It looks like many of Chicago's suburbs are following the city's lead and getting red light cameras. Chicago reported that side-impact crashes were down 23% on the first 10 intersections to get the devices.
_______________________________________________________________ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-redlights_bdfeb03,1,4997056.sto ry Focus of red-light cameras is safety, not cash, suburbs say By John Keilman Tribune reporter February 3, 2008 Hundreds of red-light cameras are due to spring up across suburban Chicago in coming months, turning much of the region's road system into a web that could snare hordes of careless, defiant or unlucky motorists. Some experts believe the increasingly pervasive technology has the potential to alter driving behavior on an epic scale, creating a "halo effect" where motorists respect red lights even when cameras aren't present. Skeptics say the biggest beneficiaries are likely to be local governments, their coffers swollen by rivers of $100 tickets. Yet even as a backlash against the devices spreads across the nation, at least 59 Chicago suburbs have signed up for photo enforcement. With some vendors offering the cameras at no upfront cost, putting them up can be a decision so easy it practically makes itself. "The goal is to cut down on accidents," said Mayor Ronald Serpico of Melrose Park, which installed cameras at two North Avenue intersections. "If you can accomplish that and make some money along the way, that's fine." Some money, though, can mean a lot of money: Chicago, the state's pioneer in red-light cameras, expects to make $52.3 million in revenue from the devices this year, a near-tripling of the $19.8 million collected in 2006. Cops make decisions Red-light cameras capture still photos and video of vehicles that enter intersections after the signal changes. Companies that operate the systems screen the footage and call apparent violations to the attention of local police, who decide whether to ticket the owner of the car. The driver isn't penalized under Illinois law. Not every alleged violation is guaranteed to bring a fine. Waukegan police Chief William Biang said his department issues tickets in just over half of the cases it reviews. "We're making sure they're serious violations," he said. The cameras came to the area in 2003, when Chicago installed them at a high-accident intersection. The number in the city has since risen to 69, and another 40 could be added this year. While revenues have soared with the increase, city officials say the devices have also cut down on crashes. Side-impact wrecks at the first 10 intersections to receive cameras decreased 23 percent, said Tony Ruiz, executive director of the city's Office of Emergency Management and Communications. "It's all about safety for me," he said. "[The cameras] are very effective." But Richard Diamond, whose opposition to the devices goes back to his days as a transportation specialist for former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey (R-Texas), said safety claims are overblown. He noted that several researchers have found that the cameras increase rear-impact crashes because motorists slam on their brakes to avoid getting a ticket. Fewer 'T-bone' crashes The Federal Highway Administration reached that conclusion in a 2005 study, but it also found that side-impact crashes went down. Spokesman Doug Hecox said the trade-off is worth it. "[Rear impact] crashes are more survivable," he said. "In a T-bone crash, all you've got between you and the other car is a door. With a rear end crash, you've got more material to protect you." Richard Retting, senior transportation engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, said red-light cameras can have lasting effects on drivers' conduct. He cited studies showing that violations declined not only where the devices were mounted, but at camera-free intersections nearby-the so-called halo effect. Taking that finding to its logical conclusion, he said that as cameras blanket a region, "one would expect the drivers' response to spill into communities that didn't use that technology." The surge of local interest in red-light cameras is due partly to a 2006 state law that allowed Chicago suburbs to put them up, partly to sales practices that make the devices easy to afford. Vendors often provide the cameras at no cost, making their money through equipment fees (Aurora will pay $4,395 a month per intersection approach) and processing fees (RedSpeed Illinois, a popular vendor, charges about $27 per ticket). The towns keep the rest, and contracts usually guarantee they will never lose money on the deal. So far, there has been plenty of cash for everyone. At least five companies are competing in Illinois, and one of them, Redflex Traffic Systems, earned $44 million in the U.S. last year. The firm has predicted that photo enforcement will eventually be a $3 billion business. As the companies profit, so do local governments. Cook County has projected $40 million annual revenue from the cameras, which it plans to begin installing within a year. Some suburbs that recently mounted them, including Waukegan and Melrose Park, have already issued hundreds of tickets. With so much money at stake, political maneuvering has become inevitable. Rolling Meadows Police Chief Steven Williams moved quickly to get camera coverage at one intersection out of concern that Cook County-which maintains traffic signals in numerous municipalities-might put up its own cameras elsewhere in the village. While safety was his first priority, Williams said, "There's no question [cameras are] going to bring in some money. That's the reality. Cook County is certainly not going to ignore that reality. . . . They don't want any part of the enforcement, but they certainly want to look at it as a revenue source." County in planning stage Rupert Graham Jr., superintendent of the county's Highway Department, said officials are looking at intersections in municipalities and unincorporated areas alike, and have not decided where they might put the devices. The proliferation of red-light cameras has stirred a growing protest around the country, as well as a countervailing industry: Companies hawk sprays that they claim make license plates unreadable, and high-tech devices are available that alert drivers to the devices' presence (Illinois law requires signs to announce cameras to approaching traffic). The Minnesota Supreme Court barred the cameras last year, saying state law required the driver, not the car owner, to be penalized. Iowa's high court is looking at a similar case, but closer to home, photo enforcement has survived legal scrutiny: Last month, a federal judge threw out a lawsuit that called Chicago's camera ordinance unconstitutional. It doesn't take a court case to make a change, though. In November, Bolingbrook officials shut off their red-light cameras, saying that with accidents down 40 percent in six months, drivers had apparently learned their lesson. The cameras also generated countless gripes, many of which were handled by Mayor Roger Claar. He had little sympathy for the complainers, but then, turning right on red one day, he got a ticket himself. "I remembered the day I drove that intersection and I thought I stopped," he said. "Apparently I was not thinking." He said he paid the $100 fine without a grumble. It had no bearing, he said, on his decision to suspend the program. Copyright C 2008, Chicago Tribune
_______________________________________________ Bikies mailing list [email protected] http://www.danenet.org/mailman/listinfo/bikies
