How About A Compromise On The Red Light Camera's......

[global1]

There's activity in the Illinois House on Red Light Camera's. Some that want to do away with them altogether saying it is just a money making scheme and others that are saying that it is a 'safety issue'.

So how about a compromise. I'm for safety. If that is the reason we have those cameras then a compromise would be the following:

At every intersection where there is placement of a red light camera it will be mandatory to have count down meters on all corners of the intersection.

Right now the way I understand it is that there are many rear end accidents at these intersections because people slam on the brakes as the light begins to change to avoid the $100 ticket. That doesn't sound safe to me.

The purpose of count down meters is to let everybody that is approaching the intersection know how much time they have to stop. If the count down is nearing zero as they are approaching the intersection - they can begin to slow down and be ready to brake. That to me is assuring safety. If a person then goes through the red light with the count down meters - well then they deserve a ticket. They had fair warning and chose not to slow down and stop.

To me that is the compromise. It allows the cameras to stay in place and it promotes safety in giving people a fair warning that the light will soon be turning red.

Now with speed cameras - everywhere there is a speed camera - they should put up well in advance of the speed camera - those signs that track the cars speed. This will give everyone an opportunity to slow down and not get a speeding ticket. That is also a safety measure. Again - if one saw their speed on one of these speed signs and didn't slow down - then they deserve a speeding ticket.

The sign that tracks the speed of the car will also serve another purpose - it would warn people that a speed camera zone is coming up and they should heed their speed.

If Illinois legislators are really serious about safety and having both red light and speed camera's then they should take the above suggested steps to assure safety. If they don't - then we know what they are really interested in - REVENUE.

[marym625]

1. The problem is the timing

The lights all have shorter yellow. Way too many tickets because of bullshit timing.

I am sick of the cameras. I want all of them gone. And they'll never put a timer up because it's not about safety. As you said, it's about revenue

[Dont call me Shirley]

2. Albuquerque got rid of them. The company who operates them are scammers.

Here's an effective method of eliminating many red light runners, lengthen yellow light times and, for dang sakes, time the lights so you can make it from one end of town to the other without the stop and go lurch.

[upaloopa]

3. Here is what I see. People do not stop for yellow lights

Most of my 50 years of driving yellow meant caution and you should stop because the next light will be red.
But now yellow seems to mean hurry up and get through the intersection. That is why there are rear end accidents.
If I slow down and stop at a yellow light I sometimes am almost hit by the driver behind me wanting to get through the light.
And I have seen more and more people if they think they can make it, will go through red lights and do not stop at stop signs if it means they might have to yield to the car that has the right of way.
Drivers are getting more reckless every year.
Keep the cameras and let people pay for their recklessness that endangers other lives.

[TheNutcracker]

4. yes...countdowns at the light are becoming a standard and extending the yellow light.

In St. Petersburg, FL, the people brought a case against the city, and the company they had a 'con-tract' with because it was found that when they installed the cameras, they SHORTENED the YELLOW LIGHTS! Yes, talk about your money maker.

http://www.wfla.com/story/24455971/yellow-light-length-controversy


Safety issue is one thing, but the profits make them 'gotcha machines'. So this is not an unreasonable request for countdowns, for starters.

In St. Petersburg, FL, they also removed them because of the cost to operate and no money was really made.
http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/region-pinellas/last-day-for-red-light-cameras-in-st-petersburg

[frazzled]

5. You can't drive in Chicago without making a left turn on the yellow (or even red)

There are intersections with 15 cars waiting to make a left turn (with no arrow). Oncoming traffic means that at most one, or perhaps two cars will make it through, and then only on the yellow to red. The other 13 cars have to wait 4 more light cycles before getting through, by which time 15 more cars are backed up.

I say, let's put in left-turn arrows at all these difficult intersections ... and there are many, many of them ... and then we can discuss red-light cameras.

But the real reason to get rid of the cameras is that there really is no due process with them. Cameras do lie. (Believe me: my husband had a red-light ticket reversed when he showed the video to the judge, who agreed that the state had not brought proper evidence).

[Snarkoleptic]

6. I've read tht 80% of the ticket revenue is paid to out-of-state 3rd party operators.

This sucks an awful lot of money out of the local economy, which is very short sighted.

Last summer, I received a red-light camera ticket initiated in Hillside, IL. The fine was $100 and the ticket listed a URL where you can enter your ticket code and watch a video loop of the infraction. I watched it several times and could see that I HAD completely stopped prior to making a right turn on red, so I opted to go to court and fight it.

I was astonished to find around 150 people in the makeshift traffic courtroom/great-hall fighting their tickets as well, so I awaited my turn. Each person who approached stood across the table from 2 officers and a judge. There were computer monitors facing both sides, so judge and accused could both watch the video and discuss. The average conversation with the judge was around 60-seconds and most people had never viewed the video prior to the court date, so the conversation was very brief "pay the fine, it won't appear on your record".

Some of the longer conversations were angry rants about the intersection, being forced to run the red due to approaching emergency vehicles, begin part of a funeral procession, and lots of other explanations. When my name was called, I approached and said only "good afternoon". We watched the video loop, he winked at me and called the next case.

I appreciated saving the $100, but was miffed that there are likely a great number who can't take time to fight these tickets and either pay of let them go to collection (where it can get much nastier). I suppose the people who review the videos prior to issuing the ticket must enforce a bit too tightly in hopes their business model will result in undeserved revenue.

In sum, I dislike these cams as they don't make things safer, can make things worse by causing rear-end collisions, and take a lot of money out of circulation in the area.