Watchdog: IDOT approves red light cameras for already safe intersections

[jeffandnicole]

Remember when newspapers were able to investigate and communicate failures of the government, giving normal, everyday citizens the opportunity to fight against the Government and demand change?

Unfortunately for the Chicago Tribune (and newspapers at large), they can preach to the choir, but the elected officials simply read and laugh at these stories and editorials.  The voters not only don't do anything, but they re-elect the people that created and continue the problem.

Another factor is camera location. With bunch of smaller municipalities, it is entirely possible to put cameras on shared roads, and possibly even suppress tickets for in-town registrations. So ticket recipients don't vote for officials who order cameras, and voters see that ticket money go towards lower taxes...
At least this is what we see here - cameras on arterials in main city mostly geared towards suburban commuters...

But...does it actually lower taxes??

[Brandon]

Remember when newspapers were able to investigate and communicate failures of the government, giving normal, everyday citizens the opportunity to fight against the Government and demand change?

Unfortunately for the Chicago Tribune (and newspapers at large), they can preach to the choir, but the elected officials simply read and laugh at these stories and editorials.  The voters not only don't do anything, but they re-elect the people that created and continue the problem.

Another factor is camera location. With bunch of smaller municipalities, it is entirely possible to put cameras on shared roads, and possibly even suppress tickets for in-town registrations. So ticket recipients don't vote for officials who order cameras, and voters see that ticket money go towards lower taxes...
At least this is what we see here - cameras on arterials in main city mostly geared towards suburban commuters...

But...does it actually lower taxes??

Lower taxes, surely you must be joking?

[inkyatari]

Remember when newspapers were able to investigate and communicate failures of the government, giving normal, everyday citizens the opportunity to fight against the Government and demand change?

Unfortunately for the Chicago Tribune (and newspapers at large), they can preach to the choir, but the elected officials simply read and laugh at these stories and editorials.  The voters not only don't do anything, but they re-elect the people that created and continue the problem.

Another factor is camera location. With bunch of smaller municipalities, it is entirely possible to put cameras on shared roads, and possibly even suppress tickets for in-town registrations. So ticket recipients don't vote for officials who order cameras, and voters see that ticket money go towards lower taxes...
At least this is what we see here - cameras on arterials in main city mostly geared towards suburban commuters...

But...does it actually lower taxes??

Lower taxes, surely you must be joking?

I've heard of these lower taxes, but being from Illinois, I always assumed they were a myth.

[paulthemapguy]

Illinois is going to have to do a lot to raise revenues before they can remotely consider lowering taxes.  Or, you know, they could address to what happened with all of that tax money that led us to be in such crippling debt??? 

[kalvado]

Remember when newspapers were able to investigate and communicate failures of the government, giving normal, everyday citizens the opportunity to fight against the Government and demand change?

Unfortunately for the Chicago Tribune (and newspapers at large), they can preach to the choir, but the elected officials simply read and laugh at these stories and editorials.  The voters not only don't do anything, but they re-elect the people that created and continue the problem.

Another factor is camera location. With bunch of smaller municipalities, it is entirely possible to put cameras on shared roads, and possibly even suppress tickets for in-town registrations. So ticket recipients don't vote for officials who order cameras, and voters see that ticket money go towards lower taxes...
At least this is what we see here - cameras on arterials in main city mostly geared towards suburban commuters...

But...does it actually lower taxes??

It allows for lower rate of tax rate growth.

[Brandon]

Remember when newspapers were able to investigate and communicate failures of the government, giving normal, everyday citizens the opportunity to fight against the Government and demand change?

Unfortunately for the Chicago Tribune (and newspapers at large), they can preach to the choir, but the elected officials simply read and laugh at these stories and editorials.  The voters not only don't do anything, but they re-elect the people that created and continue the problem.

Another factor is camera location. With bunch of smaller municipalities, it is entirely possible to put cameras on shared roads, and possibly even suppress tickets for in-town registrations. So ticket recipients don't vote for officials who order cameras, and voters see that ticket money go towards lower taxes...
At least this is what we see here - cameras on arterials in main city mostly geared towards suburban commuters...

But...does it actually lower taxes??

It allows for lower rate of tax rate growth.

You must not be from Illinois.

[johndoe780]

To be fair, there really isn't that many red light cameras in the Western suburbs. Places like Schaumburg and St Charles had them. People got fed up and angry and they were removed.

Other times, idot fixes an intersection, i.e. golf and 59, and removes the cameras.

And correct me if I'm wrong, since this is a non movable traffic violation, per the new transportation amendment, aren't these fines going back to the municipalities transportation fund and not to other funds?

[Revive 755]

To be fair, there really isn't that many red light cameras in the Western suburbs. Places like Schaumburg and St Charles had them. People got fed up and angry and they were removed.

Other times, idot fixes an intersection, i.e. golf and 59, and removes the cameras.

Disagree with there not being that many in the western suburbs, given the number in Hoffman Estates, Elk Grove Village, Palatine, Roselle, Wheeling, Hanover Park, East Dundee, whoever has the IL 59/Irving Park intersection, and probably a few I'm forgetting.

Hoffman Estates is trying to get the red light cameras at Golf/Bartlett intersection active again, and per http://www.hoffmanestates.org/home/showdocument?id=17710 will be reactivating the ones at the IL 59/Golf intersection.

[Brandon]

To be fair, there really isn't that many red light cameras in the Western suburbs. Places like Schaumburg and St Charles had them. People got fed up and angry and they were removed.

Other times, idot fixes an intersection, i.e. golf and 59, and removes the cameras.

Disagree with there not being that many in the western suburbs, given the number in Hoffman Estates, Elk Grove Village, Palatine, Roselle, Wheeling, Hanover Park, East Dundee, whoever has the IL 59/Irving Park intersection, and probably a few I'm forgetting.

Hoffman Estates is trying to get the red light cameras at Golf/Bartlett intersection active again, and per http://www.hoffmanestates.org/home/showdocument?id=17710 will be reactivating the ones at the IL 59/Golf intersection.

Not to mention West Chicago, Aurora, and several inner suburbs like Cicero and Berwyn.  Then there's a number in the south suburbs.

[johndoe780]

To be fair, there really isn't that many red light cameras in the Western suburbs. Places like Schaumburg and St Charles had them. People got fed up and angry and they were removed.

Other times, idot fixes an intersection, i.e. golf and 59, and removes the cameras.

Disagree with there not being that many in the western suburbs, given the number in Hoffman Estates, Elk Grove Village, Palatine, Roselle, Wheeling, Hanover Park, East Dundee, whoever has the IL 59/Irving Park intersection, and probably a few I'm forgetting.

Hoffman Estates is trying to get the red light cameras at Golf/Bartlett intersection active again, and per http://www.hoffmanestates.org/home/showdocument?id=17710 will be reactivating the ones at the IL 59/Golf intersection.

Not to mention West Chicago, Aurora, and several inner suburbs like Cicero and Berwyn.  Then there's a number in the south suburbs.

I would argue that the vast majority of shady red light cameras are in the inner suburbs. The ones in the outer suburbs like West Chicago on IL-59 and Hanover Park on Lake street and barrington etc etc. I usually have no problem with and drive through these daily.

As far as the IL-59 and Golf, I don't think it needs a camera, IDOT just did a half ass job reconstructing the road. The road desperately needed a dedicated northbound turn lane from IL-59 to east golf instead it got the opposite-southbound IL-59 to west golf.

And the IL-59 and irving park road is just in desperate need of reconstruction. Needs double arrow left turn lanes in all directions.

In the outer burbs, these places don't warrant cameras, just a bigger, wider intersection.

[SSOWorld]

Remember when newspapers were able to investigate and communicate failures of the government, giving normal, everyday citizens the opportunity to fight against the Government and demand change?

Unfortunately for the Chicago Tribune (and newspapers at large), they can preach to the choir, but the elected officials simply read and laugh at these stories and editorials.  The voters not only don't do anything, but they re-elect the people that created and continue the problem.

Another factor is camera location. With bunch of smaller municipalities, it is entirely possible to put cameras on shared roads, and possibly even suppress tickets for in-town registrations. So ticket recipients don't vote for officials who order cameras, and voters see that ticket money go towards lower taxes...
At least this is what we see here - cameras on arterials in main city mostly geared towards suburban commuters...

But...does it actually lower taxes??

Lower taxes, surely you must be joking?

Probably is, but don't call him Shirley.

[Brandon]

Caught by a red light camera? The same violation could get you a ticket in one suburb, but not another

With video at the Trib.

When Chicago's suburbs began pushing for their installation a decade ago, the law required that police officers review every video and citation, to further ensure fairness.

But a Tribune investigation found some police officers race through those reviews, approving dozens of $100 tickets in minutes, as if on an assembly line. Reporters found one suburban officer who reviewed and approved 41 tickets in 59 seconds. His boss, the chief, had more than 400 instances where he assessed and approved a citation in 2 seconds or less.

Sounds like it's being abused as a money-making scheme.

"If a town is using this properly, it saves lives and it pays for itself,"  said Fox Lake Police Chief Jimmy Lee.

Take note of those bolded words.  if it's really about safety, then it shouldn't matter how it's paid for.

In the last decade, cameras have sprouted from west suburban Bellwood – where a leader infamously boasted red light cameras were like having a casino – to now issuing roughly $94 million worth of tickets per year across suburban Chicago, the Tribune analysis found.

/bold is mine.

The law requires a police officer to sign off on any violations before a ticket is mailed.

Officers across the suburbs are assigned to sit at computers and view pictures and videos uploaded by the red light vendors. Videos can range from 8 to 20 seconds, according to suburbs and vendors.

But one department acknowledged its numbers suggest problems. In Riverdale, one officer typically took 3 seconds to review tickets.

From October through December, Officer Anthony Milton approved 754 violations in just 2 seconds each.

He approved 594 violations in 1 second each.

And 33 times, his review was so fast that the computer logged the approval in the same second as the previous ruling. In other words, he made 33 approvals in less than 1 second each.

Judgement calls in less than a second?  Seriously?

Illinois law usually allows the public to obtain records that form the basis of government actions. The state's Freedom of Information Act allows such access for electronic records too, such as videos.

That's not the case, though, for red light violations. Lawmakers – in passing the law allowing suburbs to install cameras – specifically prohibited anyone from seeing the videos or pictures of the violations, other than police and the red light vendors. Those ticketed can see the video too, but only of their own violation, not anyone else's.

These should be made public as they are records maintained by a municipality.

Under the law, red light cameras citations are treated more like parking tickets than speeding tickets.

Drivers may contest traditional moving violations, such as speeding, to a judge who may hear evidence and rule whether to find someone guilty.

But camera tickets get a lower tier of judicial oversight, called administrative hearings. Appeals are sent to suburbs issuing the tickets, who hire their own lawyers to decide if the ticket was deserved. Those appealing rarely win.

Basically, a kangaroo court.

Hajzl offered to let Euman watch the videos, but after watching the first one, he knew he was beat. He pivoted the conversation. He wanted to know if the village ever considered fixing the corner to lower any safety risk that prompted the cameras.

"We're all here for the same thing,"  he said, gesturing to those seated behind him, some of whom nodded or murmured um-hums. "It just seems to me that, as a safety issue, if we're all doing the same thing, rather than rake in the revenue, how about doing something so that you could be countering that and not have this issue?"

Why?  Because they want the money.  They don't care about safety.

Drivers can appeal to a traditional court. But they must pay the filing fees – $84.71 in Cook County – and, as the law is written, the judge must give the benefit of the doubt to what the suburb's lawyer ruled.

Defense attorney Larry Davis characterized appeals as such long-shots that he doesn't take camera cases. After all, he said, why should a client pay legal fees and gamble with court fees on top of the original $100 fine when the chance of success is so slim?

A system that screws people.

What's often left for those ticketed are arguments over technicalities of how suburbs have implemented their camera programs. So far, suburbs have withstood several legal challenges to their procedures.

The next test will come in Crestwood, a suburb that separately gained fame for being among the first to offer "rebates"  of property taxes to residents, and then infamy after the Tribune exposed how, along the way, penny-pinching officials repeatedly and secretly put toxic water into the village water system.

Crestwood has a new mayor and a new designation: The most prolific camera ticketer in the suburbs.

A class-action lawsuit filed Oct. 5 alleges all those rolling right turn tickets at that corner [Cicero Avenue at Cal Sag Road] should be thrown out – and those ticketed repaid – because the intersection is uniquely engineered in a way that drivers turning right can't see the stoplight. The lawsuit argues the engineering violates state requirements, leaving drivers to assume they can legally merge into traffic without stopping – only to get tickets in the mail weeks later.

Crestwood has responded in court that the intersection complies with engineering requirements and, even if it didn't, it wouldn't matter. The suburb said those ticketed have no legal right to question the engineering.

IDOT's engineers approved the cameras after determining the corner was dangerous, Presta said, and the village is confident the lawsuit will be thrown out.

In the meantime, Safespeed keeps sending videos of perceived violations there, and village police continue to approve them.

Here's the corner: Aerial
Streetview: Southbound & Northbound.

[inkyatari]

Caught by a red light camera? The same violation could get you a ticket in one suburb, but not another

*snip*

I wish I could afford to get the hell out of this ass backwards state.

[johndoe780]

Caught by a red light camera? The same violation could get you a ticket in one suburb, but not another

*snip*

I wish I could afford to get the hell out of this ass backwards state.

Pretty much the same issue in every other state with the red light cameras. I think Wisconsin is the only Midwest state that banned them.

In my defense I've never gotten a red light camera ticket.

[Super Mateo]

Pretty much the same issue in every other state with the red light cameras. I think Wisconsin is the only Midwest state that banned them.

In my defense I've never gotten a red light camera ticket.

I have.  My defense was that I did stop and look for pedestrians before making the turn.  Then I said that the village (I won't say which one, just to be nice) can have their $100 fine, but I will never shop in that village again.  The fine was then waived.

[Brandon]

Caught by a red light camera? The same violation could get you a ticket in one suburb, but not another

*snip*

I wish I could afford to get the hell out of this ass backwards state.

Pretty much the same issue in every other state with the red light cameras. I think Wisconsin is the only Midwest state that banned them.

In my defense I've never gotten a red light camera ticket.

They're banned in Indiana, Michigan, and Wisconsin.

[ET21]

Pretty much the same issue in every other state with the red light cameras. I think Wisconsin is the only Midwest state that banned them.

In my defense I've never gotten a red light camera ticket.

I have.  My defense was that I did stop and look for pedestrians before making the turn.  Then I said that the village (I won't say which one, just to be nice) can have their $100 fine, but I will never shop in that village again.  The fine was then waived.

It was Justice wasn't it? 

[PurdueBill]

Caught by a red light camera? The same violation could get you a ticket in one suburb, but not another

"If a town is using this properly, it saves lives and it pays for itself,"  said Fox Lake Police Chief Jimmy Lee.

Take note of those bolded words.  if it's really about safety, then it shouldn't matter how it's paid for.

Indeed, if it's being used properly, then violations would decrease to zero and lives would be saved but no $$$ coming into town coffers.  Clearly it's not about safety to the Chief but is all about $$$$$.