Short Yellows in Chicago

You got to be kidding. This sort of things in Chicago? Impossible. Didn't they said that it's not for the money but safety? And every time you criticize RLC kitten is killed?

But on serious note. What you really expect from RLC money making business? Abiding law if there is easy buck to make?

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-red-light-camera-ticke...

unexplained spike in tickets at red light cameras in Chicago.

I've been saying this for YEARS!

Runs around in a circle screaming!

I find it very funny that the person that gave me the hardest time on this subject, is the one that started this thread.

I feel very fortunate that I have not gotten a red light camera ticket from Chicago, or anywhere for that matter. I was very paranoid when I first started encountering RLC intersections, and I was setting off flashes because I didn't know any better. That was the main reason I started coming here. To learn, understand, and to get a heads up. Loading the files on my GPS, and even helping to maintain the intersections has helped me stick it right back to "the man."

@twix, yes, I have often pointed out that you were making claims which were not justified by the real facts - even though the articles you were reading seemed to justify your comments.

Usually the topic was about municipalities "shortened yellows" or "shortening yellows" which never turned out to be the fact until Oakland in 2013 - http://www.poi-factory.com/node/39440. I quickly agreed with this post because the facts supported the claim. You quickly chimed in and implied that "shortened yellows" or "shortening yellows" had been going on for years but did not respond with any other factual instances prior to Oakland.

What I try to do and would ask you and others to do is to to carefully read articles and report only on facts clear from the article and related links and not be swayed by headlines that misrepresent the facts.

I am not aware that the instigator of these Chicago short yellows - which certainly seem to be factual - has yet been determined precisely. Was it the camera company or Chicago?

However, it must be noted that each municipality - in this case Chicago - bears the responsibility of ensuring that the timings are correct. This does not seem to be what will happen in Chicago. See the last paragraph of http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2014/08/12/judge-determines-yell...

This just shows how prone to corruption these cameras are. Remember, it's all about the money.

While even one municipality with corruption associated with traffic cameras is unfortunate - and Chicago fits based on what we know - why would you use a phrase like "This just shows how prone to corruption these cameras are" unless your purpose is simply to inflame others.

A list of other cities which have proven corruption associated with red light cameras would seem to be needed if you want to make such a statement.

Well there's certainly Ballmer (Baltimore MD), but I imagine you'll want to debate the proof as the investigation's ongoing. Ballmer's unplugged 'em though.

The Chicago Tribune editorial board came out in favor of both RLCs and speed cameras in their city before implementation, but now has reversed course and backed away, saying the programs are too flawed to be trusted. The Trib is shocked, simply shocked to discover that those programs may really be more about money than safety. (Twix probably fired off an angry e-mail to them and woke them up ) I'd link you but I believe they're behind a paywall.

I understand your priority for safety (and appreciate your willingness to admit that there's one city where they screwed up). Who out there on the road today hasn't seen jackasses driving too fast and running red lights and endangering others and wished they'd gotten what's coming to them? But too many camera enforcement programs have a stacked deck when it comes to fairness in appealing horsehockey tickets--that'$ what tell$ me where the priority really i$. No I've never gotten one thanks in part to POI Factory.

Wasn't Baltimore's problem with cameras more about incorrect calibrations than corruption? I remember the reports showing a parked car being ticketed for speeding rather than questions regarding the contracts and payments to city officials.

That was my understanding about Baltimore, but I should say that all of the facts are not in. They are still off but we do not know for sure why.

@dagarmin, I am certainly a proponent of Automated Traffic Enforcement (ATE) BUT it is not because I think that ATE should always result in more safety. We all are probably aware that in the period just after implementation of ATE, there will usually be a spike in read-end collisions. Usually this will abate with time. However, I have never claimed that ATE is "all about safety" - the phrase that many people snidely use when disparaging ATE. If safety is a byproduct, great. But, there is some reason to think that this is not always true and I have never claimed such.

I am in favor of ATE because it produces revenue that is badly need by almost every municipality AND THAT IS PAID BY PEOPLE WHO BREAK THE LAW.

It is only a matter of time (a couple of decades) before it will not be safe to drive over bridges because they will be crumbling UNLESS we somehow produce the needed revenue for repairs. This would be a good start in that direction.

However, all those places that have had voter referendums banning ATE will have to look to other sources.

Yes we certainly do need to do more to raise revenue to replace bridges and worn-out roads. But enforcement cameras are only a good mechanism for that if you believe they're always right, or that the person who committed the offense owns the car, or that you don't have to return to a city where you don't live, or take off time from work, or pay a fee (that may exceed the fine) to appeal. Otherwise they're not a fair way to raise revenue.

"It's all about safety" is disparaged by opponents of ATE because it was also the disingenuous phrase that politicians used to sell it.

I was sort of surprised at this response because it implies that officer written tickets are always warranted and are only given by officers to residents of the city who can always take time off to appeal.

Why is it a problem for the owner of the car to swear that they were not driving the car? Someone broke the law, did they not?

No, I do not claim that ATE is always right, but observe that the instances of incorrect ATE bring immediate articles from sites like thenewspaper.com. Have you seen many lately?

I agree with you that "all about safety" has been used far too often. I can report that such has never been said about the ATE in my city. I am hoping that this kind of statement is getting rarer throughout the country.

Usually they did but not always as erroneous tickets are issued. And in most states you can appeal if you weren't the driver, though you may have to pay a possibly-not-worth-it fee and take the trouble to appear for a hearing, or you may be expected to identify the driver. This does vary. In New York, for example, you cannot raise that defense. The car owner not driver is liable for an RLC ticket, by law.

Another issue for me is that there is no real connection between worn-out bridges and ticket revenue. Many worn-out bridges are replaced with federal or state money, not local. Ticket revenue is usually general revenue in the locale in which it's connected, I believe.

Usually local but there are several states (CA and FL, I think) where it seems that the bulk of the funds left over after the vendor has taken their cut go to the state.

I agree that there is no real revenue connection, but any extra revenue - especially when it comes from someone who has (most likely) broken the law - is helpful.