* Sen. Dan Duffy (R-Lake Barrington) was not at all happy with a bill that passed his chamber yesterday. Duffy was so angry that he posted a diatribe about the bill on his Facebook page, blasting his own Republican leader and two fellow GOP members, both likely gubernatorial candidates…
Yikes.
* Sen. Duffy has been an ardent opponent of red light cams ever since he received two red light tickets in three days at the very same red light. Video of the first infraction…
Under the proposal, local municipalities or counties would have to sign off before a school district could use the cameras because penalties for going around a stopped bus would need to be reviewed by law enforcement rather than school officials. Sponsoring Sen. Tony Munoz, D-Chicago, said school districts would receive the bulk of the money from fines and the rest would be used to underwrite costs of the program. A first offense would cost $150 and a second offense $500, Munoz said.
But the bill drew a skeptical eye from Sen. Dan Duffy, who challenged the need for the bill and feared that the cameras could lead to more controversies. As of mid-April, Redflex said it had been awarded 25 school bus contracts and 18 trial programs in eight states: Rhode Island, Connecticut, Texas, Oklahoma, Georgia, Maine, Alabama and Washington.
Redflex is expanding into automated school bus cameras amid the federal probe of its Chicago red-light program that has led to questions from officials across the country. Federal authorities issued a subpoena for financial records of a former city official at the center of the escalating international scandal after the Tribune raised questions in October about the city’s contract with Redflex.
Duffy contended that the lobbyists for camera companies and lawmakers who support the measure are supporting one more way to squeeze “cold hard cash” from the taxpayers of Illinois. “This is the next generation of red-light cameras,” said Duffy, R-Lake Barrington.
* Duffy’s remarks went beyond even that. Sun-Times…
Duffy also alluded to a Chicago Tribune report on a federal bribery investigation into Chicago’s red-light camera program and a rival purveyor of red-light cameras, Redflex Traffic Systems - a probe Duffy bombastically characterized Wednesday as the “largest scandal in Illinois history.”
“It’s the same camera company and the same camera lobbyists associated with Gov. Blagojevich and other scandals who’s promoting this bill,” said state Sen. Dan Duffy (R-Lake Barrington), who has been a frequent critic of red-light cameras.
Neither RedSpeed nor Redflex testified in favor of Munoz’ bill in Senate committee, legislative records show.
“Here he stands now, saying there’s corruption about cameras, the worse there has ever been and bringing up Blagojevich. We took that matter up, and we know where he is,” Munoz said, referring at first to Duffy and then the imprisoned governor.
“You like to go around cameras,” Munoz snapped, his voice rising in a direct verbal hit on Duffy. “You drive right through them, you in your fancy car, your fancy suit. You want to bring it up? I can do it too.”
Sen. Munoz referenced an IDOT study which found that about 120 drivers reported seeing over 3,000 instances of drivers going around school buses with stop signs extended outward.
* Thanks to our very good friends at BlueRoomStream.com, you can watch the interchange, which begins at just after the 1-hour, 3-minute mark. The “good stuff” starts about ten minutes later…
“…Duffy bombastically characterized Wednesday as the “largest scandal in Illinois history.”
Not even close. If he had said Australia’s, or the Pan-Pacific, or even possibly Inter-galactic, he would have stood a better chance of being right. Illinois and it’s US Attorney don’t even blink at something like this.
I’m not a fan of traffic enforcement cameras (red light or otherwise).
At first I didnt care. But then there were the studies that showed that interesections with red light cameras actually showed an increase in rear-end collisions. Which put the beat down on the “saftey” claim.
Then as I thought about it more and saw the reports of pay off’s, private companies making big bucks on what is essentially a law enforcement activity, etc and the whole big brother aspect. Not to mention some complaints of light timing changing due to this in some jurisdictions.
I figure if we have laws we want to enforce we can focus on them without bringing in private companies who get a rip on each ticket and turning into nothing more than a revenue generator.
Hey Senator Duffy. Here’s an idea. DON’T BREAK THE LAW. I for one would be happy to have people who pass stopped school buses get tickets. My kids ride a school bus, Senator Duffy. I prefer that they be safe when they are entering and exiting that bus. Apparently your ok with people going around a stopped school bus and having no consequences. Let’s just get rid of all of those pesky traffic laws so that people aren’t “squeezed out of their cold hard cash.”
It’ good to see that someone has filled Sen. Lauzen’s large shoes in the Senate.
I think Duffy is wrong on the issue. Why shouldn’t people who drive around stopped buses with the stop arm out be caught and punished? The cameras will be a good deterrent, just the way red light cameras are.
On the other hand, it’s refreshing when one legislator transcends partisanship and criticizes people in his own party for a change, instead of the usual partisan finger pointing.
Its fine to have that opinion. I have kids also. You took all that I mentioned against cameras and boiled it down to the passing “big brother” comment.
Often this isnt about safety. Sorry. It becomes a automated money machine for someone (in both the .GOV and the private side).
If you said we were going to install a camera that does this automatically then sends the info to the police only and the Private company only got paid to install and walk away… I may change my mind.
And the dont break the law comment.. I’m not. Mind if I search your house? you have nothing to hide right? mind if I put a GPS device on your car? how about a camera in your house to protect your kids?
yes it is the “slippery slope” argument that takes this to a too far extreme. But often (more often than not) these systems are not about protecting your kids.
Bus drivers take down plate numbers and id cars all the time. Since the camera is in the back and arm is in the front,when it malfunctions and you get a ticket unjustly, how is it gonna get remedied? Not good at all
The senate; getting more like the House every day.
Chapin Rose makes the valid point that bus arm cameras were already legal and in use by local police departments. Duffy, for all his failings, is correct that this is a cynical cash grab hiding behind a safety and law enforcement fig leaf. I’m disappointed but not surprised that the bill passed because today it’s all style over substance in the legislation.
Really, if this was about safety and law enforcement, and not the revenue generation, the legislation would have structured the fines to pay the police departments directly for buying and installing more of the cameras, operating them themselves, and left the third-party redlight companies out of it.
Given the history of Chicago’s red light cameras, Duffy is correct to raise the issue.
Once again however, Duffy’s main goal seems to be getting press for Duffy. He either needs anger management or he’s simply a guy that will throw a fit at any time to get attention.
Either way, he’s a poor reflection on his district.
@Rich
if it doesnt turn into a private company issuing tickets and making money off of each one I may be able to get behind it. But these arent generally setup that way.
“It’s the same camera company and the same camera lobbyists associated with Gov. Blagojevich and other scandals who’s promoting this bill,” said state Sen. Dan Duffy (R-Lake Barrington)
Am I missing something? The only lobbyists listed for Redflex on the SOS system are the uber-legislative insiders. I don’t think they were allowed to come within 100 miles of Blagojevich under penalty of death. They’re the only lobbyists listed for Redflex in the last 4 years.
I’m not paranoid like some of you are. But, no I wouldn’t mind if you searched my house. You would probably be bored out of your mind as to what you would find. The problem with all of your silly examples is that for each of them there are specific Constitutional protections that would prohibit them. You have no such protection when it comes to breaking a law, which in this case is passing a stopped school bus. Sure, a side benefit of this is revenue. But you are absolutely wrong that there is not a safety component to it. Dead wrong.
I am in favor of red light cameras and the school bus cameras, for safety and litigation reasons. One of the biggest problems though, is proving who the driver is. Unless High Res cameras are used, the driver is not clearly visible. Ultimately the owner gets held responsible, even though a spouse, son or daughter could have been the actual driver.
How about a mandatory 5 minute video that you have to watch on-line or if you don’t have a computer at the DMV. There would be questions at the end, just to make sure you watched it. Maybe 15-20 questions. Once you print out your certificate you can renew your license. I just think a lot of people forget some simple driving rules. This would be a 4 year refresher course covering the most forgot about, abused, etc rules.
Because of Rich’s other post today my last answer was probably not great.
So, I never said Safety WASNT involved. You boil it down to nihilism. If I dont want the camera in this form I dont want safety for children.
That is not my thing. This may make a kid safer. MAY. But the flip side is also there. we have to be willing to recognize that. There are lots of things that may make us safer, but at what cost.
I would probably be for something like this if it is not setup like speed camera or stop lights where some private company gets a great deal and makes more money than even the gov. In illinois we have a history of that from everything to cameras, parking meters, etc.
If done right and for the right reason. Fine.
But implementing any system under the guise that the means justifies the ends doesnt sit well with me and I hope doesnt sit well with lots of folks. we have gotten in plenty of trouble in this state trying to “do the right thing” in all the wrong ways and never changing course once we start.
I live a block away from a red light surveillance camera. After 4 years and a Million dollars in fines people still roll the the right turn on red at 1-2 mph everyday. They clearly don’t change behavior.
I don’t see much safety benefit in mailing owners (not drivers) a bill weeks after stopping a few inches past the line or barely rolling a right turn.
For the record, I have never received one of these tickets. Our family also boycotts turning right on red at these intersections. We are happy to wait until green, because we insist on driving safely!
Furthermore, I’m disappointed in Sen Biss. He fought for civil liberty’s on the drone bill, but then votes in favor of NGO’s basically doing the same thing. Seems hypocritical to me.
“Senator Munoz, who wrote the paper from which you are reading. ” honestly, merits of the issue aside, if Sen. Munoz gave me a picture of a puppy I would wonder where it came from. Personalities and connections make it so hard to decide on the merits of an issue. Who benefits?
“Pretty sure this one is about kids.…among other things. “
It’s the “other things” that interest me. Here is a bill addressing an issue that was apparently not raised by some concerned parents, school officials, school bus drivers, or law enforcement folks, but rather a lobbyist who said Redspeed brought the bus camera idea to him. How many citations have been issued for this violation? How many accidents have occurred as a result of this violation? Shouldn’t we have such evidence before leaping into action? Who pays for the cost of the program if the fines collected are inadequate? But then “This is Illinois, after all.”
You are correct in that the means does not always justify the ends. However, I fail to see what great issue is involved here that would lead you to such a statement in the case of this particular issue. Maybe we should look at the company. Fine. But I’m absolutely floored as to why anybody would be against this particular concept. Aside from assigning a cop to every bus route, I think this is an acceptable alternative solution. It’s not going to stop everybody but it will make them pay for their wrecklessness and maybe think twice about doing it again. That’s good enough for me. I’m all for questioning things. I just don’t think the questions outweigh the benefits.
Good bill. Red light cameras are a different story if they have led to more accidents as a previous commenter suggested. I don’t know how you could say its not a good idea given kids ability to be, well, kids.
Ron: I agree with most of your points, and view this specific deal with some skepticism.
However, I have seen some statistics that show while collisions from behind are marginally up, total accidents at these intersections, especially those involving injury, are dramatically down. If the right deals, parties, and processes are in place, then intersection cameras can be worthwhile. Oh well — statistics!
I saw this post and started laughing …oh boy, these Chicago democrats can find anything to do except the hard stuff…lol, the sooner Illinois hits the wall, the better. Maybe they can start over with some serious leadership but that couldn’t come until after the destruction.
On my morning daily drive, I often encounter several school buses on a busy “arterial street,” as the traffic geeks like to call them. The compliance with the law is very good, all things considered. I can’t think of the last time I’ve seen someone pass a stopped bus from behind. I do see people on the other side of the road fail to stop in areas where that is clearly required, which this program wouldn’t address.
I would like to see some statistics, some law enforcement input, and expert testimony beyond that of Tony Munoz before I would conclude this is a good idea.
- bicurious - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:47 am:
I’ve cropped the video to the relevant portion. You can see it here:
http://tinyurl.com/ilgaslapfight
- Anon. - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:49 am:
“…Duffy bombastically characterized Wednesday as the “largest scandal in Illinois history.”
Not even close. If he had said Australia’s, or the Pan-Pacific, or even possibly Inter-galactic, he would have stood a better chance of being right. Illinois and it’s US Attorney don’t even blink at something like this.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:51 am:
I’m not a fan of traffic enforcement cameras (red light or otherwise).
At first I didnt care. But then there were the studies that showed that interesections with red light cameras actually showed an increase in rear-end collisions. Which put the beat down on the “saftey” claim.
Then as I thought about it more and saw the reports of pay off’s, private companies making big bucks on what is essentially a law enforcement activity, etc and the whole big brother aspect. Not to mention some complaints of light timing changing due to this in some jurisdictions.
I figure if we have laws we want to enforce we can focus on them without bringing in private companies who get a rip on each ticket and turning into nothing more than a revenue generator.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:52 am:
Hey Senator Duffy. Here’s an idea. DON’T BREAK THE LAW. I for one would be happy to have people who pass stopped school buses get tickets. My kids ride a school bus, Senator Duffy. I prefer that they be safe when they are entering and exiting that bus. Apparently your ok with people going around a stopped school bus and having no consequences. Let’s just get rid of all of those pesky traffic laws so that people aren’t “squeezed out of their cold hard cash.”
- reformer - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:53 am:
It’ good to see that someone has filled Sen. Lauzen’s large shoes in the Senate.
I think Duffy is wrong on the issue. Why shouldn’t people who drive around stopped buses with the stop arm out be caught and punished? The cameras will be a good deterrent, just the way red light cameras are.
On the other hand, it’s refreshing when one legislator transcends partisanship and criticizes people in his own party for a change, instead of the usual partisan finger pointing.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:55 am:
@Ron:
I like “big brother” protecting my kids. Cops can’t be everywhere all the time. Don’t break the law and you won’t have a problem with “big brother.”
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:02 am:
@Demoralized
Its fine to have that opinion. I have kids also. You took all that I mentioned against cameras and boiled it down to the passing “big brother” comment.
Often this isnt about safety. Sorry. It becomes a automated money machine for someone (in both the .GOV and the private side).
If you said we were going to install a camera that does this automatically then sends the info to the police only and the Private company only got paid to install and walk away… I may change my mind.
And the dont break the law comment.. I’m not. Mind if I search your house? you have nothing to hide right? mind if I put a GPS device on your car? how about a camera in your house to protect your kids?
yes it is the “slippery slope” argument that takes this to a too far extreme. But often (more often than not) these systems are not about protecting your kids.
- highspeed - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:03 am:
Bus drivers take down plate numbers and id cars all the time. Since the camera is in the back and arm is in the front,when it malfunctions and you get a ticket unjustly, how is it gonna get remedied? Not good at all
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:03 am:
===But often (more often than not) these systems are not about protecting your kids. ===
Pretty sure this one is about kids.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:04 am:
…among other things.
- Newsclown - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:04 am:
The senate; getting more like the House every day.
Chapin Rose makes the valid point that bus arm cameras were already legal and in use by local police departments. Duffy, for all his failings, is correct that this is a cynical cash grab hiding behind a safety and law enforcement fig leaf. I’m disappointed but not surprised that the bill passed because today it’s all style over substance in the legislation.
Really, if this was about safety and law enforcement, and not the revenue generation, the legislation would have structured the fines to pay the police departments directly for buying and installing more of the cameras, operating them themselves, and left the third-party redlight companies out of it.
- Namaste - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:07 am:
Bi, great job.
- HenryVK - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:12 am:
Given the history of Chicago’s red light cameras, Duffy is correct to raise the issue.
Once again however, Duffy’s main goal seems to be getting press for Duffy. He either needs anger management or he’s simply a guy that will throw a fit at any time to get attention.
Either way, he’s a poor reflection on his district.
- Anonymous - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:16 am:
@Rich
if it doesnt turn into a private company issuing tickets and making money off of each one I may be able to get behind it. But these arent generally setup that way.
- The Captain - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:23 am:
“It’s the same camera company and the same camera lobbyists associated with Gov. Blagojevich and other scandals who’s promoting this bill,” said state Sen. Dan Duffy (R-Lake Barrington)
Am I missing something? The only lobbyists listed for Redflex on the SOS system are the uber-legislative insiders. I don’t think they were allowed to come within 100 miles of Blagojevich under penalty of death. They’re the only lobbyists listed for Redflex in the last 4 years.
- The Captain - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:24 am:
Ah, nevermind, totally misread it. I’m stupid.
- Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:29 am:
@Ron:
I’m not paranoid like some of you are. But, no I wouldn’t mind if you searched my house. You would probably be bored out of your mind as to what you would find. The problem with all of your silly examples is that for each of them there are specific Constitutional protections that would prohibit them. You have no such protection when it comes to breaking a law, which in this case is passing a stopped school bus. Sure, a side benefit of this is revenue. But you are absolutely wrong that there is not a safety component to it. Dead wrong.
- rusty618 - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:39 am:
I am in favor of red light cameras and the school bus cameras, for safety and litigation reasons. One of the biggest problems though, is proving who the driver is. Unless High Res cameras are used, the driver is not clearly visible. Ultimately the owner gets held responsible, even though a spouse, son or daughter could have been the actual driver.
- wordslinger - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:01 am:
– blasting his own Republican leader and two fellow GOP members, both likely gubernatorial candidates…
How many splits can you have in a 19-member caucus?
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:02 am:
===How many splits can you have in a 19-member caucus? ===
19
- Cincinnatus - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:08 am:
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:02 am:
===How many splits can you have in a 19-member caucus? ===
19
++++++++++++++++++
20. At least…
- 3rd Generation Chicago Native - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 11:15 am:
How about a mandatory 5 minute video that you have to watch on-line or if you don’t have a computer at the DMV. There would be questions at the end, just to make sure you watched it. Maybe 15-20 questions. Once you print out your certificate you can renew your license. I just think a lot of people forget some simple driving rules. This would be a 4 year refresher course covering the most forgot about, abused, etc rules.
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:11 pm:
@Demoralized,
get off the high horse sir. Did I say there was no safety involved? no. I did not. Again you miss any other point being made (maybe on purpose).
- RonOglesby - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 12:22 pm:
@demoralized
Because of Rich’s other post today my last answer was probably not great.
So, I never said Safety WASNT involved. You boil it down to nihilism. If I dont want the camera in this form I dont want safety for children.
That is not my thing. This may make a kid safer. MAY. But the flip side is also there. we have to be willing to recognize that. There are lots of things that may make us safer, but at what cost.
I would probably be for something like this if it is not setup like speed camera or stop lights where some private company gets a great deal and makes more money than even the gov. In illinois we have a history of that from everything to cameras, parking meters, etc.
If done right and for the right reason. Fine.
But implementing any system under the guise that the means justifies the ends doesnt sit well with me and I hope doesnt sit well with lots of folks. we have gotten in plenty of trouble in this state trying to “do the right thing” in all the wrong ways and never changing course once we start.
- Allen Skillicorn - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:17 pm:
I live a block away from a red light surveillance camera. After 4 years and a Million dollars in fines people still roll the the right turn on red at 1-2 mph everyday. They clearly don’t change behavior.
I don’t see much safety benefit in mailing owners (not drivers) a bill weeks after stopping a few inches past the line or barely rolling a right turn.
For the record, I have never received one of these tickets. Our family also boycotts turning right on red at these intersections. We are happy to wait until green, because we insist on driving safely!
- Allen Skillicorn - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:20 pm:
Furthermore, I’m disappointed in Sen Biss. He fought for civil liberty’s on the drone bill, but then votes in favor of NGO’s basically doing the same thing. Seems hypocritical to me.
- Amalia - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 1:53 pm:
“Senator Munoz, who wrote the paper from which you are reading. ” honestly, merits of the issue aside, if Sen. Munoz gave me a picture of a puppy I would wonder where it came from. Personalities and connections make it so hard to decide on the merits of an issue. Who benefits?
- capncrunch - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 2:36 pm:
“Pretty sure this one is about kids.…among other things. “
It’s the “other things” that interest me. Here is a bill addressing an issue that was apparently not raised by some concerned parents, school officials, school bus drivers, or law enforcement folks, but rather a lobbyist who said Redspeed brought the bus camera idea to him. How many citations have been issued for this violation? How many accidents have occurred as a result of this violation? Shouldn’t we have such evidence before leaping into action? Who pays for the cost of the program if the fines collected are inadequate? But then “This is Illinois, after all.”
- Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 2:40 pm:
@Ron:
You are correct in that the means does not always justify the ends. However, I fail to see what great issue is involved here that would lead you to such a statement in the case of this particular issue. Maybe we should look at the company. Fine. But I’m absolutely floored as to why anybody would be against this particular concept. Aside from assigning a cop to every bus route, I think this is an acceptable alternative solution. It’s not going to stop everybody but it will make them pay for their wrecklessness and maybe think twice about doing it again. That’s good enough for me. I’m all for questioning things. I just don’t think the questions outweigh the benefits.
- Lil Squeezy - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 2:53 pm:
Good bill. Red light cameras are a different story if they have led to more accidents as a previous commenter suggested. I don’t know how you could say its not a good idea given kids ability to be, well, kids.
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 2:54 pm:
I’m assuming that Sen. Duffy now stops at that infamous red light, so the cams do work for at least one person.
Just sayin…
- walkinfool - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 3:45 pm:
Ron: I agree with most of your points, and view this specific deal with some skepticism.
However, I have seen some statistics that show while collisions from behind are marginally up, total accidents at these intersections, especially those involving injury, are dramatically down. If the right deals, parties, and processes are in place, then intersection cameras can be worthwhile. Oh well — statistics!
- Zermigula - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 7:45 pm:
I saw this post and started laughing …oh boy, these Chicago democrats can find anything to do except the hard stuff…lol, the sooner Illinois hits the wall, the better. Maybe they can start over with some serious leadership but that couldn’t come until after the destruction.
- Michelle Flaherty - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:02 pm:
In case you ever wondered what state Sen. Joe Walsh would be like.
- Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 9:36 pm:
On my morning daily drive, I often encounter several school buses on a busy “arterial street,” as the traffic geeks like to call them. The compliance with the law is very good, all things considered. I can’t think of the last time I’ve seen someone pass a stopped bus from behind. I do see people on the other side of the road fail to stop in areas where that is clearly required, which this program wouldn’t address.
I would like to see some statistics, some law enforcement input, and expert testimony beyond that of Tony Munoz before I would conclude this is a good idea.
- reformer - Thursday, Apr 25, 13 @ 10:39 pm:
Allen S
Do you really contend there has been no decline in violations after 4 years of ticket issuance? I’d like to see those numbers.