Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: I’m a reform agnostic
Next Post: Layers of the airport onion
Posted in:
* The setup…
In Chicago, blowing a stoplight might get you a letter, complete with a $100 fine, thanks to a red-light camera.
But that might not be the end of your photo-enforcement woes, because aldermen Monday began talking about using the city’s ever-growing legion of red-light cameras to check for vehicle liability insurance.
The city could net nearly $10 million a year in fines just by citing uninsured vehicles that also get photo ticketed for a red-light violation, said Ald. Ed Burke (14th), who brought the idea to the City Council Traffic Committee.
Citing more vehicles—including those driven safely but uninsured—could net the city more than $100 million a year, added Rowland Day, executive vice president of InsureNet, a Michigan-based company that provides instant insurance verification.
* The Question: Should the red-light camera law be expanded to nail people who don’t have insurance? Explain fully, please. Thanks.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:44 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: I’m a reform agnostic
Next Post: Layers of the airport onion
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Yes.
In Chicago, you do not need a car. If you have a car, you need to insure it. If we cannot justify enforcing the auto insurance law in Chicago, then we cannot justify it at all. We should not pass laws if we have no real intentions of enforcing them. I believe if citizens feel the consequences of their own laws, then they will better understand their own poor behaviors.
Red light cameras are a part of today’s traffic scene. Yes, they come off as Big Brother-ish and do not have the human touch we normally expect of law enforcement. But we live in a complex world where we need technologies such as this to ensure that our laws are enforced. Just as our great-grandparents had to deal with new traffic technologies, so do we.
I know there are some who believe that this kind of law enforcement is merely another tax, or a revenue generator for governments. Yet, 90% of us will never pay this fine unless we break the law. Claiming that fines are nothing but revenue enhancers can be a valid claim when we uncover any abuse, yet we should not argue against law enforcement because of the cost of fines. Running a red light is a serious traffic offense, which demands active enforcement.
Using red light cameras to enforce our auto insurance law is another step in the right direction. We cannot expect citizens to behave as adults, if we do not treat them as adults when their actions break the law.
Comment by VanillaMan Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:55 am
IMHO the answer is NO.
It is just another example of “give an inch they take a mile.” I really don’t know how people live in Chicago anymore. Everyday there is a new law, new tax, or new fine. All of which are imposed by corrupt leaders who only want more each year.
How much more will the people of Chicago put up with? Thank God I live in Southern Illinois.
Comment by Speaking at Will Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:57 am
I’m not a big fan of these photo fines and lights. So looking to fine vehicles that are uninsured is a stretch.
The driver may be insured.
Yet under the current set up, the driver doesn’t get the ticket, the car owner does. The driver doesn’t get a citation for no insurance, the car owner does or vice-versa.
Orwell would be pleased by this turn of events.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:58 am
Yes. All drivers are required by law to have insurance. I see no problem with a better enforcement mechanism. There are still way to many accidents with uninsured drivers.
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 9:59 am
Geez, why don’t they go after broken brake lights while they’re at it.
Comment by scafish Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:00 am
Two sides —
a. It is an investigation made possible by computers, but an investigation based on the presumption of guilt. On the other hand, in the few stops of my vehicle, I have been required to provide license and proof of insurance. If I can’t show the latter, it is a violation and I have to go to court and show the paper.
b. Department of Homeland Security provided anti-terrorist funds for the red light cameras (or so I am led to believe.) Perhaps some of the fine money for wither violation might be sent back to DHS to pay them bakc the money they fronted. (I know, slim and none and slim left town.)
Comment by Truthful James Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:00 am
Yes, but unless you want an economic meltdown in Chicago, I think you better legalize driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants, and also create a low-cost insurance pool for drivers through the state, just as we’ve created a high-risk insurance pool.
Keep in mind that when I say “undocumented immigrants”, we’re talking about 6,000 Irish immigrants in the Chicago area and many other nationalities, not just Latinos.
Most people who drive without auto insurance do so for the same reason that people live without health care insurance. They can’t afford the insurance. And they’d be able to afford it even less if they couldn’t drive to and from work every day.
For undocumented immigrants, who tend to work in low-wage jobs, the problem is compounded by the fact that without a valid driver’s license, they can’t legally obtain insurance, even if they can afford it.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:01 am
I would like to see increased enforcement of requiring vehicle insurance, but not through this method. As noted above, this sounds too Orwellian. Let’s start with baby steps: require proof of insurance to renew plates, drivers license, IPASS, emissions checkpoints, etc. first. I would be in favor of using technology to verify coverage. When my wife was hit by an uninsured driver (who had a card but it was cancelled for lack of payment–apparently a routine method to avoid tickets) it took just over one year to settle the claim, even though we paid a large, Bloomington-based insurer specifically for uninsured motorist coverage. A nightmare!
Comment by Vote Quimby! Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:03 am
I’m not quite sure how this would work. Will they run the license plate of each violation through the SoS to see if the renewal included the insurance policy number?
Anyway, I think that the use of cameras for automated law enforcement is getting a bit out of hand in Chicago. They want to attach cameras to street cleaning equipment, for crying out loud. At some point, the cameras become so ubiquitous that there’s the danger of Chicago becoming some sort of quality-of-life police state.
I’m also on a general rampage about using fines as a revenue-generating device. It’s out of hand with parking enforcement, and it will become out of hand with traffic enforcement.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:04 am
If they run your plate for a violation caught on camera, and find other violations, I don’t have a problem with that. There’s probable cause for the search.
I’m more concerned about the “routine license plate checks” that many law enforcement agencies conduct without probable cause. If I haven’t committed a violation, or done anything reasonably suspicious, I don’t think the government should run my plate or stop me.
When I read my old Northern Illinois hometown newspaper, the police blotter seemingly every day has young Hispanic men arrested on old warrants conducted after “routine license plate checks” conducted with no probable cause.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:07 am
No, because it takes an issue of imminent safety (i.e., red light enforcement) and turns it into the narrow edge of the wedge for issues entirely unrelated to safety. Insurance, after all, is a financial, not a safety, issue.
To be sure, I wouldn’t pull my car out of my garage without proper insurance. And I believe people who do drive without insurance ought to be beaten with sticks in the public square. But using red light cameras to be used in this way opens the door to using them to catch people for cheating on their income taxes, their spouses, and their city stickers.
Mind you, these respective transgressions may indeed merit their own form of punishment, but repurposing what is essentially a safety device for enforcement of an unrelated law creates tremendous potential for abuse.
Comment by George Orwell Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:09 am
This is a great idea in theory, but nearly impossible to execute properly (and will NEVER see the sorts of revenue InsureNet would like to convince Chicago they can raise). The uninsured motorists in Chicago have a large overlap with the unlicensed motorists. Currently, your first insurance violation in a 5-year period will get you a court appearance and a $100 fine (plus court costs) and a four-month supervision period. Subsequent violations lead to a minimum fine of $500 and a term of license suspension. Because of the high fine amounts and the possibility of having your license suspended, an insurance ticket carries a mandatory court appearance. Turning this into an administrative penalty without the accompanying court appearance becomes a nightmare, complete with a Home Rule authority fight, which will be compounded by the fact that Illinois insurance laws require EITHER the driver or the car to be insured. It also means that the court records will become problematic as the administrative penalties are stored in a completely different system and don’t burden your license.
Furthermore, if you’re an uninsured, unlicensed motorist (especially one borrowing a friend’s car), what possibly incentive do you have to pay a mail-in administrative violation?
In addition, how many people will start showing up at their administrative hearings claiming that they weren’t the driver? The red light cameras, after all, only show the back of the car.
This is a boondoggle that InsureNet is trying to sell to the Aldermen, who get visions of easy-to-get dollar signs dancing in their heads. Practically, it’s a nightmare, and it will get bogged-down in legal challenges almost immediately. The Aldermen of the City need someone who actually knows their way around the Concourse Level of the Daley Center to explain the difficulties associates with this…
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:10 am
Big Brother governement at its WORST!!!!
Comment by downstate hack Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:13 am
Speaking at Will,
I’ve been to southern Illinois. Feel free to stay there. It will serve us both well.
Louis: The car owner SHOULD get the ticket, as the rule is that “insurance goes with the vehicle.” Generally, if somebody is driving my vehicle, my insurance covers any loss.
That being said, this does seem like an abuse of the cameras. I can live with the cameras if they really serve to reduce accidents (haven’t seen any studies either way) but I can’t imagine that a car owner is going to get insurance just because of a camera. Plus, removing the license plate would solve that problem.
Also, it does seem that Burke has gone off the deep end. It hasn’t been a good year for him. His first major proposal this year was to turn the CPD into “dog ball checkers” — his idea that POs should examine gang banger’s pit bulls to see if they are intact — and now this. I’ve always thought Burke was a smart guy, be it looks like the stress of the job might be having an impact.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:14 am
I agree…it’s the law! However, hats off to Quimby for other creative thinking on this matter. My immediate family has had cars totaled 3 times by uninsured drivers, so we take particular exception to letting folks slide when our own premiums have taken a hit because we’ve been in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Comment by Former State Employee Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:17 am
George Orwell, the Chicago police routinely patrol the streets, parking lots and parking garages running license plates to find city sticker violators. In the old days, you had to be parked illegally or pulled over for a suspected violation before they did that.
What’s amusing, in a rather dark way, is that the the police engage in this practice as a means to raise revenue. Yet if a judge issues a bench warrant for parole or probabtion violation, the police won’t go looking for the that person unless there’s believed to be an imminent danger of a serious crime. They figure they’ll pick up the violator the next time they run afoul the law on their own.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:17 am
This is another step towards total government.You’d think with Chicago’s high taxes there would be enough revenue to run government.But,there isn’t.Those pensions for the special class are expensive.Anyway,this is another great Ed Burke money idea.It works like this: 1) Ed Burke proposes a controversial ordinance 2)Chicago gets sued on constitutional grounds.3)Alderman Burke claims the Corporation Counsel’s Office doesn’t have the expertise to defend the case.3)Then Alderman Burke has Chicago pay a law firm to defend the city in court.4)The outside legal counsel who’s ringing up the tab goes up in front of an Ed Burke slated judge in the Cook County system.5)Either side might appeal all the way up to the Illinois Supreme Court ringing up an even bigger legal tab.6)Illinois Supreme Court Justice Ann Burke may or may not recuse herself from the case.7)By an amazing coincidence,lawyers involved in the case might make a campaign contribution to a certain politician who has more money in his campaign fund than Mayor Daley.
Comment by Steve Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:18 am
the answer should be an emphatic “no”. i believe the concerns over expanded use were expressed by privacy advocates and others when the initial debate occured over installing them in the first place. the next step may well be fining people for smoking with children in the car when they are caught running a red light…with no insurance…while not wearing a seatbelt…and on and on and on
Comment by colt 45 Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:24 am
Steve, that’s an interesting theory and certainly not out of the realm of possibility, but do you have a couple of concrete examples?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:25 am
It is a bad idea. Daley needs to come to terms with the fact he has to hire and pay good police officers to do a job. Law enforcement requires sensible interaction with people. If you want to deter crime, stopping putting it on a computer and do your Job.
I have to wonder if this was being done by a Republican Mayor in Texas would the ACLU be all over this. What ever happened to personal liberty?
Comment by the Patriot Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:25 am
Great idea. Long overdue.
Can they check to see if the driver is behind on child support too? Good way to crack down on that.
Also, if the driver is behind on taxes, or fees owed to the state or city. This would be a good way to collect monies owed the city and state for other things too.
I’d also say if the photo showed the driver talking or texting on a cell phone, ding them for that too…but I think that is a little too extreme.
Comment by Leroy Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:29 am
this is another example of Orwell’s 1984-besides what are you going to do with the many,many illegals,and other folks that could care less about insurance,will never care about insurance,and realize that they don’t need a licence or insurance to drive-just a car- anybody streetwise knows even if you’re sent to DOC,you’ll be out in a few months[sometimes after initial evaluation] for DUI and other traffic violations- no room to warehouse them
Comment by bugs Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:30 am
pay your insurance, buy your village/city sticker, keep your license plates current. you have to do all these things to keep a car and drive it. if you don’t , the method by which they catch you for violating the rules is not the issue. the fact that you are a lawbreaker is.
Comment by Amy Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:30 am
as if being an upstanding, law abiding citizen is going to keep the govenment from leaving me alone…puh-leeze. protect the freedoms you have.
Comment by colt 45 Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:33 am
Former Traffic Prosecuter, you make some good points, however, some are inaccurate. All licensed autos are required to have a valid liability policy attached to them. If you are driving a car that you don’t own and does not have liability, however, you have a valid policy on another car or yourself then your liability goes with you.
Another words it wouldn’t be the driver who gets cited it would be the person whom the vehicle is registered to.
one of the main problems with this law, other than the Orwellian, is the inaccuracy of the data basis which will flag tons of properly insured vehicles. If Daley wants to make money he should put speed detecting vans throughout the city. Speed kills.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:36 am
I agree with Quimby: to enforce this, make it required to show proof of insurance when buying your sticker for the vehicle. It would be much more efficient than the red light cameras and has the potential to reach everyone. Red light cameras have a much smaller reach. Uninsured drivers are a real issue, but there is a point at which you have to wonder what tickets would not be issued? You could get seat belt, burned out headlight, sticker, insurance, red light, and cell phone tickets all from one photo. Of course for some of these you would have to be able to identify the driver (get me my Groucho nose glasses!).
The argument Burke will advance will probably be “you have nothing to fear if you don’t do anything wrong.” Well, then Burke, why don’t we just follow you with a video camera 24 hours a day, and if you ever cross against a light, set foot outside a crosswalk downtown, miss a trash can to throw out your gum wrapper or cigarette butt, you won’t mind getting a ticket, right?
Comment by South Side Mike Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:42 am
PJW: that’s a fair point. The scenario I see as most likely, though, is still the fact that the City (through InsureNet) will send out thousands of notices to vehicles (mainly in the lower-income parts of Chicago) where the owners of the vehicles either ignore them or move so often that its impossible to find where they live any more. It’s been my experience that there are large segments of the minority population of the City that move from location-to-location every few months, never notify the Secretary of State or the City, and rarely (if ever) keep insurance. Sending these people administrative notices of violation is useless at best and another pointless waste of City resources at worst. If all you get is a $100-$500 bill demanding you show up and pay without any sort of teeth (again, they can’t suspend your license for an administrative penalty, and a camera ticket won’t be much good in front of a Cook County judge), then the City will have this expensive system that creates a lot of ill will and costs more to maintain than it brings in…
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 10:50 am
I have reservations about requiring automobile insurance because in the United States in most places having an auto is essential for commuting to work and many jobs don’t pay enough for food, shelter, health insurance and auto insurance. The law is effectively criminalizing being poor.
However, Chicago is adequately served by public transportation. So ticketing people without insurance is not as punitive as in places with no effective public transportation.
That said, I predict that people without insurance will start forging temporary license plates for themselves or stealing license plates to avoid the citations.
If people start pulling their license plates when driving, I predict it will make people more likely to flee the scene of vehicle mishaps. If a driver doesn’t have insurance and knows that s/he’s got bogus plates, why not flee the scene?
So, the policy of using cameras to give citations for no insurance will cause more people to get insurance. It will increase city revenue. It will cause insurance companies who sell policies to poor people to sell more policies. And it may result in more hit-and-runs.
Seems like a good policy, unless you or one of your friends or relatives is a victim of a hit-and-run.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:02 am
Seems like a reasonable use of technology. I for one would prefer that all vehicles are insured. Sure, this can evolve to include outstanding warrants, people late on their alimony or child support payments, White Sox fans, and people who wear stripped shirts and plaid pants at the same time. Unfortunately, this becomes all about raising money, with the greater value taking a back seat. The problem, as I see it, is at what point does the camera system determine you to be without insurance? Many people who pay late could actually have insurance but the system hasn’t been updated. Imagine that nightmare.
Comment by Justice Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:03 am
First of all, I think some people have a misconception about insurance - it follows the car not the driver.
That being said, I’m generally of the mindset that we shouldn’t find more violations, whatever they may be and however they may be found, as a mechanism to drive revenues. Frankly, it reminds me of an Outfit mentality — there’s always another street tax to collect.
Comment by Randolph Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:06 am
Terrible idea, Just ask the insurance industry how they will pay for a system to down load all insurance business daily. I guarantee you they will pass the cost down in higher premiums.
Comment by Jim Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:08 am
More money to pay the $110K salaries with 20 or 30 paid days off work and jobs galore for all their friends.
Instead of trying to get blood from a turnip (people who don’t have insurance generally don’t have money) - why don’t we cut the budget.
Comment by sick Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:09 am
Former Traffic Prosecutor, you are right about it becoming a administrative nightmare where $500.00 fines are mailed to all parts of the City to no response. Then booting will be added to anyone not in compliance. Daley’s pals will take the cars and sell them off. Good will all around.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:19 am
It wouldn’t work. The car may be registered to someone without insurance, but an insured driver might be operating the car at the time. It’s not illegal to “own” a car without insurance; it’s illegal to DRIVE one without insurance. Big difference.
Chalk up another one to Daley, Burke and their crew of tax inventors. “If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet … “
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:24 am
How many uninsured would it take to collect the 100 million?
Comment by Hickory Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:26 am
Carl,
I just read your comment. “Criminalizing being poor?” Are you serious? Your opinion would quickly change if you’re crossing the street and get run over by an unisured dirtbag. Not to mention the fact that we ALL wind up paying for their insurance indirectly, but having to purchase unsured driver’s insurance and paying higher premiums to compensate for the losses caused by uninsured drivers.
If you can’t afford to maintain a car, don’t buy one. Sorry.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:30 am
Anything for a buck…
Comment by Kakistrocracy Kid Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:31 am
Steve,
One minor problem with your roadmap might be that Burke’s daughter, a former large firm lawyer, works for the the Corporation Counsel. Might be harder for him to argue that the CC doesn’t have the internal competence under the circumstances.
Comment by Anon2 Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:33 am
Why not? I hate the cameras, but why the heck not, they will do it anyway. I am in the insurance industry and I hate it when people hav ea newer car w/only liability.
Comment by Wumpus Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:40 am
No. I don’t like redlight cameras being used for their primary purpose, much less these secondary and tertiary uses.
Comment by Fan of the Game Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:41 am
Interesting to read the varied opinions. The Orwellian crowd vs. those who say they have been involved with uninsured. The law reads that insurance is required even though are obviously many ways to get out of it (buy a quick cheap policy and immediately not pay the cost). The cameras come as part of the changing technology. People like them when it benefits them and despise them when it intrudes in some unplanned fashion. Get the insurance and keep it up to date or use some other means of transportation.
Comment by zatoichi Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:42 am
I’ll trade this for a camera in every Chicago politician’s office, complete with one of those big boom microphones alongside it. And just like with the US/Mexico border, random citizens can log in and monitor for lawbreaking.
If they’re not breaking the law, they have nothing to fear–isn’t that how it goes?
Comment by Greg Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:42 am
Snidely, do all jobs in the United States pay enough for food, shelter, health care and car insurance?
What would you do if you needed to drive to work but the job didn’t pay enough for all four? After you cut your health insurance, what if you still needed to cut?
It does sorta seem that it’s more important to the gov’t that poor people be insured against possible injuring a rich person’s body than poor people be insured against hurting their own bodies… or just getting sick.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:44 am
NO.
When I heard this I thought, how are they going to check for insurance? How much is this going to cost? What will be next? Will they ticket for cracked windshield? Tail lights being out? This could lead to more and more citations, let it stop with the red light safety for certain high accident/high traffic intersections. Many times I am stopped at a redlight and the light changes in these intersections and I see the camera’s flash 2 or 3 times (catching 2 or 3) so you know they are making money,if these folks are paying the tickets.
Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:44 am
Some questions.
Where does this insurance photo enforcement fit on the list that made Chicago rank as the most unlivable City in the Country?
How did America ever become so successful without Ed Burke to lead us?
Shouldn’t the fact that 28 Chicago Public School students have been murdered this year cause issues such as neutering pets and finding more ways of fining city residence to be viewed as absurd?
Why on earth do City of Chicago residents take this?
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:46 am
Phineas J. I second that emotion.
Comment by Speaking at Will Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:50 am
I can’t stand the cameras. I bought a GPS red light camera detector called GPS angel and it beeps whenever I’m near one - and believe me, we have a ton of these where i live.
Comment by Anti-Cameras Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:53 am
I am for it. Having lived in a city that was near a reservation (for example) I know what a big problem the uninsured motorist is. I am for getting them off of the streets, entirely.
Comment by PPHS Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 11:56 am
In principle, money collected from taxes on transportation should go back into transportation.
A good way to do this would be to make regulation and enforcement on vehicles very strict, including all the insurance and emissions and all that. As long as we make sure people have transportation, I’m okay with taxing one more heavily, but it has to go into creating a transportation system that works - like putting the money from this into the CTA.
What doesn’t work is increasing regulation and enforcement, and using it for other stuff. People need to get to work, and if there’s no functioning transportation system at all - too expensive to drive, CTA too slow or not in enough places - then businesses won’t have employees or customers. If that happens, it’s a disaster.
So I’m okay with it in principle, just as long as the overall transportation system is functional.
Comment by Thomas Westgard Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:01 pm
Yes, and it should also be expanding to automatically arrest anyone that even thinks about committing a crime.
Comment by Minority Report Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:02 pm
I hate to rain on everyone’s pararade but red light cameras are a violation of the 5th amendment to the constitution. You are presumed guilty.
Ergo this is an extension of something that is illegal and therefore also illegal.
Tell Big Brother to go back to the drawing board!
Comment by BIG R. PH. Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:03 pm
Not for insurance or the lack thereof but yes for all matter of enforcement that has a direct potential for public safety such as speeding other moving violations.
Comment by sinequanon Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:15 pm
The operational aspects of this look to be a little bit mind boggling:
Assumption: City of Chicago/Insurenet would require having a up-to-date database (rather large one, to say the least) of all auto insurance policies in effect for all drivers.
Question I would ask would be:
1) Does such a comprehensive database even exist (IL SoS)?
2) Is there a cost for obtaining access to such data?
3) How current is the maintenance to the database, assuming that such exists?
4) Would additional state legislation be required to impose additional reporting requirements on all insurance companies providing vehicle insurance within IL? (re: more rapid response in reporting, etc.).
5) Procedure for dealing with vehicles with out-of-state plates?
6) What’s the procedure for correcting mistakes?
Just from an implementation standpoint, looks to me to be a really interesting idea (didn’t say “smart”), but don’t think it’s going to be functional in the real world.
Comment by Judgment Day Is On The Way Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Are these cameras mostly downtown or are they out in the neighborhoods? Given the gun violence I would say they might be better placed out in the areas where this violence occurs. This is where cameras are most useful, in recording crimes that occur when there are no witnesses.
Nothing can replace the patrol cop. He sees someone go through a red light, that initiates a stop which could find drugs, weapons, no insurance, dui, etc. A camera cannot give that necessary, basic, police tool, the traffic stop.
I think the city should look at the cameras as crime preventers and place them where the worst crimes are occuring, instead of looking at them as revenue generators, and trying to find more ways to ding motorists. I wonder how popular some of these politicians will be come election time when they are trying to squeeze that last dime from residents who are already on the ropes from the economy, wall street, taxes on homes that have devalued, etc.
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:15 pm
BIG R. PH.: The issue of the red light cameras has already gone before the Northern District of Illinois on constitutional grounds, and it was found constitutional. Not only that, but since it’s a fine-only city administrative violation, the City has much broader authority to ticket and prosecute than they might if it went before the Circuit Court of Cook County.
PJW: In theory, booting, towing and impoundment (with eventual sale) are the most serious punishments the City can actually levy in this, but can you actually imagine tow trucks venturing in to neighborhoods like Englewood simply to track down cars with two or three insurance violations? I can’t.
To everyone else in general: As a properly licensed and insured Illinois driver, I COMPLETELY support having everyone else on the road also be licensed and insured, but the devil is in the details. If everyone else were licensed and insured, my rates would drop and I’d personally feel a lot safer. However, this isn’t the way to do it. Sure, if you’re a middle class Chicagoan with a fixed address and and an apartment or a house and a general paper trail, then this gives you greater incentive to keep your insurance up. However, the odds are that you were already insured and keeping it active. If you’re one of the countless thousands in the City, though, that live in an economically-depressed area, that have a cheap car that you can’t afford to insure, and that live from paycheck to paycheck (or paycheck loan to paycheck loan), then you’re not going to let a $100 to $500 ticket the City sends you stop you from driving in the first place. Hell, you’ve probably already got a driving abstract three pages long, anyway, and if you had the money, you’d use it to fix that oil leak your car has first…
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:17 pm
Disclaimer: I’m skeptical of the red light cameras to begin with. Let’s get that out there.
That being said, this could be a good idea if the goal is to improve compliance, and if it is not overly punitive. For example: When the camera catches a car without insurance, mail the owner a warning. Require proof of insurance within 30 days. Issue a fine only if the owner does not get insurance.
Structured like this, if could help to reduce uninsured drivers in Chicago. (Caveat: I understand and agree with FTP’s argument that a certain portion of the city’s uninsured driver’s will not be moved by this policy.)
But it doesn’t look like the program would be structured this way. It is being formulated with an eye on revenue, not compliance. If it’s just another punitive fine, I vote no.
Comment by Just a Reader Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:17 pm
@Yellow Dog Democrat:
Forget it — if they can come up with the money to get across the border, steal someone’s social security number, etc. they can come up with the money for insurance or lose their cars.
Comment by lake county democrat Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:17 pm
“Why on earth do City of Chicago residents take this?”
Good question, Phinny. Here’s another question to ponder:
Am I the only person who’s finds it tedious when the downstaters need to toss their “I hate Chicago” comments in?
Fine — if you don’t like Chicago, stay the heck away. Just keep quiet about it because frankly, the fact that somebody from downstate doesn’t like Chicago doesn’t make the slightest different to me.
I won’t tell you how to run Vandalia, and you can keep your nose of out Chicago.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:23 pm
JDIOTW: you’re right that this requires an entirely new database. Illinois has rather liberal laws for who can incorporate an insurance company and what type of insurance the motorist has to carry. The City would have to maintain its own database (read: InsureNet would charge the City a LOT of money to maintain it), and there likely wouldn’t be much connection between it and the SoS database, which only requires a yearly submission of a policy number in any event. There a LOT of low-income drivers in this city whose policies regularly lapse and get reinstated two or three (or more) times a year. Keeping those up-to-date will be a nightmare, and a lot of effort will probably have to be made by people showing up at Administrative Hearings (read: taking time off work) to show that they had insurance, but the database didn’t have current information. Additional legislation would be required to share information with between a hypothetical Chicago database and the SoS’s, but, as I pointed out above, that has its own problems. Out-of-state vehicles driven by out-of-state drivers do not have to have insurance, as the Illinois Court of Appeals held in People v. Benton. Lastly, mistakes (and there will be lots), would likely be in the form of a mail-in contestation with a possible in-person appearance. This will also lead to a lot more people showing up to appeal the AH rulings on the 11th floor of the Daley Center each month, which is currently handled by one ACC and two paralegals.
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:24 pm
Irish, the cameras went first in high-crime neighborhoods. In fact, property owners have fought to keep cameras out of some neighborhoods because it’s a sign of crime.
I will agree with PJW and others that this really is a sideshow for the city council when so many neighborhoods are held hostage by criminals with guns. Daley yesterday called for more gun control; yeah, that’ll do it.
He needs to get straight with the cops so that they’ll be motivated to wade into the fight and get the bad guys. Right now, they think he’ll throw them under the bus every time there’s an accusation of brutality.
And folks in the neighborhoods have to turn the criminals in. Praying and marching only gets you so far. It would be nice to hear some elected officials say that.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:26 pm
Wordslinger –
You raise an interesting point. There is an area near me where I think a camera might be a good idea, but I’m not sure how people would respond when they are considering purchasing million dollar condos.
On the other hand, if those people saw regular polce patrols (and I give Alderman Reilly a lot of credit for working to increase patrols in the area in question) those people buying expensive condos wouldn’t mind and it would have a positive impact on the neighborhood.
Of course, more POs COST money and Burke’s proposal is pretty clearly aimed at MAKING money, so maybe it more patrols would not solve the problem as Burke sees it.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:31 pm
LCD missed YDD’s point, which is that (I believe) you cannot obtain insurance without a license, which you cannot get without proof of citizenship.
One other point I want to make is that this law would be fine (get it?) if it were really aimed at stopping the problem, rather than just another backdoor tax on citizens. I put this idea in with all the others that allow taxpayers and politicians alike to think they can have their cake and eat it too. Fund sweeps, borrowing, cigarette taxes, gambling, etc all fall into this category. They are band-aid solutions! Raise the “most-fair” taxes - sales and income or stop spending money.
Comment by Pete Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:31 pm
Irish,
There are plenty of camera’s on the South Side, some even in alley’s.
The red light Camera’s are mostly on busier Streets, on the South side, and high traffic intersections.
Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:33 pm
Skeeter, I don’t hate Chicago-I hate what is happening to Chicago and it wasn’t a downstate magazine that ranked Chicago as the most unlivable city-it was a national rag.
But who cares what anybody thinks about Chicago accept Daley and his subjects.
Comment by Phineas J. Whoopee Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:36 pm
Pete: That’s actually not true. There are lots of cheap insurance agencies in Chicago that will be happy to sell you a policy regardless of your license status (or even your immigration status). Admittedly, the contract that person signs says it will only cover them if they are properly licensed, but that certainly won’t stop them from selling the policy. There are lots of unlicensed individuals who get pulled over for not having insurance and then run out to somewhere like Yale and buy a quick policy, hoping it will cover them in Traffic Court, even though they don’t have and can’t get a driver’s license.
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:36 pm
No they should not. If they want to step up enforcement, find another way.
Is there an actual database they could use anyways? I know you are ’supposed’ to write down your insurance info when you renew your plates, but they (at least at DMV when I have gone) do not seem to check if you did write down the info. I am pretty sure my wife has never written that info down and the DMV has never checked.
Violators are likely find ways to avoid the issue anyways. I drive around 35,000 miles/year in Chicagoland and I did not know they passed a law regarding plate covers until about a year after when I was pulled over for the plate covers. It happen to be in a town that is “nit picky.” Come to find out, that there are plate covers and sprays designed to distort the plate to the camera and the concern was people using them on the tollway to avoid tolls.
Government should not outsource policing. I do not know who operates Chicago’s cameras though (it may be done internally) or what percentage/amount of the fines Chicago keeps. I read an article in Yahoo’s tech news a few days ago on red light camera’s and never realized how a large portion of the fines could go to the companies, not government.
I am against the redlight cameras in general though, I heard on 780 AM once about a camera at the enterance to a mall I believe that was in I think Schaumburg and something like 80-90% of the tickets were people making a right turn into the mall. Yes they technically broke the law but did they deserve a $100 ticket over a warning? How many of those people will avoid that mall versus another and then the city’s sales tax revenue goes down.
Where will all of it end? Next thing we know they will set up something to time you every so many feet and if you are 1 second faster than it should take given the speed limit you will get a ticket in the mail.
Comment by KPK Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:36 pm
As a victim to two uninsured motorist accidents I would have to agree in prinicple to a fine like this. Even if you have uninsured or underinsured insurance, many if not all insurance companies consider these as collision against you.
I’d have a couple qualifiers. The fines collected need to pay entirely for the administration, enforcement and court costs. Second any excess, if possible, should be used to reduce the uninsured costs insurance companies charge. In no way should the excess be used as a revenue generator. Things like that is exactly why taxes are so high.
Comment by Cut It Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:47 pm
kpk-there used to be turnpike “out east” (PA?) that would time you from time entered to time leaving to ensure you did not speed (or suffer the fine). so speed timing of that sort has already been done.
Comment by wizard Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 12:57 pm
Phineas,
If you don’t like Chicago, don’t come.
But stop whining about how much you hate it.
Seriously — we’ve got enough slow walking yokels clogging Michigan Ave. anyway. They don’t seem to understand the red-yellow-green or the walk-don’t walk concepts, and they don’t seem to be spending much money, so I would prefer that they stay back home in Watseka of Effingham or wherever they come from.
Comment by Skeeter Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:01 pm
OK, let’s move along. Everybody chill out and just focus on answering the question. I’m not interested in your red herrings. Governments don’t and shouldn’t come to a complete halt because of certain tragic events.
Move along.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:06 pm
Red light cameras in public places are no violation of anybody’s “rights”. It’s the same as if the city stationed a police officer at those intersections to watch for violations - only much cheaper for the taxpayers, and much more reliable as evidence. Those of us who work hard to buy insurance, don’t run red lights, and want government to operate more efficiently should applaud the use of these cameras. I’m tired of nearly getting hit by irresponsible, uninsured drivers!
Comment by Legaleagle Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:14 pm
The idea of using cameras to enforce traffic, registration, and insurance is a topic worthy of debate.
This proposal, on the other hand, is nothing more than a money grab by the City of Chicago. How so? The fact that they will prosecute a person for violating a state law in an administrative setting, keep all the money, and not report it to SOS - just like with red light cameras.
Former Traffic Prosecutor - exactly what was held to be constitutional? In the early 1990s “P” tickets, which were traffic tickets adjudicated in city administrative hearings, were held to violate the Uniform Traffic Citation (UTC) system.
What’s the problem with these offenses being prosecuted outside the UTC system? It masks / hides dangerous drivers. Anyone remember the Bourbonnais Amtrak crash, where the truck driver had supervision(s) that the circuit clerk had not reported to SOS? Had SOS received the supervision(s) information, the CDL would have been revoked. They way Chicago uses red light cameras, none of the violation data is reported to SOS. Not a good idea - is someone going to have to be killed by a repeat red light runner before this is stopped?
Comment by Read a bit further ... Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:26 pm
RABF: The red-light tickets are solely administrative - that means that they are entirely internal to the City’s system and have no effect on your driving privileges. The only way one of those sees the inside of the Daley Center is if you appeal the City’s administrative finding by the hearings officer, just as you do with a parking ticket. As such, the only recourse the city has to enfore payment of red-light tickets is booting or impoundment. As I recall from the case you mention (which, admittedly, was before my time) the problem was that there had to be a burden of proof and a procedure in place for a quasi-criminal legal proceding if the violation could threaten your driving privileges.
The insurance tickets would also have to be handled the same way, through Administrative Hearings. As such, they couldn’t lead to license revocation or suspension the way an officer-issued ticket could, making them have much less in the way of teeth.
The point that I’ve been hammering all day is that the class of people driving without insurance is different (or is a different subset) of the class of people receiving red-light tickets. The normal middle-class Chicagoan receiving a red-light ticket gets it in the mail, swears a few times, and either pays it or contests it. These are people, by and large, who are covered by insurance. On the other hand, people who aren’t covered by insurance tend to be much lower income, more mobile, and less likely to have the inclination or the resources to pay. It’s not that I’m opposed to having uninsured drivers off the streets - I’m most certainly not! - but these types of people are already the stones you can’t squeeze any more blood from, or they wouldn’t be driving uninsured in the first place.
The bottom line is this: The proposed red-light system will be a great way for InsureNet to make lots of money setting up a database, a monitoring system and a lot more traffic cameras. Most of the people it catches won’t pay the fines, because they’re too poor to already have the money to drive insured vehicles, assuming that the database can keep up with accurate records, insurance coverage, etc. InsureNet will make a TON of money administering the system, and the City will throw money down a rat hole. If you don’t believe me, go spend an afternoon in one of the court calls in the concourse level of the Daley Center in Traffic Court. You’ll see all sorts of people who shouldn’t be driving in the first place, but for whom a fifth or a hundredth traffic stop has absolutely no effect on, and who can’t afford to pay the fines they’re given.
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 1:45 pm
I think it’s an over-reach. And all this revenue is based on a $500 fine. $500 fine, how about $200. Anyway, the next step will be the speed vans.
Comment by James the Intolerant Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 2:39 pm
Former Traffic Prosecutor -
My objection is moving state traffic, registration, and insurance violations to city administrative hearings, bypassing the UTC system - which means violators are not known to the courts & SOS, and insurance companies cannot properly assess a driver’s competence. IF these cameras are used the way State Police uses them for speeding in construction zones (UTC, court system, SOS), then let’s do it. If the UTC system is avoided, then they should be banned.
Comment by Read a bit further ... Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 2:45 pm
RABF: I’m certainly not arguing that the City using its Administrative Hearings powers in increasingly power- (and revenue-) hungry ways, I’m just saying that (from what I recall), the City does not have either the right or the power to use administrative violations to burden a driver’s driving record. The red-light and now cell phone tickets that go through AH never appear on a driver’s abstract with the Secretary of State (though the cell phone ticket was never a moving violation in the first place). The City may well choose to send on information of these infractions to the insurance companies in question, but in all likelihood, the City is more interested in the revenue generated than in reporting these drivers. However, the City’s strong preference is to keep these types of tickets inside the AH system because the administrative law officers have narrower authority to interpret the law (including minimum fine amounts, which is a whole ‘nother ball of wax”.
Mind you, the ISP’s construction zone speeding tickets have their own problem as well, and frequently don’t survive in-court defendant challenges when the drivers come in to protest them (e.g. how do you cross-examine a security camera?).
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 2:59 pm
If insurance is so important, why not just require proof of insurance to obtain or renew a driver’s license and license plates? Better yet, require insurance companies to maintain a shared database of insured vehicles, which could be matched against existing license plates on an ongoing basis. If we’re going to have Big Brother, at least let’s be efficient and thorough about it instead of picking on whomever happens to pass the red light camera.
Comment by Excessively rabid Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 3:35 pm
==we’ve got enough slow walking yokels clogging Michigan Ave. anyway. They don’t seem to understand the red-yellow-green or the walk-don’t walk concepts, and they don’t seem to be spending much money==
Skeeter may have identified Daley’s newest revenue stream-Nail all the rubes for jay walking.
Comment by Barney Fife Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 3:59 pm
Former Traffic Prosecutor - If you can get your traffic offenses handled administratively with no report to SOS, how are insurance companies supposed to accurately price their product? And why should I pay more because my local government doesn’t run outside the UTC system?
Comment by Read a bit further ... Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:03 pm
RABF: You can’t get your traffic offenses routed through AH, but red light camera tickets, parking tickets, impoundment tickets and, now, cell phone tickets are all non-moving violations that the City has the right to use their own internal arbitration system for. Other violations, though (including any that potentially burden your license), go through the Circuit Court of Cook County, and are subject to reporting requirements. Insurance tickets as they exist today most definitely burden your license, and so they go through the court system (and because of the potentially high fine, require a court appearance).
Adding this new level of insurance tickets is going to open a can of worms for the City, the State and the County when it comes to reporting. Most likely, there will not be any mechanism for reporting between the City and the County/State, and even if the City tries to establish one, there will be problems with having tickets issued by cameras meet any sort of evidentiary reporting standard.
The City knows that AH is a fantastic revenue stream, which is why there’s pressure to move as much revenue through it as it can, rather than the Circuit Court, which generally assesses lower fines and stacks on hefty court costs that go only to the County and State. It has become a struggle between the two systems to take control of as much revenue as possible and the bottom line here is that the City sees a new revenue stream that would get paid only to the City. However, the urge to tap that source is so strong that it hasn’t occurred to anyone to look for the enormous downside.
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:15 pm
Former Traffic Prosecutor
PLEASE explain to me how running a red light is a non-moving violation … .
Comment by Read a bit further ... Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:24 pm
If done under local ordinance the charge is against the registered owner of the car not the driver thus the municipality can do whatever they want with the charge. If the registered owner fails to pay the ticket their registration and or lic. can be suspended by the SOS pursuant to the vehicle code.
This like all photo enforcement it revenue and vendor driven.
Comment by Aonn3 Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:37 pm
Anon3 -
Local ordinance for moving violations violates the Uniform Traffic Citation system, and has been so found by the courts and multiple AGs … .
Comment by Read a bit further ... Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:40 pm
RABF: This is why a red-light camera ticket ISN’T a moving violation. It’s a nice bit of circular logic, isn’t it…?
Comment by Former Traffic Prosecutor Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:49 pm
Former Traffic Prosecutor
I would say it’s just about money - but then I remember the Bourbonnais Amtrak crash caused by the truck driver with unreported supervisions … .
Comment by Read a bit further ... Tuesday, Mar 17, 09 @ 4:54 pm