• 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:
That's where you and I disagree. It's not unfair. There's absolutely nothing unfair about ticketing people for breaking the law.
Click to expand...
You apparently feel there is nothing unfair about randomly assigning guilt to people based on association and who may not have actually done anything wrong, so you'll have to excuse me if I find the quality of your judgment and conclusions lacking.
 
radcen said:
You apparently feel there is nothing unfair about randomly assigning guilt to people based on association and who may not have actually done anything wrong, so you'll have to excuse me if I find the quality of your judgment and conclusions lacking.
Click to expand...

I always excuse people when they're wrong. ;)
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...

Have you missed all the reports, mentioned in this thead, of exactly this thing being proven to be happening?
 
MaggieD said:
I always excuse people when they're wrong. ;)
Click to expand...

Then the question becomes, "do you hold yourself to the same standard?"

We all agree that those who deliberately break the law should be ticketed.

But in this case of RLC, the actual offender, the actual driver IS NOT ticketed. Strike one.

It is documented that RLC may reduce 90 degree collisions, but that they increase rearend collisions. Strike two.

It is documented that RLC is NOT about safety, but rather about revenue at all costs including cheating. Strike three.

What say, Maggie?

I always admire people who are able to admit that they may have misunderstood all the angles on any given topic.
 
Henry David said:
Then the question becomes, "do you hold yourself to the same standard?"

We all agree that those who deliberately break the law should be ticketed.

But in this case of RLC, the actual offender, the actual driver IS NOT ticketed. Strike one.
Click to expand...

Nope. There's plenty of precedence. A ticket received because of a red-light camera violation does not count against one's driving record. It's in the same status as illegal parking, parking in a fire zone, parking in a no-parking zone, parking in a handicapped spot. Who knows who parked it there? The law doesn't care. The owner of the car pays the ticket or suffers the consequences.

It is documented that RLC may reduce 90 degree collisions, but that they increase rearend collisions. Strike two.
Click to expand...

Misleading. Rear-end collisions are far less costly than 90-degree collisions and cause far less injury.

It is documented that RLC is NOT about safety, but rather about revenue at all costs including cheating. Strike three.
Click to expand...

Your opinion. And nope. These red-light cameras are installed at high-risk intersections, as they should be. The fact that they're catching drivers going through red lights is not evidence it's about revenue. The revenue it generates is a wonderful perk for catching jerks that run reds. 22% of all traffic accidents happen because people run red lights. That's something worth targeting, in my opinion.
 
MaggieD said:
Nope. There's plenty of precedence. A ticket received because of a red-light camera violation does not count against one's driving record. It's in the same status as illegal parking, parking in a fire zone, parking in a no-parking zone, parking in a handicapped spot. Who knows who parked it there? The law doesn't care. The owner of the car pays the ticket or suffers the consequences.

Misleading. Rear-end collisions are far less costly than 90-degree collisions and cause far less injury.

Your opinion. And nope. These red-light cameras are installed at high-risk intersections, as they should be. The fact that they're catching drivers going through red lights is not evidence it's about revenue. The revenue it generates is a wonderful perk for catching jerks that run reds. 22% of all traffic accidents happen because people run red lights. That's something worth targeting, in my opinion.
Click to expand...
You're arguing against yourself. On the one hand you say running red lights are dangerous and it's about safety, then you proceed to completely nullify your own safety argument by admitting that it's equitable to a parking ticket, then you further nullify your safety argument by admitting that it's about revenue. Oy vey, M, what the deuce?

Please explain how the driver of the car learns a lesson if the driver of the car doesn't get the ticket?

You're an "end justifies the means" type of person and you're ok with legal safeguards against wrongful prosecution being tossed aside for an illusion of safety... and even more repugnant, expedient methods of generating money. Your protests regarding safety are hollow when combined with the totality of your comments on the matter.
 
radcen said:
You're arguing against yourself. On the one hand you say running red lights are dangerous and it's about safety, then you proceed to completely nullify your own safety argument by admitting that it's equitable to a parking ticket, then you further nullify your safety argument by admitting that it's about revenue. Oy vey, M, what the deuce?
Click to expand...

Oh, please, Radcen. It's about safety. I most certainly did not "nullify" my own safety argument by virtue of the fact that it's the equivalent of a parking ticket and realizing that it produces revenue as an added perk. Nice try, though.

Please explain how the driver of the car learns a lesson if the driver of the car doesn't get the ticket?
Click to expand...

in my opinion, in the very few instances where the owner is NOT the driver? He learns a couple of valuable lessons: #1, whether or not he has a real friend who ponies up for his violation; and #2, that loaning one's car to anyone is a risky proposition. It was a red-light camera ticket. Could have been hitting a kid on a bike.

You're an "end justifies the means" type of person and you're ok with legal safeguards against wrongful prosecution being tossed aside for an illusion of safety... and even more repugnant, expedient methods of generating money. Your protests regarding safety are hollow when combined with the totality of your comments on the matter.
Click to expand...

Sorry, that's just silly. Is getting a parking ticket circumventing our justice system? Is getting a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot circumventing our justice system? The answer is no.

You guys really ought to learn about your rights after you GET a red-light camera ticket before you start spouting off. Save your hyperbole for something more important.

Watch for stale greens. Learn how to drive safely. And appreciate that law enforcement is trying to protect you, your family and kids from jerks that don't.
 
MaggieD said:
Oh, please, Radcen. It's about safety. I most certainly did not "nullify" my own safety argument by virtue of the fact that it's the equivalent of a parking ticket and realizing that it produces revenue as an added perk. Nice try, though.



in my opinion, in the very few instances where the owner is NOT the driver? He learns a couple of valuable lessons: #1, whether or not he has a real friend who ponies up for his violation; and #2, that loaning one's car to anyone is a risky proposition. It was a red-light camera ticket. Could have been hitting a kid on a bike.



Sorry, that's just silly. Is getting a parking ticket circumventing our justice system? Is getting a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot circumventing our justice system? The answer is no.

You guys really ought to learn about your rights after you GET a red-light camera ticket before you start spouting off. Save your hyperbole for something more important.

Watch for stale greens. Learn how to drive safely. And appreciate that law enforcement is trying to protect you, your family and kids from jerks that don't.
Click to expand...
You can spin it however you want, and you can point out all the little insignificant potential side-issues and distractions you want, but the fact remains that actual guilt is unimportant to you. You are willing... I would almost say eager... to randomly assign guilt to people who aren't even doing anything wrong. Shoot, on so many issues you prattle on about personal responsibility, but on other issues like this you're willing to toss aside personal responsibility in the name of expediency. Expediency is not justice. Citing Joe for the actions of Frank doesn't teach Frank squat.

If the owner of the vehicle is in the passenger seat and the driver gets a speeding ticket, do we cite the owner? No, we don't. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the one who was committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. If the owner of the vehicle loans their vehicle to a friend, and the friend gets a speeding ticket from a flesh-and-blood police officer, do we cite the owner? No, we do not. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. Do you believe that the vehicle owner should be cited in these situations as well? You do if you're consistent. If not, why not? What's the difference?

It's not a hard concept to grasp: loaning a vehicle to an otherwise currently legally licensed driver is not a crime.
 
radcen said:
You can spin it however you want, and you can point out all the little insignificant potential side-issues and distractions you want, but the fact remains that actual guilt is unimportant to you. You are willing... I would almost say eager... to randomly assign guilt to people who aren't even doing anything wrong. Shoot, on so many issues you prattle on about personal responsibility, but on other issues like this you're willing to toss aside personal responsibility in the name of expediency. Expediency is not justice. Citing Joe for the actions of Frank doesn't teach Frank squat.

If the owner of the vehicle is in the passenger seat and the driver gets a speeding ticket, do we cite the owner? No, we don't. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the one who was committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. If the owner of the vehicle loans their vehicle to a friend, and the friend gets a speeding ticket from a flesh-and-blood police officer, do we cite the owner? No, we do not. Why? Because it's not right or fair. The owner was not the committing the offense, and we know and recognize that. Do you believe that the vehicle owner should be cited in these situations as well? You do if you're consistent. If not, why not? What's the difference?

It's not a hard concept to grasp: loaning a vehicle to an otherwise currently legally licensed driver is not a crime.
Click to expand...

It's also not hard to grasp that it's your responsibility to collect the ticket money from the guy you loaned the car to.

We're never going to agree. You may have the last word.
 
MaggieD said:
It's also not hard to grasp that it's your responsibility to collect the ticket money from the guy you loaned the car to.

We're never going to agree. You may have the last word.
Click to expand...

Normally, I would say that collecting the money doesn't address the safety issue, but you've been so utterly inconsistent on this issue I really have nowhere else to go. No matter what is said, the target will move. Some posts you claim safety, other posts you claim money, this post you complete ignored the direct question regarding similar circumstances (Do you believe that the vehicle owner should be cited in these situations as well?), so I have no choice but to conclude that the answer is too inconvenient.

When you cite the owner, you're potentially letting the driver off the hook. Not just monetarily, but regarding their driving record as well, which is supposed to be the real punishment, as it then can lead to license suspension and/or increased insurance rates. I will never understand why... for someone who seems to pride them self on being so hard on wrong-doers... you're so eager to be so soft on the actual driver in this case. Unless the money is the bigger factor.

No, wait, it's safety.

Hold on...

...oh, never mind.
 
If red light running caught by camera can be considered a minor violation, and does not count toward your driving record, why should red light running when caught by a flesh-and-blood officer have a higher penalty?

The crime is the same. The potential for catastrophe is the same.

Could this be considered unequal treatment under the law?
 
Just another example that shows liberals approve of scamming people when it = revenue to Big Government

This is why Big Government must be opposed at every step. It's not held to any standard or ever held accountable, no matter the level of corruption.
 
MaggieD said:
Unlike others, apparently, I have no problem with profit.
Click to expand...

It is dishonest profit (and in some cases outright fraud). I'd hope you have a problem with profit gained dishonestly.
 
MaggieD said:
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.
Click to expand...


From the article:

“CDOT was unable to substantiate its claims that the City chose to install red light cameras at intersections with the highest angle crash rates in order to increase safety,” the IG said. “Neither do we know, from the information provided by CDOT, why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated, nor what the City’s rationale is for the continued operation of any individual camera at any individual location.”

The IG also found it “troubling” that the CDOT could not provide any documentation as to how they chose intersections to place red light cameras and why cameras remain at intersections that have reported no accidents.
 
radcen said:
You're an "end justifies the means" type of person and you're ok with legal safeguards against wrongful prosecution being tossed aside for an illusion of safety... and even more repugnant, expedient methods of generating taking money.
Click to expand...

Fixed it for you.
 
MaggieD said:
Nope. There's plenty of precedence. A ticket received because of a red-light camera violation does not count against one's driving record. It's in the same status as illegal parking, parking in a fire zone, parking in a no-parking zone, parking in a handicapped spot. Who knows who parked it there? The law doesn't care. The owner of the car pays the ticket or suffers the consequences.



Misleading. Rear-end collisions are far less costly than 90-degree collisions and cause far less injury.



Your opinion. And nope. These red-light cameras are installed at high-risk intersections, as they should be. The fact that they're catching drivers going through red lights is not evidence it's about revenue. The revenue it generates is a wonderful perk for catching jerks that run reds. 22% of all traffic accidents happen because people run red lights. That's something worth targeting, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Who cares whether or not it counts against one's driving record? For the person making minimum wage, such an unjust fine represents a few days' wages.

If they were really about safety, if it could be proved that they increased safety, then everytime somebody was injured at an intersection WITHOUT such a camera, a lawyer could argue negligence on the part of the city for NOT having such safety enhancements. And they would probably win.

It's not about safety Maggie, or they would have them at every intersection. It's about greed and revenue. Greed, avarice and corrupt humans in government, nothing more.
 
Henry David said:
Who cares whether or not it counts against one's driving record? For the person making minimum wage, such an unjust fine represents a few days' wages.

If they were really about safety, if it could be proved that they increased safety, then everytime somebody was injured at an intersection WITHOUT such a camera, a lawyer could argue negligence on the part of the city for NOT having such safety enhancements. And they would probably win.

It's not about safety Maggie, or they would have them at every intersection. It's about greed and revenue. Greed, avarice and corrupt humans in government, nothing more.
Click to expand...

If it was about greed and revenue, they'd have lots more of them.
 
MaggieD said:
If it was about greed and revenue, they'd have lots more of them.
Click to expand...

That's rather the point Maggie. As was explained to me by 2 different police officers working with ATS, unless there is sufficient volume of traffic at a given intersection, the cameras are a losing proposition. They are very selective about which intersections are equipped. Volume of traffic is the biggest consideration, and camera placement is the other. At least here in Florida, the cameras must be placed on private property. They cannot be placed on public property. That may have changed lately, but that's how it was about 2 years ago.

It's all about profit. An intersection with low volume will not be chosen because it does not generate the revenue.
 
Henry David said:
That's rather the point Maggie. As was explained to me by 2 different police officers working with ATS, unless there is sufficient volume of traffic at a given intersection, the cameras are a losing proposition. They are very selective about which intersections are equipped. Volume of traffic is the biggest consideration, and camera placement is the other. At least here in Florida, the cameras must be placed on private property. They cannot be placed on public property. That may have changed lately, but that's how it was about 2 years ago.

It's all about profit. An intersection with low volume will not be chosen because it does not generate the revenue.
Click to expand...
Really? I've never heard of that. (Not disputing you, just never heard that. Never been to Florida, either.)

Volume does mean a lot. Cost/benefit, of course.

Here the city also put speed cameras on the interstate freeway through town. That, plus the red light cameras on city streets also double as speed cameras.

About two years after they had all been installed there was a minor controversy because a local news station found out that not one single city-owned vehicle had been cited by any camera. Not one. The city claimed that all their drivers were that safe all the time. :roll: No way to disprove that, of course, but it doesn't sound right that there wouldn't be even one in a two year period considering the hundreds of vehicles the city owns.
 
radcen said:
Really? I've never heard of that. (Not disputing you, just never heard that. Never been to Florida, either.)

Volume does mean a lot. Cost/benefit, of course.

Here the city also put speed cameras on the interstate freeway through town. That, plus the red light cameras on city streets also double as speed cameras.

About two years after they had all been installed there was a minor controversy because a local news station found out that not one single city-owned vehicle had been cited by any camera. Not one. The city claimed that all their drivers were that safe all the time. :roll: No way to disprove that, of course, but it doesn't sound right that there wouldn't be even one in a two year period considering the hundreds of vehicles the city owns.
Click to expand...

Yes, I've heard before that by some "stroke of luck" the city vehicles and those with comfy politicial relationships never show up in the crowd.

As I say, my information is 2 years old now, but at that time camera placement here HAD to be on private property. I suppose because the cameras were owned and maintained by ATS. Because placement is so crucial to precise photos, it was frequently the point that prevented some installations. The ideal setup was 5 cameras on a typical 4 way intersection, but depending upon the exact details, they could sometimes get away with fewer cameras.
 
Henry David said:
Yes, I've heard before that by some "stroke of luck" the city vehicles and those with comfy politicial relationships never show up in the crowd.

As I say, my information is 2 years old now, but at that time camera placement here HAD to be on private property. I suppose because the cameras were owned and maintained by ATS. Because placement is so crucial to precise photos, it was frequently the point that prevented some installations. The ideal setup was 5 cameras on a typical 4 way intersection, but depending upon the exact details, they could sometimes get away with fewer cameras.
Click to expand...
Here it's a pretty safe bet that they can be positioned on public property as they're mounted on already-existing light and traffic signal poles. I presume the private company that runs the program is considered an agent of the city, and all they're officially doing is contract maintenance and administration, or something like that.

Also here, they don't always do all directions of an intersection. Some have all, some have only one or two directions.
 
MaggieD said:
Nope. There's plenty of precedence. A ticket received because of a red-light camera violation does not count against one's driving record. It's in the same status as illegal parking, parking in a fire zone, parking in a no-parking zone, parking in a handicapped spot. Who knows who parked it there? The law doesn't care. The owner of the car pays the ticket or suffers the consequences.



Misleading. Rear-end collisions are far less costly than 90-degree collisions and cause far less injury.



Your opinion. And nope. These red-light cameras are installed at high-risk intersections, as they should be. The fact that they're catching drivers going through red lights is not evidence it's about revenue. The revenue it generates is a wonderful perk for catching jerks that run reds. 22% of all traffic accidents happen because people run red lights. That's something worth targeting, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Parking tickets aren't about safety. If RLC tickets were about safety the point would be to change the behavior of the driver. That should mean fining he driver - not the owner - and points.

Most RLC tickets are people making rolling right on red, not people driving straight through the intersection. My understanding us that rolling right on red is not a significant safety hazard.
 
Gaius46 said:
Parking tickets aren't about safety. If RLC tickets were about safety the point would be to change the behavior of the driver. That should mean fining he driver - not the owner - and points.

Most RLC tickets are people making rolling right on red, not people driving straight through the intersection. My understanding us that rolling right on red is not a significant safety hazard.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...
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.

ETA: Since you're still arguing that red light running equates to (some) parking tickets, and you've been arguing (sometimes, depending...) that revenue is a perfectly fine justification unto itself, does this mean that you are also arguing that ALL red light tickets (whether from a camera or from a flesh & blood LEO) should be civil infractions that do not count against a person's record? Same crime, same safety issue, ya know.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom