backtop


Print 53 comment(s) - last by GotThumbs.. on Aug 18 at 1:32 PM


  (Source: chicagonow.com)
One month of testing generated $4.7 million in potential citations

Chicago is about to receive a new system of speed cameras, but after discovering the number of violations captured during a test-run, citizens are worried that the cameras are more for generating extra revenue than insuring the safety of Chicagoans. 

The office of Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel recently released the results of a testing period for the new speed cameras. Over a one-month testing period where cameras were set up in four different areas, 93,241 violations were recorded. If actual tickets were issued to the speeders, the city of Chicago would have collected $4.7 million -- in just one month.

City transportation officials originally figured that first-year revenue would come in at $40 million to $60 million per year, but some analysts are saying that the actual total will be far higher.

The cameras were set up by two different companies from December 3, 2012 to January 3, 2013. The first company, ATS, placed cameras in two areas in the city: Dulles Elementary School at 6311 S. Calumet Ave. and Warren Park at 6500 N. Western Ave. It clocked a total of 546,979 vehicles and found 51,701 violations.

The second company, Xerox State & Local Solutions, placed cameras in two different areas as well: McKinley Park, 2223 W. Pershing Road, and Near North Montessori School, 1446 W. Division St. It watched 503,366 passing vehicles and recorded 41,540 as violations. 

In the end, the city awarded ATS with $67 million, five-year contract to install and operate the cameras. 

Citizens are worried that the cameras, which were designed to keep drivers and pedestrians safe, are being installed just to generate additional revenue. 

"I guess this is just going to be a city for wealthy people, that's where we're headed," said Ald. Leslie Hairston.

The city plans to install about 50 cameras total, so based on the testing figures, that would be $1.2 million per month at each location multiplied by 12 months and 50 locations. Chicago could potentially make hundreds of millions of dollars annually. 

However, city transportation officials beg to differ. They argued that there are a number of reasons that the city won't reach such high annual figures, such as the fact that Chicagoans will learn where the cameras are through signs and warnings and begin to drive at appropriate speeds; some locations will have higher traffic volumes than others; the city usually only gets 70 percent of the money from tickets that are issued because some drivers refuse to pay, and about 10 percent of violations are not enforceable due to them being emergency vehicles, obscured license plates, etc.

ATS plans to install the first four camera systems next week at Garfield Park on the West Side, Gompers Park on the Northwest Side, Washington Park on the South Side and Marquette Park on the Southwest Side.

Source: The Chicago Tribune



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Of Course
By mgilbert on 8/13/2013 9:38:08 AM , Rating: 4
Of course the cameras are there to generate revenue. That's what speed traps operated by officers have always been about, so this is nothing new. Police departments, and the government in general has never cared about safety. All they care about is money. I've been driving for almost 40 years, and that's the way it has always been.

And before you gullible, naive sheep that believe everything the government tells you start harping that we should all just obey the speed limits, and we would not have a problem, you need to know this... There is a scientifically proven method for setting speed limits, called the 85th percentile rule - set the limit for a given roadway above or BELOW that, and the accident rate will go up. BUT, that rule is always ignored. Limits are set lower so they can be used to generate revenue. That results in more accidents, and to hell with safety.

This is a crass, obvious, in your face abuse of the public. It's about time for the citizens of this country to take up arms as we did in the late 1700s, and take our country back, and we need to start with traffic cameras - and traffic cops.

And no, I'm not a speed demon. I'm an old man, and too cheap to drive fast. I prefer to drive slowly to save gas. Drives my wife nuts...




RE: Of Course
By half_duplex on 8/13/2013 9:42:23 AM , Rating: 1
I thought we had it bad here in Orlando. Chicago is about to get screwed!

I have about 5 red light cameras in my area. In my 20 years of living in the area, I'm not aware of a single accident at any of the locations, let alone a fatality. They are just high traffic areas where drivers are vulnerable to 'technical tickets'.


RE: Of Course
By steelytuba on 8/13/2013 9:50:01 AM , Rating: 2
We don't have any red light cameras in my area, so I'm curious. Do they also ticket people who turn right on red?


RE: Of Course
By mgilbert on 8/13/2013 9:55:53 AM , Rating: 2
Some places do - others don't. In many places, the practice was stopped because people raised so much hell. Once in a while, people do stand up, but usually not. It's sad that people don't fight back against our abusive government. If more people did, things would be much better. The government forgot long ago that they are supposed to work for the people.


RE: Of Course
By koenshaku on 8/13/2013 10:45:21 AM , Rating: 2
Probably why people aren't standing up against this initially is because if you look at the areas they're predominantly afro American and Hispanic, so you can see what is really going on here.


RE: Of Course
By paydirt on 8/13/2013 11:24:31 AM , Rating: 2
Chicago gets a bad deal, again. Company is paying $60 Million to Chicago and will collect $300 Million from Chicago citizens over the next five years.

Give a politician $1, he will give you $5 of his citizens' money.


RE: Of Course
By Samus on 8/13/2013 2:50:59 PM , Rating: 2
I've lived in Chicago for 20 years and and very familiar with the neighborhoods on this map where speed cameras are being installed:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-chica...

Let me point out two observations. All but three cameras are in minority neighborhoods (the northwest, southwest, and sole "downtown" camera are exceptions) and that all but ONE camera is in a low-medium income neighborhood (that, again, being the single camera downtown that is strategically placed on a strip to catch taxi cabs.)

All of these cameras are positioned to strategically generate revenue. Most of these streets are relatively safe, and less than half of these cameras are near a school. BUT, those cameras that are in a school zone will ticket you for going 5MPH over the limit (school zone speed limit is 20MPH) so basically you can get a ticket for exceeding parking lot speeds on a two lane split route.

I hate to say it, but as a middle-aged white male, I have far fewer "problems" in this city as my minority friends, many starting their own families and still dealing with this kind of crap.

And as I've said before, these will increase insurance rates by creating more incidents and accidents, just like red light cameras did. State Farm and Allstate have both indicated the reason for recent insurance premium hikes in the Chicagoland area is the increase in rear-end collisions since 2005. Which just so happens to be the first year a red light camera was introduced.


RE: Of Course
By Solandri on 8/14/2013 5:36:45 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Chicago gets a bad deal, again. Company is paying $60 Million to Chicago and will collect $300 Million from Chicago citizens over the next five years.

If it's admittedly for revenue, wouldn't it be easier just to increase the cost of a traffic ticket? No cameras to install, no camera company to pay, no extra tickets to deal with, and the state still gets the same amount of increased revenue.


RE: Of Course
By marvdmartian on 8/14/2013 7:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
Go back a re-read the article. The company is being paid $67 million, the city is reaping the profit.

quote:
The city plans to install about 50 cameras total, so based on the testing figures, that would be $1.2 million per month at each location multiplied by 12 months and 50 locations. Chicago could potentially make hundreds of millions of dollars annually.


RE: Of Course
By GotThumbs on 8/18/2013 1:17:54 PM , Rating: 2
Only if people run the red lights....if no one does....then zero revenue.

Just because there have been no accidents....does not mean people are not running the red lights.

I know of one local intersection where I regularly (daily) see people choose to run stale red lights....its so common...the other direction drivers know they have to wait for the child drivers to run the lights.....

Red means stop....and I love the idea of these people paying for their childish decision. Police shouldn't have to "Guard" the intersection to enforce these laws we all know and most obey. If I could call in the license plates...I would. Too many people disrespecting other drivers and others safety IMO.


RE: Of Course
By Denigrate on 8/13/2013 9:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
They give tickets via stop light cameras for turning right on red here in the DFW area. I received a ticket because I pulled up too far before I stopped in the turn lane turning right. $80 gone for something that didn't effect anyone's safety. Of course, it's a corner that I have to turn every single day, so now I'm sure to stop early even though I can't see to make a safe turn.

The lady I spoke to who was in AZ was apologetic, but she said she couldn't help me because they were instructed to give tickets if your tires were across the white line.


RE: Of Course
By mgilbert on 8/13/2013 10:03:30 AM , Rating: 2
I think I would have refused to pay that ticket! You should stop behind the white line if you are in a non-turning lane, planning to go straight ahead, but, if you are turning right, you have to stop beyond the line in order to see traffic approaching from the left. Issuing tickets for that is blatant abuse that needs to be fought.

All people should check with a lawyer before paying any type of camera ticket. If the ticket is delivered by regular mail, then who's to say you never got it...


RE: Of Course
By Rukkian on 8/13/2013 12:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
The problem is that in most places, the law says you have to stop behind the white line, no ifs and or buts about it. If you then want to move forward to look, that is fine, but only after coming to a complete stop first.

Just because there are not enough cops to have one stationed at every corner does not make it right.


RE: Of Course
By Samus on 8/13/2013 2:56:58 PM , Rating: 2
I've gotten those many times. Even after contesting, they say a "proper" stop at a red light is required before making a right turn. The city defines a proper stop as a complete halt to where your rear end depresses. Yeah, that's a good way to burn out my clutch in 20k, make this type of stop at every hill, intersection and right turn. I feel a rolling stop (1-2mph) is completely adequate as long as there are no pedestrians or cross-traffic vehicles. I've been driving a manual transmission 20 years and am not going to change my driving habits (clean driving record, 0 accidents) because some camera can't identify safe from unsafe.


RE: Of Course
By otherwise on 8/13/2013 4:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
I've lived in Chicago for 20 years, and one summer had to take a trip out to Navajo nation. It's really disconcerting going from a city where everyone makes rolling stops to a region where everyone always makes full stops. The first day there many people had stories about how they came close to read-ending someone.


RE: Of Course
By GotThumbs on 8/18/2013 1:26:56 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yeah, that's a good way to burn out my clutch in 20k, make this type of stop at every hill, intersection and right turn. I feel a rolling stop (1-2mph) is completely adequate as long as there are no pedestrians or cross-traffic vehicles.


It does not matter what "you feel", its about following the law and the rules of the road. If you have a DL, then you should know and follow the rules of the road. Unless its your private road....then you have to obay the rules....or pay the fine for not.

Time to be an adult....a mature/responsible adult and own your actions/choices.

If you burn out your clutch....then you simply don't know how to drive a stick. Don't blame others....for your ignorance...

Best wishes on keeping what you earned.


RE: Of Course
By GotThumbs on 8/18/2013 1:21:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
that didn't effect anyone's safety


so you say...and maybe next time it would have.

Face it....you rolled past where you were supposed to stop....and you know that. You should have full control of your vehicle...and if you did....you would have stopped correctly Pay attention next time and you will avoid a ticket.

Own your actions....be an adult.

Best wishes on keeping what you earned.


RE: Of Course
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2013 11:08:16 AM , Rating: 2
I lived on a corner with a red light camera and have seen the camera flash go off on me twice while I turned right there. Neither time did I get a ticket issued. Even with the camera there I've seen people running it all the time and always snicker when the flash goes off. If you're enough of an as*hole to run a red, you can't argue that you don't deserve the ticket. It's as simple as that.
Speeding on the other hand... I'd have been one of those 10% that went over and I drove by that Division camera 6 times a week!


RE: Of Course
By Samus on 8/13/2013 3:00:03 PM , Rating: 2
My issue with red light cameras is they don't even clock drivers 5 seconds beyond the light turning red. So only the drivers who run a red light IMMEDIATELY after it turns red receive the ticket. Those who run a red in the middle of a cycle (after the light has been red for some time) don't activate the camera, and this is the worst time to run a red light opposed to running it right when it turns red and people often expect somebody to blow through.


RE: Of Course
By drycrust3 on 8/13/2013 11:54:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have about 5 red light cameras in my area. In my 20 years of living in the area, I'm not aware of a single accident at any of the locations, let alone a fatality.

The important point here is red light cameras pick on one aspect of poor driving, speed cameras pick on another aspect (driving faster than the average, what is safe, and what the road is designed for).
Just as your car is made more reliable by using highly precise components, so the safety of every road user is increased when people drive within a close tolerance; and just as your car becomes unreliable and unsafe when there are worn or poor tolerance components inside it, people who drive with a poor tolerance are a hazard to all other road users.
Yes, these cameras do raise revenue, but is that wrong? Is it wrong to make money out of people who put other road users at risk? This isn't like taxes, where everyone has to pay. People have a choice as to whether or not they wish to contribute to the city coffers, and most people chose to not do so, so they improve their driving, and in doing so they make the roads safer.


RE: Of Course
By Rukkian on 8/13/2013 12:28:37 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. I could see an issue with these cameras if you got tickets for things that are not illegal. If you are breaking the law, and the penalty for breaking that law is a fine, then you deserve to pay that fine.

Just because you do not agree with a law, does not mean you do not have to follow it. If I don't believe that murder is wrong, that doesn't excuse me or get me off the hook if I decided to kill somebody.

If you have a problem with traffic laws, start a bill to get rid of them, but just saying they don't help is BS. I see many people that are endangering other peoples lives by driving way to fast, running red lights, etc. If they get enough tickets, most people will eventually learn not to do it. If you do not learn, then that is your own fault.


RE: Of Course
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 2:54:31 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Yes, these cameras do raise revenue, but is that wrong?


Yes, on a variety of levels.

http://www.acluct.org/issues/privacyandtechnology/...


RE: Of Course
By GotThumbs on 8/18/2013 1:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
When you obtain your DL...in any state....you agree....(Yes, you agreed) to abide by the traffic laws of that state and within the US.

Self ignorance is not above the law and claiming privacy issues on a public road...is simply a child adult wanting to avoid consequences for his own actions/choices.

Man up and be responsible for your own actions.

Best wishes on keeping what you earned.


RE: Of Course
By arazok on 8/13/2013 10:09:00 AM , Rating: 4
Not so fast. You’re overestimating the competence of your elected officials (silly you).

It may be different in Chicago, but here in Ontario they have been slowly rolling out these money machines for the past 10 years. Toronto pulled in $12M last year.

Sounds like a tax grab…. until you find out that the company that installs and operates these cameras charges $8,000 a MONTH to lease each camera!

Of that 12M in revenue, $8.5M went to the camera operator, leaving Toronto with $3.5M in profit. The Media never reports that number.

It’s a tax grab for sure, but not for the government. It’s for some company that is probably run by a crew of campaign donors.


RE: Of Course
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2013 11:10:00 AM , Rating: 2
Exactly correct. The worst thing is also that funds in Chicago seem to just disappear while alderman and various other officials get bigger and bigger houses and their relatives get new SUVs to drive around.
All these cameras will do is piss people off and make the camera company and politicians richer.


RE: Of Course
By Bostlabs on 8/13/2013 1:39:07 PM , Rating: 3
"And before you gullible, naive sheep that believe everything the government tells you start harping that we should all just obey the speed limits,..."

::Rolleyes::

Yes it is perfectly acceptable to speed and run red lights because you are in too much of a hurry to bother with driving properly.

Slow down and drive the posted speed limit. Camera or not. I'm tired of dodging you speed freaks on the city streets.


RE: Of Course
By Bostlabs on 8/13/2013 2:33:45 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not targeting you, mgilbert, on my reply. I just think that the concept of these cameras are good. We sure as heck don't have the police force to have one on every corner just for traffic violations.

If you drive safe and sane, that is great! Everyone needs to, camera or not.


RE: Of Course
By boeush on 8/13/2013 3:33:13 PM , Rating: 2
A couple of things for you to ponder:

1) The 85 percentile rule comes from a theory developed back in 1964. In 1964, there were no traffic cameras. There were also no anti-lock brakes, no traction or stability control, and no automated crash prevention measures. The 85 percent theory does not account for how changing technology affects crash statistics, nor for how drivers might modify their behavior (and thus affect crash statistics) when they're being rapidly and repeatedly sanctioned for speeding by automated speed cameras. That theory is therefore out of date and out of context in the 21st century.

2) The 85 percentile rule considers only the chances of a crash. It does not consider the impact (consequences) of the crash. Obviously, at higher speeds the impact gets progressively deadlier (in fact, severity of impact is proportional to kinetic energy, which goes up as speed squared.) There is a trade-off to be considered between (theoretically) relatively more frequent minor dings, vs. relatively more frequent major injuries and deaths.

3) The 85 percentile rule considers only the dynamics involving drivers sharing a road. It completely ignores bicyclists, pedestrians, and other slow-moving or frequently stopping vehicles. Particularly in urban areas, the above are very important factors to consider (hence, for instance, the wide-spread low-speed limits near schools when children are present, or when there's road work going on...)

4) The 85 percentile rule fails to consider range of visibility, reaction times, and braking distance. For instance, rounding a corner or cresting a hill at such a speed that the distance you can see around the corner or behind the hill is less than your reaction time at speed plus your braking distance -- is an incredibly unsafe thing to do. Yet I observe such mistakes being made routinely by everyone (including myself.) That ought to tell you human psychology isn't the most reliable gauge of what's safe (and so, basing speed limits solely on the behavior of drivers without considering the other factors is a bad idea.)


RE: Of Course
By GotThumbs on 8/18/2013 1:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's what speed traps operated by officers have always been about


Unless the speed sign changes from one second to the next....there is no such thing as a "Speed Trap". This term is simply an excuse people use when get ticketed for going over the posted speed limit....they choose to blame others for their own choice/actions. The only one controlling the car is the driver....so if the driver is not paying attention....or chooses to exceed the posted speed limit....they simply need to be mature adults and own their actions/choices.

Too many babies posing as adults these days...and they want to blame others for their choices/decisions in life. Grow up and take responsibility for your choices/actions.

If everyone obeyed the posted speed limit where these cameras are....then there would be zero "revenue" to the city.

Think McFly....think.

Best wishes on keeping what you earned.


I'm confused...how is this bad?
By pandemonium on 8/14/2013 3:16:54 AM , Rating: 2
If people are violating laws, they'll be fined. What's the difference between being caught on camera that's irrefutable, or by a human officer that's fallable?

People will stop violating laws if they're fined more often. I see this as being a win-win. I'm personally very tired of people being generally very lazy, disrespectful, and irresponsible drivers. They end up going as far as getting several DUIs and then kill someone or cause large amounts of property damage. If they were fined more often in the start of that trend, they'd probably start thinking twice about their poor driving habits, if they weren't forced to do so by the system as an aside.




By Dr of crap on 8/14/2013 2:24:50 PM , Rating: 2
"What's the difference between being caught on camera that's irrefutable, or by a human officer that's fallable?"

It's not always black and white, and not every questionable violation is a ticketable offence!
As stated above, What if stopped "on the white line" as you stopped for a full 2 seconds and then did a perfectly legal turn on red. The camera will send you a ticket. AN actual police officer would see that you stopped fully and not do anything!


By Dr of crap on 8/14/2013 2:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
AND while I'm at it -
WHY does the subject of the amount of money these things will bring into the city always be included?????

IF safety was the real reason to install them - the revenue brought in would be far down the list of reasons to install in the first place! Safety does NOT mean increased revenue, it means safer roads!


RE: I'm confused...how is this bad?
By rountad on 8/14/2013 3:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
We have a right to confront our accusers in this country. The camera violates that.


What an eye opener
By ERROR666 on 8/13/2013 9:35:46 AM , Rating: 2
Of course it's done to collect revenue. Just an additional tax.




RE: What an eye opener
By PaFromFL on 8/14/2013 8:24:53 AM , Rating: 2
The problem with red light cameras is that they eventually are set so that most of the tickets are given to perfectly safe drivers. In the DC area, the cameras initially ticketed red light runners. Eventually, the dangerous drivers modified their behavior when cameras were present. In order to pump up revenue, the cameras were set to ticket you for being slightly over the crosswalk line, or other minor technical offenses. That's when the citizens demanded the removal of the cameras.


Scam
By wallijonn on 8/13/2013 10:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
the city usually only gets 70 percent of the money from tickets that are issued because some drivers refuse to pay, and about 10 percent of violations are not enforceable due to them being emergency vehicles, obscured license plates, etc.


That is for city issued tickets. For camera issued tickets they will get about 20%, so they will need to issue 5 times more tickets to make the same amount. What percentage of city issued tickets are for parking violations? Out of that envisioned $40 million they will get about $8 - $10 million, roughly what they're making now. If every single citizens decides to fight it in court the court system will become burdened.

If they really want to ensure the public safety they can issue DUI tickets for $5000, they can issue $7500 tickets for driving while texting and $10,000 for going through a red light 3 seconds after it has turned red.

The only places for traffic cameras are near schools.




RE: Scam
By jimbojimbo on 8/13/2013 11:13:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well put but DUI should be MUCH more like say $10,000. I've always said they should be able to confiscate the car if their blood alcohol level is .1 or higher. How can they get a DUI again if they don't have a car?


Eventually
By btc909 on 8/13/2013 12:07:56 PM , Rating: 2
Drivers catch on to where the camera are and just avoid driving through those areas. This is how you beat the cameras. Just avoid the areas. Yes it's an inconvenience but the amount of money it costs to lease just one of these cameras per month is insane. If you cut the revenue stream the cities will be forced to pull the cameras.

Plus the chances of you getting hit from behind greatly increases at these intersections.




RE: Eventually
By Rukkian on 8/13/2013 12:35:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Plus the chances of you getting hit from behind greatly increases at these intersections.


This is just another way to teach people to not be idiots. There are way too many people that think they are at Daytona and need to draft the person in front of them while texting on their phone. The cameras are not the reason for the people getting rear ended, it is the idiots that follow too closely, or are not paying attention.


By Bateluer on 8/13/2013 2:11:29 PM , Rating: 2
There's still a few though, but to be fair, they are at intersections where drivers tend to try run the red.

But, they originally had dozens scattered across all our valley freeways. Strictly few revenue generation under former governor Napolitano. Most of those cameras were removed when she left office to bungle the federal DHS.




By Bostlabs on 8/13/2013 2:30:17 PM , Rating: 2
"There's still a few though, but to be fair, they are at intersections where drivers tend to try run the red."

No they run the red. There is no try, they do. I've even seen city buses run the red. It is just getting worse and worse. I've come across a lot of accidents in intersections that running the red appears to be the cause. I can't say it was because I'm usually trying to get through the intersection after the fact so I didn't see it happen.



It's the same everywhere in the world, really!
By BabelHuber on 8/13/2013 3:22:58 PM , Rating: 2
For Munich, Germany, i saw a map which shows the spots where the most car accidents occur and the spots where the city measures speed the most.

As one clearly can see, the spots are at different locations. So at least for Munich, this proves that generating revenue is the goal, not increasing safety.

I would bet money that this pattern is valid for every major city, may it be in Europe, in North America or elsewhere.

The fun thing is, these traps don't catch residents. I live in Cologne, Germany and know most places where speed tests occur (Cologne needs money, too). But if you drive through the city for the first time, be prepared to remain concentrated or be prepared to pay an extra tax.




By boeush on 8/13/2013 10:48:06 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
As one clearly can see, the spots are at different locations. So at least for Munich, this proves that generating revenue is the goal, not increasing safety.
Or, it proves that in spots where there are speed cameras, people more uniformly drive at or under the speed limit, and as a result the flow of traffic is more predictable and therefore there are fewer accidents.

If that were the case, then wherever cameras are set up, the rate of accidents should go down around that spot.

That too is a very plausible interpretation, and would produce the type of correlation you observe. Question is, how do you distinguish between these two hypotheses?

Another question is, do you have any documented proof (e.g. meeting minutes, records of decision-making processes, traffic camera placement rules, official traffic camera placement evaluation metrics, etc.) demonstrating that the cameras are specifically being aimed at revenue generation?

If not, do you believe everyone in your government is so loyal or so scared, that there is no potential for even a single leaker or whistle-blower aiming to inform the public and/or give advantage to political opposition? Skepticism is a healthy thing, when applied equally and dispassionately to all points of view (cynical ones included)...


Generate revenue
By Calin on 8/14/2013 3:35:52 AM , Rating: 2
I remember a case (high profile here) of an accident with three victims. The killer drove his car at over 90 km/h in a 50 km/h zone, passed over continuous center line and hit a car that was obeying laws. The catch? The killer got a speed ticket in the same area (less than a kilometer away) sometime in the last five years.
So, speed traps are not only for revenue




RE: Generate revenue
By macca007 on 8/14/2013 6:47:28 AM , Rating: 2
So he killed someone speeding, Now what was your point on cameras,speeding tickets again? Didn't save the poor person who got struck did it! Sending a fine to someone 2 weeks later in mail saves NO ONE, Paying money saves NO ONE.


Always use protection.
By steelytuba on 8/13/2013 9:48:36 AM , Rating: 2
Of course this is for safety. As long as it's safety for the city's budget.




Its Chicago!
By bobcpg on 8/13/2013 10:34:18 AM , Rating: 2
Its Chicago, just another Gov't Crap++




Old News
By knightmike on 8/13/2013 11:34:20 AM , Rating: 2
It's already been proven that they only do it for revenue. These systems are put in place under the guise of safety. But many cities have already had them removed because it wasn't profitable enough once the private contractor took their cut.

If these cities really care about safety, they would remove those outdated traffic lights. They need to replace those colored circles with a colored timer.

There's a light in my town that turns yellow for a split second before it turns red. And there is always a cop at that intersection waiting to pull you over if you run the red. So you better go extra slow as you approach that intersection and be ready to slam on your brakes the moment that light turns yellow. They wouldn't be able to pull that crap if they used a timer. Hell, Manila, Philippines have better traffic lights than most of America and they're barely a 3rd world country. (Disclaimer: I love Filipinos but that country is being screwed over hard by the crooked politicians.)




By jemix on 8/13/2013 12:49:31 PM , Rating: 2
Notice his grin (at 1 minute) when he says "I didn't know about that."

http://www.wwltv.com/news/eyewitness/mikeperlstein...




samuel1chandel
By samuel1c.handel on 8/13/2013 5:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
upto I saw the draft 4 $4388, I be certain ...that...my brother woz like trully bringing home money part-time on their apple laptop.. there neighbour haz done this 4 only twenty one months and by now repayed the dept on there apartment and bought a new Volkswagen Golf GTI. I went here, www.Work25.CoM




Good
By Draconian4771 on 8/15/2013 7:19:35 AM , Rating: 2
People speed like it's nothing and if these cameras can get people to slow down, then that's a good thing. It will increase safety. Fewer fatal accidents and the non-fatal accidents won't be as severe. Plus the city gets additional revenue from this. It's what you call a win-win situation.

Perhaps when self-driving cars become standard then speed limits can be raised modestly to accommodate computers that can scan the roadway hundreds of times a second and communicate with other cars. But until then, it's better for human drivers to slow down.




The Gub'mint
By SuckRaven on 8/13/13, Rating: 0
A secret to avoid speed cameras
By Thalyn on 8/14/13, Rating: 0
"This is about the Internet.  Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki