Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Another reminder about toys for LSSI kids at City Club
Next Post: ADM decides on Chicago
Posted in:
* Tribune editorial…
Chicago will soon be blanketed with [speed cameras], in hopes of slowing drivers around schools and parks. No more cat-and-mouse between cops and speeders. If you’re speeding, you’ll get caught.
Why not deploy the cameras on the interstates, where motorists feel they can barrel along with impunity?
It’s not a perfect solution. Illinois already uses cameras to enforce speed limits in construction zones, but some of those tickets have been thrown out because the photos aren’t sharp enough. Also, the ticket goes to the owner of the car, who is not necessarily the driver. And cameras are a poor substitute for troopers, who can recognize drunken or distracted driving and other safety violations, such as failure to wear seat belts.
Still, a reliable camera system could be a backstop in areas that troopers say are largely unpatrolled. And yes, it would be a big moneymaker for the state, judging from the number of speeders. Too bad. Drivers who brazenly disregard the posted speed limit deserve to get a ticket. It’s not up to individual motorists to decide — or guess — how fast they can safely drive.
* The Question: Do you support speed cams on Interstates and Expressways? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:13 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Another reminder about toys for LSSI kids at City Club
Next Post: ADM decides on Chicago
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“… the ticket goes to the owner of the car, who is not necessarily the driver. …”
That says it in a nut shell. I have experience with Chicago’s red light cameras. My daughter ran a red light, but the ticket came to me.
One way to resolve the issue is to allow municipal cops out on the interstate and let them write the tickets.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:18 pm
This slope is more slippery than most. Why not just insist cars can’t be manufactured to go faster than 65mph? I rented a smaller moving truck once that topped out at 60. That was the most dangerous ride I’ve ever been on. Nearly every driver I witnessed appeared to be missing 9 fingers.
Comment by A guy... Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:23 pm
Speed cameras are un-American.
Semi-snark, semi-serious.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:24 pm
There is an unhealthy percentage of drivers who seem to believe that the traffic laws just don’t apply to them. I think the cameras are a fine idea. Let’s let technology do a little of the work. And if you let someone irresponsible drive your car, then that’s your fault.
Comment by kimocat Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:29 pm
I only voted “No” because “String-of-profanities No” wasn’t an option.
– MrJM
Comment by MrJM Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:29 pm
Like to drive fast. And in addition, the next thing you know drones are looking in your bedroom window.
Comment by Samurai Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:34 pm
I’m opposed to speed and red light cameras. The main reason for these things, revenue, is a double edged sword. It’s like hiking cigarette taxes up - sure, it can provide a short term revenue boost, but people modify their habits, and the revenue declines. With cigarettes, that results in further tax hikes, but revenue stagnates or declines over time. The end result is a social good, but it’s not a reliable revenue source. And, in the end, it works as a regressive tax that hits the poor the hardest. A rich person who buys 1000 packs of cigarettes a year with a $7 tax pays the same dollar amount of income in tax as a poor person with the same habit, but a much lower percentage of their income. Same thing with speed and red light cameras.
While I can certainly see that, over time, safety improvements will occur with speed and red light cameras, just as with improved health occuring because of high cigarette taxes, speed limits are often pretty arbitrary, and they don’t shift based on conditions. Is it really necessary to enforce a 65 MPH limit on a wide open highway in the middle of nowhere with clear weather conditions? Is 65 too high on a day or night during a blizzard?
At some point, it would be a good thing to see speed limits change based on conditions - of course, that would require a huge capital investment (digital speed limit signs, solar panels to power them, an internet connection to communicate with whereever speed limits are set).
So, if you’re going 30 in a 25 in front of a school at 2 in the morning on a clear night, it’s probably perfectly safe. If you’re going 25 in a 25 during blizzard conditions in front of a school 15 minutes before the bell rings in the morning, that would be far less safe.
A human being (cop) could make that judgment call, and not bother pulling you over at 2 am, and ding you with reckless driving at 8 am on the blizzardy day.
The camera doesn’t care - it’ll ding the 2 am driver and let the 8 am driver go.
Comment by jerry 101 Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:40 pm
Want to end speeding? Make the fines higher. Maybe a % of your income. Cannot pay, no license. Caught without one, community service up the waazoo
solved, next….
Comment by Person 8 Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:41 pm
No No way safety is never the issue just more revenue.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:41 pm
Oi.
If speeding is dangerous, why do we want to change the offense to an administrative matter? Why do we not want to ticket the actual driver? Why do we not want the speeding offense be passed on to the insurance company?
Simply another money grab in the guise of a “societal good”
Comment by plutocrat03 Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:41 pm
This is the “nanny state” I abhor. We need to people to be responsible for what they do even when no one is watching.
Comment by Pot calling kettle Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:42 pm
Voted no because of a number of problems, including sending the ticket to the car owner as opposed to figuring out who was driving the car.
A second problem is the inability to even accurately identify the car due to the plates being inaccurate. Plates aren’t always removed when a car is sold. Plates get moved from one car to another with the registration being updated. This has all been going on for almost as long as there have been plates.
And while they are less likely to be speeding, cars in the antique category (25+ years) with proper registration can legitimately display plates from the year of manufacture and those plates have absolutely zero connection to the car or owner … just ask a friend of mine who busted a 45 construction zone camera about 5 AM.
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:43 pm
Not in favor of the cameras.
I’ve always been amazed though that everyone drives slower on the wide open interstate south of Chicago than they do on the bumper to bumper toll roads around Chicago. I think the “herd mentality” sets in and they think they have anonymity in the heavy traffic. They could probably more safely drive 85 on that wide open stretch than 55 there; but…
Comment by Logic not emotion Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:46 pm
The Tribune is right. You hardly ever see a trooper in the Chicago Metropolitan Area patrolling area expressways and tollways. It is amazing how frequently traffic slows down when a rare sighting of a trooper vehicle occurs. Between that and stronger judicial enforcement (the article details tickets are tossed from 70 mph and below in court routinely) should be strong start.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:47 pm
We could make a lot of money with “littering cams” on every sidewalk corner as well.
Didn’t fully tuck that gum wrapper into your pocket on a windy day? $500.
Walking across an empty street before the light turns? Jaywalking. $250.
After all, people who trash our environment and think they are “above the law” must be punished.
And that punishment shall fill our coffers. For no-bid contracts to our friends.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:47 pm
The Trib or SunTimes recently did a story that around 90 or 95 percent of the drivers on Illinois highways do not follow the speed limit. Are we supposed to believe that the whole Trib editorial board is in the 5 to 10 percent camp?
Comment by Just Observing Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:51 pm
No, I’m not in favor of speed cameras at all. If I broke the law, prove I did. A speed camera doesn’t even put me in the car.
It’s a money scam, just like many municipal traffic ordinances.
They have a whale of a lobbying crew here in Illinois, though.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 12:52 pm
Voted no for the reasons mentioned. The owner of the car is not necessarily the driver.
Comment by Stones Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Good reinforcement of rules…you speed and get a ticket a month later in the mail. This is just a money making scheme by the state and local governments. I would love to see accident data based on people slamming their breaks to avoid penalties in these areas.
Comment by Frustrated Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:05 pm
Yes, there should be cameras. But there should also be reasonable speed limits. Going in to the city on I55 there is no reason for it to drop to 55 mph. No one goes 55 mph and just because it is in a populated area doesn’t mean it has to be 55.
The cameras should be mounted on the overhead signs and tickets should also be issued to those drivers who weave in and out of traffic at high rates of speed and change lanes at the last second with no signal just to gain one spot. I have seen more accidents caused by these clowns than I have a groups of cars all going the same speed but over the limit.
And there should more of a crackdown on people who drive in the far left lane slower than the posted speed limit.
I know, I know, but it’s Christmas and I can wish can’t I?
Comment by Irish Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:08 pm
==the next thing you know drones are looking in your bedroom window.==
Oh please.
+++++++++++++++++++
I don’t favor this for the reason many have mentioned, which is that you may not be the driver of the car.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:10 pm
==And there should more of a crackdown on people who drive in the far left lane slower than the posted speed limit.==
Amen. The left lane is for passing. Nothing drives me nuts more than somebody in the left lane going the same speed as the car they are supposed to be “passing.” I’ve also told my friend who is a cop that I would nominate him for Officer of the Year if he would start busting all of the dopes driving 10 miles an hour or more under the speed limit. If you are afraid to drive the speed limit then get the heck off of the road.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:11 pm
Sounds like the kind of policy that big city folk who are driven to work would support. For the rest of us….. not so much.
Comment by in the know Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:24 pm
No. Ticket the driver, not the car, and prove who was driving.
Comment by PolPal56 Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:31 pm
I vote NO because I see future license plate readers used to track locations, routes, and stopping points. This would end ourfreedom to move around and associate freely without more government surveilance.
Cell phone tracking is already here.
Comment by Chefjeff Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:40 pm
You can bet the RLC thing is picking up speed because the correct people are now in place to make money off it. This will be a huge source of corruption: insider deals, kickbacks, lobbying, and campaign contributions all in abundance.
Comment by Toure's Latte Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:43 pm
No…This is truly a too big, Big Brother issue.
Comment by Louis Howe Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:44 pm
“Let’s make Illinois into a destination spot for tourism”.
For what, traffic court? Do the yokels at the Trib ever think of all the spin-off effects of really ignorant policy decisions? (sorry, really shouldn’t do any commenting after just going through a State Auditor report about CMS property management).
There’s all sorts of policy and operational implications when you do stuff like this, and Illinois would fast get a reputation as “America’s Speedtrap”. Do we really want that?
This just sounds to me like a so-called ’solution’ desperately in search of a problem to solve.
Not in favor.
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:46 pm
I only support speed cams that have been delivered by an Amazon drone.
Comment by Michelle Flaherty Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:49 pm
“I only support speed cams that have been delivered by an Amazon drone.”
Glad you’re not in a hurry.
Comment by Judgment Day Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:53 pm
Speed cameras cannot distinguish between traditional license plates and legislative license plates. As such, this bill will never pass.
Comment by Just Me Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Orwellian.
Comment by In_The_Middle Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:01 pm
Voted no. The highways wouldn’t function at the posted speed limits
Comment by crow04 Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:02 pm
I voted no on cameras, as I remember somewhere in the constitution I have the right to be confronted by with the witness against me if I have committed a crime. How is it that a camera can bear witness against me in a court of law? Although it would be interesting to see them tear down the camera bring it to court, examine it (question it about the alleged crime), and then cross examine it. Just-My-View.
Comment by Just-My-View Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:08 pm
I voted no because I fear backlash from my fellow CFB commenters.
Comment by Siriusly Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:09 pm
Voted no - I agree with crow04, travel any highway or tollway and watch traffic slow down to 35/45 MPH (at least do the speed limit!!) when drivers see a cop at the side of the road. People will be slamming on their breaks at every camera location and I suspect that will trigger more accidents. If cops pull over drivers who are speeding, THAT will reduce the number of speeders on the road. As far as I can tell on the routes I drive, there just aren’t enough troopers to make a difference.
Comment by The KQ Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:13 pm
I would totally be in favor of traffic cams and calculating average MPH between tollway exits IF traffic laws (and laws in general) were created by an unbiased commission of experts. AND if the term “speed limit” didn’t connote “recommended speed.”
Both of those criteria not in existence, it’s obvious this is a scam to get more money.
Comment by xbone analyst Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:14 pm
No. But, if the contractor specs are written in such a way that only a company I will then create can qualify, I could change my mind.
Comment by Bird Dog Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:16 pm
Is there a sound correaltion between average speed and bad consequences, say 60 mph vs. 65 mph, beyond the anecdotal? The Chicago Tribune ran a story on Sunday that showed the average speeds on the interstates and tollways to be well above the posted limits. What the paper didn’t do was answer the question as to whether the additional speed made a nickel’s worth of difference. Sure ISP will tell you that speed limits are all about safety. Jimmmy Carter said it was all about saving fuel. Does anyone recall driving from St. Louis to Chicago at 55 mph? So, it’s thumbs down here for speed drones, cameras, etc.
Comment by Keyser Soze Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:25 pm
no. nothing more than extra taxation.
Comment by walkinfool Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:30 pm
If it matters to anyone, there are generally less than 200 troopers patrolling across the state at any given time. Over half of these would be concentrated in the four districts (2,5,15 and Chcgo) in and around Chicago.
Comment by Trooper Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:37 pm
Cameras are just another money gouge. The reason we’re now seeing laws against drivers using cell phones is that the cell phone companies have saturated the market and no longer need to buy legislators who will hold back on the needed laws against distracted driving. Right now, speed and red light cameras are the current way to bleed the average guy for money. I’m sure there is another scheme ready to be rolled out when we can’t find any more locations for cameras.
Comment by aufjunk Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:39 pm
Trooper, it is my understanding that the number you post is much lower than it was 10 years ago. Is that correct?
Comment by dupage dan Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:48 pm
Garmin offers a feature where they will track speed camera locations, and wanr you when you are nearing one.
It would reach a point where it stopped generating much reveneu and just became a deternet on that streach of road. Thus the cost of maintenance in theory could become greater then the revenues generated.
I support this in dangerous areas for accidents and around places with people and kids. on the highway there has always been this unwritten rule that its ok to speed a bit, just dont be excessive and the cops get a chance to catch you…. I prefer this to the orwellian verasion of camera laden roadways
where is the fun or americn some laws were made to be broken attitude in that!
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:49 pm
DD, we are down about 600 from where we are authorized to be. In the early/mid 80’s the state hired a massive number of troopers to man the expressways as part of the Daley/Thompson lotto machines at the airport deal. Those guys have all been retiring the last few years and hiring hasn’t kept up.
Comment by Trooper Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:53 pm
–Daley/Thompson lotto machines at the airport deal–
Washington, not Daley.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:54 pm
Last I heard there were around 1500 troopers of all ranks. About half are dedicated to patrol. The rest are in investigations, forensics, gaming, medicaid fraud, etc.
Comment by Trooper Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:56 pm
And I voted no.
Comment by Trooper Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 2:59 pm
As an expat living in New Orleans who just paid his 8th camera ticket, let me just give you a heads up on the world of hurt these cameras are. Crimes include: edging past the stop line before turning right on red, not stopping completely, quickly enough, and (while I can’t confirm this) having Illinois plates. I think I put a new wing on the courthouse down here with all the $$$.
Comment by No Time Fa Dat Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:02 pm
Speed cameras on the interstates…sounds like a Silverstein bill.
Comment by Under Influenced Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:03 pm
and I agree with every word that @Demoralized @ 1:11 said. It’s no much the speed that’s the danger, it’s the difference in speed. Race cars go 200mph quite nicely and relatively safely…until one of stops going 200mph. That’s when the mayhem begins. IMHO, it’s not so much the cars going 80, it’s the cars going 80 zipping in and out of the cars going 65 and the cars going 65 never being quite sure if there’s going to be a car going 80 next to them.
Comment by Skeptic Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:04 pm
These things are more about $$$ than safety. Other states have had speed and red-light cameras for years and long term studies have shown “safety” is not an effect of these things. Revenue on the other hand… a BIG impact to revenue. If you want more money, tax for it. dont tell me its for the “children’s safety”.
Comment by RonOglesby Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:08 pm
Skeptic the autobahn had wildly disparate speeds in its vehicles and it works there. BUT thhey do have minimal standards for vehicles mechanically that we lack. We have things driving donw the road that they would not allow on the road
dorrs taped closed, bodies rusted out, breaks failing etc etc….
Comment by Ghost Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:09 pm
Trooper
What’s your verdict on the existing ISP use of speed cams in construction zones?
== I have the right to be confronted by with the witness against me if I have committed a crime.==
Tickets from Rahm’s speed cams, as with red-light cameras, are a petty offense, not a crime that can send you to jail.
Comment by Anon Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:21 pm
I voted no. These types of ‘laws’ are why my wife and I, and many others I know south of I-80, are looking at relocating. We’re looking at Tennessee.
Comment by Jechislo Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:26 pm
Or better yet, how about using cameras in the Illinois House and Senate and charge legislators with violating their oath every time they vote for a bill that’s blatently unconstitutional. \semi-snark off
Comment by Jechislo Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:30 pm
–These types of ‘laws’ are why my wife and I, and many others I know south of I-80, are looking at relocating. We’re looking at Tennessee. –
They have speed cameras in Tennessee.
Comment by wordslinger Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:34 pm
Anon,
We do not have speed cameras in my district. Last I heard they weren’t using them anywhere anymore. If you see one it is probably for visual deterrence only.
Comment by Trooper Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:39 pm
==because I see future license plate readers==
These already exist.
==This would end ourfreedom to move around and associate freely without more government surveilance==
If you are driving around in your car you have no right to privacy. Your car can be seen in many places - red light cameras, toll booths, etc.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:50 pm
==How is it that a camera can bear witness against me in a court of law?==
Umm, that would be the video.
Comment by Demoralized Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 3:52 pm
Voted no, unless the camera is set for the actual limit of nine miles over the sign limit, which is where I set the speed control. By the way, it was Nixon, not Carter, who did the whole 55 mph to save gas thingy. Most of the rural two lanes now posted for 55 were originally 65; when the feds repealed the law, Edgar’s engineers did traffic studies and recommended that they remain at 55. Engineering studies usually include costs as a part of the study; Edgar was a cheapskate-he probably didn’t want to buy new signs…
Comment by downstate commissioner Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:05 pm
No, the video cannot be used for a traffic offences he infraction is changed to be an administrative issue and the the video is OK
Comment by Plutocrat03 Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:07 pm
X/4 = 496
Comment by Phenomynous Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:15 pm
No vote for many of reasons stated previously. I may say yes IF the real reason for the cameras was stated without fluff.
Comment by FormerParatrooper Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:20 pm
Word -
And I know where every one of them is.
https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?gl=us&ptab=2&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&msa=0&msid=202050011648945115542.0004a2af106d7dbc2643e
Comment by Jechislo Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:20 pm
Keyser,
The safety issue is one of physics. The faster your car is going, the more force your car is confronted with in a crash. There’s no question that damage at 80 is exponentially more significant than damage at 40. That said, I only think that’s one small element to the picture which is why I voted no.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:29 pm
I live in the City and regularly go by a speed camera on Foster Street on the northwest side. Because the City must give motorists fair notice of the camera there are warning signs posted well before the camera.
So I slow down and then speed back up again. Yes the speed camera works it slows me down for maybe 200 yards. It catches only those drivers who have no situational awareness, it is largely useless in catching real speeders. By that I mean those going 25 and 30 over the limit on a city street with a posted limit of 30 mph like Foster St has.
Comment by Rod Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:36 pm
Yes-with all the following conditions.
1. Warning signs set 500 feet ahead of and at 100feet before the actual spot the speed is measured.
2. No actual ticket or fine if less then 15 MPH over the limit.
3. Informational non-ticket sent at 6 to 14 MPH over. This would help parents keep tabs on how their kids are driving.
4. ALL revenue over cost shall go to the TRS, SURS, and SERS.
5. Have the law require ALL revenue over cost for all existing and future red light and speed cameras state wide go into the TRS, SURS, and SERS, not to cities and towns. I am sure Rahm and all the other towns won’t mind. After all, they all say they have these in ONLY for safety, NOT for revenue.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:36 pm
===I voted no. These types of ‘laws’ are why my wife and I, and many others I know south of I-80, are looking at relocating. We’re looking at Tennessee===
Goodbye.
Comment by Anonymous Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 5:10 pm
Voted no. Speeding is one of the last refuges of the sinner.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 5:42 pm
Voted “no” but more because I’m against our obsession with technical fixes to social problems. One of the reasons that the Germans (mentioned above) have higher speeds and fewer accidents is that 1. drivers’ ed is much more rigorous and 2. penalties are much higher, i.e. they actually take your license away for life for infractions we merely fine.
Comment by globalguy Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 6:27 pm
DuPage - Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 4:36 pm:
/s on
What? No money for Chicago pension systems?
Comment by RNUG Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 6:32 pm
Voted yes. The money could be used to pay down the pension debt.
Comment by Capo Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 6:49 pm
I voted no. I routinely speed and I don’t want to get caught.
Comment by chemicalriverside Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 7:10 pm
Voted no. I realize the state has to raise money, but this is going to be one of the most annoying ways to raise money that I can think of. I mean, I don’t want my taxes to go up, but if you raise tax A by such and such amount I can plan for that. If you have speed cameras everywhere then I can’t plan for when I get a ticket. The expense is lumpy, irregular, and difficult to budget for. Much as I hate to say it, just raise my darned taxes a little.
Comment by Guzzlepot Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 8:01 pm
Only … only … if the tickets are run through the court system, where the Secretary of State and insurance companies will have access to the data. Otherwise, no.
Comment by Smitty Irving Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 9:16 pm
@RNUG 6:32 Good idea. I amend #5. Fines in Chicago to go to the Chicago pension funds. However, the city to be required to still make their FULL contribution until the funds are fully funded. Otherwise if the cameras bring in 10 million, Rahm would reduce the city payment 10 million and spend it on other things.
Comment by DuPage Tuesday, Dec 17, 13 @ 11:19 pm
I also voted no, but I have some caveats. I don’t drive and I won’t deny I smile when I see the light flash at someone breaking the law (and I think they usually catch people who are breaking the law).
But the studies I’ve read haven’t convinced me that they do anything to improve pedestrian safety. Combine that with the problems of companies like Redflex and a general aversion to camera-based law enforcement and I come down against it.
Comment by LakeviewJ Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 7:59 am
Though obviously, this was a question about interstate cameras and none of my pedestrian concerns hold water…
Comment by LakeviewJ Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 8:00 am
no, no, no - photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle, and for all practical purposes, there is no “accuser” for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right.
Comment by Bradd Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 9:43 am
No. Check the Magna Carta 1215 A.D. The right to confront one’s accuser in open court. Just another block in the future police state control grid.
Prediction: scanners at toll booths and freeway on-ramps to scan cars for firearms. Then the red light whirls around at the local State Police HQ, and the troopers fan out to stop the armed citizen with probable cause already in hand. Duty to inform if you have your carry license.
Maybe Rep. Brandon Phelps can sponsor that bill too. It’s for “officer safety” after all.
Comment by John Wednesday, Dec 18, 13 @ 10:57 pm