modest benefit per site is an average over all sites. As the analysis of factors showed, this benefit can be increased through careful selection of the sites to be treated (e.g., sites with a high ratio of right-angle to rear end crashes as compared to other potential treatment sites) and program design (e.g., high publicity, signing at both intersections and jurisdiction limits).

Click to expand...

Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049

Bob Blaylock said:

I recall hearing of a scandal in San Diego, some years ago, where it was discovered that in intersection where red-light cameras were installed, the time of the yellow light was significantly shortened in order to increase the likelihood of drivers being deceived into being caught in the intersection when the light turned red. Once drivers caught on to the shorter yellows, apparently the incidence of rear-end collisions, just as you describe here, was proven to have been increased, negating any claim that the red-light cameras were there to enhance safety.

Click to expand...

The Prof said:

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

6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Light Times For Profit

Click to expand...

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...

Henry David said:

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.

Click to expand...

I read the article they did not address whether or not Chicago has short yellows or not. That said I think that it may be the case in some intersections short yellows are being used and THIS increases the rate of accidents. As long as safety is the main objective and there would be no shoring of the yellows and focus would be on those intersections with the highest accident rates then the use of cameras to fine offenders would be aceptable.

Threegoofs said:

Being from Chicago (and a recipient of said automated ticket), I can tell you that red light cameras in the city are revenue generators to solve a nonexistent problem.

99% of the red light violations are people entering the intersection 1/2 second after the yellow light (solution- just delay the green for 1/2 second), or rolling right turn on red when no traffic is around. Maybe some 3AM violations where no one is on the road at all.

You simply almost never (based one one guys experience driving several thousand miles a year in the area) people just blowing through red lights willy nilly.

Click to expand...

MaggieD said:

Well, I've driven 25,000 miles a year in and around Chicago and suburbs. I've seen plenty of people coast through right turns at the expense of pedestrians and cycle riders . . . seen plenty blow through long yellows . . . and seen plenty go through reds. There are lots of people who simply believe it's okay if they don't get caught or think the laws barely apply to them.

If they lengthened the yellow, perhaps you wouldn't have gotten a ticket on that particular day, but you'd probably get it the next time. Going through yellows and not watching for stale greens is rampant.

Click to expand...

If what threegoof said was true then it seems a short yellow was used. The yellow needs to be as long as the time where the car approaching the intersection cannot stop safely at the time the light turns yellow till the time it has fully cleared the intersection meaning outside of the box. As long as the light is programed for safety concerns then there will be no issue with the cameras recording violators. Any revenue however must be accounted for which the thread indicates is lacking and that revenue should mostly go to education for vehicle safety and most certainly not to the citys general fund. And given Chicago politics, not into some corrupt officals hand.

People who whine about red light cameras are usually the ones who have the most difficulty obeying basic traffic laws.

I really don't understand the difficulty here. When a light turns red, you stop. We've all known that since we were about four. Did something change along the way? Is there some sort of "get out of a red light free" card out there that I am not aware of?

Also, if you start extending the yellow lights, that is just going to give more people license to run them.

Phys251 said:

People who whine about red light cameras are usually the ones who have the most difficulty obeying basic traffic laws.

I really don't understand the difficulty here. When a light turns red, you stop. We've all known that since we were about four. Did something change along the way? Is there some sort of "get out of a red light free" card out there that I am not aware of?

Also, if you start extending the yellow lights, that is just going to give more people license to run them.

Click to expand...

I drive a sportscar, low to the ground like all smaller cars. When following at legal distances for speed behind tall trucks, 18 wheelers in particular, I cannot see the redlight from my vantage point until I'm actually IN the box, in the intersection. I could not stop if I wanted to, because it is impossible for me to see the light. And in reality, I make it through the intersection behind the big truck, no problem.

I have also witnessed twice, the case of a person in front of me, we were stopped at the light, pull right out without even looking into the path where she was going. Careless driving on her part, right into the path of another person driving carelessly. But at least my lady could have done what I did--don't go just because the light is green. Look and listen, as I was instructed.

MaggieD said:

22% of all traffic accidents in the United States are the result of people running red lights, causing some $7 billion in property damage.

Your car is ticketed for entering the intersection after the light changes to red. Even if your car is still in the intersection after the light turns red, no photograph (or video) will be taken and no ticket will be issued. At legal right-turn intersections, the camera will only take a photograph (or video) of your car if you fail to stop before turning.

A photograph of the violation is mailed to the car owner. Usually, a video or additional stills are available on line.

In some states, if you aren't the driver of the car, you have to appear in court to establish "by photo comparison" that it wasn't you. Not in all, because it's a civil violation, not a moving one.

I have absolutely no sympathy for people who run red lights. They kill people every day.

Click to expand...

If they made the effort to ensure that the person actually driving the car was getting the ticket, this would be a valid point. They don't, so it's not. And they do have the technology (front photos of the driver instead of rear photos of just the car [how it's done here]), it's just a little more laborious, and well... we apparently can't bother ourselves with accuracy, can we?

I would also be more ready to accept the safety argument if the monetary proceeds didn't go straight to any LE agencies. It should go to the general fund, and distributed accordingly from there. Law enforcement should NEVER have a direct profit incentive.

radcen said:

If they made the effort to ensure that the person actually driving the car was getting the ticket, this would be a valid point. They don't, so it's not. And they do have the technology (front photos of the driver instead of rear photos of just the car), it's just a little more laborious, and well... we apparently can't bother ourselves with accuracy, can we?

Click to expand...

Since it's not a moving violation, but a citation on the automobile, (same as a parking ticket) the court doesn't have to know who was driving. It doesn't make any difference.

You remind me of an incident the secretary at my real estate office was involved in. She and her girlfriends were out for the evening and, as the gates started coming down on the railroad tracks, the driver decided to keep going anyway -- knowing there were cameras. She brought the photo to work. It showed two gals in the front seat, two gals in the back -- screaming bloody murder as they drove across the tracks. Funniest damned thing I ever saw. :rofl

Not to the driver, though. It was a $500 fine. (And I believe it was​ a moving violation since they did take photographs from the front.)

MaggieD said:

Since it's not a moving violation, but a citation on the automobile, (same as a parking ticket) the court doesn't have to know who was driving. It doesn't make any difference.

Click to expand...

Saying it doesn't make a difference is admitting that the safety-first mantra is BS. If it were truly a safety issue, then the actual driver doing the misdeed would be important.

Parking tickets aren't a safety issue, so the analogy doesn't work. (This is one of the most common analogies I've heard regarding this issue)

MaggieD said:

It is not legal to go through a red light in either of those instances.

Click to expand...

As for emergency vehicles It is certainly true in the entire country in the case where the emergency vehicle is a police vehicle and the officer has signaled you to get out of the way. It's also certainly true in jurisdictions that have specific exceptions to obeying traffic control devices that involve yielding to emergency vehicles.

In places that just mandate yielding for emergency vehicles the expectation given the intent of the regulation is that you get out if the way if safe to do so. I'm willing to bet that most cops wouldn't cite you and if you were cited the judge in all probability would toss it. I'm also willing to bet that if you didn't get out of the way and could you would be cited.

As far as rushing someone to the hospital - you're right in my state at least there's no exception for that. Again though under the circumstances as long as you don't create a hazard my guess is overwhelmingly you won't get a ticket.

The entire program was a revenue making endeavor from the jump. If anything those cameras make it LESS safe. People forget about the common sense measures when caught in iffy predicaments and worry more about whether or not they're going to be ticketed.

radcen said:

Saying it doesn't make a difference is admitting that the safety-first mantra is BS. If it were truly a safety issue, then the actual driver doing the misdeed would be important.

Parking tickets aren't a safety issue, so the analogy doesn't work. (This is one of the most common analogies I've heard regarding this issue)

Click to expand...

The analogy works just fine. The comparison is excellent. Parking Ticket doesn't go on one's driving record. Neither does a red-light camera ticket. Parking tickets can most assuredly be safety issues. Parking in a fire zone is a classic example.

MaggieD said:

Since it's not a moving violation, but a citation on the automobile, (same as a parking ticket) the court doesn't have to know who was driving. It doesn't make any difference.

You remind me of an incident the secretary at my real estate office was involved in. She and her girlfriends were out for the evening and, as the gates started coming down on the railroad tracks, the driver decided to keep going anyway -- knowing there were cameras. She brought the photo to work. It showed two gals in the front seat, two gals in the back -- screaming bloody murder as they drove across the tracks. Funniest damned thing I ever saw. :rofl

Not to the driver, though. It was a $500 fine. (And I believe it was​ a moving violation since they did take photographs from the front.)

Click to expand...

In places where I have lived where they took front photos, it is considered a moving violation because the standard of proof is high enough to be so. I'm fine with that.

Gaius46 said:

As for emergency vehicles It is certainly true in the entire country in the case where the emergency vehicle is a police vehicle and the officer has signaled you to get out of the way. It's also certainly true in jurisdictions that have specific exceptions to obeying traffic control devices that involve yielding to emergency vehicles.

In places that just mandate yielding for emergency vehicles the expectation given the intent of the regulation is that you get out if the way if safe to do so. I'm willing to bet that most cops wouldn't cite you and if you were cited the judge in all probability would toss it. I'm also willing to bet that if you didn't get out of the way and could you would be cited.

As far as rushing someone to the hospital - you're right in my state at least there's no exception for that. Again though under the circumstances as long as you don't create a hazard my guess is overwhelmingly you won't get a ticket.

Click to expand...

In certain circumstances, it may be true that one wouldn't get a ticket for going through a red light to yield to emergency vehicles. You don't throw out a whole program because of those flukes. You cannot go through red lights to take someone to the hospital. You're right -- if your wife was having a baby and a copper stopped you for going through a light, he might just drive you to the hospital. Again, flukey doesn't make law.

MaggieD said:

The analogy works just fine. The comparison is excellent. Parking Ticket doesn't go on one's driving record. Neither does a red-light camera ticket. Parking tickets can most assuredly be safety issues. Parking in a fire zone is a classic example.

Click to expand...

I can tell you're more Area than Chicago. :2razz:

Parking enforcement is done by the city's REVENUE Dept. That right there should tell you something.

I can't tell you how many tickets I've gotten for completely bogus reasons. Go on down to Superior, plead my case, and than pay the fine. Every time.

ChezC3 said:

I can tell you're more Area than Chicago. :2razz:

Parking enforcement is done by the city's REVENUE Dept. That right there should tell you something.

I can't tell you how many tickets I've gotten for completely bogus reasons. Go on down to Superior, plead my case, and than pay the fine. Every time.

Click to expand...

Some of those Chicago drivers are slow learners. :rofl J/K

MaggieD said:

Some of those Chicago drivers are slow learners. :rofl J/K

Click to expand...

Heh, not too slow, I got rid of my car, they want to ticket me, they'll send that ticket to the CTA...

ChezC3 said:

Heh, not too slow, I got rid of my car, they want to ticket me, they'll send that ticket to the CTA...

Click to expand...

There's lots of areas in the city where I wouldn't own a car. Too damned hard to find parking and too expensive to pay for. Good for you!! Smarty Pants you are!!