Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: ***** VETO SESSION LIVE BLOG *****
Next Post: The governor giveth, the governor taketh away
Posted in:
*** UPDATE *** From Mayor Emanuel’s office…
Mayor Emanuel will make a brief visit to Claremont Academy, located within two blocks of the W. 63rd Street and S. Western Avenue intersection which records the 6th highest number of pedestrian crashes in Chicago, and is positioned within a new safety zone designated by legislation passed yesterday by the Illinois House that allows Automated Speed Enforcement.
* Gov. Pat Quinn has not yet said exactly how he feels about this bill. But if projections are correct, the speed cam legislation could generate an absolute ton of revenue for Chicago. If Quinn vetoes it, following his veto of the gaming bill, Mayor Rahm Emanuel is gonna have a fit…
The Illinois House handed Mayor Rahm Emanuel a lucrative victory at the Statehouse Wednesday, passing to Gov. Pat Quinn a measure authorizing speed-enforcement cameras around city parks and schools. […]
The speed-camera proposal that only applies to Chicago passed the House 64-50 and was billed by its backers as a tool to improve pedestrian safety, particularly among children. […]
Under the legislation, the City Council could approve the cameras after July 1, 2012.
Quinn, who has not voiced opposition to the idea, would not divulge his position on the measure. A spokeswoman would say only that the governor intended to review it.
* There was a “trailer” bill as well…
The follow-up legislation that passed the House and pending in the Senate would make the following changes:
*Speeders going 6 mph 10 mph over the limit would face $50 fines instead of $100. Those going 11 mph and over would face the full $100 ticket.
*The cameras would run in school zones from 6 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and from 6 a.m. to 9 p.m. on Friday. The cameras would only operate on school days in school zones. The cameras near city parks would still run one hour before opening until one hour after closing.
*Money would go toward increasing school safety and school transportation, with some earmarked for after-school programs.
Discuss.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:12 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: ***** VETO SESSION LIVE BLOG *****
Next Post: The governor giveth, the governor taketh away
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Fining people for breaking the law and endangering childrens’ lives, and using the fines to help support cash strapped schools’ safety and after school programs?
Where exactly is the problem here? Springfield really is broken.
Comment by Horace Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:16 am
Rahm just cut the head tax on employers with over 100 employees. And he wants to make up the revenue he gave to big business by installing speed cams.
Just to be clear what Rahm’s priorities are:
Rahm wants to shift the cost of government from rich people and big business to the middle class and poor people.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:22 am
I know I’ll be wearing a pig mask while driving in Chicago now… go ahead, try to ticket me.
Comment by O RLY Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:23 am
They could do a pay-per-view cage match between the governor and the mayor. Wanna place a bet on who wins?
Comment by Aldyth Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:25 am
Wear whatever you want. The cam will only photograph your license plate.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:25 am
===Springfield really is broken. ===
They passed the bill, Horace.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:26 am
–*Money would go toward increasing school safety and school transportation, with some earmarked for after-school programs.–
I can’t find the trailer for some reason, so if anyone has seen it, I would ask:
Are they setting up special dedicated funds, or is the money just going into the city’s general fund?
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:27 am
a few years ago, the license plate photo was accompanied by a photo of the driver. maybe it has changed since then, but I have seen Chicago do it that way.
Comment by amalia Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:27 am
Rich I am shocked (and appalled) at the insinuation that this bill is about money. It is about protecting children, not money, and I know this because I heard the House sponsor say that on the floor. Shame on you.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:31 am
Quinn should AV the bill with a sunset date of 2014.
Comment by Fair Share Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:33 am
Seems like a solution in search of a problem. And if, as the articles state, it has the potential to bring in gobs of cash, that means it also has the potential to aggravate quite a few drivers. Seems like a recipe for parking meter backlash redux.
Comment by The Doc Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:34 am
Great. Now when going through school zones I will be looking down at my speedometer rather than up and around to see if anybody is running in front of me.
Yeah, that will improve safety.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:35 am
I am sure this system will be totally fool proof, never a ticket given in error. Will there be any way to argue or appeal a ticket? Big pay day for Chicago.
Comment by Because I say so..... Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:36 am
Didn’t Rahm create an ex post facto inter-government agreement between CPS and CPD where CPS all of a sudden had a $10+ million debt to CPD for past services?
Rahm has already raided education money to pay for municipal services so tax increases can be the fault of the school district while the sham of “no tax increases” from the city can be maintained.
If Rahm thinks schools need more money, maybe he should stop diverting money from schools to city government.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:36 am
School zone speed limits are only in effect when school is in session and children are present. How is the camera going to know that?
Comment by fact finder Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:36 am
If they’re really interested in safety as opposed to revenue, then the governor ought to AV the bill to include a warning to be issued for the first offense at a given speed trap.
Comment by PublicServant Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:36 am
Somewhere down the line, the courts are going to have to weigh in on these devices. It seems to me they violate the basic right to confront your accuser.
How do you fight these tickets? You can’t cross-examine a camera in court.
I for one would not pay any ticket issued by a robot unless I was driving George Jetson’s speeder.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:41 am
===Springfield really is broken. ===
==They passed the bill, Horace. ==
Any governor worth a lick would have stated “I will sign this bill as soon as it gets here!” and would trip over himself to sign it. Which is not what Quinn is doing here.
Unless, of course, he’s holding out for something in return for his support…? Maybe something bleepin’ golden?
Comment by Horace Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:45 am
What happens when these cameras catch a CTA bus speeding?
Comment by TheLowlyScrivener Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:46 am
===It seems to me they violate the basic right to confront your accuser.===
The proponents say that since you don’t actually get a ticket which goes on your record, you’re not being legally accused of anything. Strange, I know, but that appears to be the logic.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:48 am
Horace, you sure are in a hurry to submit to the rule of the robots. Unless, you’re one of them…..
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:49 am
Word,
If you haven’t already found it the trailer bill is SB 1865 and is in Senate Exec this AM. All it really does is set the times the cameras can operate, and set the fine amounts for the speed.
Comment by Jaded Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:50 am
The camera’s will start before the school day begins, before children are present and will be on until curfew begins, 8 or 8:30 pm.
Comment by Because I say so..... Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:53 am
C’mon Quinn. I know you don’t drive around town much anymore but some of us still have to. Veto this monstrosity. Let Rahm run a pilot, or better yet, why doesn’t he hire enough real police to enforce laws.If Rahm wants revenue he should raise taxes. This has nothing to do with safety. Everybody knows it.
Comment by Bill Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:57 am
There was a news segment on Fox Chicago last night about a woman whose car was caught and ticketed by a red light camera. She had loaned her car to a friend, who subsequently got arrested (the arrest is irrelevant to the issue). The camera caught a police officer driving the car from the arrest location to the impound. An administrative judge refused to overturn the ticket and the woman now faces costs in excess of the $100 ticket in order to appeal that decision.
This is the latest example of a city that cannot consistently and accurately the parties who are performing the illegal action. The City has also failed in establishing just and non-cumbersome mechanisms for redress in the event of incorrect fines. Until these problems are resolved, additional means of camera enforcement will only exacerbate the problem.
Comment by Metropolis Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 9:59 am
Wordslinger - I would gladly submit to a Robotocracy rather than the mess we have in Springfield now.
Comment by Horace Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:00 am
*cannot consistently and accurately identify
Comment by Metropolis Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:01 am
As a city resident with a 3rd grade child I drive through 2 CPS school zones every day to my child’s school. This will raise a lot of money from parents of public school children. 80% of those kids live in homes that are described by the government as impoverished.
Nice way of raising revenue you got there Rahm.
Comment by jeff Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:02 am
Has an app been created to tell drivers where these speed cameras are? If so, I’m getting it.
Comment by anon Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:04 am
–I would gladly submit to a Robotocracy rather than the mess we have in Springfield now.–
LOL, Horace, glad to hear your struggle is over. You’ve learned to love Big Brother.
Jaded, much obliged.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:06 am
Word — sorry, I disagree on this one. I got caught by a robot cam when I cruised through a red light on the way to a dear friend’s funeral. Did I have good reason to be distracted? Yup. Would that have mattered if I had plowed into a passenger in the car that — thankfully — saw me coming and stopped? (I could see it in the robophoto.) For me, it was a real wake-up call that, if I’m that upset and distracted, I should let someone else drive.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:06 am
Nothing would do more for Governor Quinn’s popularity among voters than to announce that he is vetoing this bill.
Comment by walter sobchak Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:08 am
“There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized.”"
You all know the book.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:14 am
The trailer bill makes sense and actually -gasp!- seems somewhat fair. Good call with that.
Comment by Trailer Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:14 am
I would assume these new speed cameras would work like the current parking and red light tickets. It is an administrative ticket and not a moving violation, so it will not go on your driving record.
You can appeal all parking and red light tickets, first by mail and then with an administrative hearing if you so choose.
I also heard on NPR this morning that the first offense will be a warning.
Comment by late to the party Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:16 am
When Democrats are doing what they are supposed to do, they are using government to improve people’s lives.
Republicans exist to consolidate wealth and power for the rich and powerful.
Republicans love to argue that government isn’t doing much good and it can’t help to improve people’s lives.
Using government to nickel-and-dime people with harassment over ticky-tack violations of laws and rules makes the Republican case for them.
Also, if Rahm’s involved, I’m pretty sure he’s figured a way to make sure his financial sector contributors get a piece of the action as “investors”.
This bill stinks! It’s the first time I have called Gov. Quinn and asked for a veto. I encourage others to call, (217) 782-0244.
Comment by Carl Nyberg Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:16 am
Wordslinger - Wow, hyperbole much?
We are talking about protecting children from speeders around schools.
This bill won’t turn the Illinois into a brutal, totalitarian state. LOL!
Comment by Horace Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:19 am
Why do you all want to speed through school speed zones?
Comment by RetiredStateEmployee Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:19 am
Carl,
You also forget we exist to keep the little man down and take away candy from babies.
We also exist to ensure that eventually we will led by Zod from Superman II
We also exist to run a massive conspiracy.
(insert maniacal laugh here)
Figured you would want to know that.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:20 am
As a user of the streets of Chicago, I am fine if the municipal budget gets balanced on the backs of drivers. As sin taxes go, this is a bigger priority for me than tobacco, alcohol, soda, or the like.
One thing, though. Can CTA bus drivers also actually pay their tickets for speeding and dangerous driving?
Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:22 am
This is why when ever someones says “Think of the children”, I check to see which of the bill of rights is being violated
Comment by Crow04 Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:24 am
==How do you fight these tickets? You can’t cross-examine a camera in court.==
I have done this successfully. Got a ticket mailed to me with a photo purporting to show my car running a red light. Turns out the computer misidentified one digit on the license plate.
Armed with a photo of my much different car and its clearly different plate number (and offering to show the judge the actual vehicle parked outside), I got the ticket thrown out.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:24 am
Rest assured, if the money brings in gobs of cash, it will just be used to pay Paul while we rob Peter.
There are nearly 1200 schools and parks in Chicago, assuming they aren’t including community colleges and universities.
That said, I actually think there’s some merit to this legislation, IF the cameras were placed in areas with a high number of traffic collisions or pedestrian accidents.
But if we really want to make are parks and schools safe, increased community policing is a much more robust solution.
Comment by Yellow Dog Democrat Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:25 am
- Unless, of course, he’s holding out for something in return for his support…? Maybe something bleepin’ golden? -
Yes, I’m certain that after decades of public service Quinn has finally found his golden goose, the speeding camera bill. Hat tip to the crack detective work there, Horace.
I, for one, am glad we don’t have a governor tripping over himself to sign a bill that will provide Mayor Emanuel with more cash from the middle class to dole out to the CMEs of the world.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:39 am
==We are talking about protecting children from speeders around schools.==
Horace, Rahm has failed to provide any evidence that speeders per se pose a credible threat to school children. Unless or until he does, I’m unconvinced that this is anything but a budget stabilizer.
I’m also concerned as to the seemingly broad definition of a “park”. Do playgrounds count? Softball and soccer fields? Basketball and tennis courts? Couldn’t any park district land, including Soldier Field, Grant Park, etc. be considered?
This bill needs to die a quick death.
Comment by The Doc Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:44 am
I drive around CPS Schools almost all of them have
crater like speed bumps 3-4 per block. I think
Rahm’s looking for revenue first and the kids
safty comes as an ancillary benefit. Quinn should
sign the bill.
Comment by mokenavince Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:47 am
Stl
Quinn has showed his colors time and time again. He sold out last year for 50k and an endorsement. But he did break that promise. Like many others. What Quinn does with the bill all depends on if his medication is working
Comment by Fed up Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:49 am
==I’m unconvinced that this is anything but a budget stabilizer.==
Well, the budget does need stabilizing, right? Of course Rahm’s using safety as an excuse to sell it - don’t blame him for that.
Comment by Robert Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 10:56 am
MokenaVince makes a great point about speed bumps.
If the goal is to deter speeding, speed bumps are clearly more effective. You simply can’t do it without wrecking your car.
But speed bumps aren’t a back door tax increase, either.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:20 am
===But speed bumps aren’t a back door tax increase, either. ===
You’d prefer a front-door tax hike?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:25 am
I hate it when I’m driving the limit and people behind me are acting like fools because they would like to go faster (and this is with me in the rightmost lane!). Therefore, any way to catch speeders, I’m for.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:25 am
Word — for heaven’s sake, we live in the land of “traffic calming.” I don’t think speed bumps, cul de sacs, and those “you can’t turn here” barriers are such a great idea. Speed bumps are great when school is in session, but they are ridiculously unnecessary at night, on weekends, during vacations and in the summer. Let’s just enforce the laws.
Comment by soccermom Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:28 am
Terrible bill; I really hope Quinn does the right thing. He’d be my hero…
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:39 am
“Speeding” is not a constitutionally guaranteed freedom. Put a cork in it.
Comment by King Louis XVI Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:52 am
It ends up being a tax on other people, my favorite kind of tax.
Aurora put in some speed bumps on the road next to mine to deal with some issues (and it was a better solution that closing a small stretch of road) and it slowed the traffic up and reduced traffic.
It also gives me the added entertainment value of people driving big SUVs going over them at 2 miles an hour.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:56 am
“You’d prefer a front-door tax hike? ”
Yes, Rich, seems that most here WOULD prefer a tax-hike on EVERYONE in order to preserver their “constitutional” right to violate the law with impunity.
I–seriously–love to speed around town a lot (like 15+ over, frequently, on LSD and elsewhere. yes, that makes me an UNsafe drive, I own that designation)–probably more than most of the complainers, and I live right by several instersection which would *certainly* have speed cameras. BUT, I’d much rather have the choice to opt-out of paying the “tax” by driving the speed limit than being required to pay the tax through an increas in property or sales tax or the introduction of a city income tax.
And, the suggestion above of “hire more police to write traffic tickets” is so laughable as to … I dunno what. Simply absurd.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 12:11 pm
“If the goal is to deter speeding, speed bumps are clearly more effective. You simply can’t do it without wrecking your car. ”
You’re suggesting putting spped bumps on Western Avenue? Are you insane?
Do you live in the city? Drive around the neighborhoods on any regular basis?
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 12:19 pm
First, Chicago has created an administrative adjudication process for municipal issues like parking tickets, red light tickets and other municipal infractions. None of these are heard in the courts (although if you want to pay $300, you can appeal to the circuit court). So there is no provision to confront your accuser as there is in court. We’ve had this system for years, and most Chicagoans have spent at least one visit to Superior Street.
Second, it is interesting that now it emerges that the cameras will only operate during school hours. My guess is that this was added to support the ridiculous notion that this has anything to do with school safety. School safety is an unintentional benefit from what is clearly only about revenue. I predict after a year or two, the time limits will quietly be dismissed and we’ll have 24/7 enforcement. No big deal, but it would be nice if they could be honest about this.
Finally, I get it and a tax in speeders is better than a property tax increase. This is the future of revenue, and I’ll eventually get used to it. In the meantime, I’ll be taping a note on my dashboard with school hours and holidays marked on it so I know when I’m under surveillance.
It ain’t great, but it ain’t the end of the world either.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 12:36 pm
47: “it is interesting that now it emerges that the cameras will only operate during school hours.”
afaik, it was *always* part of this proposal. Hours changed a bit, but always a limit on teh time.
47: “I predict after a year or two, the time limits will quietly be dismissed and we’ll have 24/7 enforcement.”
I’ll go with 6 months after the quarterly take in fines drops 50% from the first quarter after full implementation. So, probably more like 4 years, but agreed that it will happen. But, they will also have to go back to Springfield for authorization, no? So, maybe more like 6 years, unless the next guv owes Rahm.
What *I* want is an NYC-style “don’t block the box”, enforced by camera, with a $250 (or more) fine. Give a 6 month grace period, where everyone only gets a warning, so people can learn to adjust. But if anyone wants to aid traffic flow at, for example, the Elston-Fullerton-Damen intersection, that would be a big help.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 12:58 pm
This is an enormous over-reach by a mayor desperate for $$$$$. It will never contract but only expand from school zones to everywhere in the city to everywhere in the state. I seem to recall reading that the city did a test and found that at only two intersections the cameras would have raised $100 MILLION. This program alone could fill the budget hole. Once other municipalities see that, they will be clamoring for the authority to do the same thing.
Folks don’t think this is a big deal because it’s only Chicago and only some places? Think again.
And lest you think the City is not beyond artificially lowering the speed limits to jack up the revenue? Think North Lake Shore Drive. Many years ago Daley lowered the speed limit to 40 in the winter to “protect the median trees.” Then, a couple years ago, there were a lot of potholes so they said they needed to keep the limit at 40 “to protect drivers.” but that they would return it to 45 post construction. Now, LSD is fine and dandy and the City refuses to answer why they’ve never returned North Lake Shore drive to 45. Anyone care to guess?
Hold on to your wallets folks. You’re going to need them.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 1:06 pm
Agree Chris on the don’t block the box. Makes me crazy. Of course the biggest offenders are CTA buses so if we did that, they’d be back for a gridlock bailout!
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 1:08 pm
“Folks don’t think this is a big deal because it’s only Chicago and only some places?”
I think it’s not a big deal, bc I think it’s not a big deal. Install ‘em everywhere, I’ll just have to live with not speeding around town anymore–at least where there are cameras.
“And lest you think the City is not beyond artificially lowering the speed limits to jack up the revenue?”
You *really* think that they would lower the general speed limit from 30?? They may well remove some areas with permitted 35, but 30 ain’t dropping, and that, even with cameras, means 35 is the real limit.
Also, just occurred to me–there are a bunch of posted “school zone” 20 mph limits that will become *major* traps from 7am to 4pm (or likely longer, with the longer school day next year). (using near-to-me examples) Ashland and IPR (next to Lake View HS) and Addison and Western (next to Lane Tech–watch out Cub fans) are *prime* candidates for that.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 1:16 pm
“Of course the biggest offenders are CTA buses so if we did that, they’d be back for a gridlock bailout!”
Next CTA union contract negotiation, I’m going all in bugging my Alderman, Forrest and Rahm about making the drivers personally responsible for tickets–if not for the fines directly, via suspensions and eventual for-cause firings after certain numbers of tickets. I’d combine the two, of course, making them pay their own tickets AND risk suspensions and termination for having too many.
Ditto taxi drivers–too many tickets = medallion suspension, too many more = revocation. What constitutes “too many”, I’m not sure.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 1:21 pm
No Chris, you’re correct. On streets with already artificially low speed limits like 30 on Western, that won’t drop. But yes, if 35 drops to 30, it will likely be to gin up revenue like on Lake Shore Drive.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 1:22 pm
“But yes, if 35 drops to 30, it will likely be to gin up revenue like on Lake Shore Drive. ”
I don’t find myself on 35 roads in Chicago that often, and the only ticket I ever got on LSD was when it was 45. I feel (maybe wrongly) that there has been less enforecement on LSD since they didn’t go back to 45, and that the decreased enforcement started before that, but maybe my use pattern has just changed.
They can’t possibly be intending to issue tickets where the measured speed is 36 in a 30, tho, can they? I’m sure they will act like it, to keep people at 35 or under, but it seems like it would invite *overwhelming* dispute if they actually did. Same with writing 11+ for 41.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 1:31 pm
The reality is that many, many roads in Chicago are posted far underspeed– LSD is the best example, but there are several others. I would guesstimate the average driving speed on LSD to be about 50 to 55mph (assuming normal traffic, not rush hour when it drops to about 10mph). Since it is impractical, logistically impossible and politically sucicidal to give tickets to every car on LSD at the same time, enforcement is limited to super-speeders. I frequently see bozos flying at 75mph+ on LSD, especially on motorcycles. The difference between a saavy policeman and an automated camera is pretty obvious, though– the camera just does what it is told without judgement. Any car that veers outside its programmed parameters is going to get a ticket, no leeway or discretion. And, with the mechanisms built around such non-violation tickets, there is no real way to dispute those tickets either. So there is going to be a massive cash influx at first. The question is whether there is then going to be a massive citizen backlash to go with it (e.g. parking rate jumps…). If so, the City is likely to then have variable enforcement based on posted limits vs. aldermanic compaints vs. citizen outrage etc. Is it fair and reasonable to have variable enforcement of posted speeds which may be far lower than average traffic currently? And does anybody actually believe this has any relationship to school (AND PARK??) safety? Sheesh.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 2:02 pm
“The question is whether there is then going to be a massive citizen backlash to go with it (e.g. parking rate jumps…). ”
Almost everyone I talk to (yeah, self-selecting group) prefers the higher parking rates and greater availability of parking, but is upset about the horrible, horrible *deal* the city got.
I’m quite upset about the giveaway, but *love* the greater parking availability created by the modestly (outside “downtown”) higher parking rates, which, since I spend at most a handful of hours a week parked at a meter (that is, less than 200 hours a year), only somewhat more burdensome than a city sticker, and I save *huge* time not having to circle a block to find an available space.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 2:31 pm
also:
“And does anybody actually believe this has any relationship to school (AND PARK??) safety?”
Yes, it absolutely does–it is an undeniable *fact* that a car-person accident with a car going 20 has much lower mortality than with a car going 30, nevermind with a car going 40.
Wanna argue about whether there’s a benefit from cameras on LSD? Show me an *actual* proposal to put cameras on LSD, rather than a supposition that they will be.
I agree that, at least initially, speed cameras on LSD would cause a *huge* backlash.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 2:35 pm
When I drive in the City, I see speeders as a problem. Speed cameras will slow them down.
One advantage of automated enforcement is that it’s colorblind — no racial profiling.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 2:36 pm
Come on Chris. Your numbers mistake car v. car for pedestrian v. car. The impact to a person makes no difference (a person getting hit at 25 is not going to do much better than one hit at 35), and reaction and stopping time are nearly identical.
Moreover, do you think it is safer to have a car going 35 with the driver looking around for traffic and kids, or is it safer for a driver going 25 and repeatedly looking down to make sure he is going 25 and not 26?
You really think this is about safety?
For those who claim certain speeds on LSD are unsafe: Maybe, for really bad drivers. The area around Oak Street is bad at any speed. Other than that curve though, safe speed depends on traffic. As with regard to school zones, people are a heck of lot safer watching for traffic than with their eyes down on watching their speed.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 2:44 pm
” The impact to a person makes no difference (a person getting hit at 25 is not going to do much better than one hit at 35), ”
You’re on the internet to write that, so you should probalby take the two seconds to check before being WRONG.
Read this:
http://www.autoliv.com/wps/wcm/connect/cca723004e01fd2f8d278f5246ea8885/RosenSander.pdf?MOD=AJPERES
or this:
http://humantransport.org/sidewalks/SpeedKills.htm
or, you know, anything else of the million + results for a google search of [car pedestrian speed fatalities]. There is a HUGE difference in survivability of a car v. pedestrian accident involving a 20 mph vehicle and a 30 mph vehicle. Arguing to the contrary is being willfully blind to FACTS!!!
Now, that doesn’t mean that I think this is “really about safety”, and you are just presenting a strawman. I’ve been bugging people here for *days* about this (accused of being a bad lobbyist, even), and have consistently been on the “who cares if it’s a backdoor tax? it’s totally optional” position.
But claiming that there is NO safety benfit for pedestrians from cars going slower? IGNORANCE!!
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 2:59 pm
ps:
“is it safer for a driver going 25 and repeatedly looking down to make sure he is going 25 and not 26?”
If you’re the sort of driver who need to do this, to avoid getting a ticket for going 36, then you shouldn’t be on the road, bc you are a BAD driver. If you can’t be bothered to slow down to 20 for two blocks for a school zone (or a construction zone) during applicable hours, you deserve a ticket for being an anti-social twit.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 3:02 pm
Skeeter
== is it safer for a driver going 25 and repeatedly looking down to make sure he is going 25 and not 26? ==
Drivers going one mph over the limit need not worry. Ticketing will start at 6 over, with $50 tickets for driving 6-10 mph over. I know you’re relieved.
Comment by reformer Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 3:23 pm
Chris,
Those are very compelling studies.
The first analyzed 12 — yep, 12 — fatalities with speeds somewhere near the speeds we discussed. For what it is worth, there are typically about 4,500 pedestrian deaths every year in the U.S.
According to the second, at 25 mph, the odds of a fatal accident are somewhere between 5% and 45%.
Wow. With studies as extensive and specific as that, the opposition must be blind! /snark/
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 3:54 pm
While there is formally a city rule against it I use a photo blocker on my plates. Its a spray that reflects the ticket photo flash and blocks out your plate. As long as you spray frequently you get zero red light or robot speed tickets. It costs about $16 a can and is well worth it. Unless the city is going to test each plate it is not going to catch you. I would say in the last year I have seen the flash of the red light camera about three times and never gotten a ticket and no I do not try to run red lights.
Comment by Rod Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 4:07 pm
“The first analyzed 12 — yep, 12 — fatalities with speeds somewhere near the speeds we discussed”
You don’t read very carefully, do you?
The “first one” cited 8 other studies that showed fatality % of 1-22% at ~20mph and 7-85% at ~30.
Then, itin the reported study, looking at 490 car v. ped accidents, showed 4-5% fatalities at ~20-~25 mph and 26% at ~30 mph, 28% at ~35mph, and 75% at ~40mph.
The “second” showed 5% fatalities at 20 mph and 45% at 30 mph.
Yet, you are trying to argue that there is NO DIFFERENCE between being hit by a car traveling 20 mph vs. 30 mph–and you base your argument on what? Personal experience??
Note that, in the second link, is the following, regarding one of the studies cited therein:
“The authors of this study observed that, because of those who “don’t believe in the influence of driving speed on impact speed” or who “just don’t care at all”, “it must be proven in every country that the laws of Isaac Newton are true”.) ”
I assume you, too, think that Sir Isaac was wrong. Which I think says more than enough.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 4:12 pm
“I would say in the last year I have seen the flash of the red light camera about three times and never gotten a ticket ”
In the last year, I’ve seen the camera flash a couple dozen times in situations that would be unlikely to result in a ticket once the video is reviewed (and, yes, based on my understanding, each “violation” is reviewed before a notice goes out). I wouldn’t rely on the spray, nor consider your experience proof–unless you were actually intentionally running dead-red lights to test the spray’s efficacy.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 4:15 pm
Chris,
Come on. Read your own stuff. The first article stated that between 40 kph and 59 kph it looked at 12 fatalities. Read it again. Take a look at Table 3, labeled, conveniently, “Summary of Empirical Data.”
With regard to the second, the data jumps tremendously within the range of 20 to 30 and we have no idea where the real data points are. Just as I said, at 25 mph, it might be 5% and 45%. It is meaningless.
Thanks for asking about my qualifications. I’ve spent most of the past 20 years in courtrooms cross-examining experts in trucking cases.
How about you, Chris? What’s your personal experience??? (Hey, I used three question marks and not two as you did. Do I win?)
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 4:23 pm
Not to digress, but if we are going to believe that the Rosen study Chris relies on means anything, then we should set school speeds at 119 kph, because, according that study (one that you would have be blind not to find determinative) the fatality rate at 119 kph is zero.
Or give drivers a range of either 9 kph (zero) or over 110(also zero). I don’t know. I don’t think I trust those numbers as much as Chris trust them.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 4:32 pm
People, STOP HAVING CHILDREN!
Comment by Damfunny Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 5:19 pm
“Just as I said, at 25 mph, it might be 5% and 45%”
25 mph = ~41 kph.
From the first link, in the table you reference:
Speed in KPH: 40–49
Cases: 99
Fatalities: 5
Percentage: 5.1
Weighted Rate: 2.9
Where on earth are you getting 45% from?
Let’s put it this way: If you *had* to be hit by a car, would you rather be hit by a car traveling at 20 mph or 30 mph? I take it *your* answer is that it doesn’t matter; I’d take the 20 mph car, every time.
Comment by Chris Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 5:19 pm
Skeeter, have you ever heard of Newton’s Law?
Sheesh, man.
Also, think driver reaction times. The faster the speed, the less reaction time.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 6:41 pm
Yeah, and like banning handguns in the city will stop people from getting shot too. I think there’s a lot of false assumptions here.
Comment by oz Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 11:02 pm
Sheesh Rich, yes I have. And I’ve cross-examined (and presented expert testimony) on that issue (and all those related issue — if you want to know how tread depth impacts stopping distance, i can ramble on about that at great length). I know way too much about it. Whether my clients pay millions or just my fees depends on my understanding of it.
Because of that experience, I know reaction time is better when people are focused on the road. They need the time to perceive the danger and then react. Anything that takes attention way from the road is bad. Stopping distance at 25 as opposed to 35 is not different as to make it significant.
Chris asks whether I would rather get hit by a car going 20 or 30. If I’m crossing the street, my odds of being hit at all are lower if the driver is looking up rather than down. I will prefer the driver going 30 and looking up than one going 20 and looking down to make sure he doesn’t get a ticket.
As I noted, I’ve spent 20 years in courtrooms dealing with these issues. Given the “Sheesh”, I assume Rich has way more experience on the issue that I have, What’s your experience with it, Rich? Tell us how much time you’ve spent studying accident reconstruction. Share your vast knowledge with us.
Comment by Skeeter Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 5:49 am
- Rich Miller - Thursday, Nov 10, 11 @ 6:41 pm:
Skeeter, have you ever heard of Newton’s Law?
===========
This is Illinois, Rich. Here it is Newton’s Suggested Guidelines (how much ya got in your pocket).
Comment by Cincinnatus Friday, Nov 11, 11 @ 8:48 am
“prefer the driver going 30 and looking up than one going 20 and looking down to make sure he doesn’t get a ticket”
But that ain’t the choice I presented. I want to know if you would rather be HIT by a car travelling 20 mph or a car travelling 30 mph. You’re ridiculous avoidance of the question means that it’s a bad fact for your viewpoint.
It’s essentially the same question as whether you would rather be shot by a .22 or a .357–the answer is pretty obvious, if you don’t fight the hypothetical by saying: “357s are mostly owned by responsible gun owners who wouldn’t shoot me if I didn’t attack them first, while 22s are the preferred sidearm of the psychotic, so I’d rather confront a 357 than a 22″. You’re creating an entire world around your argument, rather than addressing the question.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 4:55 pm
“Yeah, and like banning handguns in the city will stop people from getting shot too. I think there’s a lot of false assumptions here. ”
False assumptions *where*? I’ve (1) agreed that it’s mainly about revenue enhancement and (2) not necessarily going to slow anyone down, but (3) as between cars in my neighborhood driving 35 or driving 25, *my* preference is for cars driving slower, and (4) that, as between increasing fines and increasing general taxes, I’m *stroingly* in favor of increasing fines, b/c I have control over whether or not they affect me.
Comment by Chris Wednesday, Nov 16, 11 @ 4:59 pm