Last November we discussed the issue of Red Light cameras being installed at "dangerous intersections" throughout Park Ridge. Alderman Don Bachtard (3rd ward) was reportedly prompted into action on this idea because "a driver running through a red light broadsided the son of one of his constituents at Oakton and Greenwood Avenue."
We criticized the idea as being more about revenue generation for municipalities and less about safety than either elected officials or the red light camera companies are willing to admit. But Ald. Bachtard has pushed the idea forward.
We respect Ald. Bachtard's professed concerns for safety. We expected that after his remarks about safety, and his push for two red light camera companies to conduct studies at various intersections around Park Ridge, we would be able to read about the studies and learn about the anticipated reduction in accident rates at those dangerous intersections, especially the intersection where the son of one of his constituents was broadsided; Oakton and Greenwood Ave.
But so far, we haven't been able to find much in the way of discussion of a hoped for increase in safety or estimated reduction in accident rates at the intersections only one of the two red light camera companies studied and recommended for camera installation. Neither the July 17, 2008 Public Safety Committee meeting minutes, nor the documents available on the city web site for the upcoming Public Safety Committee meeting on Thursday, August 7, 2008 talk about such issues as estimates for reducing accident rates at intersections with red light cameras. And the two companies that conducted the studies did not recommend that cameras be installed at the intersection of Oakton and Greeenwood; the intersection where the T-bone accident happened that has spurred Ald. Bachtard on in his quest to install red light cameras in Park Ridge.
However, we were able to read, in a Herald-Advocate report on the issue, about the maximum amount of fines allowed ($100), the fact that the city can keep a percentage (how much?) of the fine, the monthly maintenance fee charged for each camera ($1500), and that there is also a processing fee (how much?) charged for each violation.
But in a report in the Journal & Topics on this subject, Alderman Frank Wsooooolman (7th ward) did manage to work in a quotable sound bite on the subject of safety and "minimizing the number of accidents". After all, the Wsooooolman is the Public Safety Committee chairman.
Addendum: Freewheeling April 15, 2008 -- reader recommended links on red light cameras.
August 6, 2008
It's For Your Own Good!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
The key locations as recommended
will help.
Let's move forward here.....
Thank you.
I vote YES for red light cameras.
Can we nominate intersections?
I think the Tribune or Sun-Times reported in the past few months that red-light cameras may actually cause more accidents than they prevent because motorists facing a changing yellow light either speed up even more to beat the red, or slam on their brakes - and get rear-ended.
Face it: It's all about the revenue, just another form of tax that can be justified as a "sin" tax.
Tax and spend, spend and tax.
The problems is we need cameras at every intersection in town. I live within walking distance of Washington, Lincoln and Main South. There is a four way stop at the end of my block and if a ticket was written for every violation I see at that corner we would not have to worry about tax issues ever again. Many of the violations are by adults with kids in the car, not kids from the high school. A few blocks down is another intersection and I know of 4 major accidents over my time here in PR (5 years)and these are residential streets - not Greenwood and Oakton.
I do get a little nervous about big brother. I had to fight ticket I got from a tollway camera because my I-Pass malfunctioned but the police cannot be at every corner all the time.
Of course we could just rely on peopel to drive responsibly - like that is going to happen.
This does sound like big brother. In the article it said the cameras could also be set to continual surveillance. In Chicago didn't they recently also vote to put these on stree sweepers? I know that I have read there is no guaranty of privacy in public but I still don't like this idea.
I would want to hear about how much safer these intersections would be before I would vote yes on this plan. I agree this sounds more like getting more money for the government to spend than it does about making driving more safe.
1984, just 20 plus years late.
If I read it correctly, each camera will cost us $18,000 a year just in maintenace fees. I can't believe that is the best use that can be made of our money.
Can we PLEASE stop this nonsense!!!!As long as there are cars they WILL be accidents. There isn't a camera that can dictate common sense. Speaking of which, can our politicians please stop spending our tax dollars so frivolously????
$18,000/365 = $49.31
I got a ticket a few years ago for turning right on to Greenwood North of Touhy. I missed the sign. The ticket was $75.00 if I just pled guilty. Let's not do the "it's too expensive argument". These things will pay for themselves in a heart beat.
I can understand the big brother argument but I also know that if I know that a policman is normally on a certain stretch of highway, I slow down to the speed limit. I would think the cameras provide a deterant.
Perhaps if the president told us the cameras were to protect us from terrorists we would have no problem with it.
Great! For the low low price of only $49.31 per day, we can have pictures of the accidents that WILL STILL HAPPEN and pictures of more accidents that WILL PROBABLY HAPPEN from people speeding up or slamming on their breaks because they remember or notice a camera! What a deal!
Anonymous at 12:52,
In order to be a deterrent, a driver has to know the camera is there... If the deterrent effect actually works, then how long before the cameras stop "paying for themselves"...? How long before someone notices that the cameras aren't "paying for themselves"...?
...and if this really is all about safety, then cost isn't really a factor, right...? You can't put a price on a life, no matter how much some insurance agent or actuarial tries to persuade you of that...but the heavy emphasis by these companies on revenue return vs. cost is...well...interesting...
As for anything that comes out of the mouth of the current President...if that man says the sky is blue and water is wet, I feel compelled to double-check...
Excuse me, maybe I misunderstood something. I was under the impression that these cameras like these are also used for writing tickets. Again, I received a ticket with a picture of my car from a tollway camera that I had to fight due to a malfunctioning I-Pass.
The cameras would get pictures of people violating various traffic laws and they would receive tickets along with the photo documentation. One ticket a day, and I am sure that there would be significantly more then one, would more then pay for it. You seem so concerned about the $49.00 as if it is an expense. I would argue that it is going to make money.
The main safty benefit would be that people would not be so inclined to break the law knowing the cameras is there. I am not in law enforcement but I would thing this is using technology to increase the police presence we always hear about. If there was a camera on Belle Plaine and everyone was aware of it do you think do you think people would blow through every stop sigh?
Anonymous Aug. 6, 2008 12:52 PM
Do you actually think the City gets the full $75.00? After the county takes its share. And after the red light company's processing fees. And a half dozen other hidden costs.
HaHaHaHaHaaaaaaaa!
Bean:
You made my day, especially with your last paragraph.
If your point is that if the program works then revenue will decrease over time. I would agree. In fact, I would think that is one of the measurements of success. Keep in mind this is all gut feel - I know nothing about this. But, I would think that a 49.00 a day the camera will nab some poor bastard just passing through.
In terms of the emphasis on revenue return versus safty, I guess I am not sure why you find that interesting. To me, it is typical of the age in which we live. We live in a world of "outsoursing". The police are not going to have enough officers to staff every corner or even every potentially high danger intersection. So the sell from this is company is, in part, "think about how many tickets you could write if you had someone there everyday".
I do not have time now but I am going to do some digging. I know in England they have a HUGE amount of traffic cameras. I would think there are stats available.
So you are telling me you do not think that there are enough violations at that corner to exceed 49.31 even with all the cuts taken out?????
That is less then 1 ticket a day. I understand suspicion about government overspending. It is well deserved. But how on earth you see this as not at least covering the cost is beyond me.
they could make the money for the camera back in a day at the intersection of Dee/Busse. It would be a cash cow there.
I should quit while I'm ahead...but...oye...
Okay, anonymous at 1:39,
Your "conclusion" (?) is that all it takes is one ticket a day and the thing pays for itself...so...um...why did the companies that conducted these intersection studies NOT recommend cameras for ALL the intersections they studied...? Were there no traffic violations at those intersections...? <-- rhetorical question, really...
Looking at the H-A article, it says:
>>RedSpeed also evaluated Busse Highway and Oakton Street and Dempster Street and Luther Lane (at Advocate Lutheran General Hospital). Cameras were not recommended for these two intersections based on minimal violations. RedFlex, another provider of red light enforcement systems, studied five other intersections, but did not recommend cameras for them.<<
..."minimal violations"...?!?! I thought this was a safety issue! If it's a safety issue, and these cameras are an effective deterrent...and life is precious...shouldn't we spare no expense to install these cameras at *every single intersection* in town...? Are these companies telling us that it's okay to forego safety at some intersections...because not enough revenue could be generated by the cameras to cover the cost to invest in this method of protecting life and limb? Is our local government telling us, albeit in a very indirect way... that they aren't as fully committed to our safety as they say they are...because they are not insisting upon installation of these cameras at EVERY dangerous intersection in town, let alone every intersection in town?
...and all of that is what I find exceedingly "interesting" about how this program is "marketed", first to public officials and then to the rest of us... Something does not compute...
ms manchester:
There and about 500 other intersections. You could put it on the corner of my fairly low traffic residential street and get at least 10 people per day for blowing the stop sign. Probably more like 30.
I can't believe what I'm reading. Big Brother would love you people. So would Charles Ponzi and those two guys that founded Amway.
Heck, let's float a bond issue so that we can put these redlight cameras on every corner. With the millions of violations they'll catch every year, we can make so much money in fines that we'll never have to pay real estate taxes again!
Where are you getting all that Kool-Aid from?
The notion of the red light camera is offensive, oppressive, mean-spirited and overtly controlling. Therefore, it should be the perfect addition to the city to appease the usual flock of chirping winers to this blog who are always looking for another bogeyman.
This scheme has nothing to do with safety and everything to do with revenue. But it is a good representation of the nature of every recent debate on this blog and certainly the mind-set of some of our fear-filled residents.
You ask, "Why do read this if I think it's so negative?"
Good question.
I find it entertaining. Like watching professional wrestling or Congressional debates on CSPAN. Truth is, most of the folks in town are pleased with what is happening in Uptown and are grateful that families, developers and businesses are investing in our town.
Keep the cameras outahere!
Think red cameras are a good idea and anyone who has a problem with them had to much time on their hands.
If you are not doing anything wrong, why would a camera watching those who are breaking the law bother you? hmmmm?
I did not know that cameras could tell the difference betweenh the people breaking the law and everybody else. Silly me.
Hey anon 4:23...you find CSpan and Pro Wrestling negative? I'M a cynic but c'mon!! I however do not find this blog negative at all. It's good to hear other's opinions and concerns on a regular basis. Do call the camera issue for what it is, a revenue generator, not a safety issue. If you want to cut down on traffic violations, have a covert, mobile camera and revole it to a different corner every couple days. I see move idiots with a cell phone slapped to their ears running stop signs then I can keep track of. Last Sunday I saw an asshole run through a "stop for pedestrians" stop sign on Luther Lane and nearly run over an enderly gentlemen. Fortunately the old fellow was paying attention. I'd love to make these violators pay up, big brother or no big brother. But then, I'm a cynic.
I have to agree with Bean @1:19. Love the logic! While driving through Franklin Park today, I noticed that they have these cameras. How did I know? Because there is a BIG sign attached to the stop lights telling the drivers that the inersection has the cameras. As I sat at the red light, I had to laugh about by little pet peeve in Park Ridge: Too many signs. I could see these cameras being used in our town with the huge signs.
I'm sorry, but our town's solution to traffic/parking problems is to put up more signs. Stop sign, little stop sign, a sign to warn us that a stop sign is ahead at a school crossing, no turn during certain days or hours. Two to three signs on one sign post. I have a hard enough time watching the road for bikers, runners, mom's with running strollers, bikes with attachments, people talking/texting while crossing streets, etc and to read all those signs! I heed to the important major signs such as the stop,yield and speed limit signs. We could substitute our stop signs for the 3foot ones used in Mexico! They also have effective speed bumps...with rods that will puncture your tire(s) if you go too fast over them.
I look back to the late 60's song that chimes,"...sign, sign, everywhere a sign..."
One other thought, would the camereas also be used at the crosswalk uptown by the library to ticket those pedestrians (all ages are guilty) who run in front of the cars. I know to stop each and every time I go through town, but I have seen many close calls because people think that all cars will stop for them.
Thanks for letting me air my little pet peeve(s)!
If they make the streets safer as the Alderman says, then great!
If they're cash cows as others say, then I say EVEN GREATER!!
Safety for our citizens or money for our budget.
It's a win/win!
What's not to love about that?
yeah think everyone is looking too far into this one....................So what if they are doing it for a profit? Half of the people getting the tickets are either teenagers who need to learn a lesson or Chicagoans looking to zip through town on the way home.
To the anonymites who think this blog is too "negative": Those who are told "No" or "That's wrong" or "I disagree with you" often play the negativity card when they have no other adequate response because, like the "race card," it usually gets the weak-willed to back down.
I think an 8x10 glossy of Howie
at all the intersections would stop anyone!
Why pay!
Thank you.
Just a reminder - the ticket goes to the owner of the car; the camera can't tell who was driving. In addition, look at the problems with the tollway cameras. A computer processes the photos and decides what the license plate says and then assigns the ticket to the owner. Due to automated processing errors, people are getting tickets for license plates that are similar to theirs. Then they have to prove that it is not their car. The system assumes you are guilty until you can prove that you're innocent.
WOW. I step out yesterday for a Red Line Lunch and come back today to all this ugliness! Whew! People certainly have a lot of anger here. Everybody take a chill pill and enjoy the summer. We can fight again soon!
p.s. Alderman Dave--WTG on the "no idling". LOVE IT.
anonymous @858am--that is incorrect. the record of the ticket shows the license plate and the FACE OF THE DRIVER. I know, I got one.
Just to clarify, it depends on the camera. I got one from a tollway camera. It clearly showed my car and plate but no face. I had to fight it because it was based on a I-Pass that did not function. It took a few phone calls.
Not really a big deal when you consider all the legit violations they probably catch.
annoying-mouse, what the hell are you talking about, what ugliness?
Change subject here....
It appears that Frimark is avoiding the press media on the Napleton property issues.
Is Howie in Fla ????
I read that Gov. Blogo wants cameras for highways to raise cash for hiring more police. Who would have thought that our own alderman Bach and Gov. Blogo have so much in common thinking!
I love this comment:
"The notion of the red light camera is offensive, oppressive, mean-spirited and overtly controlling."
I'm against any cameras on principle. But here's another great reason EVERYONE should be against them in traffic situations:
They cause more accidents than they deter. Here's an article about one study, that includes a link to ten more.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/10/1051.asp
How about also installing some 'PADScams' around St. Paul of the Cross? This whole thing begs the question, which one of Howie's country club friends owns the camera company?
Thanks for the link. I read the article and also did a little more research. I guess I can see how someone could stop quickly for a yellow with someone speeding up behind them thinking they were going to blow through and they could shoot through behind them - BANGO!!
On the other hand, I think about all the 2 way and 4 way stops here in PR where people blow through all the time. If people knew a camera was there, logic tells me they would come to a complete stop, just as if they see a police car parked near the intersection.
The other thing I would say is that these cameras have been widely used around the US. There are being used in work areas on the tollway and at toll booths upon exiting the highway.
You can debate their effectiveness but it is not like they are not accepted by various towns, cities, states and Countries (England has a huge amount of cameras).
But of course let's immediately jump to "which one of the mayors friends own's the camera company".
Let's spend some money on fixing our streets that are in terrible condition. Cumberland Avenue from Higgins to Devon is in terrible shape. What about Busse Hwy? or a number of other streets in Park Ridge? Dodging the potholes is a much bigger safety issue.
But maybe Howard doesn't have a friend in the Asphalt business. Maybe that's why we can't seem to take care of our pothole problems.
Everyone should be aware that cameras are surveillance, even if the only stated purpose is to surveil your driving habits. We’d be wise to treat with suspicion any surveillance of our activities, any of Them watching Us. There is probably no ulterior motive now, but once someone realizes a tool can be used in unforeseen ways, that tool gets a new use.
Am I being paranoid? Yes, until what I believe, do, or practice is out of step with any of Them who are watching Us. We should fight even the smallest intrusion into our lives, no matter what noble motives lie behind them.
Here’s a great Ben Franklin quote: Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.
anonymous @ 3:00--those are state roads and not the responsibility of PR. However, why can't Howie use some of that energy to convince them to fix these roads? I keep hearing that the state plans to fix Cumberland and Busse.
How about doing something FOR THE GOOD OF PARK RIDGE and not for his own benefit?
If only our Senators and Congressmen would have taken this quote to heart during the FISA vote.
For the "Good" of Park Ridge. I don't think that Howard is capable, but you are right on, Ms. Manchester.
a girl can dream...
One problem is that the company that is monitoring is in this for profit. As usual, anything that is done for profit is subject to abuse and there is very little recourse available for someone who gets a bill in the mail and is then required to pay up or take on what seems to many a losing battle.
Now many times Ive seen drivers where I wish police were around. And this is where I think many would like the cameras to be there. But I have heard stories too..(possibly biased yes but I tend to believe in at least the possibility of being truthful or mostly true):
One was the mother (in her 70's I think)of someone I know who got a ticket in the mail for running a red light. She did not remember running a redlight. The ticket was then explained as a right-on-red violation and that the video proof indicated that she stopped for less than 4 seconds (official time of the stop was like 3.5 seconds)...
Now how many of us can see this situation unfolding in front of a live police officer and not having any problem. She came to a complete stop. But for ONLY 3.5 seconds??? Even if an officer were to stop someone for something like this, one might think a warning would be given out if the person has an otherwise good driving record. But this was a flagrant violation and demanded punishment.
I guess what Im driving at is that there is no context considered and a strict liability is applied.
I dont know if this person ever appealed this ticket but it may be a huge inconvenience to go into court and argue over 1/2 a second.
I would bet that these tickets are sent out at the slightest chance of a violation and many dont or cant take the time to fight it.
What would you say about getting a ticket for speeding at the outrageous pace of 26 MPH in a 25 zone?
Interesting article on Page 1 of the Tribune this morning. Of course these are just statistics and other statistics can be sited to support the other side. This article seems to support the idea that cameras are changing drivers behaviors - this only makes sense to me as I have previously stated.
Unfortunately what will really happen is people will completely discount any information that contradicts their preconceived opinion. It happens at all levels on due to our complete lack of trust in goverment. It certainly happens all the time on these blogs.
Post a Comment