Speed Cameras in Chicago
Cyclistas:
We need to start a campaign to get Gov. Quinn to sign the law enabling speed-cameras in Chicago. It's sitting on his desk.
His contact-website is:
http://www2.illinois.gov/gov/Pages/ContacttheGovernor.aspx
In the "Citizen Question" frame, just put "Speed Cameras"
In the "Citizen Request from just recommend or tell him to sign the legislation. It has already passed both the House and the Senate and was sent to him for his approval.
This has been setting on his desk for some time. My guess is that he wants to see what the public reaction is, and I suspect the car drivers and their clubs are encouraging him NOT to sign it.
You can also contact him at his Springfield office:
Office of the Governor
207 State House
Springfield, IL 62706
Phone: 217-782-0244
TTY: 888-261-3336
or at the Chicago office of the governor:
Office of the Governor
James R. Thompson Center
100 W. Randolph, 16-100
Chicago, IL 60601
Phone: 312-814-2121
There are too many speeding cars in Chicago and we need something to slow them down.
Thanks.
Views: 1752
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Anne Alt on
-
You make a very good point. I also have a problem with the shorter yellow times at many intersections, for the same reasons.
Sol said:I like the idea of the cameras in theory, but how they are implemented is the problem.
The yellow light time at Peterson and Western was reduced when the cameras were installed. At that intersection, even when not speeding, you either have to start slowing down when the light is still green (which can lead to being rear-ended) or you have to speed up to get through the intersection in order to avoid a ticket. The length of the yellow light at that intersection is apparently in compliance with state law, but yet still not long enough in my opinion to give sufficient warning to people that the light is about to change given the speed limit on that road. I now take my eyes off the road when driving through that intersection in order to look at the pedestrian second counter above the crosswalk in order to see if the light will change rather than focusing on the signal indicator which hangs above the middle of the intersection. This is less safe, but I am convinced that it is the only reason I have so far never received a ticket from that red light camera. Oh, and don't suggest that I ride my bike on Peterson near Western--I am daring, but not suicidal.
The devil is always in the details of the implementation. In my opinion, the red light cameras were implemented in a way to maximize revenue rather than to improve actual traffic safety. I expect that the same will be the case with the new speeding cameras. Until I am convinced otherwise, I cannot support their implementation.
-
-
70% of what our tax money pays the police force to do is babysitting motorists and dealing with their mishaps
I don't know what the true percentage is, but I doubt that it's this high. They spend an awful lot of time dealing with things like shoplifting, residential burglaries, domestic disturbances, armed robberies, bar fights.... You get the idea. That being said, they do spend plenty of time on traffic violations, and I agree that bad drivers should pay.
The law would also allow the City to use vans with speed cameras on/in them. The vans could be moved around as needed.
Mobile speed units already exist, but there are few of them - not nearly enough to meet the need. Having more mobile units (with cameras) might actually be more effective than cameras in fixed locations, because drivers won't know where to expect them.
An alternative to using speed cameras and traffic cops is to redesign our roads so that drivers speed less often. The roadway width, road features, and the built environment all serve as factors that encourage or discourage speeding.
I agree. Too many of our streets and intersections are designed for speeding. Here's an example from Morgan Park. There are many businesses on Western and a stoplight at 109th. 109th is a quiet residential street here. The two intersections immediately to the east (Oakley and Bell) are enormous and have no stop signs. Corners of the intersections are rounded off, enabling fast turns. This area is a secret speedway. I've nearly been hit at these intersections while riding my bike, and it's happened too many times. I think that adding giant islands to the middle of these intersections (as indicated by the yellow circles) could significantly reduce speeding, allow drivers more time to see other vehicles before they meet in the intersection, and greatly improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Added islands could also be an opportunity for new community gardening space.
-
Permalink Reply by Joel on
-
Red light cameras are only viable when people are running red lights. Period. The city has to pay the contractor a minimum fee every month to use the cameras, and the only way to make money is have people run a red. The cameras cannot pay for themselves if people aren't running red lights. How do you get someone to run a red? You shorten a yellow. Red light cameras also encourage rear-end collisions, and the result has been shown over and over.
If you want to improve safety you increase the length or the yellow and design better intersections. Red light cameras are never an answer.
Sol said:The devil is always in the details of the implementation. In my opinion, the red light cameras were implemented in a way to maximize revenue rather than to improve actual traffic safety. I expect that the same will be the case with the new speeding cameras. Until I am convinced otherwise, I cannot support their implementation.
-
Permalink Reply by mike w. on
-
+1
My point almost exactly. It isn't about safety at all, it's all about the revenue.
Sol said:
(edit...)...The devil is always in the details of the implementation. In my opinion, the red light cameras were implemented in a way to maximize revenue rather than to improve actual traffic safety. I expect that the same will be the case with the new speeding cameras. Until I am convinced otherwise, I cannot support their implementation.
-
-
Good points...
Anne Alt said:>>70% of what our tax money pays the police force to do is babysitting motorists and dealing with their mishaps
I don't know what the true percentage is, but I doubt that it's this high. They spend an awful lot of time dealing with things like shoplifting, residential burglaries, domestic disturbances, armed robberies, bar fights.... You get the idea. That being said, they do spend plenty of time on traffic violations, and I agree that bad drivers should pay.(98.6% of all statistics are made up...) One officer i know once told me that she spends 98% of her time babysitting 2% of the population - but that's a statistic i can agree with.
Maybe in the 'burbs some departments spend a lot more of their time and effort on traffic control, but based my own observations, the CPD units i see pretty much look the other way at traffic infractions unless there is actually a collision involved.
Every morning i ride past a CPD unit that's parked facing SB on Sheridan & Juneway. He's reading the papaer and having a smoke whilst waiting to start ticketing at 7am. i regularly see -and dodge- speeders who come winging around the bend passing within inches from his unit, and last week a guy swung out across the yellow line into oncoming traffic to get around a line of cars atthe stoplight at Juneway. Message: it's easier and more profitable to be writing parking tickets than enforcing actual traffic laws.
>>The law would also allow the City to use vans with speed cameras on/in them. The vans could be moved around as needed.
>>Mobile speed units already exist, but there are few of them - not nearly enough to meet the need. Having more mobile units (with cameras) might actually be more effective than cameras in fixed locations, because drivers won't know where to expect them.
Better solution...
>>An alternative to using speed cameras and traffic cops is to redesign our roads so that drivers speed less often. The roadway width, road features, and the built environment all serve as factors that encourage or discourage speeding.
>>I agree. Too many of our streets and intersections are designed for speeding...... I think that adding giant islands to the middle of these intersections (as indicated by the yellow circles) could significantly reduce speeding, allow drivers more time to see other vehicles before they meet in the intersection, and greatly improve safety for cyclists and pedestrians. Added islands could also be an opportunity for new community gardening space./p>
Yes. But maybe narrowing carriageways and building roundabouts would make cycling more hazardous. The city put in flowergarden medians in such streets as N.Ashland which have limited drivers' sightlines and been a factor in some horrific crashes. i knew the cop who was killed a few years back on Ashland when someone pulled a turn in front of him from behind the planter. Planting a garden in the middle of a roundabout may make a street look good, but it cannot be at the expense of losing sightlines.
-
Permalink Reply by Bob Kastigar on
-
mike w. said:+1
My point almost exactly. It isn't about safety at all, it's all about the revenue.
And who pays?The speeders!Hooray!
-
-
Won't slow 'em down,
won't reduce their numbers ...
Won't save a single life. Everyone pays.
Doesn't matter. Today, speeders; tomorrow, peds; next day, cyclists.
Bob Kastigar said:
mike w. said:+1
My point almost exactly. It isn't about safety at all, it's all about the revenue.
And who pays?The speeders!Hooray!
-
Permalink Reply by Kevin K on
-
I'm ok with camera footage being used after a violent crime or a theft has been committed, to prosecute the crime, but these traffic violation cameras are bullshit.
Do we really want to live in a city or a country where the government has cameras all over us, monitoring our every move, and if we do something outside of the lines they've drawn the government can just mail us a ticket and take away our property (money), without our say-so? I don't like people speeding, but this is way too big-brother. What's next? What little laws do YOU break, and what if THOSE violations suddenly became enforced by means like this?
These traffic-violation cameras are about one thing, and one thing only -- money.
If the city or the state really needs the money, then just raise the sales tax or property taxes or the income tax rate. Don't nickel and dime the citizens with this big brother sh*t. Did the Founding Fathers put their lives on the line so that one day the government could follow our every move w/ cameras, and then automatically take our money when we "step out of line?" Hell no they didn't!!
-
-
Again, the devil is in the details. I understand your point about sightlines. The sightlines at these intersections on 109th St. are not long enough to handle the current speeding traffic, which is part of why they are dangerous. These are quiet residential streets where cars shouldn't be going faster than 20-25 mph. PERIOD.
If there is a height/density limit on whatever might be planted in a center island (to preserve sightlines), then the islands could serve their primary function safely - forcing traffic to slow the hell down before going through the intersection so that all users of the intersection have time to see each other before interacting.
At other added center islands in the neighborhood, planting density is limiting, preserving sightlines. Medians on major streets like Ashland or Western are much higher than an island type of installation, where hardscape elements are at curb height, not waist height. Big difference.
mike w. said:Yes. But maybe narrowing carriageways and building roundabouts would make cycling more hazardous. The city put in flowergarden medians in such streets as N.Ashland which have limited drivers' sightlines and been a factor in some horrific crashes. i knew the cop who was killed a few years back on Ashland when someone pulled a turn in front of him from behind the planter. Planting a garden in the middle of a roundabout may make a street look good, but it cannot be at the expense of losing sightlines.
-
-
Understood.
i remember this neighbourhood from my high school days (i lived in Ashburn, and hung out in Beverly and M.P.) The traffic density even 40 years ago was high and i more than once nearly got clobbered along Longwood Dr. , 99th, & 111th, etc.
i'm not against roundabouts, raised medians, etc. per se, i just am concerned that they're designed and engineered properly. i hope the city has learnt its lesson in this regard. i still don't think cameras are the solution that proper traffic control engineering/design can be.
Anne Alt said:Again, the devil is in the details. I understand your point about sightlines. The sightlines at these intersections on 109th St. are not long enough to handle the current speeding traffic, which is part of why they are dangerous. These are quiet residential streets where cars shouldn't be going faster than 20-25 mph. PERIOD.
If there is a height/density limit on whatever might be planted in a center island (to preserve sightlines), then the islands could serve their primary function safely - forcing traffic to slow the hell down before going through the intersection so that all users of the intersection have time to see each other before interacting.
At other added center islands in the neighborhood, planting density is limiting, preserving sightlines. Medians on major streets like Ashland or Western are much higher than an island type of installation, where hardscape elements are at curb height, not waist height. Big difference.
-
-
Wow ok so I just found this thread...
Check out http://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/oct21-speed-limit-camer...
This is a VERY VERY long thread, originally started by Bob complaining about the speed cameras... most of the people on this thread are against speed cameras and we were coordinating over there to write letters to Quinn against the speed camera bill.
On that thread, we established how speed cameras in no way help cyclists. I don't bike too much myself, but I promote the installation of additional bike lanes which will be great for cyclists. I am for reducing the traffic in the city, and the more people who cycle the better the traffic. The speed cameras are only for revenue and to fear monger, nothing more.
Please don't fall into this fear mongering about speed cameras. There is no need for them and they don't benefit cyclists in any way.
Write Quinn AGAINST speed cameras today!
-
Permalink Reply by h' Zerocats on
-
A bunch of motorists on Everyblock are upset that their right to drive recklessly is being threatened.
*yawn*
Bob, I think you'd have learned by now-- better not to bring some things up over there-- people who care about having a city that's safe for people that aren't in cars are still considered societal fringe-dwellers in 2011 Chicago.
Taras Hryniw said:Wow ok so I just found this thread...
Check out http://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/oct21-speed-limit-camer...
This is a VERY VERY long thread, originally started by Bob complaining about the speed cameras... most of the people on this thread are against speed cameras and we were coordinating over there to write letters to Quinn against the speed camera bill.
On that thread, we established how speed cameras in no way help cyclists. I don't bike too much myself, but I promote the installation of additional bike lanes which will be great for cyclists. I am for reducing the traffic in the city, and the more people who cycle the better the traffic. The speed cameras are only for revenue and to fear monger, nothing more.
Please don't fall into this fear mongering about speed cameras. There is no need for them and they don't benefit cyclists in any way.
Write Quinn AGAINST speed cameras today!
Groups
-
Critical Mass discussion
262 members
-
Chicagoland Beer Explora…
203 members
-
Chicago Randonneurs
269 members
-
Walk Bike Transit
63 members
-
British Bicycles of Chic…
172 members
© 2008-2016 The Chainlink Community, L.L.C.
Powered by
