• 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

radcen said:
Interesting choice of words. The way you state it here... though I'm sure it's unintended... I agree with (though I would do it for real safety reasons as the profit motive is repugnant). The PEOPLE who break the law... who actually and literally and physically break the law... should be caught and punished. Allowing an otherwise licensed and/or legal driver to drive your car is not illegal. Period.
Click to expand...

Collect the fine from the guy you lent your car to -- just exactly the same way you would if he got you a $500 fine for parking in a handicapped zone. What's so damned hard about that???
 
MaggieD said:
Collect the fine from the guy you lent your car to -- just exactly the same way you would if he got you a $500 fine for parking in a handicapped zone. What's so damned hard about that???
Click to expand...
Not the question/point, and I think you know that.
 
radcen said:
Not the question/point, and I think you know that.
Click to expand...

It is the point. How can we be so far apart in this? If you lent your car to a guy who parked in a handicapped spot and racked up a $500 ticket for you, would you not expect him to pay it???

Have you ever gotten a RLC ticket? That's the only reason I can think of for your attitude.
 
MaggieD said:
Some parking tickets most certainly are about safety. Parking in a fire zone comes to mind. But what difference does that make anyway? "You can only ticket my car if it's about safety." What??

Even it were the case, I just see nothing wrong with a municipality saying, "You know what? We're going to raise revenue by ticketing people who break the law. Let's install RLCs at our busiest intersections."

I find nothing to support your opinion that most RLC infractions represent rolling right turns. But what is the difference? If "punishment" is about deterrence, then you ticket people who break the law. Period. Ignoring scofflaws is a great way to create more scofflaws.
Click to expand...

No if it's about safety you ticket the PERSON, not the vehicle, especially since that usually has insurance consequences. It's a much larger incentive to not blow lights.

Ticketing people is supposed to be about changing behavior - about getting people to obey (sensible) laws. The minute you make it a revenue tool you open the door to abuse. Don't believe it. Just look at civil forfeiture. And criminalizing behavior simply to raise revenue is wrong.


Here's some support for my opinion regarding rolling right turns. Google "rolling right on red" and you'll find plenty of additional evidence. Much of it from mainstream media.

Right Turn On Red | Red Light Cameras
Rolling Right Turns

Rolling right turn violations have been proven to have very little effect on driver safety. In fact, a review of US Department of Transportation statistics shows that an average motorist could drive a billion miles — the distance from Earth to Jupiter and back — before being involved in an accident that resulted from a motorist making a right-turn-on-red. Even these few crashes involved failure to yield the right-of-way; previously stopping, or not stopping, were not the primary cause of these accidents.

Cities with ticket cameras sell the cameras to the public by explaining that they’ll help prevent right-angle crashes. However, the majority of tickets given out inevitably end up being for minor rolling-right-turn violations.

According to the LA Times, Los Angeles officials estimated that 80% of their red-light camera tickets are for rolling right turns. And according to the Chicago Daily Herald, rolling-right-turn violations have accounted for 90% of the tickets generated in several Illinois communities. These tickets are often given to drivers who actually stopped safely but were inches over the line.

Drivers have long interpreted the “Right Turn On Red” law to mean that they must yield to other traffic and to pedestrians before executing a right turn when they confront a red signal at an intersection. As noted above, this interpretation has worked out extremely well from a safety and traffic movement perspective. Strict enforcement of provisions that require the driver to come to a complete stop, at a specific spot, did not occur until the advent of red-light ticket cameras.

Consequently, while almost all motorists observe the “yield the right-of-way” requirement, they do not always come to a complete stop before executing a right turn on red. National accident data clearly indicate that coming to a complete stop is not necessary, and possibly undesirable, if it causes rear-end collisions.

The NMA believes that the best course of action is to change the law so it is in sync with the way motorists successfully comply with the concept of “Right Turn On Red.” That means removing the requirement mandating coming to a complete stop and replacing it with language that further emphasizes a right turn on red can only be executed after yielding the right of way to all other vehicles and pedestrians. All states, not just those that permit the use of ticket cameras, should make this change in their Right Turn On Red law.
Click to expand...
 
MaggieD said:
It is the point. How can we be so far apart in this? If you lent your car to a guy who parked in a handicapped spot and racked up a $500 ticket for you, would you not expect him to pay it???

Have you ever gotten a RLC ticket? That's the only reason I can think of for your attitude.
Click to expand...
If you've paid attention to anything I have said on pretty much any subject here at DP you know that I believe the process... proper due process... is extremely important to me when it comes to pretty much any legal matter. That includes traffic tickets to the death penalty to pretty much everything in between. Due process is what gives us our best protection against over-zealous and/or corrupt people on the LE side of the fence. It's what is supposed to protect us from being prosecuted for a crime that we didn't commit. Only, now we have wandered into dangerous territory where we are willing to discard the safeguards of false prosecution in the name safety, but really for the sake of expediency and... even more insidiously... money.

Potential scenario, which I presume you would approve, based on your arguments here: Joe borrows Frank's car on a regular basis. Over the course of a year, Joe runs 10 red lights. When handed the bill, Joe happily pays them. Frank is out no money. Neither Joe nor Frank have any points assessed against their driving records... though I'm sure both Joe and Frank learned their lessons (wink wink, nod nod). The city made some money. Everybody's happy, right? Even Maggie's happy. We sure showed them AND we made the streets safer, right?

On the 11th red light running there's a t-bone fiery crash. Two people die, but not Joe. If we had used proper due process and assessed points against Joe's driving record, the fiery crash and two deaths never would have happened as Joe's DL would have been suspended after probably the 3rd or 4th red light ticket. THAT's the true safety aspect of why enforcement should required to follow proper established procedures, and shouldn't be maneuvered around for expediency purposes. Fines are only a minor inconvenience, DL suspension is the real punishment. We have the technology to take front shots and match the actual driver with the ticket, and by-passing that is simple laziness.

As someone who continually preaches personal responsibility, I find it somewhat disconcerting that you're so eager to be so soft on red light runners. Is it about safety, or is it about money? Pick one. Pick one as the #1 primary objective leaving the other as secondary.

In answer to your suspicion, no, I have never received a camera ticket of any kind. Not red light nor speeding.
 
radcen said:
If you've paid attention to anything I have said on pretty much any subject here at DP you know that I believe the process... proper due process... is extremely important to me when it comes to pretty much any legal matter. That includes traffic tickets to the death penalty to pretty much everything in between. Due process is what gives us our best protection against over-zealous and/or corrupt people on the LE side of the fence. It's what is supposed to protect us from being prosecuted for a crime that we didn't commit. Only, now we have wandered into dangerous territory where we are willing to discard the safeguards of false prosecution in the name safety, but really for the sake of expediency and... even more insidiously... money.

Potential scenario, which I presume you would approve, based on your arguments here: Joe borrows Frank's car on a regular basis. Over the course of a year, Joe runs 10 red lights. When handed the bill, Joe happily pays them. Frank is out no money. Neither Joe nor Frank have any points assessed against their driving records... though I'm sure both Joe and Frank learned their lessons (wink wink, nod nod). The city made some money. Everybody's happy, right? Even Maggie's happy. We sure showed them AND we made the streets safer, right?

On the 11th red light running there's a t-bone fiery crash. Two people die, but not Joe. If we had used proper due process and assessed points against Joe's driving record, the fiery crash and two deaths never would have happened as Joe's DL would have been suspended after probably the 3rd or 4th red light ticket. THAT's the true safety aspect of why enforcement should required to follow proper established procedures, and shouldn't be maneuvered around for expediency purposes. Fines are only a minor inconvenience, DL suspension is the real punishment. We have the technology to take front shots and match the actual driver with the ticket, and by-passing that is simple laziness.

As someone who continually preaches personal responsibility, I find it somewhat disconcerting that you're so eager to be so soft on red light runners. Is it about safety, or is it about money? Pick one. Pick one as the #1 primary objective leaving the other as secondary.

In answer to your suspicion, no, I have never received a camera ticket of any kind. Not red light nor speeding.
Click to expand...

I can't argue with this, Radcen. I understand:

If we had used proper due process and assessed points against Joe's driving record, the fiery crash and two deaths never would have happened as Joe's DL would have been suspended after probably the 3rd or 4th red light ticket. THAT's the true safety aspect of why enforcement should required to follow proper established procedures, and shouldn't be maneuvered around for expediency purposes. Fines are only a minor inconvenience, DL suspension is the real punishment. We have the technology to take front shots and match the actual driver with the ticket, and by-passing that is simple laziness.
Click to expand...
 
If Chicago was actually interested in safety at traffic lights, they would do two things:

1. They would ad a half second delay between one direction going red and the other direction going green, like the suburbs do. In Chicago, our light changes are instant.
2. They would not have the yellow light programmed at the federal minimum time for yellow lights. As it is, if you are driving correctly, by continually checking your mirrors and looking around at the possible dangers on the road, you will naturally take your eyes off of the traffic light for a moment every few seconds. If the light changes while you are looking in your mirror, though, you will have to react instantaneously by slamming your brakes very hard when you return your eyes to the traffic light or else you will blow the red. Even if you only had your eyes on your 6 for a half second, you will have to react nearly instantly. Our lights change lightning quick from green to red. Everyone who has driven in Chicago knows this. I'm not talking about looking about aimlessly, I'm talking about the moment it takes to look in your rearview mirror or to the side of the road for pedestrians. Not bad driving habits that many people have, but the good, defensive driving habits we are expected to have. You are supposed to check your mirrors every 5 to 8 seconds.

The combination of those two things causes a TON of accidents here. Their excuse for both is that it would cause major traffic delays to have this common sense approach to the traffic lights.

Here's the flaw in their argument: Even when Chicago has had the opportunity to replace old lights with one's that use traffic to determine the light schedule, they do not do so. Every single day I get stopped at lights when there is no traffic headed in the direction of the green lights, and all of the traffic is stopped waiting for nothing other than the light to change back to green. This is on MAJOR avenues in Chicago , like Milwaukee and Elston, not piddly little streets that do not see much traffic.

Add in the plethora of "Oncoming traffic has longer green" lights at some of the cities most heavy-traffic, 6 corner intersections (rather than light signal based turning at those intersections) and it becomes obvious that the city doesn't give a flying **** about road safety, only revenue.

The red light camera bull**** is almost as big of a scam on us as the privately owned parking meters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom