• 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

the reason they're there

cdot's “stated primary criterion is reducing angle crashes to increase safety”

from the ig, above
 
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.

That assumption you make is invalid.

The example you offer I'm certain is true and accurate, but the motivation for it was not to prevent accidents so much as it was to make money for the company and the political jurisdiction.

I was briefed on the criteria by 2 different police officers involved in the planning. The criteria are driven by the potential for tickets and profits.

Again, if they actually improved safety, they would be installed at every intersection with a light.
 
I have absolutely no problem with red-light cameras. If it's producing positive cash flow, that's good enough for me.

How do you think Chicago politicians will squander this revenue?
 
The only legitimate reason for red-light cameras would be to have a positive impact on safety.

Laws should only be enacted with the idea that by having people obey them will result in greater safety and order.

If red-light cameras are being operated as a means of generating revenue, then we have an example of a “safety” related law being enacted and enforced in a manner that is based on the hope that people will violate the law, be caught doing so, and thus provide government with an excuse to extort fines from them. This is a form of corruption that should be considered absolutely unacceptable in any proper society. To whatever degree government needs revenue, let it collect it through honest taxation, not through fraud and extortion.

So to use your 'logic' if I don't see cross traffic I can run a red light? If safety is the only issue?

I seriously doubt you would EVER see a tax increase as 'honest'. :roll:

Now the law has been no running a red light for years before any cameras were in operation. The law about STOP before a right turn on red has been on the books long before the first camera was set out.

I don't see the need to couple safety with enforcing laws that have been on the books for years and we all know by heart. Those laws were put there for public safety, a failure to enforce those laws would be just as ruthlessly attacked by the same detractors as the politics of it suits them.

I just think some are mad they can't blow lights if they don't see a cop car, and a 'California' stop on a right turn on red doesn't cut it. :lol:

What amazes me is the ticket is 100 bucks and the take is 71 million???? there be some seriously bad drivers in Chicago!!!!
 
That assumption you make is invalid.

The example you offer I'm certain is true and accurate, but the motivation for it was not to prevent accidents so much as it was to make money for the company and the political jurisdiction.

I was briefed on the criteria by 2 different police officers involved in the planning. The criteria are driven by the potential for tickets and profits.

Again, if they actually improved safety, they would be installed at every intersection with a light.
What if they were passing off their assumption as fact?
 
What if they were passing off their assumption as fact?

Some gullible fool would buy it, I reckon. I'll pass, thanks.

I'm not quite sure exactly which assumption you're referring to. :confused:
 
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.
 
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.

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.
 
Pedestrians and cyclists are another story.

But I've really not seen people blow off red lights that have been on for more than 1/2 second. And I drive a lot- maybe not in the neighborhoods you drive in though.
 
No evidence, you say?


Since someone got the joke, I'll explain. Consider that post in light of someone who only read the title.
 
To whatever degree government needs revenue, let it collect it through honest taxation, not through fraud and extortion.

How is ticketing people for break the law fraud and extortion?
 
That's bull****. Not directed at you, but at the information here. Among politicians, Diogenes would have a really.tough.time.

You really need a link to a reliable source to back your claim that the info is BS. Localities have been caoght decreasing yellow time to increase revnue.

The cameras are sold to localities as revenue generators,with safety a secndary consideration. My concern is that the caameras do not ticket drivers, but cars. And, if you dispute the ticket, it is up to you to prove your innocence, opposite the government proving you guilty.
 
You really need a link to a reliable source to back your claim that the info is BS. Localities have been caoght decreasing yellow time to increase revnue.

The cameras are sold to localities as revenue generators,with safety a secndary consideration. My concern is that the caameras do not ticket drivers, but cars. And, if you dispute the ticket, it is up to you to prove your innocence, opposite the government proving you guilty.

I KNEW I didn't make myself clear. I'm saying what they're doing according to that information is bull****. I believe it.
 
I don't have time to find the reference but I remember reading about someone who successfully fought their town's red light camera policy by citing stats that "rolling right on red", the typical red light camera violation, were not significant causes of accidents while the red light cameras significantly increased rear end collisions.

My real issue with them is that depending on how they're implemented they might be impossible to defend against. As long as the ticket is sent quickly enough after the incident that you can recall the details and video is provided so that you can determine whether or not you had a valid reason to blow the light I don't have a problem with them, provided the locality isn't monkeying with light timings.

My town issues parking tickets based on photos taken by paid volunteers. In the age of photoshop I have some very big issues with that.
 
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.

Nonsense, you get to face your accuser. I've seen it. The photo evidence is right there and clear. At least here in Beaverton, the camera system even records the exact phase of the light when you entered the intersection.

What is it with folks wanting an excuse for running red lights? No, it's not acceptable, ever, and you should be fined each and every time and the fines should be punitive.
 
Chicago government acting to take in money rather than govern well? I'm shocked.:shock:
At least those guys don't run the IRS. Oh! Wait! Uh oh . . . . :eek:

If you Google Chicago - Redflex connection, it appears that some politicians took in the money Chicago style and bypassed the city altogether.
 
Gaius-
In Chicago, they are impossible to defend- much like parking tickets.

The court costs to defend the ticket is basically what it will cost you to pay it.

Kind of a scam.
 
Gaius-
In Chicago, they are impossible to defend- much like parking tickets.

The court costs to defend the ticket is basically what it will cost you to pay it.

Kind of a scam.

There are no court costs to defend against a ticket, just show up and make your case.

EDIT: also helps to know the local driving laws, but these you should already know if you have a drivers license.
 
Last edited:
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,

Longer ambers would be a sensible solution.

As an aside: In Sweden they reduced the speed limit during the summer to 90km nationwide about 30-years ago. They claimed it would save 2,000 lives and had banners stating so on bridges etc... Wrong. It got more people killed and injured. They action was stopped.

What I couldn't understand is it's the time of year when it's dry, the streets are warm, it's light almost 16 to 24-hours a day, and people drive with headlights on day or night. I might understand it if it was done during the winter... it wasn't!

I'm wondering if it wasn't just a revenue raiser, as 90km on good highways is like walking... backwards.
 
My problem with red light cameras is that oftentimes they are screened by a private company that makes money off of the tickets. They are also harder to contest in court where you argue against a picture. I fear that many localities would use a system to abuse tickets and generate revenue. Where I live they had red light cameras installed. but when they did so they also cut the yellow light time down from 3 sec to 2 sec which is not only more dangerous but was done to try and get people to violate the law in areas where they installed these cameras.

I think it's fine to have cameras though and to catch those who violate the red light laws. My only thing is that it should be done by a monitoring center within the locality and the cameras should be reviewed solely by police officers in the jurisdiction issuing the tickets and not by some guy working for a private company hundreds of miles away.
 
How is ticketing people for break the law fraud and extortion?

Like I said above, the cameras do not tcket people, they tcket cars, and for me that opens up a big problems. As the car owner, it becomes your responsibility to prove your innocence. Our judiciary system is based on the opposite. In a family with a number of drivers, you may not remember who was driving the car at that time, and even so, shoud you be forced to testify against a family member. The camera, the locality, nor the camera owner, however, are not compelled to prove your guilt.

There is also the matter of allowing private companies to do the policing, especially for profit.
 
Like I said above, the cameras do not tcket people, they tcket cars, and for me that opens up a big problems. As the car owner, it becomes your responsibility to prove your innocence. Our judiciary system is based on the opposite. In a family with a number of drivers, you may not remember who was driving the car at that time, and even so, shoud you be forced to testify against a family member. The camera, the locality, nor the camera owner, however, are not compelled to prove your guilt.

There is also the matter of allowing private companies to do the policing, especially for profit.

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.
 
Nonsense, you get to face your accuser. I've seen it. The photo evidence is right there and clear. At least here in Beaverton, the camera system even records the exact phase of the light when you entered the intersection.

What is it with folks wanting an excuse for running red lights? No, it's not acceptable, ever, and you should be fined each and every time and the fines should be punitive.

I don't think you understand what it means to face one's accuser. That photo evidence is what is known as prima facie evidence.
 
I don't have time to find the reference but I remember reading about someone who successfully fought their town's red light camera policy by citing stats that "rolling right on red", the typical red light camera violation, were not significant causes of accidents while the red light cameras significantly increased rear end collisions.

My real issue with them is that depending on how they're implemented they might be impossible to defend against. As long as the ticket is sent quickly enough after the incident that you can recall the details and video is provided so that you can determine whether or not you had a valid reason to blow the light I don't have a problem with them, provided the locality isn't monkeying with light timings.

My town issues parking tickets based on photos taken by paid volunteers. In the age of photoshop I have some very big issues with that.

Please share with us a "valid reason" for blowing a red light.
 
As long as they penalize the DRIVER, and don't assume the owner is driving, then I have no issue with them. Some places go after the driver, some go after the vehicle owner. We have them here, and they go after the vehicle owner, and make it a lesser penalty precisely because they cannot meet the higher standard of proof for an actual driving offense that would go on people's driving records.

For all their talk of safety, the fact that they do not make sure they penalize the actual driver... and when you observe how absolutely giddy they get when they talk about the revenue... makes all their talk about safety-first a bunch of BS jaw jackin'.
 
Back
Top Bottom