Red-light cameras not going anywhere in Wheeling Illinois

But i thought it interesting the police report a significant reduction in accidents (42%) at one location and a marked decrease (18%) at the other. The fact that only 13% of those getting tickets were residents is also telling. The comment the cameras added $500,000 to the city's general fund was also brought out. Of the 500K, 65K came from residents, the other 435K came from commuters.

And it's the commuters that will do the most complaining.

The article was poorly written.

"after the cameras was installed"

Also, what kind of number is 1.05 accidents per week? How did they come up with that number? What is 0.61?

I really, really wish they'd show the numbers, and explain how they come up with their statistics. Providing the answer without the equation is really vague.

It means they averaged around 55 accidents a year at that intersection.

Simple division. Divide the total number of accidents by 52.

About 35.

They did show the numbers, or at least enough for someone to fill in the missing numbers if they wanted.

Here's another number 43%. That's the percentage by which accidents were reduced.

54.6 accidents per year. What I'm trying to say is, what is the "point" part of the accident? How do you have a 1.05 accident per week? What I want from them is the actual number of accidents. Not some weird fraction of a number. If they came out and said 1 accident per week, I'd accept that over 1.05.

Or multiply 1.05 x 52. They didn't give us the total number of accidents. Not in actual form, but an average. I don't want an average.

Uh, what? .61 is closer to 2/3, than 7/20.

How did you come up with that?

How about this? They provide the information in raw numbers, and let people draw their own conclusions? Some kind of standard should be set so meaningful information can be gathered from all of the data, at all intersections. It seems that both sides try and use the numbers to represent their argument.

The article we are discussing was written by a staff writer for the Daily Herald. She was not reporting on some study. She gave statistics provided by the Wheeling Police Department. It seems to me that accidents per week is not a bad way to help readers visualize the accident rate. I did't think the decimal points were wierd

If we had the raw data, would we come to a different conclusion?

When you provide only raw data, you give those intent on mischief or disinformation an opportunity to selective quote only the data that supports their position. I have noted the thenewspater.com often does this as it tries to provide "headlines".

My preference is to have a study that gives the results/conclusions as well as providing methodology and raw numbers.

Who said anything about a study? I realize that the information was provided by the Wheeling police. I'm not confused about any of the information, or how it was provided. If you can explain to me what a 1.05 accident is, I'd be happy to read it. A 1.00 accident, I can identify, 1.05 I can't.

You basically reiterated my point. I don't want answers, I want to see where they got their answers from. I'd like to see how they came up with their 1.05 accident.

If you want to get the answers to your questions, why not ask the people that provided the information?

I've considered doing just that, since you and jgermann can't seem to explain what a 1.05 accident is.

Please read the article again. It is not "a 1.05 accident", they speak of 1.05 accidents per week.

I live near Wheeling and know exactly where these cameras are. Here in the Northern Illinois the drivers have gotten considerably worse over the years. Yellow means speed up to many and the seconds after a red are used by most to make left turns. I have witnessed many accidents on my commute where one of the left turners on red is hit by someone with a green light. The two lights mentioned in the article are very dangerous as they are on main commuting roads and are highly traveled. One of the reasons I can think of for so many tickets is that drivers get impatient when it takes 3 turns of the light to get through one of these intersections.

What I would like to see at many of these lights is a sign to tell people it is OK to make a right turn after a complete stop. Too many people are paralyzed by the unwarranted fear of a ticket.

Which comes out to what exactly per week? The math is flawed. Anyone can see that. If it's not flawed, then you should be able to explain it without telling me to read the article again.

When you hear statistics like the average family has 2.3 kids, do you actually think one of the children is 1/3 of a child... Geeeezz..

jgermann, I wouldn't spend any more time sparring with this silly person.

Twix is that point 3 kid.

were 60 weeks, then 63 accidents becomes 1.05 accidents per week. 36 accidents over a 60 week period becomes .60 accidents per week.

Hope this helps.

Remember that turning left seconds after the light has turned red is perfectly legal in Illinois *as long as* the car entered the intersection at a legal speed on green or yellow. If you intended to ding bad drivers for speeding up on yellow to race the light, entering the intersection *just after* it turned red, and then turning left, you're correct. We all see examples of that. It's not legal, it is very dangerous, and it should be ticketed.

Personally, particularly if I'm first in line stopped at a traffic light, I don't just go on green. I look both ways first to make sure that not only has everyone cleared but no one is still about to enter the intersection. It only takes a second or two. No sense being legally right but still dead or in the ER.

That's not a statistic, but okay. If you're going to use that as an argument, or an example, be my guest.

I'm sorry that I appear to be "silly" to you. I'm not taking this seriously, it's just a discussion.

Nice, and I thought you could have a discussion without stooping to "insults." You're the one that wanted to pick apart what I said. I'm not calling you names or making fun of you. But I guess that's what happens when you can't back up what you're trying to say with logic, or intelligence.

They used 60 weeks instead of 52, got it.