new & interesting places for your GPS

Accidents up at RLC's in Chicago?!?!

 
--
Nuvi 2595 & 760 | http://www.chucksphotospot.com

Revenue

arrow another way for concrete jungles to collect more money for their I live better at work than at home. mad

Not surprising.....

....since actually STOPPING when the light turns red is a concept that is foreign to many (most?) who drive in Chicago.

--
Magellan Maestro 4250// MIO C310X

interesting info from the

interesting info from the article - What surprised him most is that car accidents have declined city-wide, except at red-light intersections.

--
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/21626 - red light cameras do not work

Easy solution.....

Don't follow so close...There could be so many reasons that this survey is bogus. They should do a survey of every intersection in the city and that would be a more realistic analaysis. One intersection could have raised the rate for unknown reasons. I don't know about the accidents but I sure like catching the red light runners.

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

RLC's In Chicago

64 Million Dollars collected last year by the city
They will be not be going away anytime soon with that kind of money going to ?????

Wish we could sue the cities

If I got hit from behind while stopping for an RLC, especially one with a shortened yellow light, I'd love to be able to sue the city as well as the other driver for damages. Wouldn't help much with Chicago, though, because they don't pay off judgments against them for years. It just would feel like sweet revenge and if they started losing routinely they might decide it wasn't such a great moneymaker, anyway.

I know, I know, we're all sue-happy in the USA, and we don't need to expand the concept of using courts to settle grievances. I just find the use of this "safety" device that may well increase the rate of accidents in the name of raising municipal revenue very annoying, and wish there was a good way to turn it around against the municipalities that do this.

IDOT vs. CDOT

farrissr wrote:

Don't follow so close...There could be so many reasons that this survey is bogus. They should do a survey of every intersection in the city and that would be a more realistic analaysis. One intersection could have raised the rate for unknown reasons. I don't know about the accidents but I sure like catching the red light runners.

It's not a survey, per se. The information used to determine accident rates were from the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). The intersections that became RLCs were compared to themselves from the year prior. The rest of the intersections that are not RLCs, showed a reduction in accidents. So the information used encompassed all intersections.

On a side note...

Of course the Chicago Department of Transportation is going to dispute anything anyone says, especially data from IDOT.

"'There is no question that in the city of Chicago, drivers are safe because of red-light enforcement,' Steele said."

Yeah, right. I guess it's all a matter of perspective. RLCs do not prevent someone from going through a red light. Shorter yellow lights are not making intersections safer. Slamming on the brakes to avoid a ticket, but not a rear end collision, is not safer. But, hey! Thanks for saying taking money out of drivers' pockets makes us safer!

To put it anothe way.....

farrissr wrote:

Don't follow so close...There could be so many reasons that this survey is bogus.

One only has to drive in downtown Chicago for about 3 seconds to realize that the survey probably is dead accurate.

In most areas of the country, one car turns left after the light goes red (he is alredy IN the intersection). In some areas, a second one sneaks through. In Chicago it is not unusual to see 5 or 6 go through.

--
Magellan Maestro 4250// MIO C310X

Is the implication...

twix wrote:

Shorter yellow lights are not making intersections safer.

I agree that shorter yellow lights do not make intersections safer. However, I did not read any statement about yellow light timings in the article.

Is the implication that chicago shortened yellow light timings?

Sorry for any confusion.

Sorry for any confusion. The shorter yellow lights are not covered in this article, but there are articles about it. I'll find the links and post them.

Chicago uses the bare minimum set by federal guidelines, which is 3 seconds. What's really upsetting is, Illinois Representatives want to decrease it even more to 2.6 seconds.

http://illinois.statehousenewsonline.com/2753/red-light-came...

One of the news stations had

One of the news stations had a study a few months ago, and while the Chicago yellow lights meet the minimum for duration, suburbs had longer yellow lights.

Crook county scrapping over RLCs with suburbs!

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

Here's the thread that has

Here's the thread that has the yellow light info.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28357

Thanks

twix wrote:

Here's the thread that has the yellow light info.

http://www.poi-factory.com/node/28357

Had not seen that article and was glad to be able to archive it.

ANY red light

Check out Red Light Cameras on Youtube and you'll see that it's generally people not paying attention to whats going on in front of them...

farrissr wrote:

Don't follow so close...There could be so many reasons that this survey is bogus. They should do a survey of every intersection in the city and that would be a more realistic analaysis. One intersection could have raised the rate for unknown reasons. I don't know about the accidents but I sure like catching the red light runners.

--
Always on the Road Knowing where I've Been

RLC's

Up in Canada ( Ontario)the average red light runners is from 3to 5 cars. It is real bad when you try to move on a green for your direction because they are still coming through.

--
The Home of BLUMARU HOUNDS

youtube

--
Always on the Road Knowing where I've Been

Redlight

coonhunter wrote:

Up in Canada ( Ontario)the average red light runners is from 3to 5 cars. It is real bad when you try to move on a green for your direction because they are still coming through.

Same thing in FL.You go on green at your own risk.

--
Charlie. Nuvi 265 wt and 2597 LMT.

Well

RAMTROL wrote:

Check out Red Light Cameras on Youtube and you'll see that it's generally people not paying attention to whats going on in front of them...

farrissr wrote:

Don't follow so close...There could be so many reasons that this survey is bogus. They should do a survey of every intersection in the city and that would be a more realistic analysis. One intersection could have raised the rate for unknown reasons. I don't know about the accidents but I sure like catching the red light runners.

It sounds to me that whether there is a RLC or not and you stop normally you could still get rear ended. We have plenty of RLC where I live and I cannot ever recall someone slamming on their brakes because of them. There are plenty of warning signs before getting to the RLC intersection. Heck I got rear ended a few years back just sitting waiting for the green light. We can all complain about the RLC's but I don't think they are going away and people need to pay more attention as to what is going on. I don't want anyone to be in an accident but I think catching the red light runners is great.

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

subject

farrissr wrote:

It sounds to me that whether there is a RLC or not and you stop normally you could still get rear ended. We have plenty of RLC where I live and I cannot ever recall someone slamming on their brakes because of them. There are plenty of warning signs before getting to the RLC intersection. Heck I got rear ended a few years back just sitting waiting for the green light. We can all complain about the RLC's but I don't think they are going away and people need to pay more attention as to what is going on. I don't want anyone to be in an accident but I think catching the red light runners is great.

There's a difference between catching red light runners, and causing more accidents. If it's indeed proven that RLC intersections are more dangerous, wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to remove RLCs?

The whole picture

twix wrote:

There's a difference between catching red light runners, and causing more accidents. If it's indeed proven that RLC intersections are more dangerous, wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to remove RLCs?

You will read many articles that state that rear-end accidents increase at RLC interections, but fail to comment on the fact that T-Bone collisions decrease - and these are usually the ones in which fatalities occur.

In any event, one has to factor in all of the parameters, which include all types of collisions; all types of injuries; economic costs of collisions; etc. Only then could a conclusion be reached as to whether or not RLC interections are "more dangerous".

Hmmmmm

twix wrote:
farrissr wrote:

It sounds to me that whether there is a RLC or not and you stop normally you could still get rear ended. We have plenty of RLC where I live and I cannot ever recall someone slamming on their brakes because of them. There are plenty of warning signs before getting to the RLC intersection. Heck I got rear ended a few years back just sitting waiting for the green light. We can all complain about the RLC's but I don't think they are going away and people need to pay more attention as to what is going on. I don't want anyone to be in an accident but I think catching the red light runners is great.

There's a difference between catching red light runners, and causing more accidents. If it's indeed proven that RLC intersections are more dangerous, wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to remove RLCs?

I guess without knowing how many accidents that the RLC's have avoided would somehow have to be taken into the equation. How much less dangerous are the intersections with the RLC"s. It is usually the unsafe drivers not paying attention and following to close that cause the rear end accidents not the ones paying attention to the lights.

--
Bobby....Garmin 2450LM

depends on what you count

farrissr wrote:
twix wrote:
farrissr wrote:

It sounds to me that whether there is a RLC or not and you stop normally you could still get rear ended. We have plenty of RLC where I live and I cannot ever recall someone slamming on their brakes because of them. There are plenty of warning signs before getting to the RLC intersection. Heck I got rear ended a few years back just sitting waiting for the green light. We can all complain about the RLC's but I don't think they are going away and people need to pay more attention as to what is going on. I don't want anyone to be in an accident but I think catching the red light runners is great.

There's a difference between catching red light runners, and causing more accidents. If it's indeed proven that RLC intersections are more dangerous, wouldn't it be in the public's best interest to remove RLCs?

I guess without knowing how many accidents that the RLC's have avoided would somehow have to be taken into the equation. How much less dangerous are the intersections with the RLC"s. It is usually the unsafe drivers not paying attention and following to close that cause the rear end accidents not the ones paying attention to the lights.

It depends on what you count. If you count total accidents, the number will usually go up slightly for the first 6 months or so and then decrease as habits change.

And again, if the count is only totals then the count is skewed, but if the count is injury accidents, then there is a decrease beginning almost immediately.

--
"Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought." -- John F. Kennedy, 35th U.S. president

Re Chicago traffic

ka1167 wrote:

....since actually STOPPING when the light turns red is a concept that is foreign to many (most?) who drive in Chicago.

I just drove up I94 during rush hour, a couple of hours ago and I think everybody should check their fuses, because nobodies turn signals or brake lights seem to work, if they are blown remove the one for the horn and use it. I think I confused a lot of drivers when I signaled to change lanes. Question why do they call it rush hour when nobody moves. I know it's like the Don Valley Parkway in Toronto, either a 120 MPH 3 lane roller coaster ride or stopped. Know on to my next beer to calm down. wink

--
All the worlds indeed a stage and we are merely players. Rush

sponsored links



Navigation



User login

Leave this blank! This field helps block spambots.

poi factory



Who's online

There are currently 25 users and 68 guests online.

Online users

  • sewisdom
  • kcross
  • CraigW
  • harry1357931
  • monbonlupin
  • oldpal
  • eysyey
  • gpsmoron
  • davefrmmrfy
  • fengzhixia23