Red-light cameras could be near in 3 suburbs

Full story: Chicago Tribune

Automated photo enforcement cameras already catch red-light runners at some Chicago and suburban intersections.
Comments
1 - 20 of 26 Comments Last updated Mar 28, 2009
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Alan Parshall

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Sep 5, 2007
 
Absolutely, and the sooner, the better. Red light running has become rampant lately, and I have seen it done by, among others, a schoobus, and a couple of tanker semis hauling hazardous chemicals! Hopefully, this will also cut down on the number of drivers who enter blocked intersections when there is no hope of clearing before the light changes. I say, "Go get 'em!" awp
Dez

Newington, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Sep 6, 2007
 
Traffic cameras are for revenue purposes. These suburbs are looking to cash in the same way Chicago does.
Jack

Quincy, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Sep 6, 2007
 
Do the cameras and associated signs cause rear end accidents, because an over-obedient driver will slam on the brakes on a yellow and be struck by someone intent on running the light?
Benjammin

Glen Ellyn, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Sep 6, 2007
 
All the cameras in the world won't help as long as those tinted license plate covers are allowed that prevent the cameras from getting a good reading of the license plate.
They are on a lot of cars and when the photo is snapped, all they get is a reflective image of the plate.
Get those off the market and issue warning tickets to drivers that already have them installed, and then the cameras will do some good.
James Krohe Jr

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Sep 6, 2007
 
Your reporter might want to consult a map before he again places Skokie, Lincolnwood, and Northbrook on the North Shore.
Jim

Wheeling, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Sep 6, 2007
 
Cut down on accidents? Did these people research these things, or just lap up the sales pitch that these (unlawful) companies throw at them? EVERY protracted study has shown that these stupid (and unconstitutional) cameras CAUSE more accidents than they prevent.

I honestly think running red lights is a serious problem - maybe even THE MOST serious problem - in the Chicagoland area. That said, I don't think the answer is to violate the Constitution and put law enforcement in the hands of machines and profit-driven companies. The appropriate penalty is to prosecute these arrogant idiots with reckless driving (a criminal offense as opposed to a moving violation) and make them bond out of jail. When they come in late to work or arrive home late, they can explain to their boss or family that their arrogance in thinking their trip was more important than other people's safety.

And instead of further impressing upon kids restrictions upon their driving, anyone convicted of a traffic-related crime should NOT be eligible for "traffic school," but REQUIRED to take a full-course Driver's RE-Education course that would entail a written and on-the-road test - regardless of age.

I think people would think twice about running red lights if they knew they would be arrested, have to appear in court, lose their license and have to take a multi-day driver's education class. Just slapping someone with a fine (one that does not even go on a driver's record since most of these municipalities charge people with ordinances that DO NOTHING but generate revenue for those towns and the companies that they contract with).

But who wants reasonable legislation when you can intimidate the lemmings with cameras and cause more accidents? Being reasonable is not POLITICALLY correct in this society, just fanatical extremism and intimidation tactics.
Jim

Wheeling, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Sep 6, 2007
 
And why, if this is such an "important" issue for these towns, do they neglect to post cops at intersections? I see probably a dozen (or more) people a day run red lights in and around Norhtbrook. I DO NOT SEE COPS. I guess they only want to enforce this law if they don't actually have to DO anything to enforce it. I guess "doing work" is a bit too much to as of these cops. They'd rather sit at the local gas station or strip mall "running speed" in bumper-to-bumper traffic.

You can't complain about the cops "not doing their jobs" when you provide them more reasons not to do it.

Since: Sep 07

Waukegan

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Sep 6, 2007
 
yep sht is way outta hand.
Roy

Lincoln, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Sep 6, 2007
 
They said when Bush was elected that the government would spy on us with their eyes in the skies, and they were right.
Tom

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Sep 8, 2007
 
Red light cameras can be okay as long as the jurisdiction does not shorten the yellow interval from the usual 3-5 seconds in order to generate more revenue tickets. Check with Washington DC (a camera on H Street) about this little trick.
T from Chicago

South Holland, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Sep 8, 2007
 
I recently received a red light camera ticket. I wasn't even trying to break the law, there are just situations where you have to go through-like turning left at very busy intersections, and preventing other idiots from hitting you when the light turns yellow.
I bought a gps that alerts me to these intersections. I know, you can usually see them coming, if you're vigilant, but I'd rather concentrate on driving than on not getting caught.
I think the best thing out there for red light running prevention are the new stop lights that count down in seconds remaing before the yellow light. You can see the count a mile away, and make a wise decision, and also check the traffic behind you.
Red light cameras should only be installed at those intersections. But, of couse, it's a money making deal, so they'll keep putting them at intersections like Fullerton& Elston-where the traffic is impossible to begin with- and you're likely to need to run the light in order to not get hit.
cbd

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Sep 9, 2007
 
Today, traffic enforcement, tomorrow, your bedroom. Count on it.
anton

Chicago, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Sep 9, 2007
 
welcome to police state USA
Jon

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Sep 14, 2007
 
Garbage. I'll dump my feelings in here and follow suit... just another revenue generating load of BS. Soon the revenue will not be enough and they will find another way to take your cash. What will it pay for? Probably just more cameras, and definitely not the guy who just destroyed your shiny new car.
I sure hope anyone who agrees with these things racks up $10k in tickets driving their significant other to the ER at midnight after an unfortunate accident (you know, since it would take the ambulance half an hour just to get to you and there is no one on the wide open road anyway).
You can bet that if it makes money and involves the government... someone is trying to screw you out of yours.
Hugh Jass

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Sep 14, 2007
 
Jon wrote:
Garbage. I'll dump my feelings in here and follow suit... just another revenue generating load of BS. Soon the revenue will not be enough and they will find another way to take your cash. What will it pay for? Probably just more cameras, and definitely not the guy who just destroyed your shiny new car.
I sure hope anyone who agrees with these things racks up $10k in tickets driving their significant other to the ER at midnight after an unfortunate accident (you know, since it would take the ambulance half an hour just to get to you and there is no one on the wide open road anyway).
You can bet that if it makes money and involves the government... someone is trying to screw you out of yours.
Extremely well put and to the point.

The majority of the people that are breaking the majority of the laws, are unable to pay the fines, so let's lock them up and find a way to penalize the people who have money, too.

The fact is, that the people who are most able to pay, are the most likely to just throw their arms up in the air and say: "Why fight it, I'll just pay the two dollars and move on"
Gil

Daytona Beach, FL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Sep 17, 2007
 
When a officer gives a ticket you have the Right to go back and time the light, gather evidence and possible witnesses, but with the camera you get the ticket a week later. How can this hold up in court if they can't prove there was not a glitch in the timing, or that sombody set the timing off a little, and went back a few day after your ticket to fix it? Since the beginning of time we Americans had the Right(after signing the ticket and being released by the officer) to review and seek a possible defense immediately after the "crime" occured!
UncleBuckeye

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Sep 18, 2007
 
I read with interest a recent story about red light-running photo-enforcement cameras now being permitted on state roads outside Chicago. I did find one sentence particularly amusing though, the one stating,“The legislation makes it clear that the technology must be used to enhance safety and cannot be used primarily to boost revenue through increased ticketing.”

Let’s be serious, the primary purpose for these cameras is unequivocally to generate revenue. Of all the cameras in use currently there is no reported documentation I have seen demonstrating an overall increase in safety. Every description I have read does discuss at length the huge revenues generated under the guise of this inferred increased safety. There is other documentation available that would appear to refute the safety ruse perpetrated by our government officials.

A recent newspaper article reported that Chicago’s Ald. Edward M. Burke “bluntly admits that his recent idea to ban new devices that reveal the location of the city's traffic enforcement cameras is not about promoting safety but all about protecting the loot the City of Chicago rakes in….” From the Washington Post, "The data are very clear," said Dick Raub, a traffic consultant and a former senior researcher at Northwestern University's Center for Public Safety. "They are not performing any better than intersections without cameras." The studies go on and on.

Although there are many news articles describing the often double digit increase of rear end accidents precipitated by these red light cameras, I can find no such reporting in Illinois. It was even found that some communities, I know this is difficult to believe, have shortened the length of the amber light to further increase revenues. Stop just over the solid white line at a crosswalk – that will be $100 dollars please. By the way, there have been studies performed substantiating the fact that the number of intersection accidents could be decreased by merely increasing the length of the amber light. We all know what the problem with that solution is don’t we, NO MONEY!
Amanda

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Sep 18, 2007
 
Here is my problem with red light cameras. They just installed on at an intersection outside of my place of employment. Before putting in the camera, you could get at least 5-10 people through the intersection on a green turn arrow. Now, you're lucky if you get 3 people through. And yellow lights are about 3 seconds now. Don't tell me that's all for "public safety." It's also convienent that a new mega-plex movie theater just opened that will use this particular intersection as it's entrance drive...
Romeo

Pleasanton, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Dec 19, 2007
 
Another deal the mayor relatives can invest their cssh and profit from it, it is all a scam to make money.
g unit

Northbrook, IL

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Mar 25, 2008
 
f*ck UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Other Recent Northbrook Discussions

Search the Northbrook Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
IL Ill. House Approves Legalizing Same-Sex Civil U... (Dec '10) 41 min truth 48,928
Police Blotter (Jun '10) 9 hr Sam 21
IL Illinois Governor Recall Amendment (Oct '10) 11 hr newpoly 1,864
IL Who do you support for Secretary of State in Il... (Oct '10) 15 hr Chicagobunny 527
IL Who do you support for Governor in Illinois in ... (Oct '10) Sat All better now 3,835
Police reports: Lake in the Hills, Cary, Lakemo... (Mar '08) Jul 24 No One special 49
Officials: Mariano's looking to build in Des Pl... Jul 23 Beyonce's Weave 4
•••

Beach Hazards Statement for Cook County was issued at July 27 at 10:14PM CDT

•••
•••
•••
•••

Northbrook Jobs

•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••

Northbrook People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••

Northbrook News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Northbrook
•••

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]
•••