• 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

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.

I have no problem with profit that is made honestly and ethically. What you are defending is profit made from fraud and extortion.
 
How is ticketing people for break the law fraud and extortion?

It is when it is done in conjunction with methods that are willfully intended to induce people to break the law who had no intention of doing so, and would not have broken the law without these methods having been used against them.
 
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.

This excuse is similar to a bull**** argument used in asset forfeiture*cases, where the charges are brought against a piece of property rather than against a human being, thus depriving the owner of that property of any opportunity for proper due process.
 
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.

I never said you should throw out the program. I simply said that it needs to be implemented in such a way as to allow people to be able to defend their actions in court if they choose to. If its not - for example if the evidence is a still photo and not say a half minute of video or if the ticket comes six months after the fact - then the program should be modified or tossed.
 
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.

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.

You're missing the point, entirely.

Businesses do not make money by simply “moving money around”. Businesses make money by creating wealth. They take raw materials, and use them to create products that are more valuable than the materials, labor, and other expenses that went into producing them. They offer goods and services to consumers who will willingly pay more for these goods and services than what it costs the company to provide them. A good business transaction leaves both parties better off than before. The consumer receives a good or service which is more valuable to him than the money he had to pay to receive it, and the business gets more money in exchange for that good or service than it cost that business to provide it.

The red light-camera scam does not create wealth. It only “makes” money by taking it from someone else, who gets nothing of positive value in return.
 
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.

That's part of the problem. People don't account for different lengths of yellow timing. I always stop if I have time to safely stop without slamming on the brakes. I don't wait and say, oh... I can make it before it's red...

Now this increase in rear end accidents...

These people will eventually rear end someone. Probably better on a city street at 30 to 45 MPH, than at freeway speeds... And maybe they will stop tailgating...
 
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 fall back far enough that I can see the light in time.

What's your hurry? I have the same issue in my WS6. Funny thing is, I tend to drive it slower than my sedan.
 
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?
Well, if the owner of the car doesn't know who'e driving it and have them take responsibility, didn't report the car as stolen, and still has it...

Sorry. no sympathy from me.

Besides, most photos include the driver. You might be able to get out of the ticket in some jurisdictions, but isn't the judge going to want to know who was driving?

Consider this too. If someone else is driving your car, it's your insurance that's responsible in case of an accident...
 
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.
In my area, it does not go to the police.
 
I fall back far enough that I can see the light in time.

What's your hurry? I have the same issue in my WS6. Funny thing is, I tend to drive it slower than my sedan.

I'm not in a hurry. I'm following at legal and safe distances, given speeds and speed limits and conditions. It's not so bad when I'm in my local area where I'm familiary with roads and interesections. It becomes a huge problem when driving in big cities or unfamiliar areas. Same on a motorcycle.

It is unfair, and consistent with the fact that such systems are scams meant to steal the money of car owners for the profit of private companies like ATS.
 
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.

As others have mentioned, the programming and timing of the yellow light is most important. Longer yellow contributes to safety. In my town we have several intersections where all lights are red for a few seconds, a technique I approve of.

When they shorten the yellow, they are compromising safety as they maliciously seek to enhance revenue.
 
I'm not in a hurry. I'm following at legal and safe distances, given speeds and speed limits and conditions. It's not so bad when I'm in my local area where I'm familiary with roads and interesections. It becomes a huge problem when driving in big cities or unfamiliar areas. Same on a motorcycle.

I've never gone through a red light in my life. I put on 25,000 miles a year in suburban Chicago; heavy traffic; lots of idiots on the road. Tommy puts on 60,000 miles a year -- never gone through a red light in his life. You need to stop looking for excuses and take a driving course.

It is unfair, and consistent with the fact that such systems are scams meant to steal the money of car owners for the profit of private companies like ATS.

Life is not fair. You'd better get used to it. ;)
 
I've never gone through a red light in my life. I put on 25,000 miles a year in suburban Chicago; heavy traffic; lots of idiots on the road. Tommy puts on 60,000 miles a year -- never gone through a red light in his life. You need to stop looking for excuses and take a driving course.



Life is not fair. You'd better get used to it. ;)

I've been aware for several decades now, about 5, that life is not fair. Understanding that life and government policy are rather 2 different things, I still object when government policy creates gross injustice so that private companies might be enrichened. That's my gripe.

And I'll bet my last dollar Maggie, that you have never fully studied exactly how these systems are designed and operated.

I'm sure that you have never run a red light. No problem. But I'll bet that in cases you were never even aware of, PART of your vehicle was "in the box" when the light is red. That's all it takes--just inches still in the box, and it's a ticket. As the 2 police officers explained to me, it is a statistical certainty that when that camera flashes as the light turns red, there will be AT LEAST one vehicle's rear end in the box. The higher traffic volume, the more cars in the box at that second.

The system catches those in the wrong place by inches, at the wrong time by fractions of seconds. That has nothing to do with safety, and is dishonest.
 
I've been aware for several decades now, about 5, that life is not fair. Understanding that life and government policy are rather 2 different things, I still object when government policy creates gross injustice so that private companies might be enrichened. That's my gripe.

And I'll bet my last dollar Maggie, that you have never fully studied exactly how these systems are designed and operated.

I'm sure that you have never run a red light. No problem. But I'll bet that in cases you were never even aware of, PART of your vehicle was "in the box" when the light is red. That's all it takes--just inches still in the box, and it's a ticket. As the 2 police officers explained to me, it is a statistical certainty that when that camera flashes as the light turns red, there will be AT LEAST one vehicle's rear end in the box. The higher traffic volume, the more cars in the box at that second.

The system catches those in the wrong place by inches, at the wrong time by fractions of seconds. That has nothing to do with safety, and is dishonest.

That'd be all well and good if that's the way the systems work. It's not. They monitor those cars entering the intersection after the red -- not still in it.
 
That'd be all well and good if that's the way the systems work. It's not. They monitor those cars entering the intersection after the red -- not still in it.

Perhaps there are different systems Maggie.

I was briefed on the ATS system, as that was the one being proposed in my town. In that system, ANY vehicle and all vehicles "in the box" when the light turns red, NOT yellow, are photographed at that instant. Any part of the vehicle in the box draws the ticket. That's why it is so lucrative to the companies. I say again Maggie, as described by the police officers working with ATS, it is a statistical certainty that, depending upon traffic volume, there will be at least one vehicle 'in the box' when that camera flashes when the light turns red.

So maybe the system in Chicago is different--I don't know. But I doubt it, because the goal is the same--revenue. Something like $1000 per camera per day, at a busy intersection. Under the right conditions, the systems are cash cows.
 
Perhaps there are different systems Maggie.

I was briefed on the ATS system, as that was the one being proposed in my town. In that system, ANY vehicle and all vehicles "in the box" when the light turns red, NOT yellow, are photographed at that instant. Any part of the vehicle in the box draws the ticket. That's why it is so lucrative to the companies. I say again Maggie, as described by the police officers working with ATS, it is a statistical certainty that, depending upon traffic volume, there will be at least one vehicle 'in the box' when that camera flashes when the light turns red.

So maybe the system in Chicago is different--I don't know. But I doubt it, because the goal is the same--revenue. Something like $1000 per camera per day, at a busy intersection. Under the right conditions, the systems are cash cows.

Trust but verify. Red-light camera function is all over the internet. Not one of them describes a system where, if one's car is inches "in the box" at the far end they are infracted. They all describe a system where you are infracted if your car enters the intersection on the red. Either you misunderstood what those people told you? Or they were wrong. What you are describing is a system where yellow means stop. That's not how it works.

Look it up.
 
Trust but verify. Red-light camera function is all over the internet. Not one of them describes a system where, if one's car is inches "in the box" at the far end they are infracted. They all describe a system where you are infracted if your car enters the intersection on the red. Either you misunderstood what those people told you? Or they were wrong. What you are describing is a system where yellow means stop. That's not how it works.

Look it up.

I have looked it up, many times, but it's been a few years. I doubt anything on the internet is going to tell the whole truth. I feel confident that the 2 different police officers who briefed me (ATS system) were not making this up.

"In the box" was their term, not mine, but it is accurate and easy to understand.

When you use the term "at the far end" you are viewing in only one dimension. At the generic 4 way intersection, there are 4 directions. I understand that some of the systems use video, only because we do see videos of car accidents. But the pictures I've seen are snapshots. The vehicle is either in the box or it's not. Those in the box get the ticket, whether they are turning right on red, or proceeding through the intersection.

Because of the gross injustice perpetrated by this scam, there are all sorts of people against it. Safety is not the consideration, and there are many ways to demonstrate that. Revenue IS the consideration, and there are many ways to demonstrate that. :peace
 
Piss poor excuse for knowingly continuing and enabling said unfairness.

That's where you and I disagree. It's not unfair. There's absolutely nothing unfair about ticketing people for breaking the law.
 
That's where you and I disagree. It's not unfair. There's absolutely nothing unfair about ticketing people for breaking the law.

In a previous post you advised me that life was not fair, and to get over it, thereby implying at least, that the RLC system was unfair.

Now you're claiming that it is not unfair.

So I ask you, how can it be a fair system if a person driving a small vehicle close to the ground, driving the speed limit and at legal following distances, is physically unable to see the light until he gets into the intersection? It cannot. :roll:
 
As others have mentioned, the programming and timing of the yellow light is most important. Longer yellow contributes to safety. In my town we have several intersections where all lights are red for a few seconds, a technique I approve of.

I have often wondered why this isn't the standard practice everywhere. At every light-controlled intersection I've observed, one direction turns green at exactly the same time another turns red, meaning that there may still be cars legitimately in the intersection from one direction at the time another direction is supposed to be able to go. It seems to me like obvious common sense that there should be a few seconds in each transition where all the cars from one direction are given time to clear the intersection before another direction is given the go.
 
Life is not fair. You'd better get used to it. ;)

That is no excuse at all for allowing government to willfully engage in unfair practices for the purpose of entrapping citizens into committing law violations that they didn't intend to commit and would not have committed without government's misconduct.

It's not fair that convenience stores get robbed, but when we catch robbers doing so, we still arrest them and put them in jail. We don't just let them off because “life is not fair”. There's no reason why corrupt public servants shouldn't be treated the same way when they engage in this sort of skullduggery.
 
I have often wondered why this isn't the standard practice everywhere. At every light-controlled intersection I've observed, one direction turns green at exactly the same time another turns red, meaning that there may still be cars legitimately in the intersection from one direction at the time another direction is supposed to be able to go. It seems to me like obvious common sense that there should be a few seconds in each transition where all the cars from one direction are given time to clear the intersection before another direction is given the go.

In my fairly small town--maybe 50,000--we have at least 2 intersections with "4 way red" programmed in, and part of the reason for that is that when we complained about the proposed RLC, ordinary citizens suggested it to the city commission, and for some miraculous reason common sense and decency prevailed. Good fortune intervened and we defeated the proposed system, and one of the benefits was the 4 way red.

As I recall, older light systems are unable to accomplish this, but the newer ones are, though I think there is a time limit (3 seconds?) to it.
 
In a previous post you advised me that life was not fair, and to get over it, thereby implying at least, that the RLC system was unfair.

Now you're claiming that it is not unfair.

So I ask you, how can it be a fair system if a person driving a small vehicle close to the ground, driving the speed limit and at legal following distances, is physically unable to see the light until he gets into the intersection? It cannot. :roll:

You inferred that I meant RLC's were unfair. That is not what I said.

Now. If you're driving a car that's so close to the pavement you can't see the traffic signal? I suggest you sell your 5-year-old's toy car and buy a real one. That is, by far, the most ridiculous argument I've ever heard in opposition of red-light cameras.

Have you never heard of a stale green light? Did you not learn about that when you learned to drive? Every truck driver on planet earth watches for stale greens. That's because they are professional drivers. Become one. You and everyone around you in the road will be safer.

I have often wondered why this isn't the standard practice everywhere. At every light-controlled intersection I've observed, one direction turns green at exactly the same time another turns red, meaning that there may still be cars legitimately in the intersection from one direction at the time another direction is supposed to be able to go. It seems to me like obvious common sense that there should be a few seconds in each transition where all the cars from one direction are given time to clear the intersection before another direction is given the go.

That is no excuse at all for allowing government to willfully engage in unfair practices for the purpose of entrapping citizens into committing law violations that they didn't intend to commit and would not have committed without government's misconduct.

It's not fair that convenience stores get robbed, but when we catch robbers doing so, we still arrest them and put them in jail. We don't just let them off because “life is not fair”. There's no reason why corrupt public servants shouldn't be treated the same way when they engage in this sort of skullduggery.

I love your analogy. Let me substitute for you: "It's not fair (according to you) that law enforcement puts RLCs at intersections. But we still arrest people who go through red lights at those intersections."

If an ATM camera catches someone robbing a person at the ATM machine, should we not be able to arrest them? And, oh noes!!!! they don't even warn people they're being photographed!!!

It's not skulduggery. What would be skulduggery is if they purposely shortened the yellow in order to trick drivers. If that was common practice, I would agree with you. And before you say, "But they all do! please cite your source.
 
Back
Top Bottom