Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Reckless Pension Bill Would Cost Illinois Billions
Next Post: ***** VETO SESSION LIVE BLOG *****
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** If you’re watching our live blog, you already know that the House Executive committee passed a package of speed cam bills this morning.
* CBS2 aired this report last night…
Mike Brockway’s “The Expired Meter” website has the results of a trial run of seven red light cameras temporarily enabled to detect speeders in April and May and he said the study shows those cameras alone would have generated more than $100 million in speeding ticket revenue.
That study found speeders were 20, 30, even 60 times more common than red light runners, who are already contributing millions to city coffers.
And remember, the test covered just a handful of cameras.
Just seven speed cams would bring in $100 million a year? Wow. That’s about $40 million more than the city’s entire redlight camera system generates every year.
Astounding.
* From the study…
The current version of the speed enforcement bill would allow Chicago to have speed camera enforcement five school days a week from 6 AM until 10 PM–16 hours a day–not the paltry nine hours during weekdays the study covered. Safety zones around park districts would operate seven days a week starting an hour before the park opens and an hour after it closes.
Extrapolating the numbers provided in CDOT’s study for a school safety zone, based on 48 violations per hour per approach, each camera would produce 768 violations a day or 16,512 citations and potential fines of $1.65 million for the first month. All seven cameras would produce an estimated 115,584 speeding citations or $11.5 million in potential fines for that month
Projecting future revenues is slightly more challenging, as estimates must take into consideration the effect of camera enforcement on driver behavior. The assumption is motorists would alter behavior with the knowledge that enforcement is occurring. Of course, after a few $100 tickets in the mail, people will learn to slow down and violations will decrease over time, but never completely disappear.
But using CDOT’s red light camera violations in 2010 as a model, monthly totals for red light running can be seen to be dropping by an average of 5.3% per month for the last seven months of that year after CDOT stopped adding more cameras to the program.
Applying a regression to the mean to the projected initial numbers, the first twelve months of enforcement where fines would be issued, from just these seven locations would still produce 990,822 speed violations or nearly $100 million in fines–a dollar amount that far exceeds the total revenue generated by the all 382 red light cameras every year.
In other words, projected violations were discounted by 5.3% every month, acknowledging driver behavior will change and violations will fall over time.
* Not surprisingly, this speed cam bill is at the top of the mayor’s Springfield wish list…
Winning approval for cameras to capture and fine drivers who break the speed limits on Chicago’s streets has zoomed to the top of Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s agenda for the last week of the state legislature’s fall veto session.
Even after enjoying a string of successes in the spring legislative session, Emanuel’s lobbyists still have much that they want to achieve in Springfield by the end of the veto session on Thursday. In addition to the anti-speeding bill, the mayor continued pushing for measures to bring a casino to Chicago and avert the Chicago Mercantile Exchange’s threatened move out of state. […]
“I wouldn’t say it has been quite as intensive as the lobbying on school reform, because that was the main issue of his mayoral campaign, but it’s pretty clear that it’s important to them to get the votes for increased speeding enforcement,” said Zalewski, whose father is the 23rd Ward alderman and was appointed chairman of the City Council’s Aviation Committee by Emanuel.
* The mayor held a press conference yesterday with legislators to push the bill…
Surrounded by 15 state representatives, Mayor Rahm Emanuel on Monday publicly urged the House to approve a bill to retrofit red-light cameras with speed sensors at intersections near schools and parks.
“The victims here are the children, not those who are speeding,” Emanuel said during a press conference at Chicago’s Office of Emergency Management and Communications.
The mayor pointed to the deaths of 6-year-old Diamond Robinson and a CICS Wrightwood 8th grader, both struck by cars, as proof the city needs more speed enforcement to protect Chicago kids.
* Not all legislators are happy about this idea…
As the House vote on the plan nears, Emanuel has stepped up arm twisting. State Reps. Mary Flowers and LaShawn Ford, both Chicago Democrats, said the mayor approached them for support.
Ford said an Emanuel aide later asked him to stand with the mayor Monday. “I didn’t even get the call to say, ‘Are you supporting it?’” said Ford, who didn’t attend.
* And while the mayor touted the safety value of the speed cams, one of his tragic examples wouldn’t have been covered under this proposed law…
The crash that killed Diamond occurred on a Saturday night as she crossed 70th Street and Loomis Boulevard near Altgeld Elementary School. The driver was ticketed for “failure to reduce speed to avoid a pedestrian in the roadway.”
The location of the second crash, at 79th and California, would not fall within a safety zone under the legislation sought by the mayor. The 13-year-old boy struck and injured there stepped into the path of an oncoming car, police said. No citation was issued.
* But…
According to a study done by CDOT of the first 109 red light cameras, there were 23 pedestrian deaths at those intersections before the [red light cameras] were in place. Two years after each intersection had cameras installed, aggregate pedestrian deaths at those locations dipped to six.
Impressive.
* The Senate has already passed the speed cam bill, which is sponsored by Senate President John Cullerton and House Speaker Michael Madigan. The House Executive Committee is taking up the legislation at 10 o’clock this morning in Room 114. You can listen or watch the committee hearing by clicking here.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:02 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Reckless Pension Bill Would Cost Illinois Billions
Next Post: ***** VETO SESSION LIVE BLOG *****
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Will the cameras be totally accurate? The red light cameras frequently issue citations for drivers making right had turns on red lights, which is perfectly legal at many intersections and allowed under the Vehicle Code. How many questionable tickets end up being paid because the motorists do not have the time or energy to challenge the tickets? I am suspicious about the cameras being used to check on a vehicle’s speed being reliable and accurate. Lastly, how many school children are en route to and from class at 10 o’clock at night?
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:12 am
People would stop speeding if the cameras were installed, so any estimates based on test runs aren’t even in the ballpark.
Comment by chi Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:12 am
“right hand turns on red”
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:13 am
chi, that’s factored in.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:15 am
Hopefully the city isn’t using this study to estimate the actual revenue it will use. This study seems to assume that drivers won’t change their driving behavior after they start receiving tickets. The study merely found the number of speeders, but no tickets were issued. But, as is always the case with these cameras is that after people start getting tickets, revenue substantially drops.
I think these cameras are a great tool to increase safety and decrease pedestrian deaths, but there is no need to scare people with such large revenue predictions.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:17 am
===This study seems to assume that drivers won’t change their driving behavior===
No, it doesn’t. Read it again.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:18 am
And then City Clerk Mendoza can cross check deadbeat violators and deny them a new city sticker until they pay up. Ah, governement efficiency at its best; when it comes to new ways to raise and collect revenues.
Be careful what you wish for. Rahm and the GA are about to awake the sleeping masses.
Comment by Fair Share Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:22 am
I think that the most effective way to implement this technology would be to roll it out in construction zones. That would make those treacherous areas safer, it would make the speed traps mobile and more broadly implemented, and it would increase the revenue because the fines for speeding in construction zones are already boosted.
Just a thot.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:24 am
Are the folks who brought us RedSpeed and the cameras in the western burbs working this one?
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:26 am
United States v. Jones is being argued today in the US Supreme Court. It involves the placement of a GPS devise on a suspects car. The decision could show how the courts will balance privacy interests against new technologies.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1259
AS for me, if people are in public places we can use and technology available to enforce the law.
Comment by BigTwich Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:36 am
Although the study does factor in changing driver behavior, the amount of the behavior change is debatable. One question that comes to mind more generally, though, is can someone be ticketed multiple times for essentially the same offense? For instance, if you’re driving along the same stretch of road 10mph over the limit and pass 2 cameras, do you get 2 tickets? Also, what if it is the same situation but you get pulled over as well. Do you get 3 tickets? Is there a limit to how many tickets you can get in the same time period or geographic area? If so, I wonder if the study factored in those excluded double-counted speeders when estimating revenues. If there is no limit to the number of tickets you can get, it would be ideal to put a camera at 1 block increments along common speeding routes to maximize income. Lost track of your speed for a 10 block span of time? That’ll be $1000.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:42 am
===, the amount of the behavior change is debatable. ===
Yes, but it’s based on past experience with redlight cams.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:43 am
The city does a poor job collecting fees and fines. The south suburbs refuse to pay chicago for water with no consequence so I doubt these projected revenues ever materialize. But it does just go to show it is all about money.
Comment by Fed up Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:43 am
I know legislators want to be friends with Rahm and support him on this, but this is a bad vote. I would wager it will be worse (far worse) than the ComEd vote, and on par with the parking meter fiasco in Chicago.
Why Rahm doesn’t see that just baffles me.
Comment by hmmm Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:47 am
“Are the folks who brought us RedSpeed and the cameras in the western burbs working this one? ”
Do they “know a guy” at City Hall? If not, then no.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 9:48 am
Legal or not, this is likely to make radar jammers a hot item in the commuter market.
Comment by JN Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 10:11 am
Excellent. When can I go in and get microchipped so they can ticket me for walking too fast, chewing gum, drinking too much beer and cutting in line?
Comment by beserkr29 Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 10:15 am
thechampaignlife makes an excellent point about multiple tickets. Is there a limit of one per hour, one per day, one per week? It seems unfair to give additional tickets without adequate notice of the first one as being stopped and getting a ticket will change your driving behavior for at least a short time. That said, I’ve always thought it odd that traffic speeds up as it gets more congested and dangerous within the city limits (obviously excluding “rush” hours).
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 10:19 am
“on par with the parking meter fiasco in Chicago.”
How so? The *primary* problem with the parking meter deal was that they didn’t include an earn out tied to future increases in parking rate–that is, that any windfall will be entirely private, with the cost being borne entirely by the public.
I’m *thrilled* that I can find parking everywhere I go, and $1.50/hour is not an outrageous amount.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 10:35 am
I don’t care. I wanna drive fast, dammit.
Comment by Solomon Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 10:41 am
I also wonder about adequate notice. The last camera generated ticket that I received arrived three weeks after the alleged violation. How would that be fair if you got multiple speeding tickets from the same drive weeks later?
Interestingly, one time, a police car at the same intersection never bothered to stop me, the camera issued a ticket later. Some will say that the police no longer patrol streets with cameras looking to write tickets. Another problem is the cameras have a very restricted view of the streets and do not capture everything that a motorist would see and react to.
Comment by Esquire Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:12 am
“Another problem is the cameras have a very restricted view of the streets and do not capture everything that a motorist would see and react to.”
A justification defense to speeding or running a red light? “But officer, I *had* to speed up because …” what? exactly?
Doubt that would fly.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:17 am
I wish everyone in the Chicago region could stop driving for a month to put a hole in the revenue projections munis are banking on making from these devices.
Do these cameras enhance safety?
Maybe if you’re a pedestrian in a crosswalk, but this is mostly a money grab by cash strapped munis in these tough economic times.
I’d like to know who is getting rich from this novel approach to public safety on our roadways…and the politicians he or she knows as well…
Comment by Borealis Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:19 am
Wait until you’re late for a meeting and you’re stuck behind 6 cars all going 5 miles below the speed limit and breaking unpredictably when their speeding camera detectors go off. Wait until the tickets hit the mail boxes and families quit driving to museums, sporting events and the Chicago lakefront? Wait until cab drivers start driving 10 miles below the speed limit because they’re worried about losing their licenses and incomes? Wait until auto sales plummet in the City because its pointless to have a fun car to drive around in in Chicago.
This automated regulation of driving has “prohibition” written all over it - meaning people will enjoy figuring out ways to skirt this law while simply trying to have a carefree drive around town and while essential running errands.
Comment by Henry Ford Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:25 am
“people will enjoy figuring out ways to skirt this law ”
Like just driving the speed limit?
Sounds unduly burdensome. Think I’ll paint my face blue and go run a bunch of red lights where there are cameras while leaning out the window shouting “Freedom!!”.
As far as the revenue thing goes–better you, who wants to drive 10+ over the speed limit (hey! Me too!! but not for $100) and ignore traffic signals–than *everyone*.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:35 am
Kind of interesting that Rham’s speed policy will throw a lifeline to the beleaguered, Australian based Redflex company. I thought that we were supposed to create jobs locally, not farm the profits out overseas.
I wonder if the calculations include the inevitable drop in suburban sourced tourism when they out-of-towners perceive an unfriendly atmosphere. I know suburbanites who already don’t drive into the city because of parking difficulties and higher dining taxes. I suspect this will add numbers to that list.
Redflex also promotes stop sign cameras. Will that be next?
From a safety standpoint, banning all automobile/trucks is the only way to completely eliminate ped/vehicle interactions.
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:39 am
Sorry, Chris, but this is a bad vote. And, like others said, it is a potential career-killer. You can argue the merits all you want, and try and argue that it is only about safety, but it is going to piss people off, plain and simple.
See, everyone knows speeding is illegal, but (right or wrong) there is this societal “agreement” between drivers and cops. Drivers can speed, and cops won’t pull you over unless it is egregious (9+ over in congested areas, 14+ on the highway). And even then it is at their discretion.
People hate the red light cameras, but they generally understand the dangers and problems of running a red light. You don’t have the same community agreement on speeding.
Go on Lake Shore Drive and try and drive the speed limit. You are more likely to get pulled over for driving too slow than someone driving 50+.
This will never be an argument over the merits of speed cameras. It will be an emotional response for people that will crowd out every other thing.
Comment by George Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 11:48 am
I think most people will just want to be able to go to the grocery store without having to drive like a robot….driving can be fun but not if you’re worrying about racking up massive ticket bills all the time. I think most folks will change their driving patterns - taking buses, trains and cabs, ordering groceries from peapod, and shopping online rather than having to toe the line to the automated speeding camera zones. I’m not necessarily opposed to this type of world but to get their you need to get between Americans and their cars - not a safe place for an elected official.
Comment by Henry Ford Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:03 pm
Now another GPS layer needed to know where those cameras are and avoid them:)
Comment by Nuance Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:04 pm
“See, everyone knows speeding is illegal, but (right or wrong) there is this societal “agreement” between drivers and cops. Drivers can speed, and cops won’t pull you over unless it is egregious (9+ over in congested areas, 14+ on the highway). And even then it is at their discretion.”
So I assume you are also *strongly* in favor of drug legalization and massive immigration reform, including a path to citizenship?
Emotional response, whatever. I’d *MUCH* rather have additional fine revenue than a broad-based tax/fee increase. But then, I say turn off the water to the suburbs who don’t pay, and let them get their water trucked in. Chicago ain’t a charity, *especially* not for people who don’t even live in the city.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:08 pm
“I think most folks will change their driving patterns - taking buses, trains and cabs, ordering groceries from peapod, and shopping online rather than having to toe the line to the automated speeding camera zones.”
If you are even a *tiny* bit correct in this, I am now STRONGLY in favor of it. Less traffic equals *much*much*much* more fun driving in the city for me. Might even be willing to suck up paying a few $100 speeding tickets then.
oh, and jumping off on a point made a couple different ways (calibration/discretion/10+ over) does anyone *seriously* believe that the speed cameras would be issuing tickets for 31 in a 30? Never.Gonna.Happen. Would bet the threshold is 7 or 8 over, earning you a 5+ ticket, and you’d need to be 12+ over to get a 10, just on the basis of calibration variance, and reducing the costs of people disputing every frackin’ ticket.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:15 pm
“Speed Limits are too damn slow”
Comment by D.P. Gumby Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:25 pm
If you think traffic is moving slow now, just waait for folks to drive 5 mph UNDER the likmit to make sure they aren’t ticketed…..and then stop and count 1,2,3 before the right on red turn. GRIDLOCK IS ON THE WAY!!!!!!!
Comment by Joe Schmoe Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:28 pm
Get ready for this style of political commercial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYecfV3ubP8
Comment by Henry Ford Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 12:45 pm
“folks to drive 5 mph UNDER the likmit to make sure they aren’t ticketed”
Oh….KAY. Whatever you say. Because people, in general, are such bad drivers that they can’t maintain 32 mph, so they have to aim for 25 to avoid going 35+. Riiiiiiight.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 1:05 pm
The use of these cameras will cost how much to buy them and maintain them? How will they be paid for? Will the vendor be added to the list of those already owed payments from the State or the municipalities in which they are installed? Lastly, where is the amendment that exempts legislators from being ticketed by these machines?
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 1:57 pm
“Study: Speed cams would bring in mega bucks”
Nothing but a backdoor tax increase…
Comment by Allen Skillicorn Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 2:19 pm
who will stand up for people who drive? Chicago has long been a place where you can use public transit or drive. not one, like New York, or the other, like LA. both. it was raining today, how many people were out on bicycles? there is more protection and expense without paying license fees for bicycle riders. meanwhile, those of us driving elderly parents to medical appointments or ourselves to medical appointments are met with increasing impediments to driving when we are in the city of Chicago. Where is the car lobby?
Comment by amalia Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 2:24 pm
“Nothing but a backdoor tax increase…”
But one that you can opt out of.
You’d prefer that the City just raise property taxes?
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 2:25 pm
“The use of these cameras will cost how much to buy them and maintain them? How will they be paid for?”
Out of the revenue stream from the tickets. Just like all the other such systems–contract with the provider (the choosing of said provider is my real concern–gotta be competitively bid, at a minimum), provider gets paid out of the ticket revenue stream and nothing else.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 2:27 pm
“there is more protection and expense without paying license fees for bicycle riders.”
How so?
“who will stand up for people who drive?”
You think you should be able to drive over the speed limit, run red lights, drive drunk? Should you be allowed to run down pedestrians/cyclists that get in your way, too?
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 2:30 pm
My three big concerns are:
Calibration of both machine and speedometer - Give me a 5 mph leeway and we’ll call it good.
Adequate notice - Don’t give me 5 tickets on a single trip that I don’t find out about until three weeks later. No repeat camera ticket until notice received (certified mail return receipt).
Selection of provider - Obviously, this could be a gold mine for a camera provider getting a share of the proceeds. Illinois politics are such that I wouldn’t assume that the vendor would be selected via a fair bidding process. The selection needs to be by a very fair, transparent process.
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 3:38 pm
Thinking over that calibration a bit more. Make that about 8 mph leeway with calibration verification by uninterested third party on routine, relatively frequent basis. Just way too much financial incentive for both city and vendor to fudge a bit on the calibration.
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 3:42 pm
“Adequate notice - Don’t give me 5 tickets on a single trip that I don’t find out about until three weeks later. No repeat camera ticket until notice received (certified mail return receipt).”
So, speed thru a camera once, get 3 weeks grace? Really?
On the “certified mail”, you can refuse certified mail, so that would mean that you speed once, refuse delivery, and can ignore speed cameras forever?
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 4:16 pm
Chris - we understand your boss is making you post here, but all your responses are full of nothing but red herrings and hysterical extrapolations. If Rich wasn’t busy he would be calling you out himself.
Look - You don’t need to convince me, or yourself. This isn’t a policy debate. It is a political debate.
Consider you and your boss duly warned that this is a political suicide pill. You will get no credit for anything good out of it, and you will be blamed constantly by every peeved off motorist and every columnist in town.
I don’t think this is what Rahm should be going to bat for. And I am shocked at the full court press.
Comment by George Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 4:32 pm
Who is paying Chris to comment here and how many tickets need to be issued for them to break even on today’s marketing experiment?
Comment by 47th Ward Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 4:34 pm
And on the policy side -
Yes, I would much rather pay $30 more in property taxes than risk getting hit with a $100 ticket.
Daley played the no property tax increase game for 5 years, eschewing even small increases to account for the inflation increases in his budget, and that’s a big reason why you guys are in the mess you are in now with the deficit.
Comment by George Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 4:35 pm
47 - I think I am wrong and you are right that he is from one of the camera providers (note the fake concern in one of his recent posts about it being competitively bid).
Comment by George Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 4:37 pm
Both of you are wrong. Affiliated with neither any traffic business of any sort nor any local or state poltician or government. Just don’t get the (1) “it’s a backdoor tax”–so? on speeders, and you can *choose* to not speed, (2) “it’s a slippery slope”–whatever, (3) “i’m entitled to break traffic laws”–hahahaha, (4) etc. “arguments” and have a lot to say about it.
I have a major concern about the provider slection process, but other than that, I really am all for it, in the city, on city streets. Would like one on my (totally residential, in the no-longer-fightin’ 47th Ward–yeah, no kidding) street that too many fly down, over speedbumps, to try to make the light at the intersection. Don’t particularly care how the city uses the revenue, other than not giving it away to the service provider, or a guy who knows a guy (coff–Daley’s Kid–coff), just want to penalize people who think “ain’t my street, why should I care”.
And, George, since you don’t live in the city, why do you care so much? Wanna take on 5% of my property tax bill to change my mind about collecting revenue from people who violate the law insterad of *everyone*?
Also, I suppose all of you “it’s a backdoor tax” people are opposed to differential taxes on *any*thing, and believe that every good sold in the state of Illinois should have a flat sales tax added to it, right? You’d support sales taxation at “full” rates on food, right? And the steep reduction in tobacco and liquor taxes and elimination of the state gas tax, too, right? Becuase it’s better to make *everyone* pay more than just some people, whether based on consumption, or violation, or wahtever-categorization, right?
Everyone in the state should pay a license registration, too, since they cross the street sometimes, and it’s not fair to place all that burden on people who own cars, right? Just shift that burden on to property tax, or income tax, or whatever, since it’s *SOOOO* unfair to penalize people who choose to own cars.
Ok, last thing–I suppose you’re all against the sorta proposal to shift all marijuana possession enforcement to a ticketable offense–that’s just a backdoor tax, too, right? On people who choose to break a (pretty small time) law.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 5:16 pm
“you guys need to write better talking points”
Who guys? Just me here.
And if anyone’s relying on me to push their view, they’re getting exactly what they paid for–nada.
Who do you think is *seriously* at electoral risk over speed cameras, George? Ain’t gonna be Rahm. Ain’t gonna be any Alderman. We (all of us) need some more turnover in the Legislature among those with Chicago constituencies.
And, again, who’s really chagning their vote over getting a few speeding tickets vs. having their taxes go up (again)? You really think that people are dull-witted enough to blame a politician for getting a speeding ticket *more* than they would blame them for raising propert/income/sales tax? If you do, I suspect you *really* support the movement toward pot-ticketing.
Comment by Chris Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 6:19 pm
“Chris”, you’ve got your head in the sand if you think there won’t be huge blowback over this once everyone starts getting tickets.
I’ve never once seen someone blame themself when there is a politician who is “really” to blame.
Comment by hmmm Tuesday, Nov 8, 11 @ 7:15 pm
I’ve never received a ticket from a camera, so I don’t know the process, but….
How can you not beat this? Don’t you have a right to face your accuser?
The camera takes my plate speeding? So what? Who says I was driving? The camera? Can I cross-examine the camera?
There certainly have to be sharp lawyers out there who could beat this Big Brother nonsense on constitutional grounds. It’s only a matter of time.
Comment by wordslinger Wednesday, Nov 9, 11 @ 8:20 am
“The camera takes my plate speeding? So what? Who says I was driving? The camera? Can I cross-examine the camera?”
Owner of the car is responsible. You own the car, but weren’t driving? You get to collect from the actual driver.
““Chris”, you’ve got your head in the sand if you think there won’t be huge blowback over this once everyone starts getting tickets.
I’ve never once seen someone blame themself when there is a politician who is “really” to blame. ”
Newsflash–lots of people are stupid. All sorts of lawbreakers blame someone else–so we should have no laws?
Compare the “blowback” to an increase in the City sales tax–which one do you think is worse for which pols?
You want to accuse me of talking past the “politics” of it, whatever, but Rich’s post is about (1) $$ raised (policy) and (2) how much Rahm wants it (politics, but about Rahm’s leverage more than anything else).
I ask *again* WHO, specifically, will be the politicians “really” blamed for the tickets? And is even one of them actually at risk of losing because of that “blame”?
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Nov 9, 11 @ 10:12 am
There are several ways to get around a speeding ticket. Did you know that a police officer must be certified annually to shoot radar, and if the certification lapses well… Learn these tips, tricks, and secrets and how to use them yourself. Some even may or may not be known to expensive lawyers. Check out this guide written by attorneys to protect your rights and save you money. Traffic Ticket Secrets
Comment by J.D. Wednesday, Nov 9, 11 @ 11:16 am