AARoads Forum

It's nice to see the feds finally take notice of the corrupt deals that installed many of these cameras and hopefully most (if not all) will get shut down.

Feds investigating Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci in red-light camera probe, sources say (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-oakbrook-terrace-mayor-tony-ragucci-red-light-camera-probe-20200117-6jg7yw4usra4lihsfpa7cddtmy-story.html)

QuoteOakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci recently paid $30,000 from his campaign fund to a lawyer representing him amid an ongoing federal corruption probe, according to campaign finance records and sources.

Ragucci is among several elected officials and politically connected contractors embroiled in a federal investigation involving SafeSpeed LLC, a controversial company that operates lucrative red-light cameras at intersections in dozens of Chicago-area suburbs, including Oakbrook Terrace, two sources with knowledge of the probe told the Chicago Tribune.

Citing federal corruption investigation, Illinois comptroller to stop helping towns collect unpaid red-light camera fines (https://www.chicagotribune.com/politics/ct-red-light-cameras-susana-mendoza-20200106-iw2wowbrrjhpbagwlkoqzq76ye-story.html)

Quote"This system is clearly broken,"  Mendoza said at a news conference, standing in front of a red-light camera at Madison Street and Western Avenue on the Near West Side. "I'm exercising my moral authority to prevent state resources being used to assist a process that, frankly, victimizes taxpayers."

All stemming from this:

Recent federal raids connected to probe of red light camera company, source says (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-red-light-camera-company-federal-probe-20191002-getlhugppvhghkw4znn33xsnny-story.html)

QuoteA clout-heavy red light camera company that does millions of dollars in business in Chicago's suburbs is one focus of the federal investigation that led to last week's raids on state Sen. Martin Sandoval and several towns in his district, a source with knowledge of the probe told the Chicago Tribune.

The company, Safespeed LLC, was the subject of a Tribune investigation two years ago that revealed Sandoval – chairman of the powerful Senate Transportation Committee – had interceded with the Illinois Department of Transportation on Safespeed's behalf while also taking tens of thousands of dollars in campaign donations from the company and its owner.

And back to the start of the post:

QuoteAccording to the Tribune's 2017 investigation, Sandoval interceded with IDOT officials in 2015 and 2016 on behalf of Safespeed when the company was seeking to install lucrative red light cameras at an intersection straddling Oak Brook and Oakbrook Terrace.

IDOT originally said the intersection was too safe to need cameras, but Sandoval asked the agency to reconsider. At one point, Sandoval told IDOT he wanted to help the agency but "wasn't getting the type of cooperation on his issues that he would like to see,"  according to emails uncovered by the Tribune.

IDOT then approved Oakbrook Terrace's application.

Safety, my ass.  These things are all about the $$$$$$.

Oakbrook Terrace mayor resigns amid federal corruption investigation tied to red-light cameras (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-fbi-corruption-probe-oakbrook-terrace-ragucci-resign-20200121-syl4uhoh2zg2bgf3sufr62sbcy-story.html)

Quote

SafeSpeed and its owners and officers have been among Ragucci's heaviest political donors over the years, election records show, while Ragucci's relationship with SafeSpeed has long been controversial.

A 2017 Chicago Tribune investigation documented how, as chairman of the powerful Senate Transportation Committee, Sandoval intervened on SafeSpeed's behalf to push state transportation officials to change their stance and allow the company's cameras to be installed at the relatively safe intersection of Illinois 83 at 22nd Street in Oakbrook Terrace.

The push came even though IDOT's policies required that cameras target dangerous corners to improve safety.

Oakbrook Terrace's 2020 budget projects the two red-light cameras in operation there – both provided by SafeSpeed – will bring in $5 million in revenue over the current fiscal year.

SafeSpeed in turn charges Oakbrook Terrace about $2.3 million to operate the cameras, plus an additional $2,000 a month in "service fees,"  according to the budget posted on the city's website.

Hopefully the feds keep up the heat on him and SafeSpeed and shut SafeSpeed (what an ironic name) down.

I hope all automated enforcement is done away with nationally with exceptions for school and work zones in certain cases.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 21, 2020, 08:25:05 AM
I hope all automated enforcement is done away with nationally with exceptions for school and work zones in certain cases.

I don't believe exceptions should exist for school and work zones.  How many times have you driven through an active school zone but no students were anywhere around?  How many times have you driven through a work zone when no workers were anywhere around?  Receiving a speeding ticket by automatic control in those scenarios is ridiculous.  Heck, I've seen flashing school zone lights on days school wasn't even in session at all.

Quote from: kphoger on January 21, 2020, 11:51:49 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 21, 2020, 08:25:05 AM
I hope all automated enforcement is done away with nationally with exceptions for school and work zones in certain cases.

I don't believe exceptions should exist for school and work zones.  How many times have you driven through an active school zone but no students were anywhere around?  How many times have you driven through a work zone when no workers were anywhere around?  Receiving a speeding ticket by automatic control in those scenarios is ridiculous.  Heck, I've seen flashing school zone lights on days school wasn't even in session at all.

some school zones are joke drop an 45-55 road to down to 20?

Quote from: kphoger on January 21, 2020, 11:51:49 AM
I don't believe exceptions should exist for school and work zones.  How many times have you driven through an active school zone but no students were anywhere around?  How many times have you driven through a work zone when no workers were anywhere around?  Receiving a speeding ticket by automatic control in those scenarios is ridiculous.  Heck, I've seen flashing school zone lights on days school wasn't even in session at all.

Some of the Illinois Tollway work zones are great cases for not allowing automated enforcement.  70 down to 45 for off roadway work away from traffic.  Then given how many school zones seem to be political versus actually in the interest of safety, I would lean towards not allowing autmoated enforcement for them.  Particularly when considering the  fun 'when children are present' zones where the speed limit may suddenly drop 25 mph when a kid steps within an uncertain distance of the road.

Quote from: Revive 755 on January 22, 2020, 10:45:51 PM

Quote from: kphoger on January 21, 2020, 11:51:49 AM
I don't believe exceptions should exist for school and work zones.  How many times have you driven through an active school zone but no students were anywhere around?  How many times have you driven through a work zone when no workers were anywhere around?  Receiving a speeding ticket by automatic control in those scenarios is ridiculous.  Heck, I've seen flashing school zone lights on days school wasn't even in session at all.

Some of the Illinois Tollway work zones are great cases for not allowing automated enforcement.  70 down to 45 for off roadway work away from traffic.  Then given how many school zones seem to be political versus actually in the interest of safety, I would lean towards not allowing autmoated enforcement for them.  Particularly when considering the  fun 'when children are present' zones where the speed limit may suddenly drop 25 mph when a kid steps within an uncertain distance of the road.

no one does 45 much less 55 on any IL TOLLWAY unless traffic is packed.

To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

And the charges start.

Ex-state Sen. Martin Sandoval charged with bribery in red-light camera scheme (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-ex-state-senator-martin-sandoval-bribery-charges-20200127-whhliqkgibeuzn35g7s6brstfe-story.html)

Quote

On Monday, the longtime Chicago Democrat was charged with bribery and tax offenses stemming from his support of the red-light camera industry when he served as the powerful head of the Senate Transportation Committee.

Prosecutors charged Sandoval in a criminal information, an indication that he is likely cooperating with investigators and intends to plead guilty. He is scheduled to be arraigned Tuesday in U.S. District Court.

The charges came four months after federal agents raided Sandoval's office in the State Capitol and marked the first public case brought in an ongoing investigation involving Sandoval and the southwest and west suburbs.

Quote

The Tribune investigation found that at least three times in late 2015 and spring 2016 Sandoval sought to get IDOT to reverse course and allow cameras in Oakbrook Terrace.

Sandoval initially forwarded a SafeSpeed pitch about its cameras to a top IDOT engineer, saying his "assistance"  would "be appreciated."

Later, after IDOT was holding firm, the engineer told colleagues that Sandoval had called twice more. The engineer said Sandoval suggested that he'd like to help IDOT in other areas but was "not getting the type of cooperation on his issues that he would like to see."  At the time, Sandoval held some sway over the agency's agenda as Senate transportation chairman.

Within a month, IDOT reversed course and approved the cameras for SafeSpeed, which operates lucrative red-light cameras at intersections in dozens of Chicago-area suburbs.

QuoteSafeSpeed's owner, Nikki Zollar, has said the company does "not tolerate wrongdoing or public corruption and we support efforts to root it out."

Now there's a large load of bullshit if I've ever seen or smelled one.

QuoteAlso of interest to the FBI is Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci, who resigned earlier this month on the same day the Tribune reported that he'd recently paid $30,000 from his campaign fund to a lawyer representing him in the probe.

And the actual two-page indictment:

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-martin-sandoval-charges-20200127-bpj6ogmsd5f2tolorxlbdv65vq-htmlstory.html

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

It looks like Sandoval flipped.

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

I'm still opposed, because I've seen active school zone limits on days when classes were canceled or never even scheduled to begin with.

Those opposed - try driving in Europe

and them having year-round school doesn't help

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2020, 11:09:56 AM

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

I'm still opposed, because I've seen active school zone limits on days when classes were canceled or never even scheduled to begin with.

That would require logistical planning with every school in the state where they would need to send every day off to the operator so he/she can turn the camera on and off. Sounds too much of a pain for Illinois to deal with.

Either have them on between the first/last day of school or get rid of them at this point. The latter would seem to be the course everyone is aiming towards

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

How about after the school is closed down?  Our district is contracting, and some elementaries were closed (and eventually torn down and replaced by housing).  Yet the "No Turn On Red" with time limits "on school days" sign remained up for a long time.  Probably would have been enforceable.

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

Right. The cameras should automatically be disabled outside of school zone hours.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 02:24:34 PM

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

Right. The cameras should automatically be disabled outside of school zone hours.

What fun, trying to dispute a camera-issued speeding ticket you incurred on a day that classes were canceled.  You'd probably have to bring evidence to the courthouse that there were no classes that day.

Quote from: kphoger on January 29, 2020, 04:01:44 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 02:24:34 PM

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

Right. The cameras should automatically be disabled outside of school zone hours.

What fun, trying to dispute a camera-issued speeding ticket you incurred on a day that classes were canceled.  You'd probably have to bring evidence to the courthouse that there were no classes that day.

Cities that control said devices would be able to deactivate them during the 3-4 days classes are canceled out of the year.

It's not just the 3-4 days classes are cancelled.  Schools have all sorts of early release days, etc.

It's probably best just to eliminate them entirely and rely on in-person policing.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2020, 04:13:32 PM
It's not just the 3-4 days classes are cancelled.  Schools have all sorts of early release days, etc.

It's probably best just to eliminate them entirely and rely on in-person policing.

In person policing can't be had at every problematic school zone. It doesn't make sense for a police department to shift all or even a majority of its operations from the rest of the city to school zones.

During early release the city can adjust active enforcement periods. We have been to the moon, I am sure we can formulate a policy to ensure motorists will not be ticketed when school zones are inactive.

I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely. That said school zones exist for a reason and as much as I speed I think we should do more to curb speeding through them.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
In person policing can't be had at every problematic school zone. It doesn't make sense for a police department to shift all or even a majority of its operations from the rest of the city to school zones.

I have my doubts about the existence of "problematic school zones".  If so many people are driving too fast through the school zone, then I suspect the school zone is unreasonable.  And if that is the case, then I doubt the speeding actually causes any problems.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

That's kinda ridiculous.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2020, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

That's kinda ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is the highway robbery police departments rely on citing hardworking people who are going a reasonable speed. Most of the time speed limits are set arbitrarily or lower than they should be. We should have cops patrolling in traffic citing people for reckless and distracted driving which is the main cause of car accidents.

Quote from: ET21 on January 29, 2020, 09:19:09 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2020, 11:09:56 AM

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

I'm still opposed, because I've seen active school zone limits on days when classes were canceled or never even scheduled to begin with.

That would require logistical planning with every school in the state where they would need to send every day off to the operator so he/she can turn the camera on and off. Sounds too much of a pain for Illinois to deal with.

Either have them on between the first/last day of school or get rid of them at this point. The latter would seem to be the course everyone is aiming towards

Given the corruption behind the cameras at this point, it would be best to get rid of them and permanently ban them as is the case in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

Quote from: Brandon on January 29, 2020, 04:58:23 PM

Quote from: ET21 on January 29, 2020, 09:19:09 AM

Quote from: kphoger on January 28, 2020, 11:09:56 AM

Quote from: ET21 on January 28, 2020, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 22, 2020, 11:22:31 PM
To clarify I don't support the automated enforcement of all school zones only certain exceptions but in general I would prefer automated enforcement be done away with.

School zones I don't mind, but do it during the school year. Don't give people tickets in the middle of July when the school is clearly closed and we can abide by the normal speed limit.

I'm still opposed, because I've seen active school zone limits on days when classes were canceled or never even scheduled to begin with.

That would require logistical planning with every school in the state where they would need to send every day off to the operator so he/she can turn the camera on and off. Sounds too much of a pain for Illinois to deal with.

Either have them on between the first/last day of school or get rid of them at this point. The latter would seem to be the course everyone is aiming towards

Given the corruption behind the cameras at this point, it would be best to get rid of them and permanently ban them as is the case in Indiana, Wisconsin, and Michigan.

This I can agree with. If the corruption is an issue which it apparently is then I would support removing them entirely.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:55:13 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2020, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

That's kinda ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is the highway robbery police departments rely on citing hardworking people who are going a reasonable speed. Most of the time speed limits are set arbitrarily or lower than they should be. We should have cops patrolling in traffic citing people for reckless and distracted driving which is the main cause of car accidents.

Hi SP Cook!  :wave:

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 29, 2020, 06:07:37 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:55:13 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2020, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

That's kinda ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is the highway robbery police departments rely on citing hardworking people who are going a reasonable speed. Most of the time speed limits are set arbitrarily or lower than they should be. We should have cops patrolling in traffic citing people for reckless and distracted driving which is the main cause of car accidents.

Hi SP Cook!  :wave:

I don't get it.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 07:50:15 PM

Quote from: TheHighwayMan394 on January 29, 2020, 06:07:37 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:55:13 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2020, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

That's kinda ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is the highway robbery police departments rely on citing hardworking people who are going a reasonable speed. Most of the time speed limits are set arbitrarily or lower than they should be. We should have cops patrolling in traffic citing people for reckless and distracted driving which is the main cause of car accidents.

Hi SP Cook!  :wave:

I don't get it.

SP Cook claims that all traffic enforcement is illegitimate and that traffic fines are a "random tax".

In letter to IDOT, Oak Brook village president says "˜justice demands' removal of red-light cameras near Oakbrook Center (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-brook/ct-dob-red-light-removal-request-tl-0206-20200201-rlqi2vhdqjfgharemnknodeoey-story.html)

QuoteOak Brook Village President Gopal Lalmalani sent a letter Friday to an Illinois Department of Transportation official, stating that "justice demands"  the state agency revoke the red-light-camera permit for Route 83 and 22nd Street in Oakbrook Terrace.

Lalmalani sent the letter on behalf of Oak Brook to Omer Osman, acting secretary of transportation for IDOT, three days after former state Sen. Martin Sandoval pleaded guilty to bribery and tax charges, stemming from his involvement with a red-light camera operator and admitted in federal court to taking money from the red-light camera company, SafeSpeed, that installed and operated cameras in Oakbrook Terrace.

QuoteAlso, because the permit for the cameras was issued for improper and illegal reasons, to permit Oakbrook Terrace to continue to collecting revenue from use of the cameras violates all sense of fundamental fairness, Lalmalani wrote.

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:55:13 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on January 29, 2020, 04:48:19 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

That's kinda ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is the highway robbery police departments rely on citing hardworking people who are going a reasonable speed. Most of the time speed limits are set arbitrarily or lower than they should be. We should have cops patrolling in traffic citing people for reckless and distracted driving which is the main cause of car accidents.

That's much harder to actually prove than speeding due to its objective nature.

I drive 20,000 miles a year.  Generally go about 8 over.  Been pulled over for speeding twice in 30 years.  One of which was in a construction zone and I absolutely deserved it.  The other was tossed by a municipal judge.

It's not hard. 

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2020, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

Any complaint I have with road laws means I am a child and don't want to be held accountable. Gotcha!

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on February 07, 2020, 12:33:24 AM

Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2020, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

Any complaint I have with road laws means I am a child and don't want to be held accountable. Gotcha!

^This.

Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2020, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

When one's actions cause no significant risk, then I agree one shouldn't be punished as a matter of course.  Think about officers that simply wait in hiding, running radar:  a number shows up on the radar gun, but that tells him nothing about whether the driver was actually putting himself or anyone else at risk.  Meanwhile, the resources that go toward paying that officer could be better used elsewhere;  unless someone is speeding over that day's threshold, then the officer is just sitting there doing nothing.

Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2020, 02:17:50 PM

Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2020, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

When one's actions cause no significant risk, then I agree one shouldn't be punished as a matter of course.  Think about officers that simply wait in hiding, running radar:  a number shows up on the radar gun, but that tells him nothing about whether the driver was actually putting himself or anyone else at risk.  Meanwhile, the resources that go toward paying that officer could be better used elsewhere;  unless someone is speeding over that day's threshold, then the officer is just sitting there doing nothing.

The idea that you should allow people to speed as long as its not putting people at significant risk at a particular point in time isn't the point.  The point is that excessive speed is riskier than the speed limit, and could therefore put people at significant risk in the near future.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 07, 2020, 04:28:41 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2020, 02:17:50 PM

Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2020, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

When one's actions cause no significant risk, then I agree one shouldn't be punished as a matter of course.  Think about officers that simply wait in hiding, running radar:  a number shows up on the radar gun, but that tells him nothing about whether the driver was actually putting himself or anyone else at risk.  Meanwhile, the resources that go toward paying that officer could be better used elsewhere;  unless someone is speeding over that day's threshold, then the officer is just sitting there doing nothing.

The idea that you should allow people to speed as long as its not putting people at significant risk at a particular point in time isn't the point.  The point is that excessive speed is riskier than the speed limit, and could therefore put people at significant risk in the near future.

Going the speed of traffic is usually safer than going the speed limit.

Quote from: 1 on February 07, 2020, 04:29:43 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on February 07, 2020, 04:28:41 PM

Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2020, 02:17:50 PM

Quote from: thspfc on February 06, 2020, 10:11:06 PM

Quote from: Plutonic Panda on January 29, 2020, 04:28:50 PM
I am strongly against over enforcement of minor traffic violations like speeding where I think undercover cars should be banned for traffic enforcement nationwide and I would like to see the practice of cops hiding and waiting for speeders scaled back or done away with entirely.

To paraphrase: "I don't like being held accountable for my actions and I'm going to blame my problems on law enforcement."

Grow up. If you think that you not following the law is someone else's problem, that's ridiculous.

When one's actions cause no significant risk, then I agree one shouldn't be punished as a matter of course.  Think about officers that simply wait in hiding, running radar:  a number shows up on the radar gun, but that tells him nothing about whether the driver was actually putting himself or anyone else at risk.  Meanwhile, the resources that go toward paying that officer could be better used elsewhere;  unless someone is speeding over that day's threshold, then the officer is just sitting there doing nothing.

The idea that you should allow people to speed as long as its not putting people at significant risk at a particular point in time isn't the point.  The point is that excessive speed is riskier than the speed limit, and could therefore put people at significant risk in the near future.

Going the speed of traffic is usually safer than going the speed limit.

Right, which is why people who are speeding with the flow of traffic are usually not pulled over. 

Where traffic is sparse enough that an officer can actually (a) determine which car was speeding and (b) successfully pull out and catch up to the driver without losing sight, I'd say the supposed risk of speeding isn't all that great.  Where traffic is thick enough that speeding really does pose a risk, it's unlikely an officer would be able to successfully nab the guy (short of perhaps motorcycle cops with radios).

Here's something fun:

Bribes, red light cameras and corruption: A detective's string board breaking down the Martin Sandoval investigation (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-viz-sandoval-investigation-key-playes-20200207-mutwnyhcsjhfxpdswqupluoimi-htmlstory.html)

QuoteWith the guilty plea of former state Sen. Martin Sandoval, the onetime head of the Senate's Transportation Committee became the first person to be convicted in an ongoing corruption probe that has touched on a who's who of state power players, including a handful of other elected officials; magnates in the construction, asphalt and casino industries; lobbyists; transportation officials; and Commonwealth Edison executives. Prosecutors said the probe was "far from over"  but declined to discuss who else might be in their crosshairs. To make sense of the sprawling case, the Tribune created a detective's string board of key players and connections in the investigation gleaned from court filings and news reports.

Quote from: kphoger on February 07, 2020, 05:13:51 PM
Where traffic is sparse enough that an officer can actually (a) determine which car was speeding and (b) successfully pull out and catch up to the driver without losing sight, I'd say the supposed risk of speeding isn't all that great. 

Except when new traffic is intoduced at intersections, driveways, etc.

The indictments continue.

Political operative Patrick Doherty indicted in federal red-light camera probe (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/criminal-justice/ct-patrick-doherty-safespeed-bribery-charges-20200214-etbyptacanftrnkabkocib3ray-story.html)

QuoteA Cook County political operative has been indicted on federal charges alleging he conspired to pay bribes to a relative of an Oak Lawn trustee in 2017 to get lucrative red light cameras installed there.

Patrick Doherty, 64, of Palos Heights, was charged in a three-count indictment made public Friday with bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery. An arraignment has not yet been scheduled.

QuoteThe Daily Southtown has reported on how SafeSpeed has hired as consultants several suburban officials including Doherty, Worth Township Supervisor John O'Sullivan, and former Justice police Chief Robert Gedville. Gedville was fired in 2012 after the newspaper reported on his relationship with the company.

Records obtained by the Tribune show that Oak Lawn Mayor Sandra Bury first signed a deal with SafeSpeed in 2014, calling for a goal of putting 10 cameras at five intersections.

Only three cameras were ever put into operation, however: One at the intersection of 95th Street and Pulaski Road and two more at 111th Street and Cicero Avenue, the records show.

While the Doherty indictment alleges there was a push to add more Oak Lawn cameras in 2017, it doesn't appear any were ever installed, according to the records reviewed by the Daily Southtown.

At the time the bribes allegedly were paid, Oak Lawn was raking in about $680,000 a year in total ticket collections, with about $340,000 annually going to SafeSpeed, an analysis of records provided at the time showed.

Lmao Doherty...... Oak Lawn politics have been laughable since Bury took over and this is just another layer on her cake of shit

Red-light cameras have led to more crashes at Route 83 and 22nd Street, Oak Brook police chief says (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/oak-brook/ct-dob-red-light-study-tl-0312-20200304-in23jhnr45hwdm5mggo6mmc2um-story.html)

Quote

Kruger said Wednesday that his research, which included information from IDOT, Oakbrook Terrace and his department, showed that crashes decreased to 35 in 2012 from 67 in 2011 after IDOT had completed safety improvements for the intersection. That number went as low as 23 in 2015, but increased to 36 in both 2017 and 2018, and to 49 in 2019. The red-light cameras were activated in August 2017.

More specifically, after there were 41 rear-end crashes reported in 2011, that number was down to 14 in 2015 and back up to 41 again in 2019.

Quote

"The work done to improve the intersection did what it was intended to do by decreasing the number of crashes and the severity of crashes,"  Kruger said. "Once the red-light cameras were installed, though, the overall number of crashes increased."

Kruger attributed a major cause of the increase in crashes to people "panic stopping"  because of the cameras when making a right turn on red.

"The work that was done at the intersection solved some of the safety problems, but now, the way cameras are set, the fear by some drivers of getting a ticket has made it less safe,"  he said.

Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

Usually a scare tactic.

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2020, 05:41:03 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

I saw it once downstate in I-55. The thing is that it is so obvious and people are already slowing down so much, it's hard to miss. Most of the time, it's a scare tactic. Plus, anyone using Waze will normally report that, along with any red light cameras.

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

Probably real.  Have seen the camera flash in work zones.

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2020, 05:41:03 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Quote from: Verlanka on July 05, 2020, 05:08:07 AM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2020, 05:41:03 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all.  :pan:

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 05, 2020, 05:58:28 AM

Quote from: Verlanka on July 05, 2020, 05:08:07 AM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2020, 05:41:03 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all.  :pan:

How would it be unconstitutional?

Massachusetts has a state law saying that all tickets must have a policeman (or policewoman) physically present, but I'm pretty sure this is a regular law, as there would be no reason for it to be part of the state constitution.

Quote from: 1 on July 05, 2020, 07:04:45 AM

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 05, 2020, 05:58:28 AM

Quote from: Verlanka on July 05, 2020, 05:08:07 AM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2020, 05:41:03 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all.  :pan:

How would it be unconstitutional?

Massachusetts has a state law saying that all tickets must have a policeman (or policewoman) physically present, but I'm pretty sure this is a regular law, as there would be no reason for it to be part of the state constitution.

Well, without getting too political here, I just feel that if someone is going to write mine or any registered vehicle a ticket for speeding, then it should be written in person to the driver, the driver should be given the right to their defense on the spot, and also the officer writing the ticket should be required and able to provide proof, on the spot, of the violation. And, by the way, there are states that have declared things such as red light cameras to be unconstutional. Missouri is one, for instance.

Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2020, 12:11:10 PM
Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 05, 2020, 10:25:03 AM

Quote from: 1 on July 05, 2020, 07:04:45 AM

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 05, 2020, 05:58:28 AM

Quote from: Verlanka on July 05, 2020, 05:08:07 AM

Quote from: hobsini2 on July 04, 2020, 05:41:03 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

I have only once seen those cameras ever in use. That was back when I-88 was being widened to 8 lanes. The white van, that looked like a stranger trying to get kids to take candy from it and I am not kidding on that description, had the camera mounted in the back of the van with the van door open. The usually packed it near Naperville Rd. Other than that, I have not seen them since.

So creepy. They shouldn't be allowed to do that.

Any type of ticketing that is camera enforced really should be ruled unconstitutional. Then there's the speed cameras in Chicago in school zones or parks. My favorite is the 20 mph speed cameras that are enforced "on school days when children are present", because that isn't vague at all.  :pan:

How would it be unconstitutional?

Massachusetts has a state law saying that all tickets must have a policeman (or policewoman) physically present, but I'm pretty sure this is a regular law, as there would be no reason for it to be part of the state constitution.

Well, without getting too political here, I just feel that if someone is going to write mine or any registered vehicle a ticket for speeding, then it should be written in person to the driver, the driver should be given the right to their defense on the spot, and also the officer writing the ticket should be required and able to provide proof, on the spot, of the violation. And, by the way, there are states that have declared things such as red light cameras to be unconstutional. Missouri is one, for instance.

Missouri's case was about not being able to prove who drove the car.  Hypothetically, if Missouri could also take a picture of a driver and compare to to a diver's license picture, their system would be legal. 

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 06, 2020, 08:43:31 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2020, 12:11:10 PM
Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 06, 2020, 08:43:31 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2020, 12:11:10 PM
Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 06, 2020, 08:43:31 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 05, 2020, 12:11:10 PM
Keep in mind that getting a ticket and arguing your case on the spot to the officer are somewhat recent developments in the grand scheme of things.  In the old days, speeding would lead to you being arrested and a full trial in a court of law, but as the number of drivers increased, the courts got overloaded, and a new means of dealing with these infractions - the ticket - was devised.  Legally, paying the fine is a shortcut to the whole "arrest, get arraigned, plead guilty" process.

Meanwhile, camera tickets are a civil matter due to them being vehicle-based, but as facial recognition improves, that might change.

Camera tickets also don't violate one's right to face one's accuser, since one's accuser isn't the camera or even the police officer who signed off on the ticket - it's the government itself (and has always been such, for everything).

Mind you, I hate camera policing as much as anyone else; it makes it too easy for the state to engage in revenue enhancing activities, and a lot of leeway that one would have with in-person policing goes away (and they can also be turned into a surveillance machine).  But they're not in and of themselves unconstitutional.

Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

Exactly. No right to privacy when you’re driving on a public street.

Agreed, jeffandnicole and SEWIGuy, a public street/road/highway is just that, public. As far as actual surveillance/security cameras, yes, I totally get your point, but let's simply set up cameras as that then, and not pretend they are to improve traffic safety. To get back on the subject of highway talk, really the point to be made here is that these red light and speed cameras don't serve the traffic safety purpose that they are claimed to (which I think most of us agree on). That some random camera can tag any plate and issue a $100+ ticket at their discretion (and yes, I understand there is a supposed review process) just feels unethical to me. Yes, fine, I am good with setting up cameras for reasons as you noted, and I am all for ways that we can use tools to solve crimes and improve public safety. I'll even say that in the event of an accident on the road, these can be used to determine who was at fault and such. However, don't use these devices as some cheap revenue generator disguised as "traffic safety". I think we have seen the corrupt practices that have become associated with these cameras for revenue purposes, and as a citizen, yes, I think the use of them as a traffic fine generator tool should be entirely banned.

Quote from: ChiMilNet on July 06, 2020, 08:43:31 AM
Your last point very much goes along right with my feelings speed and red-light cameras. In short, they really are easy revenue generators and potential surveillance machines, which just doesn't sit well with me at all. Simply, how do they improve safety?

For one thing, there wouldn't be two vehicles stopped along the side of the road for someone else to crash into–or later entering traffic from a standstill.

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Which is not unconstitutional.

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Privacy comes in all forms.  Cameras may understand where you're on the road, but what if you're on the bus and not in a vehicle registered under your name? You're using your name as your handle on here, which offers a lot less anonymity than a vehicle that you may or may not be in. 

Most people's cell phones are locatable.  Rather than waiting for the cameras to find you, log your tag number into a database and figure out your path of travel, your cell phone pings will locate which roadway you are currently on, the speed you're traveling, what lane of McDonald's drive-thru you're in, and if you mobile ordered or paid via credit card, the size fry you are eating.

A camera may figure out if you're driving on the road.  Your cell phone would tell your doctor if you nixed the lettuce on your quarter-pounder.

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Humans could log you as well.  It would take a lot longer and be a lot more manual of a process, but it could be done.

When a cop or investigator truly wants to follow you, they do a bit of column A and a bit of column B.  All of this is recorded manually or electronically.  They have their cameras and their pictures, but there's also a lot of old-fashion police work going on to know what door you're doing in and what you're carrying.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 07, 2020, 08:34:48 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Which is not unconstitutional.

I imagine most people would consider being followed by a cop everywhere they go to be creepy and an intrusion in their privacy.  Additionally, following someone around with a cop takes a LOT of effort and wouldn't be done unless there was already reason to suspect someone.  If a camera system were deployed that make getting an equivalent level of data very easy, there's nothing to stop it from being done to everyone, all the time.

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that attaching a GPS tracker to a car counts as a search for 4th Amendment purposes, and therefore requires a warrant.  I fail to see how this is any different from a privacy perspective (IMO the fact that it requires physically trespassing on the car, while bad, shouldn't be the sole determining factor for 4th Amendment reasons, and I disagree with the justices for whom that was the key point in why they ruled that way).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 07, 2020, 11:23:54 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Privacy comes in all forms.  Cameras may understand where you're on the road, but what if you're on the bus and not in a vehicle registered under your name? You're using your name as your handle on here, which offers a lot less anonymity than a vehicle that you may or may not be in. 

Most people's cell phones are locatable.  Rather than waiting for the cameras to find you, log your tag number into a database and figure out your path of travel, your cell phone pings will locate which roadway you are currently on, the speed you're traveling, what lane of McDonald's drive-thru you're in, and if you mobile ordered or paid via credit card, the size fry you are eating.

A camera may figure out if you're driving on the road.  Your cell phone would tell your doctor if you nixed the lettuce on your quarter-pounder.

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Humans could log you as well.  It would take a lot longer and be a lot more manual of a process, but it could be done.

When a cop or investigator truly wants to follow you, they do a bit of column A and a bit of column B.  All of this is recorded manually or electronically.  They have their cameras and their pictures, but there's also a lot of old-fashion police work going on to know what door you're doing in and what you're carrying.

I do not like how much data cell phones record and very much wish we would pass laws restricting how it's used (and make looking at it require a warrant as per the 4th Amendment).  I would not see the existence of such data collection as an argument for fewer privacy protections, but an argument for more.  In any case, one can, of course, turn off locations services or their phone and/or not bring it with them, and last I checked, my doctor is not doing information sharing with either my phone provider or my credit cards.

The fact that manual location logging takes a lot longer is a very key difference.  Because it takes so much effort, it's only done if soemone is already suspected of a crime.  Because doing the same with cameras and software is easy, there's nothing stopping the government from storing the data forever and using AI to detect suspicious travel patterns and then sending police to search people identified by the AI.  In fact, given current trends towards more surveillance, I fully expect that such will happen eventually unless something happens to change the current trends, it's just a matter of when.  Imagine a world where you get pulled over or the police tear apart your home for reasons related to "national security" or the "war on drugs" because your last roadgeek route clinching trip was deemed "suspicious" by the AI.  Do you want to live in that world?  I don't.

Quote from: vdeane on July 07, 2020, 02:41:39 PM

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 07, 2020, 08:34:48 AM

Quote from: vdeane on July 06, 2020, 09:49:00 PM

Quote from: jeffandnicole on July 06, 2020, 10:16:05 AM
I agree that they don't improve safety, but it drives me nuts when people try to claim that they're about surveillance.  You typing on this website on a regular basis provides anyone that actually cared way more information about your whereabouts than passing by a traffic ticket camera.  It's been noted that arrests from the recent riots have come, in large part, due to people posting pictures on social media.  One person in Philly was arrested based on several clues, which included her wearing a shirt that was identified as a unique item sold on one Etsy website.  The investigator found out she ordered it just a few weeks prior to her participating in the riots.  They traced her credit card purchase to her address.  If she was caught going thru a red light camera, that info would be fairly irrelevant other than to say she was driving thru an intersection, possibly in the direction of a train station or the city.  Someone using their cell camera at the scene of the crime was extremely relevent.

You're thinking too small.  Have the cameras log everyone (even if they only ticket those who are speeding/running a red light).  Then store the logs from all the cameras in a massive centralized database.  Get enough cameras, and you can track every vehicle's every move.  Correlate that with other data sources, and you move to a point where nobody has any privacy anywhere.  Is that really a world you want to live in?  If anything, we need MORE privacy, not less!  The fact that privacy is already eroded is not an argument for further eroding it - it is an argument for why we need to go back.

Quote from: SEWIGuy on July 06, 2020, 11:13:03 AM
Exactly. No right to privacy when you're driving on a public street.

The idea behind "no privacy when you're driving on a public street" was based on being observed by actual humans, who would only see you once at one point.  Cameras logging everywhere you go is more similar to a police officer following you wherever you go than it is to one standing by the road who just happens to see you go by.

Which is not unconstitutional.

I imagine most people would consider being followed by a cop everywhere they go to be creepy and an intrusion in their privacy.  Additionally, following someone around with a cop takes a LOT of effort and wouldn't be done unless there was already reason to suspect someone.  If a camera system were deployed that make getting an equivalent level of data very easy, there's nothing to stop it from being done to everyone, all the time.

For what it's worth, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously that attaching a GPS tracker to a car counts as a search for 4th Amendment purposes, and therefore requires a warrant.  I fail to see how this is any different from a privacy perspective (IMO the fact that it requires physically trespassing on the car, while bad, shouldn't be the sole determining factor for 4th Amendment reasons, and I disagree with the justices for whom that was the key point in why they ruled that way).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Jones

I think there is quite a difference between placing a tracking device on someone's car and tracking them with cameras.

Quote from: Rothman on July 04, 2020, 11:01:42 PM

Quote from: cjk374 on July 04, 2020, 02:28:38 PM
Slightly off topic, but I have a question: when I went to the Sauk Valley meet last week, I saw signs at construction zones saying the speed limit was photo enforced. Is that just a scare tactic or a real threat? Also, where were the cameras for this? I never saw them.

Probably real.  Have seen the camera flash in work zones.

One of the photo enforcement vans was on I-290 today in the work zone east of I-355.  Small white van with a two digit message board on the left side that displays speed (doesn't work well with multiple lanes).  There was an orange stripe with black lettering on the back that started with "work zone" but I was not able to make out the rest of the message.

IDOT  may be in another scandal . The FBI  made a 7 am stop by at a state reps condo. They asked about an effort to get IDOT  to sell a parking lot that was to be part of the Chinatown feeder extension.She had resisted efforts . They asked her about Sandoval who was the center of the red light scandal.

An update, as of today.

South suburban mayor charged in red-light camera bribery scheme (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-crestwood-mayor-presta-federal-corruption-charges-red-light-cameras-20200807-lemzwqtdfngqzh75j5h6c6dv74-story.html)

QuoteThe mayor of south suburban Crestwood has been indicted on federal charges that he accepted bribes to promote red-light cameras in his village, the latest development in a wide-ranging political corruption probe.

According to federal prosecutors, Lou Presta was caught on a March 2018 recording accepting an envelope with $5,000 cash from a representative of the red-light camera firm SafeSpeed, and then lied to the FBI and IRS when asked about it that September.

QuoteState Board of Elections records showed that Presta's campaign committee made an unusual filing Friday morning. Citizens for Presta filed an amended report disclosing that in March 2018, a then-SafeSpeed representative provided him "election day workers and expenses"  collectively worth $5,000. The connection to Presta's criminal charges is unclear.

The red-light ticketing cameras in Crestwood are among the most lucrative in the region, a Tribune investigation found. The story was published the month before prosecutors said Presta was recorded accepting the envelope with $5,000 in it.

QuoteDuring Presta's tenure, Crestwood settled lingering legal actions over how previous penny-pinching officials repeatedly and secretly put toxic water into the village water system. But the village also inked a deal with clout-heavy red light vendor SafeSpeed for cameras, and the Tribune found the suburb quickly became the most prolific ticket-generator in the region.

The analysis found the suburb's SafeSpeed system brought in roughly $8,000-a-day from right-on-red violations at an intersection at Cicero Avenue at Cal Sag Road. Cameras there issued roughly 100 tickets a day, almost all rolling right turns on red. A long-running, class-action lawsuit has alleged the intersection didn't even qualify for cameras to be placed there under state law.

While they are at it they need to do something about the locals in Pulaski County running one of the worst speed scams in the country on I-57. A few cones and the sign warning to slow down deliberately tilted to horizontal like the mirror Marion spins to whack Indy in Raiders of the Lost Ark so nobody can even see it. Need a law that only the state troopers can police I-57 in some of these crooked counties.

Quote from: Brandon on August 07, 2020, 04:47:00 PM
An update, as of today.

South suburban mayor charged in red-light camera bribery scheme (https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-crestwood-mayor-presta-federal-corruption-charges-red-light-cameras-20200807-lemzwqtdfngqzh75j5h6c6dv74-story.html)

QuoteThe mayor of south suburban Crestwood has been indicted on federal charges that he accepted bribes to promote red-light cameras in his village, the latest development in a wide-ranging political corruption probe.

According to federal prosecutors, Lou Presta was caught on a March 2018 recording accepting an envelope with $5,000 cash from a representative of the red-light camera firm SafeSpeed, and then lied to the FBI and IRS when asked about it that September.

I recognize that town name from past stories about their mayors' corruption. There must be something in the water there. Oh wait, there is. (https://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/daily-southtown/ct-sta-kadner-crestwood-water-st-0924-20150924-story.html)

And from the same city, some good ol' ironic racism. (https://theoligarchkings.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/crestwood.jpg)