Nearly half the city would fall into so-called safety zones where speed cameras sought by Mayor Rahm Emanuel could flag fast drivers for $100 tickets, according to a Tribune analysis of camera legislation in Springfield. […]
The measures, one sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton, D-Chicago, and the other by House Speaker Michael Madigan, D-Chicago, would render about 47 percent of the city eligible for speed camera surveillance, the analysis found. As originally introduced last week, Madigan’s bill would have covered about 75 percent of the city, but he promised Tuesday to scale it back.
* As mentioned above, Madigan wants it scaled back…
But Madigan, saying he was responding to complaints aired by Republicans on that Senate panel, said he would revise his bill to restrict camera use to between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. around schools. Near parks, speed cameras could be flicked on one hour before the park opens and stay on until one hour after it closes, Madigan said.
Last spring, the Chicago Department of Transportation collected speed information at seven existing red-light camera intersections within one-eighth of a mile of schools and parks and found that 25.7 percent of the 1.5 million vehicles — 360,000 drivers — were traveling above the 30 mph speed limit, officials said.
“This is about deterrence. I want our kids to get to school and be in schools safely,” the mayor said.
“I have a set of policies already put in place on the curfew, more cameras in schools, raising the fines for those who have guns near schools. And I want to make sure that people driving near a school or a park have a deterrence.”
Police Supt. Garry McCarthy said that pedestrian deaths in Chicago are 68 percent higher than in New York City, with the overwhelming cause being a failure to yield.
* Gov. Pat Quinn was asked about the legislation yesterday and said he wanted to make sure the proposal wasn’t being used merely as a revenue generator…
State records show Redflex has hired the influential lobbying firm of Fletcher, O’Brien, Kasper and Nottage, P.C., to push its interests in Springfield. One of the firm’s named members, attorney Michael Kasper, is the general counsel and treasurer of the state Democratic Party that Madigan runs. Kasper was also hired by Emanuel to beat back several residency challenges that threatened his mayoral run.
Big brother is always watching. Quinn’s wanted to make sure the proposal wasn’t being used merely as a revenue generator” comment is interesting. As long as we throw safety in there as a secondary reason then it is okay that the propsal is PRIMARILY a revenue generator.
- Ghost of John Brown - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:43 am:
What isn’t thought of a lot is the “Law of Unintended Consequences”
Speed cameras can’t be on every, single roadway. Typically, cameras like these have to have a financial motivation. What I mean by that is these are expensive devices to put in, and you aren’t going to spend that money to put them on a street with 300 cars per day. So, what happens is people will get to know which streets to avoid - typically the collector and arterial streets where large volumes of cars are SUPPOSED to be on and they will instead drive on lower volume streets. Unfortunately, the lower volume streets are typically residential streets with more kids playing on them. So we are going to protect the few children that might be crossing a street like Cermak or Irving Park and we’ll endanger the children on side streets.
We are the 99%! Literally the 99% that will be effected by this. Go 37 in a 35, that’s a ticket. Take right turn on red, that’s a ticket.
Every municipality that has installed these has been dragged into court when they invariably try to remove them. Red light cameras are bad enough. Why are we creating reptilian overlords? “360,000 drivers,” glad I no longer own a car. I wish the City would just be up front with this debt stuff and raise the price of the City sticker to $300, and cut this ‘gotcha’ nonsense out.
Rahm and the GA need to seriously consider this proposal. Carl’s points above are valid, and I’d speculate that the city can’t respond in a manner that supports the initiative.
I’d add that because the statute could impact virtually every driver that enters city limits, the politics are awful as well, a la the parking meter deal.
It sure seems like the police stopped trying to enforce speeding in Chicago about a generation ago. Now we need cameras to do a job that actual police do in other communities. And don’t kid yourselves, this is about raising more revenue. I’m sure at some point, when Rahm, Madigan and Cullerton finish talking about the safety of school children, they’ll eventually tell us the city needs to revenue to pay for more police.
If I get a ticket, do I make the check out to the city or to Mike Kasper’s client?
do i understand the pin map correctly? it appears as if there are no red light cameras in the loop area while a HUGE concentration of cameras will be on the west side of the city (not exactly a wealthy area). that seems wrong. pedestrians in the loop area basically take their lives in their hands, while i’ve never noticed a concentration of pedestrians (or cars running red lights) when i’ve driven on the west side. that’s just dumb…
That’s like when old man Daley justified the three-man garbage truck by claiming the third man was on the outlook so kids didn’t get run over.
I’d encourage anyone who gets a ticket through the use of these cameras to go to court and make the city produce its “witness.” Last I checked, every defendant still has a right to face its accuser.
- Masters Phil - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:09 am:
Not often am I in full agreement with Mr. Nyberg, but that analysis is spot on. This is all about revenue. Seems to me from the local Chicago news that kids these days are more likely to be hit by a stray bullet or a high school football coach than a car.
I’m not saying that street safety around parks and schools is not important, but Rahm is being insincere when he claims this is about safety, not revenue.
Completely short-sighted money grab, but how would the cabs respond? If you drive all day even the most diligent drivers could get caught going a few over the limit.
===Last I checked, every defendant still has a right to face its accuser.===
Not in Chicago, where we handle these things “administratively.” If you want to take it to an actual courtroom, you have to pay a filing fee. I believe the Speaker took care of that little problem for the previous mayor of Chicago. Parking tickets, red light camera violations, business violations, etc., are handled by the Dept. of Revenue over there on Superior Street.
They aren’t big on due process over there, but it is efficient.
since it is not about generating revenue maybe the $$ can go to CPS instead of the City. I’m sure that’d be OK. then let’s find a vendor who doesn’t have a conflict of intrest in lobbying for the law allowing this and give them the business.
If this idea had to be decided by the city council, it would be stopped dead in its tracks. Whatever happened to home rule? The gutless wonders on the city council want Madigan and Cullerton to pass this so they can spend the new money without facing the wrath of the voters.
I’m with Carl Nyberg on this issue. It is diffently a revenue generator. Go DFA
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:39 am:
I’d like to see cameras only able to be used reactively as evidence in crimes directly against persons and property or in response to a complaint. Idiot speeding past your school? Call it in, they’ll pull the plate, and send them a ticket. I think that would substantially reduce the fear people have of these cameras being used as money makers, big brother surveillance, or for minor infractions (37 in a 35).
People like to harp on Mr. Kasper (and his firm) being well connected whenever he/they’re hired for anything…no one ever mentions that he/they’re really good at what he/they do.
“let’s find a vendor who doesn’t have a conflict of intrest”
*This* is my only issue.
I far prefer this to an increase in city sticker or whatever other “tax”–I can *choose* to drive the speed limit (or stop at red light), and avoid paying additional “tax”, while the other way I cannot. Why does everyone think it’s their “right” to drive 37 in a 30 (*not* 35), anyway? I like to drive fast, too, but not enough to pay for it.
BUT, like the parking meter deal (*love* the new rates, and the new system, as there is less street acne and more available parking), undoubtedly the city will give too much of the revenue away to the connected company.
If people do not want a law enforced they should call for the repeal of the law.
- Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
This is a pro-active, technological method of getting around the high cost of police. Instead of reconsidering retirement benefits for public safety employees, government is prudently turning low level functions over to machines. This will also free up police to deal with public unrest as the economy continues to deteriorate and state and local government continues to divert more and more money to employee retirement benefits. Hopefully these cameras will also be able to swivel around and allow operators to keep an eye on the public. Maybe we can pass some laws requiring everyone in public to wear an identifier that the camera could readily pick up. Think of all the extra revenue this would generate from citations for littering and other low end stuff. Let’s face it: With college financially out of reach for most and public education mostly just scraping by, we’re going to need 24 hour surveillance in some areas. This is a good way to get it started.
- North by Northwest - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 1:24 pm:
Definitely about Revenue. If kids and/or safety was even a consideration, there would be a provision for points onto the DL. Points/your insurance company’s rate increase get way more attention than any $100 fine ever will.
“If kids and/or safety was even a consideration, there would be a provision for points onto the DL.”
Then they’d have to prove that *you* were driving, and they’d have to send it to real traffic court rather than the ALJs. Even with (much more expensive) HD cameras, that would be hard to get to stick.
What *I* really want is gridlock cameras and fines–block an intersection, get a $250 ticket.
The last time a Chicago mayor lied this blatantly about motivations for an action, we lost a lakeside airport.
Come ON Rahm, this is an obvious money grab, the way you’re setting it up: the speeding in school zones is just a convenient cover. If this goes thru, there will be no stopping what comes after.
“Some of you sound like you would prefer living in an Orwellian novel.”
“If this goes thru, there will be no stopping what comes after. ”
You two see traffic cameras being used to decide who must go to the Ministry of Truth for re-education?
Or are you just being hyperbolic b/c you like disobeying traffic laws?
To be sure, I also (sincerely) feel that the traffic laws should apply to everyone else, but not me, but fines for violations–whether recorded automatically, or by a person–sure as heck beats raising taxes on everyone. I can *choose* to obey the traffic laws and avoid getting a ticket. I cannot (reasonably) choose to not have a car to avoid paying the city sticker, or license fees, or whatever. Plus, it will capture revenue from Chicago visitors who do not respect the city’s laws.
Now, whether this should be a Legislative issue, rather than a home rule issue, is a fair question, but I beleive that the issue is that there must be state law authority for the city to enact such fines. The state law will set the maximum allowed, then the city council will need to approve the specifics.
- The Mad Hatter - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:14 pm:
Is there a reason this bill MUST be considered during the veto session? Oh yeah, there is. We wouldn’t want the public to find out about it, lest they clamor for its defeat. Kind of like the parking meters deal and Meigs Field deal. Rahm is really King Richard III.
Leader Cross is on board supporting the Madigan bill. When the two leaders support something, its chances are good.
Automated enforcement is colorblind, efficient and the costs are borne completely by offenders, not by taxpayers. The record of redlight cameras in the City demonstrates fewer violations and crashes at protected intersections.
I didn’t realize that Chicago had a huge problem with speeding drivers killing children on their way to/from school. Hmm…that might be because we don’t. And a car travelling at 25 or 30 miles per hour is going to kill a kid at pretty much the same rate as one doing 35 or 40. If it hits the kid, that is.
This is just an extension of Daley’s favorite way of raising revenue - more tickets. Parking tickets, red light cameras, now a massive increase in speeding tickets.
I’m glad that I only have to drive very occasionally. And I’m overall in support of measures to make the city less car friendly, and more pedestrian friendly, but this isn’t about making things friendlier for pedestrians. It’s a naked revenue grab. Speed bumps make things safer for pedestrians, not speed traps. SPeed traps just make revenue.
“This is just an extension of Daley’s favorite way of raising revenue - more tickets. Parking tickets, red light cameras, now a massive increase in speeding tickets.”
Better to penalize the law breakers, only, rather than all of us, no?
I take it all of you opposed to the traffic cameras as a revenue source would support an increase in property and/or sales taxes or a city income tax? Right? RIGHT?!?!?!?!??!!!
- Carl Nyberg - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:24 am:
Show me a map of where vehicular mishaps occurred.
Now show me a map of where vehicular mishaps occurred and speed was the proximate cause of the mishap.
Now show me a map where speed was a contributing factor to the mishap.
Let’s focus on those areas. And let’s set the threshold speed at speed limit plus ten.
I want to see evidence that excessive speed is causing vehicle mishaps. Otherwise, I’m suspicious this is being driven by revenue, not safety.
Mobile phone use while driving is a far bigger concern based on my experience than speed.
- Kerfuffle - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:28 am:
Big brother is always watching. Quinn’s wanted to make sure the proposal wasn’t being used merely as a revenue generator” comment is interesting. As long as we throw safety in there as a secondary reason then it is okay that the propsal is PRIMARILY a revenue generator.
- Ghost of John Brown - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:43 am:
What isn’t thought of a lot is the “Law of Unintended Consequences”
Speed cameras can’t be on every, single roadway. Typically, cameras like these have to have a financial motivation. What I mean by that is these are expensive devices to put in, and you aren’t going to spend that money to put them on a street with 300 cars per day. So, what happens is people will get to know which streets to avoid - typically the collector and arterial streets where large volumes of cars are SUPPOSED to be on and they will instead drive on lower volume streets. Unfortunately, the lower volume streets are typically residential streets with more kids playing on them. So we are going to protect the few children that might be crossing a street like Cermak or Irving Park and we’ll endanger the children on side streets.
This is about revenue enhancement, not safety.
- JBilla - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:44 am:
We are the 99%! Literally the 99% that will be effected by this. Go 37 in a 35, that’s a ticket. Take right turn on red, that’s a ticket.
Every municipality that has installed these has been dragged into court when they invariably try to remove them. Red light cameras are bad enough. Why are we creating reptilian overlords? “360,000 drivers,” glad I no longer own a car. I wish the City would just be up front with this debt stuff and raise the price of the City sticker to $300, and cut this ‘gotcha’ nonsense out.
- JBilla - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:47 am:
Hope that payout to CME goes through though. Why are we so scared of taxes that we need to invent new and varied strains on life in a City?
- The Doc - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:56 am:
Rahm and the GA need to seriously consider this proposal. Carl’s points above are valid, and I’d speculate that the city can’t respond in a manner that supports the initiative.
I’d add that because the statute could impact virtually every driver that enters city limits, the politics are awful as well, a la the parking meter deal.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:58 am:
It sure seems like the police stopped trying to enforce speeding in Chicago about a generation ago. Now we need cameras to do a job that actual police do in other communities. And don’t kid yourselves, this is about raising more revenue. I’m sure at some point, when Rahm, Madigan and Cullerton finish talking about the safety of school children, they’ll eventually tell us the city needs to revenue to pay for more police.
If I get a ticket, do I make the check out to the city or to Mike Kasper’s client?
- Bill - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 10:59 am:
Madigan responds to Senate Republicans but ignores anything democrats say about anything. Rod was right.
- bored now - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:03 am:
do i understand the pin map correctly? it appears as if there are no red light cameras in the loop area while a HUGE concentration of cameras will be on the west side of the city (not exactly a wealthy area). that seems wrong. pedestrians in the loop area basically take their lives in their hands, while i’ve never noticed a concentration of pedestrians (or cars running red lights) when i’ve driven on the west side. that’s just dumb…
- wordslinger - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:04 am:
Sure it’s all about the children, not revenue.
That’s like when old man Daley justified the three-man garbage truck by claiming the third man was on the outlook so kids didn’t get run over.
I’d encourage anyone who gets a ticket through the use of these cameras to go to court and make the city produce its “witness.” Last I checked, every defendant still has a right to face its accuser.
- Masters Phil - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:09 am:
Not often am I in full agreement with Mr. Nyberg, but that analysis is spot on. This is all about revenue. Seems to me from the local Chicago news that kids these days are more likely to be hit by a stray bullet or a high school football coach than a car.
I’m not saying that street safety around parks and schools is not important, but Rahm is being insincere when he claims this is about safety, not revenue.
- Anon - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:11 am:
Completely short-sighted money grab, but how would the cabs respond? If you drive all day even the most diligent drivers could get caught going a few over the limit.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:12 am:
===Last I checked, every defendant still has a right to face its accuser.===
Not in Chicago, where we handle these things “administratively.” If you want to take it to an actual courtroom, you have to pay a filing fee. I believe the Speaker took care of that little problem for the previous mayor of Chicago. Parking tickets, red light camera violations, business violations, etc., are handled by the Dept. of Revenue over there on Superior Street.
They aren’t big on due process over there, but it is efficient.
- JimF - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:16 am:
since it is not about generating revenue maybe the $$ can go to CPS instead of the City. I’m sure that’d be OK. then let’s find a vendor who doesn’t have a conflict of intrest in lobbying for the law allowing this and give them the business.
- 47th Ward - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:16 am:
If this idea had to be decided by the city council, it would be stopped dead in its tracks. Whatever happened to home rule? The gutless wonders on the city council want Madigan and Cullerton to pass this so they can spend the new money without facing the wrath of the voters.
So typical.
- palatine - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:20 am:
I’m with Carl Nyberg on this issue. It is diffently a revenue generator. Go DFA
- thechampaignlife - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:39 am:
I’d like to see cameras only able to be used reactively as evidence in crimes directly against persons and property or in response to a complaint. Idiot speeding past your school? Call it in, they’ll pull the plate, and send them a ticket. I think that would substantially reduce the fear people have of these cameras being used as money makers, big brother surveillance, or for minor infractions (37 in a 35).
- Michelle Flaherty - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 11:42 am:
Never seen that much red on a Chicago map before.
Probably never will
- titan - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 12:36 pm:
People like to harp on Mr. Kasper (and his firm) being well connected whenever he/they’re hired for anything…no one ever mentions that he/they’re really good at what he/they do.
- Its Just Me - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 12:39 pm:
Will the cameras know the difference between a legislative license plate and a regular one?
- Chris - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 12:43 pm:
“let’s find a vendor who doesn’t have a conflict of intrest”
*This* is my only issue.
I far prefer this to an increase in city sticker or whatever other “tax”–I can *choose* to drive the speed limit (or stop at red light), and avoid paying additional “tax”, while the other way I cannot. Why does everyone think it’s their “right” to drive 37 in a 30 (*not* 35), anyway? I like to drive fast, too, but not enough to pay for it.
BUT, like the parking meter deal (*love* the new rates, and the new system, as there is less street acne and more available parking), undoubtedly the city will give too much of the revenue away to the connected company.
- Allen Skillicorn - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 12:46 pm:
This has nothing to do with school zones or safety, it’s about revenue.
I hope no suburban or downstate legislators go along with this scheme.
- Bigtwich - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 1:01 pm:
If people do not want a law enforced they should call for the repeal of the law.
- Cook County Commoner - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 1:04 pm:
This is a pro-active, technological method of getting around the high cost of police. Instead of reconsidering retirement benefits for public safety employees, government is prudently turning low level functions over to machines. This will also free up police to deal with public unrest as the economy continues to deteriorate and state and local government continues to divert more and more money to employee retirement benefits. Hopefully these cameras will also be able to swivel around and allow operators to keep an eye on the public. Maybe we can pass some laws requiring everyone in public to wear an identifier that the camera could readily pick up. Think of all the extra revenue this would generate from citations for littering and other low end stuff. Let’s face it: With college financially out of reach for most and public education mostly just scraping by, we’re going to need 24 hour surveillance in some areas. This is a good way to get it started.
- Louis XVI - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 1:21 pm:
Don’t speed. Problem solved.
- North by Northwest - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 1:24 pm:
Definitely about Revenue. If kids and/or safety was even a consideration, there would be a provision for points onto the DL. Points/your insurance company’s rate increase get way more attention than any $100 fine ever will.
- Chris - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 2:00 pm:
“If kids and/or safety was even a consideration, there would be a provision for points onto the DL.”
Then they’d have to prove that *you* were driving, and they’d have to send it to real traffic court rather than the ALJs. Even with (much more expensive) HD cameras, that would be hard to get to stick.
What *I* really want is gridlock cameras and fines–block an intersection, get a $250 ticket.
- Allen Skillicorn - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 3:15 pm:
Some of you sound like you would prefer living in an Orwellian novel.
- Newsclown - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 3:19 pm:
The last time a Chicago mayor lied this blatantly about motivations for an action, we lost a lakeside airport.
Come ON Rahm, this is an obvious money grab, the way you’re setting it up: the speeding in school zones is just a convenient cover. If this goes thru, there will be no stopping what comes after.
- Kerfuffle - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:03 pm:
“Speed cam bill has some stunning consequences -
Rich I think you have a typo in the header. Wasn’t it supposed to read: “Speed Scam bill has some stunning consequences.”?
- Newsclown - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:06 pm:
If this was about safety and law enforcement, the revenue from the camera would go to the school it is “protecting”.
- Chris - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:08 pm:
“Some of you sound like you would prefer living in an Orwellian novel.”
“If this goes thru, there will be no stopping what comes after. ”
You two see traffic cameras being used to decide who must go to the Ministry of Truth for re-education?
Or are you just being hyperbolic b/c you like disobeying traffic laws?
To be sure, I also (sincerely) feel that the traffic laws should apply to everyone else, but not me, but fines for violations–whether recorded automatically, or by a person–sure as heck beats raising taxes on everyone. I can *choose* to obey the traffic laws and avoid getting a ticket. I cannot (reasonably) choose to not have a car to avoid paying the city sticker, or license fees, or whatever. Plus, it will capture revenue from Chicago visitors who do not respect the city’s laws.
Now, whether this should be a Legislative issue, rather than a home rule issue, is a fair question, but I beleive that the issue is that there must be state law authority for the city to enact such fines. The state law will set the maximum allowed, then the city council will need to approve the specifics.
- The Mad Hatter - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:14 pm:
Is there a reason this bill MUST be considered during the veto session? Oh yeah, there is. We wouldn’t want the public to find out about it, lest they clamor for its defeat. Kind of like the parking meters deal and Meigs Field deal. Rahm is really King Richard III.
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:17 pm:
Leader Cross is on board supporting the Madigan bill. When the two leaders support something, its chances are good.
Automated enforcement is colorblind, efficient and the costs are borne completely by offenders, not by taxpayers. The record of redlight cameras in the City demonstrates fewer violations and crashes at protected intersections.
- jerry 101 - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:18 pm:
I didn’t realize that Chicago had a huge problem with speeding drivers killing children on their way to/from school. Hmm…that might be because we don’t. And a car travelling at 25 or 30 miles per hour is going to kill a kid at pretty much the same rate as one doing 35 or 40. If it hits the kid, that is.
This is just an extension of Daley’s favorite way of raising revenue - more tickets. Parking tickets, red light cameras, now a massive increase in speeding tickets.
I’m glad that I only have to drive very occasionally. And I’m overall in support of measures to make the city less car friendly, and more pedestrian friendly, but this isn’t about making things friendlier for pedestrians. It’s a naked revenue grab. Speed bumps make things safer for pedestrians, not speed traps. SPeed traps just make revenue.
- reformer - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 4:34 pm:
Senate Exec moved the bill out this afternoon.
- Chris - Wednesday, Oct 26, 11 @ 6:40 pm:
“This is just an extension of Daley’s favorite way of raising revenue - more tickets. Parking tickets, red light cameras, now a massive increase in speeding tickets.”
Better to penalize the law breakers, only, rather than all of us, no?
I take it all of you opposed to the traffic cameras as a revenue source would support an increase in property and/or sales taxes or a city income tax? Right? RIGHT?!?!?!?!??!!!
Thought so.