61 Comments - tinman - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:29 am: Absolutely not, has anyone paid attention to the Toll Way problems with them not identifying the correct type of license plate? - Louis G. Atsaves - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:35 am: In Chicago, the warning sign that a camera exists is placed just a few feet from the intersection. A better warning system should exist. One intersection I use all the time has people making sudden stops on yellow lights. The camera works. I wonder how many accident it causes though. - train111 - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:44 am: Don’t kid yourself–the whole camera enforcement gig is all about the Benjamins. Municipalities wouldn’t be investing in them if there wasn’t any return on their investment. Whether or not they provide any safety enhancement to the intersections that they are posted at is a pretty debatable topic. My municipailtiy (West Chicago) has installed the cameras at two intersections and I am indeed more careful at both. However the sudden stopping at caution lights out of fear of being ticketed probably ha caused a few accidents. train111 - Amuzing Myself - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:47 am: I’m totally FOR the cameras. Anyone that lives in Springfield knows you HAVE to look both ways to go through a green light at places like Monroe and MacArthur because of the idiots flying through lights that aren’t just turning red - they’ve been red for a while. Anyone that doesn’t run red lights doesn’t have anything to worry about. If they were so inaccurate and a burden or problem, the other large counties that have them would be trying to get rid of them. They are not. And to Sen. Bomke, who I happen to support, SO WHAT if it’s a moneymaker!?! Making people pay the appropriate fine for breaking the law can fund law enforcement and any other number of needs of the county or city that desperately needs the money for things like infrastructure. - Mr. Ethics - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:50 am: Oppose. Our police chief said it’s only about safety. If the intersection is so dangerous, why doesn’t he assign an officer there? Because it’s about revenue. Also, Naperville pulled the plug after wasting money on a system that failed the expectations. Now they are looking for a new vendor. Who is paying for this? And there is still no proof the RLC’s cut down on accidents. - Skeeter - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:50 am: Does Hendon know that he lives in Chicago? Somebody ought to tip him off, since if he was around he would know that those cameras have been here a while. As All Powerful Rules Committee Czar [didn’t he tell us all last week just how powerful he is?], you would think Hendon would do something about it. But to the merits — although I tend to have strong civil liberties views, stuff like cameras for stop light violations doesn’t bother me. People should think twice when they approach a red light. In my area (Streeterville), traffic signals are a major problem. Running a red light is common enough (usually by taxis), and a lot of people don’t seem to understand the yellow light. As a result, Michigan and Ohio and Michigan and Ontario are often backed up since cars enter on a yellow but can’t get across, so they end blocking traffic that actually has the light. There is a difference between filming a demonstration to identify people who don’t like the government, and filming an intersection to see who is running a red light. - Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:52 am: Anything to get people to be more careful driving…. with all of the safety features and distractions we’re adding, more people aren’t paying attention to what they are supposed to. Don’t even get me started on cell phones! - Justice - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:57 am: First, there will be cameras at high volume traffic lights, then at all traffic lights, then at stop signs. As aggravating as it is to see people run through red lights and blow stop signs, I do not like ‘big brother’ watching me. This will become nothing more than a money maker for the various government entities and like many other programs in government, will be abused and mismanaged. We need less government intrusion, not more. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:57 am: ===Anyone that lives in Springfield === Just as an aside… A lot of people seem to think drivers in their own hometowns are the worst. After driving in “developing countries” on a few different continents, I have news for you: Your drivers are quite good. Try Morocco in 1981, when cars were still a relatively new thing to the culture at large. The switchbacks in Albania were a stone cold blast. Iraq was such a peach. I’ll bet China is a real treat. Anyway, back to the discussion. - M - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:59 am: If it were a really a saftey issue they would have made the penalty a moving violation. They didn’t. It’s merely a fine. That fact alone shows their main interest is revenue generation and not the reduction in accicents. They want you to run the redlights so you can keep paying the fine. - VanillaMan - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:07 am: If you like this idea, then be prepared to go to your mailbox and find a “guilty” verdict for a traffic misdemeanor you didn’t know you committed. You will have almost no recourse for the fine and you will be expected to pay it before your license is taken from you. You will try to remember the supposed incident and fail. You will wonder if another family member was driving instead. You will have no benefits whatsoever as you try to figure out how to pay the fine before the deadline. You will not be given a benefit of a doubt. You will not have access to a human being who better understands what had occurred. You are screwed. Then after you’ve experienced this questionably constitutional action, try telling yourself you think cameras are the best way to enforce traffic laws and the purpose of them is not to collect fines by the thousands for the municipalities installing them. - Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:08 am: Oppose, inforce the laws that are already on the books. Remember the “Rules of the Road”(http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a11214.pdf) and the Illinois Vehicle Code? - Plutocrat03 - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:09 am: Based on current research, the ability to do red light camera enforcement should be removed from all public entities. Recent (as in 2007) studies from the Virginia Department of Transportation and Florida Public Health departments note that accident rates increase at intersections with red light camera enforcement. If you read the prospectus of companies that install these systems, they brag about the revenue they generate for themselves and the governmental agencies that utilize their services. They also expect to get in the business of automated speed enforcement. None of the communities I am aware (Illinois) of have followed the standards set forth by the Federal Highway Authority regarding determining whether there is a red light running problem and if there are other safety measures that should be applied first. The FHWA recommends that RLCs be among the last things that should be used to solve a safety problem at an intersection. People are being injured and are suffering property damage due to the greed of the institutions who are using this traffic management tool irresponsibly. Traffic systems are complex and should not be manipulated for revenue generation. - Mr. Ethics - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:12 am: If no one runs the lights and no money is made. How long will the towns continue to pay to maintain them? Also, driving in Springfield is a pleasure compared to Chicago and the burbs. - Yeah, Right - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:23 am: I live in a small burb, North Riverside. A year or two ago at a major intersection, the village allowed a behemoth sign, evacuating out non-stop, eye-piercingly bright, digital effluence, to be erected. Drivers could hardly help taking their eyes from the road. Well what do you know? The village cited a study at that intersection indicating an increase in traffic-related problems. Now, the village is using this alleged safety reason to install red light cameras! Talk about a scam! Take the sign down! - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:23 am: Rich, Put me deep in the Against column. It is time for Americans to say no to the panopticon. If someone can direct me to a “policing” tool that wasn’t eventually misused, I would be happy to hear about it. – SCAM so-called “Austin Mayor” http://austinmayor.blogspot.com - Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:31 am: jj, I don’t have audio of Hendon’s speech. I’ll see what I can do though. - clj - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:32 am: absolutely SUPPORT! People still blow red lights where cops are stationed at an intersection. For instance at the corner of Western and Grand in Chicago (I believe this is Mr. Hendons district) a cop is always pulling people over for traffic violations. Unfortunetly, there is only one of him. There is no way for him to pull over all the other traffic violators while he has stopped someone else. And trust me it seems to get crazier when he has someone pulled over at this intersection. Once they get a camera there it should improve. I also support speed cameras and frankly wouldn’t be opposed to motion sensor cameras for illegal lane changes, talegatting, and other terrible vehiclar moves. Driving is a privledge not a right. - safe streets - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:38 am: Absolutely in favor of more traffic cameras. All of the ‘big brother’ chatter is nonsense. Driving is a privilege and drivers agree to additional requirements when they operate a motor vehicle on public streets. If you want more privacy, then simply don’t drive: walk or ride your bike. 43,000 people each year die on America’s streets in traffic crashes. Drastic measures are long past due. Bring on the speed enforcement cameras!! - Gish - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:45 am: Here’s one to be debated, there is occasionally a reason to have violated the offence that will have a ticket issued to you in the mail. These cases would likely result in a mailed ticket whereas an actual officer may use judgement to determine if a ticket is warranted. Automatic devices enforcing the law as opposed to actual officers is never a good idea. - Anonymous45 - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:48 am: There is no way to defend yourself from this type of violation…what if another driver/or a pedestrian is preventing you from turning and you proceed with the turn just after the light turns red? There is no way you can disprove what the photo shows, but the circumstance which is highly relevant to the situation is totally within the law. Bad law, bad system. I wish the ACLU would take the munis to task on this violation os a citizens right to defend themselves against this revenue scheme….I hate to agree with Hollywood, but I do in this matter…and yeah, Rickey in case you haven’t noticed they’re all over the City of Chicago. But I’ll bet you are unconcerned about your chances of actually paying a fine due to your political stature… - Fan of the Game - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:58 am: If I take such a fine to court, will the camera be there to testify against me? Can I ask it questions in my defense? If someone else is driving my car when the violation occurs, how will the camera know? Is the issue with the vehicle or with the driver? Will the camera pull the car over and ask the driver for his license? if my car is stolen, and the theif drives through the red light, do I get the fine? Will the camera be able to chase it down and return my car to me? There is no way I can support the use of red light cameras because they suppose the guilt of a party without being able to prove that guilt. They can only prove that a car went through an intersection, but cthey can’t prove who was driving. - Anon - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 10:30 am: Support - the cameras would protect a LAW that helps make the roads safer. - Little Egypt - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 10:48 am: Oppose. Anyone who thinks traffic in their town/city is the worst has not driven in Boston. - cermak_rd - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:05 am: I support these cameras. I believe, though I have no objective data, that scofflaw-ism is increasing with regards to traffic laws. I would like to see red light cameras and automatic speed enforcement become common place, such that people are “forced” to behave appropriately. If people won’t willingly follow the law, then enforcement must be beefed up and these cameras are cheaper than police officers. And I don’t care if the villages make money off it. The way I figure it, every dollar they get off people who knowingly broke the law is a less dollar they need to get from the tax payers. - The Doc - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:06 am: One needs to looks no further than mayoral lapdog Alderman Ed Burke, who freely admitted that the RLCs erected in Chicago are primarily a source of revenue. Of course, he has taxpayer-funded armed escorts to drive him around town - not exactly representative of his constituency. But I digress. Arguments for RLCs based on the notion of improved safety are disingenuous, and at least Burke was straightforward with his response. - wordslinger - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:18 am: Against. Too Big Brother. I know driving’s a privilege, I know there’s no expectation of privacy in public. But the police have enough powers — don’t give them more to raise a few bucks. By the way, the crime cameras in the city? Maybe they work, but can you imagine every trying to sell property in a neighborhood that has one? SCAM — Panopticon? Your erudition is matched only by your sagacity. Little Egypt — I’ll see your Boston and raise you a Washington, DC. Lots of VERY important people in a hurry there. - plutocrat03 - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:21 am: I am amazed and amused by the number of folks who are willing to supports something that the highway safety professionals do not support as a universal tool. Is it any wonder that the legislature messes up more than it solves problems? Like the prison question yesterday and many other preceding it, let the professionals do their jobs. Just another example of the political class misdirecting attention from another money grab. Who will pay for the newly created accidents? I know - the regular guy. - Dan S, a Voter & Cubs Fan - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:29 am: This boils down to each of us that have been given the priviledge to drive by the State of Illinois by the issueing of a drivers liscense that we will indeed follow the “Rules of the Road” (http://www.cyberdriveillinois.com/publications/pdf_publications/dsd_a11214.pdf). I do believe that the State and other drivers on the road expect that the traffic laws WILL be followed. If this expectation cannot be adheared to the the violater should have their liscense revoked. INFORCE THE LAWS WE HAVE!!! - annoyed all the time - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:32 am: I am privy to some inside information on red light cameras. 1) If you have a police car there many drivers will alter teir behavior but once the car is gone then what? THe permanancy of it is what will change bad behavior. 2) there is a way to have your day in court - each camera along with the photos takes a 12 second video loop of the few seconds prior, during and after a violation in which is can be argued in court - you can see yourself in the violation prior to going to court to adjudicate to determine if you have an arguement - 3) it’s not a movign violation just a ticket - think about how you might find out how your teen driver behaves at times as well! 4) big brother is only monitoring your violation at these cameras - it’s not used for anything else, not to catch you at anything else just to catch you blowing a red light. 5) suddenly stopping at yellows? you are supposed to slow down at yellow not speed up so if you are slowing down when you see the yellow you should be fine as shoudl all the other cars - and the cameras only go off if you go through the light AFTER it’s red - if it’s yello go on through - red you get the ticket… most importantly to warn you if you can turn on red just make sure you come to a full stop first - REMINDER it’s the LAW!!! - PhilCollins - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:36 am: I support the cameras. Too many drivers disobey the laws, and they should be caught and punished. If that happens, the city and county governments would receive more money, and the streets would become safer. In addition to finding drivers who run red-lights, they should also be used to find drivers who make illegal turns and turn without signaling. - annoyed all the time - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:37 am: Fane of the Game: If I take such a fine to court, will the camera be there to testify against me? YES THERE IS VIDEO SHOWING THE TIME AND THE CAR AND THE VIOLATION TAKING PLACE AS WELL AS ANY OTHER CARS - Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:39 am: Let’s keep the ALL CAPS to a minimum. We can tell you’re excited. - With Liberty for All - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:44 am: Red light running seems to be a problem everywhere, not just in Illinois. It is a safety concern, although most people don’t see it that way until right after they are hit by a red light runner. I guess the overall thought on this is as follows: If red light running wasn’t a problem this bill and this discussion wouldn’t be taking place. - JI - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:47 am: It doesn’t matter to me if they install them or not. The constitution says that I have the right to face my accuser in court, and the last i checked, a camera won’t respond when being questioned. Anyone who gets one of these tickets and doesn’t fight it, has more money than I do, that’s for sure. - Skeeter - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 11:57 am: In response to JI: Of course, JI, if you fail a DUI test, the blood test is not going to testify either. Should we get rid of blood tests? And lets not get started on DNA — when is the last time that DNA actually spoke? Somebody provided the blood test (or DNA) and somebody calibrated the equipment and they will testify. In a similar manner, somebody set up the camera and somebody maintained it and you can cross-examine those people until you bore the heck out of the judge. So let’s move on. It is not a “confront your accuser” matter. You can do that with the cameras. - gray wolf - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:03 pm: why not ask the police chief if this will reduce the number of officers to offset this big brother concept-and cost? - Pot calling kettle - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:06 pm: Opposed, for all the Big Brother reasons. The “too many people breaking the law” argument is always trotted out to justify the placement of cameras in public places. The cameras rarely, if ever solve the problem. Some lawbreakers are willing to take the occasional fine, some move elsewhere where they cannot be observed. Overall, we all lose a bit of privacy, not much, but the little bits add up. If running red lights is as serious as claimed and driving is a privilege, the 1st or second offense should result in loss of license for a year, the next offense, for more. Then, post a couple of cops at an intersection, bust a half dozen light runners, and take away their licenses. If someone is caught driving with a suspended license, one more year and impound the car. No work permits… No one will know which lights are staked out, few will be willing to suffer the consequences. - Vote Quimby! - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:14 pm: Pot….your scenario plays the fear of the unknown card (will there be a cop here?) while the cameras will be a constant deterrent. One year and impound for running a red light? Yikes… that sounds more like Big Brother! - Gentlemen, behold! - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:15 pm: I think the cameras do a service by eliminating the need for traffic stops between police and drivers. This is a very stressful situation for both the police (who can be walking up to just about anything) and the driver. The camera can alleviate this dangerous situation by eliminating the need for traffic stops altogether. And then the police can be put to better use, rather than chilling in their cruiser all day with a radar gun. These traffic cameras are common in the UK, where incidentally, they have a very different model of policing (most British cops do not carry firearms). Let’s try to play down the “wild wild west” characteristics of our American heritage and give cameras a try. The state might like cameras because we don’t have to worry about funding their pension benefits… - annoyed all the time - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:27 pm: Kevin I used all caps as a way to seperate my answer. Which I was cut off and sent too early. If I take such a fine to court, will the camera be there to testify against me? Yes, there is a 12 second video loop where you can explain to the adjudicator any evidence to help you out - there is a process at every municipility participating. You may have to pay a fee if found guilty of the violation and the video loop you can see for yourself on line before going in. If someone else is driving my car when the violation occurs, how will the camera know? THe violation is against the car not the driver - so no moving violation which it would be if a policeman pulled you over - it is the same as if you get a parking ticket - it doesn’t matter who is driving your car. You can work it out withwhoever used your car or turn them in to the adjudicator - if the fine goes unpaid it is ultimately your responsibility so be careful who you lend your car to. if my car is stolen, and the theif drives through the red light, do I get the fine? Yes but then you can adjudicate it by showing the police report and showing your car was stolen. - Kevin Fanning - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:30 pm: good point - prowler - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:30 pm: Against the cameras. Studies have shown that increasing the length of the yellow light reduces red light running. Now some of the cities reduced the length of the yellow to generate more revenue. So in instances like this you get people slamming on the brakes as soon as the light turns yellow, to avoid a red light ticket. Which in turn causes an increase in rear end accidents. Have any of you ever noticed how well our lawmakers obey the laws they make. Try travelling north or south on 55, or east or west on 72 after on of the legislative sesions ends. Last time I did this was northbound on 55 after one of last years saturday overtime sesions. Was passed by over 10 house members personal vehicles, and most were travelling well over 80 MPH. Same way with most of the state police officers I know, when in their personal vehicles they travel well over the speed limit. After all they have their get out of jail free Id with them if they do get stopped. It’s amazing that the people that make our laws and the people that enforce the laws and write tickets to us sheep (think wolfpack) believe the law does not apply to them. And it does not seem to bother them to write tickets to others for the same offenses that they routinely commit. Where is the Ethics? - SpfldPolitico - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:33 pm: i agree with both Bomke and Hendon that these are terrible for the citizens of Illinois and only are used to generate revenue. And when you can get a republican from springfield and a democrat from Chicago to agree on an issue…all others better listen. Big Brother is watching and always trying to see more. - Fan of the Game - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:40 pm: annoyed all the time, In the last two cases you cited above, I have to prove myself innocent. That seems to work against the principle of the state making its case against me. The fact that going through a red light should be a moving violation and is not just shows that this is a money grab. Further above, you state that the cameras will not be used for anything else. They most certainly will be and have. The authorities will use any resource they have legally available (as they should), and these cameras are such resources. - Ghost - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:40 pm: We need this. Way to many people blowing through stoplights. As for privacy issues, the intersection is a public place, and you have no right to break the law under I hope the police arent looking belief. As for those who use fear mongering in relation to your ability to fight the ticket, you have the same ability as any other ticket. In fact the same ability if you are caught by a police officer. So the rare truly innocent person can prevail. We have a lot of accidents and injuries in Spfld because people operate with the freedom to ignore lights if no cops are visible and they are in a hurry. Since the cameras only assure people are acting as they are supposed to act, get them up and rolling. - Keyser Soze - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 12:48 pm: Is there any evidence that red light cameras do sufficient good to offset the aggravation they cause? One blogger reports that they actually cause accidents. And, while I don’t often side with Hollywood Hendon, I find myself seconding his thoughts on “Big Brother.” I hope that I’m not the only one who is fed up with “safety checks”, “click or ticket”, and all of the other police commando operations. Recent trends seem to cast the public as the enemy. Enough already. Surely there are more than enough actual bad guys to occupy the police. Leave the rest of us alone. - If it's not really a money-making issue ... - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 2:16 pm: how about using the red light cameras as a means to randomly reward proper stops — say the registered owner of every 50th vehicle which stops properly at a red light is sent a $10.00 gas card or rewarded in some other fashion. Some possible effects are that the Big Brother stigma of the red light camera is lessened and people may properly stop due to positive motivation rather than fear of punishment. If concerns about revenue were trumped by concerns about safety, implementing such a system might be beneficial, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen. - Captain America - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 2:27 pm: Genreally, I am opposed to traffic cameras - not opposed to very selective use of cameras for security/public safety reasons in appropriate venues, but not for traffic control. I don’t believe the crime control cameras in Chicago are very effective in reducing criminal activity or enahncing public safety - they just change the location of criminal activity to areas where there are no cameras. The Bush administation has proved that our civil liberties can and will be abused by single-minded government zealots who don’t believe in in the Bill of Rights. I’m not sympathetic to the revenue arguments at all. - paddyrollingstone - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 2:29 pm: Just got a $100 ticket in the mail yesterday. I will say this, the system is very impressive. - Truthful James - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 2:31 pm: Sorry, but I have to be in favor…unless we hire three times the policemen and raise the fines to pay for their presence. I prefer fewer policemen. It used to be that people did see a yellow light and still believed that they were legally required to stop. Then people used the yellow light as an excuse to speed up to the light. Now people are aware that the light urns red at most intersections and the cross traffic turns green after about four seconds. Thus, the if they see the yellow turning red they still speed up. The law helps motivate them for this because one is required to wait until the interesection has cleared, even though you have the green light. The thought of an accident even though caused by the red light runner going through on the change makes the cross traffic driver even moe ‘patient.’ I can remember growing up and at the Sheridan Irving Park intersection southbound Sheridan turned east. And a no left turn sign during evening tush hour. There was always a Chicago police car with a book of partially filled out tickets and an overweight police officer, ready totop and give you a ticket, except that in those days a Hamilton would suffice, if you gave him your license and a picture of Alexander before he started to write. BTW, all those revenue raising cameras came courtesy of the Fed’s Department of Homeland Security to locate terrorists. Don’t believe they share in the take, though. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 2:36 pm: ===unless we hire three times the policemen and raise the fines to pay for their presence. I prefer fewer policemen.=== The cheaper is is for the government to fine us or (in the case of ankle monitors) imprison us, the more fines and imprisonments will be levied. That’s simple bureaucratic math. I don’t usually comment on QOTD’s with my own opinion, but there it is. - Amuzing Myself - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:01 pm: This is straying a bit, but I feel the need to defend something I said: I HAVE driven in Chicago, St. Louis, Boston, Indy, Houston and a number of other cities (and not just on the interstate AROUND those cities), and Boston is the only one that even comes close to Springfield. The other cities have their problems, but most of the time they’re predictable - you get cut off a lot in Chicago, double-parkers everywhere, you’d better be up to speed at the end of an on-ramp in St. Louis or you’ll get run over, etc. In my years in Springfield, I’ve just witnessed unbelievably bad driving and feel like I have to drive much more defensively here than anywhere else in the country I’ve been. Can’t say anything about oversees, but just because they have even worse drivers elsewhere doesn’t make the drivers here any better. OK. Carry on. - Rich Miller - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:07 pm: I just don’t agree on Spfld drivers. I’m probably jinxing myself, but they seem pretty darned tame to me compared to Chicago, St. Louis and Indy. - Truthful James - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:29 pm: Amuzing - I think you will find the same thing, but to a greater extent in Washington D.C. — a car driven economy where people come from all over the country (in Springfield, all over the state) and bring diffeent driving habits onto the road system. The problem is a lack of predictability of behavior. My brother in law, emigrating from Korea, found out to his chagrin that local driving in Chicagoland encouraged yellow light speed-ups. he got into his only accident, trying to make a left turn, thinking that the oncoming traffic surely would obey what he thought to be the law instead of witing until the intersection was safely clear. In Korea, by the way, the yellow runs long and is for the exclusive use of left turners. - Anonymous45 - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:32 pm: There is a huge diference between “bad driving”, and rude, aggressive, dangerous driving. For the latter, Boston and being in the back of a taxi in New York City get my vote… - tinman - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:43 pm: Wait until the guy with, for example, plate number 123456 gets violations that were actually for the person with enviromental plate E123456. This is happening everyday with the Toll Way. Someone has to view the picture of the plate and try to determine which one of the over 100 different plate types it is. These people are not government employees and by the way have quotas to meet. - train111 - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:48 pm: Worst driving I’ve experienced–Not Chicago, or Boston–Ciudad Juarez Mexico takes the cake. Perhaps the vendors of these cameras can make a few sales down there. train111 - wordslinger - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 3:54 pm: Ciudad Juarez? Living dangerously, my friend. Driving is probably the safest activity there. - Arthur Andersen - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 8:23 pm: Put AA down as a firm opponent of the stoplight stoolies. I completely agree with Rich’s general point that any time a bureaucracy finds a cheap revenue-raiser, it will deploy it as often as the voters will tolerate. Herein lies a perfect example, the weaselwords in the law about the “fines to be based on the cost of the camers system instead of the revenue received” (Paraphrased) notwithstanding. Including the unique provision that camera tickets aren’t moveing violations also shows this was more about Do-Re-Mi than Drive Safely. On the other hand, I’m a big supporter of the camera vans in highway work zones. Too many innocent lives have been lost because of a small handful of speeding or inattentive knuckleheads. Don’t know if it’s fair to throw the redlight cameras in with the roadside safety checks, Click It or Ticket, Trooper every Ten, yada, yada yada. The cameras tend to be a local government priority, not backed by credible research which proves a traffic safety benefit. On the other hand, the various special enforcement details (including DUI which I forgot) are funded heavily by USDOT grants and there is some evidence of their success. These directed patrols, as I think they’re called by the Illinois State Police, are hotly debated in squad rooms and donut shops around the country. The cops on the beat tend to be less persuaded of their value than the desk police and civilian command. AA’s favorite story about electronic policing happened earlier this year in suburban Phoenix. The City of Scottsdale installed speed cameras on a state freeway running through their borders. The venture is proving to be lucrative, but of course the cameras don’t work at night. A Phoenix “adult entertainment entrepreneur” as a TV station later described him decided to show in part what he thought of the new cameras. How; by making a top speed run in his new Lamborghini Murcielago in the middle of the night and having a pal videotape it. Well, that was pretty cool, and he’s a much better driver than Lance Briggs, but being in that biz and all, he just had to a) show his face and b) post the video on the Web. Faster than you could say “202 MPH!” the local Five-O was knocking on this dude’s door with a fat handful of press hard’s. (See YouTube;he’s there.) Finally, I’ll vote with wordslinger on those DC Drivers. The really important people all have motorcades, the important have drivers, and everybody else drives like a madman, especially those cabbies in the 1978 Plymouths. Getting a cab in DC is like going to a demolition derby. - Come On Now - Wednesday, May 28, 08 @ 9:16 pm: AA: When is the last time you saw a cabbie in a ‘78 Plymouth, or, for that matter, a regular ‘78 Plymouth, or, for that matter, any Plymouth whatsoever on the road? Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.