No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million

[The Prof]

Contrary to its claims, the City of Chicago’s red light cameras are not based on safety, according to an Inspector General (IG) audit of the program that brought in more than $71 million in revenue for the city last year.

The audit, released on May 14, sought to determine if the city’s 384 red light cameras were installed based on the Chicago Department of Transportation’s (CDOT) “stated primary criterion of reducing angle crashes to increase safety.”

The IG found no evidence to support the city’s rationale for the program, which is to “increase safety on Chicago streets.”

“CDOT was unable to substantiate its claims that the City chose to install red light cameras at intersections with the highest angle crash rates in order to increase safety,” the IG said. “Neither do we know, from the information provided by CDOT, why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated, nor what the City’s rationale is for the continued operation of any individual camera at any individual location.”

The IG also found it “troubling” that the CDOT could not provide any documentation as to how they chose intersections to place red light cameras and why cameras remain at intersections that have reported no accidents.

“If the intent of the [Red Light Camera] RLC program is to increase safety and reduce the number of dangerous angle crashes, it is troubling that CDOT cannot produce documentation or an analysis demonstrating how each camera location was chosen, including all of those currently in operation, was chosen,” the audit said.

The program issued 612,278 tickets in 2012, and generated revenue totaling $71,943,053.00.

No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million Last Year | CNS News

more from the ig:

there is "little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the city or the general public”

there is a “lack of basic record keeping for a program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue"

those ticketed are charged $100 each

 

[MaggieD]

No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million Last Year | CNS News

more from the ig:

there is "little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the city or the general public”

there is a “lack of basic record keeping for a program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue"

those ticketed are charged $100 each

I have absolutely no problem with red-light cameras. If it's producing positive cash flow, that's good enough for me.

 

[clownboy]

Well, it really doesn't need to be based on safety, a reminder that one does not blow red lights without penalty is justification enough. The only quibble I'd have with the program is if it were being used for tracking unrelated to traffic offenders. It made money? Good thing in my book, that means they're doing their job correctly and a whole lot of ****ty drivers have been reminded of how to drive correctly.

 

[Deuce]

Well, it really doesn't need to be based on safety, a reminder that one does not blow red lights without penalty is justification enough. The only quibble I'd have with the program is if it were being used for tracking unrelated to traffic offenders. It made money? Good thing in my book, that means they're doing their job correctly and a whole lot of ****ty drivers have been reminded of how to drive correctly.

I vaguely recall some indications that they might actually increase accidents, because people freak out when the light turns yellow and slam on the breaks when they might otherwise have safely gone through the intersection during the switchover.

 

[MaggieD]

I vaguely recall some indications that they might actually increase accidents, because people freak out when the light turns yellow and slam on the breaks when they might otherwise have safely gone through the intersection during the switchover.

Sounds like the same logic people used when wearing seat belts became law.

Slamming on one's breaks should never cause an accident from the rear. If one doesn't recognize "a stale green light" as they're approaching it? They need more driver's training.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Just one more reason on the long list of reasons Rahm Emanuel is a horrible mayor who needs to go. Not only do his crappy plans not work, he then lies about them working. He should have stayed at the White House as Chief of Staff. He's better suited for implementing other people's plans, then doing anything on his own.

 

[tererun]

It is a revenue thing. if they wanted these cameras to stop people from running red lights they would be gigantic so people would see them there. When people know they are being monitored they obey the laws. making cameras smaller and not letting people know they are there just means people will keep on driving like idiots, which is what the town wants so it will make money on them. You should not be running red lights, so I am fine with a fairly inexpensive thing that will actually earn it's price back through tickets. As long as they are accurate and work well and do not hit people who don't run red lights i am ok with it. Just do not run red lights and none of this concerns you. I just think they need to be larger so everyone knows they are there.

Now if you want to be bothered by evil monitoring of your driving for fun and profit progressive has a little device that plugs into your car and ticks up your insurance rates for doing things like slamming on your breaks and swerving. Now that is a dangerous device which encourages dangerous driving.

 

[MaggieD]

It is a revenue thing. if they wanted these cameras to stop people from running red lights they would be gigantic so people would see them there. When people know they are being monitored they obey the laws. making cameras smaller and not letting people know they are there just means people will keep on driving like idiots, which is what the town wants so it will make money on them. You should not be running red lights, so I am fine with a fairly inexpensive thing that will actually earn it's price back through tickets. As long as they are accurate and work well and do not hit people who don't run red lights i am ok with it. Just do not run red lights and none of this concerns you. I just think they need to be larger so everyone knows they are there.

Now if you want to be bothered by evil monitoring of your driving for fun and profit progressive has a little device that plugs into your car and ticks up your insurance rates for doing things like slamming on your breaks and swerving. Now that is a dangerous device which encourages dangerous driving.

I think in Illinois every intersection monitored has signs that warn drivers. There's little excuse.

 

[The Prof]

they're doing their job correctly

from the ig's audit:

cdot's “stated primary criterion is reducing angle crashes to increase safety”

the ig found no evidence to support the city’s rationale for the program, which is to “increase safety on chicago streets”

“cdot was unable to substantiate its claims that the city chose to install red light cameras at intersections with the highest angle crash rates in order to increase safety”

"neither do we know, from the information provided by cdot why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated, nor what the city’s rationale is for the continued operation of any individual camera at any individual location”

the ig also found it “troubling” that the cdot could not provide any documentation as to how they chose intersections to place red light cameras and why cameras remain at intersections that have reported no accidents"

“if the intent of the RLC program is to increase safety and reduce the number of dangerous angle crashes, it is troubling that cdot cannot produce documentation or an analysis demonstrating how each camera location, including all of those currently in operation, was chosen”

the audit said it “uncovered little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the city or the general public”

furthermore, there is a “lack of basic record keeping for a program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue”

the red light camera program was “designed to increase safety on chicago streets,” and the city says it selects locations based on crash data, read the report

however, the ig audit revealed that 42% of the intersections with cameras were not on the city’s “top 205 angle crash rate” list of the most dangerous driving intersections in chicago

chicago has only relocated 10 cameras since 2003, the cdot is supposed to continually evaluate cameras to be relocated to more dangerous crossroads but the ig did not find evidence of the department doing that

“cameras installed years ago are still in operation today, and the department cannot produce documentation demonstrating how each camera location was chosen or why cameras in locations with no recent angle crashes have not been relocated pursuant to cdot’s relocation criteria”

 

[clownboy]

I vaguely recall some indications that they might actually increase accidents, because people freak out when the light turns yellow and slam on the breaks when they might otherwise have safely gone through the intersection during the switchover.

That's a general problem with new drivers and people new to an area. I think the fact they are catching so many indicates there was a larger problem.

 

[clownboy]

I think in Illinois every intersection monitored has signs that warn drivers. There's little excuse.

WE have these in Oregon:

 

[clownboy]

Btw, I think they should put cameras on every handicapped space as well.

 

[Jack Hays]

No Evidence Chicago Red Light Cameras Based on Safety -- System Made $71 Million Last Year | CNS News

more from the ig:

there is "little evidence that the overarching program strategy, guidelines, or appropriate metrics are being used to ensure the RLC program is being executed to the best benefit of the city or the general public”

there is a “lack of basic record keeping for a program that costs tens of millions of dollars a year and generates tens of millions more in revenue"

those ticketed are charged $100 each

Chicago government acting to take in money rather than govern well? I'm shocked.:shock:
At least those guys don't run the IRS. Oh! Wait! Uh oh . . . .

 

[clownboy]

Chicago government acting to take in money rather than govern well? I'm shocked.:shock:
At least those guys don't run the IRS. Oh! Wait! Uh oh . . . .

In this particular instance I'm not seeing where they are not governing well in addition to levying fines. At the heart of it that's a lot of folks blowing red lights.

If the recordkeeping isn't up to snuff, dedicate some of the profit to fixing that.

 

[Utility Man]

I think in Illinois every intersection monitored has signs that warn drivers. There's little excuse.

The law requires it, its not a stealth system like other states have.

Just one more reason on the long list of reasons Rahm Emanuel is a horrible mayor who needs to go. Not only do his crappy plans not work, he then lies about them working. He should have stayed at the White House as Chief of Staff. He's better suited for implementing other people's plans, then doing anything on his own.

Those red light cameras had been installed long before Rahm Emanuel became Mayor, Red Flex has been in the city quite a while, I personally met with their technical people as far back as 2007.

Best thing to do is know the law and learn how to drive and there shouldn't be a problem.

On a side note, I can't wait for those automated speed cameras to be rolled out, see you in court !

 

[specklebang]

I've twice almost lost my life to red light runners and as far as I'm concerned they should tie this in with the drone system, hunt the offender down and at minimum, disable the vehicle.

Most LE is against speeders who pose relatively little threat. But running an already red light is homicidal.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

T
Those red light cameras had been installed long before Rahm Emanuel became Mayor, Red Flex has been in the city quite a while, I personally met with their technical people as far back as 2007.

I'm talking about Rahm's plan that was approved in 2012, not the very start of red light cameras in Chicago. It was bull**** then as it was now.

Best thing to do is know the law and learn how to drive and there shouldn't be a problem.

On a side note, I can't wait for those automated speed cameras to be rolled out, see you in court !

Your advice isn't necessary as worrying about being caught isn't any part of my criticism.

 

[MaggieD]

I'm talking about Rahm's plan that was approved in 2012, not the very start of red light cameras in Chicago. It was bull**** then as it was now.

Your advice isn't necessary as worrying about being caught isn't any part of my criticism.

Nope. Those are speed sensors to retro on the red-light cameras. RL Cameras were launched in 2003 under Daley.

Edit: The program was tried at four intersections...no tickets were issued...the trial was suspended with no news on its future.

 

[Deuce]

Sounds like the same logic people used when wearing seat belts became law.

Slamming on one's breaks should never cause an accident from the rear. If one doesn't recognize "a stale green light" as they're approaching it? They need more driver's training.

If by "logic" you mean "measured."

Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049

Right-angle crashes decrease, but rear-end crashes increase.

Seems to be overall a reduction in crash costs, at least.

 

[MaggieD]

If by "logic" you mean "measured."

Safety Evaluation of Red-Light Cameras–Executive Summary - FHWA-HRT-05-049

Right-angle crashes decrease, but rear-end crashes increase.

Seems to be overall a reduction in crash costs, at least.

Well, I won't doubt your statistics. But I'd say that a rear-ender is better than a T-bone. And people will learn. Don't follow so damned close and watch for stale greens. It's really not that hard if people are paying attention.

 

[Utility Man]

Isn't it amazing though, look how quickly drivers learned that before making a right turn on red they must first come to a complete stop.

 

[ecofarm]

No evidence, you say?

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I have absolutely no problem with red-light cameras. If it's producing positive cash flow, that's good enough for me.

The only legitimate reason for red-light cameras would be to have a positive impact on safety.

Laws should only be enacted with the idea that by having people obey them will result in greater safety and order.

If red-light cameras are being operated as a means of generating revenue, then we have an example of a “safety” related law being enacted and enforced in a manner that is based on the hope that people will violate the law, be caught doing so, and thus provide government with an excuse to extort fines from them. This is a form of corruption that should be considered absolutely unacceptable in any proper society. To whatever degree government needs revenue, let it collect it through honest taxation, not through fraud and extortion.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I vaguely recall some indications that they might actually increase accidents, because people freak out when the light turns yellow and slam on the breaks [sic] when they might otherwise have safely gone through the intersection during the switchover.

I recall hearing of a scandal in San Diego, some years ago, where it was discovered that in intersection where red-light cameras were installed, the time of the yellow light was significantly shortened in order to increase the likelihood of drivers being deceived into being caught in the intersection when the light turned red. Once drivers caught on to the shorter yellows, apparently the incidence of rear-end collisions, just as you describe here, was proven to have been increased, negating any claim that the red-light cameras were there to enhance safety.

 

[MaggieD]

The only legitimate reason for red-light cameras would be to have a positive impact on safety.

Laws should only be enacted with the idea that by having people obey them will result in greater safety and order.

If red-light cameras are being operated as a means of generating revenue, then we have an example of a “safety” related law being enacted and enforced in a manner that is based on the hope that people will violate the law, be caught doing so, and thus provide government with an excuse to extort fines from them. This is a form of corruption that should be considered absolutely unacceptable in any proper society. To whatever degree government needs revenue, let it collect it through honest taxation, not through fraud and extortion.

Pishaw. If you don't think the first time you're caught by a red light camera you are more cautious next time? I don't know what you're thinking. The only thing people understand is $$. This brings the point home rather nicely, I think.