Aurora's Committee of the Wholewill consider a proposal next week for
twenty red-light ticket cameras
Our previous discussion on this issue generated hundreds of comments, but now that the red-light ticket camera proposal has moved out of Aurora's Finance Committee to the Committee of the Whole next week, it's time for you to decide if this plan should proceed.
The proposal would require an undetermined "upfront" cost from Redflex Systems, which raises the obvious question...how did it get approved out of Aurora's Finance Committee when that amount hasn't been determined first? Spend money first, ask questions later?
The company claims costs will be recouped by $90 per violation fines from 20 yet-to-be-named intersections. Aurora Police Commander Joe Groom says those haven't been determined yet and will be "researched" even though he apparently had several months to determine this since this issue was first discussed.
Legally, the city says these will not be "moving" violations, but our understanding is that if an actual police officer sees you going through a red light and issues a violation, that would still be a moving violation. The legalism is to be able to send the red-light camera violation to the owner of the vehicle instead of targeting the driver.
When this was first proposed in 2006, the local fishwrap (Beconfused) screamed its praise by saying:
"In communities where cameras have been installed, red-light violations have decreased, sometimes dramatically so."
Unfortunately for the fishwrap, we found "dramatic" flaws with the fishwrap's statement. Here are some reminders of what we previously reported:
* In many communities, accidents and rear-end collissions have actually INCREASED thanks to abrupt stops.
* Washington DC saw an 81% increase in injury and fatal crashes at red-light camera intersctions.
* Fort Collins, CO had an 83% increase in accidents despite a 64% increase in violations
* State of Virginia has been eliminating red-light cameras
* Florida Attorney General issued an opinion against them
* Atlanta Journal-Constitution reviewed data for various Georgia communities and found an increase in injuiries, accidents and....revenue.
* Marietta, Georgia had a 49% increase in rear-end collisions between 2004-2005. One targeted intersection went from 108 to 163 accidents. Marietta gained $2.7 million in revenue while causing more accidents to its residents.
* Duluth, Georgia had a 21% increase in accidents between March 2004 and Feburary 2005, compared to the same period a year earlier, but the city raked in $790,000.
* Lilburn, Georgia doubled the number of rear-end collisions with a 128% increase in injuries.
* Plano, Texas tried a six-month trial with a 50% increase in accidents.
* In Monterey, California, a police official said:
"I gave the system its due and it showed it wasn't something that would benefit the community."
* An California statewide audit showed 88% of violations involved split-second violations rather than the obvious violations that would normally be cited by a police officer.
* California cities such as Cupertino to Fresno to Santa Rosa to Irvine DROPPED the cameras.
Clearly, there are reasons to be concerned that red-light cameras may cause more harm than good, aside from the constitutional and legal questions it raises.
Time to get real. The goal of the company is to make money. The goal of the Weisner administration is for increasing revenue (he needs the money to pay for his luxury office, giving money to Shodeen, his cronies like Wegman, Mundy, Cordogan...and, of course, the legal fees for the administration's parade of errors).
We oppose people running red-lights, BUT like many decisions and actions by the City of Aurora, this may be another short-sighted blunder, but in this case, it could end up injuring or killing you or someone you know.
Let us know what you think.
48 comments:
If its not about the money than why not install the cameras like the blue lite specials in Chicago. There they are used for neighborhood watches in high crime areas...not citizen harrasment. More Aurora B.S. from the jerks at city hall.
It would appear that there is enough information available to see the full effects of these cameras and to legitimately question whether the benefits outweigh the burdens. The benefit is revenue. The burden will be increased accidents with increased injury and increased costs including increased insurance premium. I suspect that those increased accidents and collateral costs far outweigh the revenue to be derived from the cameras.
Unfortunately, government all to often, does not appear to be concerned with these collateral costs. The tunnel vision of looking for revenue precludes such inquiry.
I guess the increased costs to the residents and visitors of this city in the form of increased accidents, increased injury and resultant increased insurance is just another cost of doing business and living Aurora and is an acceptable form of tax increase.
The city is attempting to generate revenue and the attendant costs are the cost of collection of that revenue which is being spread to everyone. That is no different that the collection of tax money paying into the general fund to pay the cost of collection.
Make no mistake it is a an unrecognized tax increase.
Politicians need more of our hard earned money. Harrasment is a good word.
Typical Wiesner, spend the money first worry about the dollar amount later. This is purely political to get a story in the paper.
I question the legality of these tickets. How is this not a moving violation? The vehicle is moving, isn't it? How can the owner be responsible if he or she is not in the vehicle? Where is the due process in this ticket? Has the constitutionality been challenged in Illinois? Apparently, Florida has determined that they do not pass constitutional muster. Then again, Weingartz doesn't understand constitutional arguments,does she?
Has ANYONE gotten their fishwrap today? (Yes, I have to confess I still subscribe but only because it was so cheap $52 for 52 weeks - and I really like the Sunday coupons). My e-mails are unanswered and I can't get through on the "customer service" line...
I have had first hand experience with these red-light cameras. They were installed for all of 2 weeks at the Illinois Institute of Technology on State Street at the stoplights at 31st, 33rd, and 35th to catch violators in the school zone, where the only form of transportation is walking. IIT payed out the nose for these cameras, against both their Public Safety department's and the Chicago Police's objections. Just the stoplights to cover the 3 4-way intersections was an insane amount of money, I don't remember the exact figure, but for the cameras + recording equipment and the services to tie into the state databases and to issue tickets was well over 3 million dollars. After issuing only 5 legit tickets, and two accidents involving autos in fender benders in the two weeks, because all other 'violations' were found to be false positives when the video was reviewed (even though tickets were still issued, they were later rescinded in court, at an additional legal cost) they took down the cameras and instead used them to monitor the quad (where all the frat and sorority houses were).
Bottom line, the system was a complete waste of money. You could put a USB webcam up and get the same or better results.
More Big Brother and paranoid Weisner coming at you. There will be cameras everywhere.
Stop driving like a moron and the cameras will have no effect on your life.
The Red-Light Camera tax is necessary to pay for development of toxic waste dumps.
10:13 except they will cost us all to pay for them.
So let's not buy them in the first place and we can all have our tax dollars spent more wisely.
Well, at least it's an idea. Something has to be done to curtail the bad driving habits on the streets. Speeding, reckless driving, stop sign running and blowing red lights endanger me personally much more than does gang activity.
The reason there are more accidents at the red light camera intersections is the blatant disregard for rules. The idiotic drivers, each driving agressively, will no doubt run into each other. Who cares? The sensible drivers, each driving defensively, will avoid contact. Accidents are caused, they just don't happen. The solution is simple...obey the rules. Punish heavily those who don't. I expect a lot of "what if" hypothetical scenarios to repute the above but really, the hammer has to come down on traffic offenders.
The cameras are not in the high crime areas because they would not genreate revenue. Money talks.
11:48
The sensible drivers, each driving defensively, will avoid contact.
When you are hit from behind you do not have much choice in the matter irrespective of how careful you may be.
Well, the police aren't interested in dealing with traffic in this city, so I guess this is the next best thing.
I'm tired of living on a lawless drag strip.
I find it interesting the city doesn't even KNOW which intersections are dangerous yet. So, that tells me their motivation for doing this is NOT to address some serious public safety issue.
If there were a problem with a specific intersection, they don't need to wait for red-light cameras to deal with it. We have a police force that could target those intersections FIRST and see if that affects things for safety.
I do think this is just an invisible tax increase to raise more money but there is definitely enough experience in other cities that should cause our city council to say no.
From a legal perspective, this is a sleazy way to target the owner rather than the driver.
As Leonard pointed out, what about the increased costs for ambulances, ER visits and our auto insurance rates going up?
Leroy Keith, fast becoming Aurora's most foolish alderman, loves these red-light cameras. Maybe he will be the first one in a rear-end collision and we'll see if he still loves them.
If anyone is in accident due to these red-light cameras, they should sue the city for millions. Should be an easy case since the corp counsel is incompetent.
Why am I not surprised the beconfused got it so wrong? They can't even admit they aren't able to deliver their own paper. What a joke of paper and they claim they are the big dog.
Since most of their editors and reporters don't do anything, why don't they start doing deliveries?
Great post. The city council members who vote for this are asking to risk the lives of the people of Aurora for some revenue gain.
I am completely opposed to it. Unfortunately, my alderman is Leeroy so I'm sure he will vote for it.
It's interesting the same City of Aurora is against using cameras in high-crime areas they KNOW about, but want to install these at intersections they do NOT know about yet.
The election of 2009 couldn't come soon enough. Most of my neighbors voted for Weisner and NONE of them will make that mistake again.
I didn't realize red-light violations were a big problem in Aurora, but I admit at first I thought it was a good idea until I started thinking about the fairness, the increased risk of causing injury and death and how this is just being done to make money without even first having any serious intersection problem.
I strongly oppose this.
Thank you Openline for exposing the facts on this since the Beconfused completely failed AGAIN.
You guys may have saved some lives by these stories.
I don't often agree with openline but on this one I have to say thanks. This red-light thing is a loser for the citizens of Aurora. So are the spy cameras set-up at various intersections and at the entrances to certain subdivisions around town. I have often wondered who voted for these spy cameras. The use of these devises is an admission that our society has failed. Chicago's Mayor Daley is turning Chicago into one large prison yard where the inmates are being constantly watched. I guess Aurora is already on the same track. And Wiesner wants to push us further down the line. Big Brother is hear.
Sorry, I misspelled divice.
Please contact your aldermen to voice your concerns. Let them know that accidents have increased nationwide with these cameras, and that we don't want anymore open-ended expenditures.
I find it interesting that openline only posts facts to support a negative result on these cameras. How many good factors are connected to these cameras???? Let's hear the entire story. Very slanted if you ask me. This blog is only about negative press.
The city doesn't even know what intersections need this, so obviously this is about making money instead of public safety.
I also oppose it.
To 9:57pm, my observation is Openline has presented the facts for all of us to consider.
They have obviously researched this much more than our city officials and they presented the facts for us to see.
I moved to Aurora from California and I can tell you Openline's information is accurate and correct. My community got rid of these cameras.
I'm all for high-tech solutions, but these red-light cameras only have one benefit, making money.
Plus, I don't see red-light issues as a major problem in Aurora in the first place.
8:36
they do know
everyone knows
basically it comes down to picking number 19 and 20
Openline again is wrong. Why not highlight Chicago's 11% sales tax attempt? You are in fact a State blog. Oh wait... that is all a cover for your real goal - hate of the Mayor. Where you one of the fired?
And most of you should slow down on the tollway to avoid the $375 fine. Since that is unrelated to the Mayor, I guess that gets no mention. I sense others are getting annoyed with this obsession Openline has with the Mayor.
The comment above shows the obsession of the Weisner cronies to bash anyone that dares to bring out facts or expose the truth.
Openline has presented information that is important for us to know if such a proposal is going to be considered.
Tollway is a dumb example considering that doesn't cause ACCIDENTS, but since you Weisner cronies are mentioning the tollway, I would note Openline did a story on the tollway's policy of providing I-Pass information to people in civil, non-criminal matters.
Where was the Weisner cronies on that issue? Hmmm?
I remember reading the fishwrap's editorial and articles on this issue and they missed these important things.
Public safety should be the priority and it is clear there are some serious problems with red-light cameras.
Thanks Openline for providing the info and count me in as STRONGLY opposed to it.
How dumb can you get. Cameras don't cause accidents. Its the stupid drivers who do. What's the difference between a car that is braking for a red light getting hit in the rear or a car running the red light and getting t-boned? Sensible drivers will slow down when the car ahead applies the brakes.
1:51pm, if you were correct, then we would see all those INCREASES in so many cities with accidents, injuries and death.
Some things aren't worth the revenue it would generate.
I oppose this red-light camera system for many reasons, but the risk for injury is obvious.
The City needs cash.
The heck with the public, Cronies and those big PENSION LIABILITIES have to be paid.
Who in Aurora Govt. cares if you are rear ended?? You do have uninsured motorist insurance right?
thanks 11:39
Are you Openline commenting again about your own post or just an Openline crony? I myself am not a Weisner campaign contributor. I do not work with the city and do not work with your so called cronies.
You sure are quick to defend yourself. I have noticed the fast comments in your defense whenever I attack you. Apparently you can dish it, but cannot take it. That is called a bully.
I guess the biggest problem is your unending negativity. Being positive works better.
There are examples to rebut if you would like them. Such as the Republicans gave State money to Irvin just like the Dems to Weisner. Big deal, the election is over for everyone but you and we accept the outcome and will vote again in <2 years.
You are obsessed with Tommy and just say so and don't deny it. We offer this as proof "and stuff around the Chicago area, Illinois, the region, USA and the whole wide world."
We notice the whole wide world part is lacking. I do not recall any post about the different genocides going by other governments.
You are phony, Lawrence is phony,
and you are Mansonesque with your preaching and as the Beacon says "malcontent" followers. Since you do follow up comments and the GOP comments, we estimate your base in the 2 digits.
And quit copying me. I said you have an obession and you then you use the word obsession.
I like the comment cameras do not cause accidents. Brilliant. I recall guns do not kill people also.
Bring on the cameras. The real test is that whoever is "in office" and babysitting the masses who are asses, the real test is education. Just like seat belts.
If you brake properly (gently & before the intersection), there is no way the person behind you can hurt you.
The person who just wrote the above comment may need psychological help!
do you work for the beconfused? is that where your animosity is toward Openline for presenting facts on this issue? where are your facts little boy?
FACT is accidents and injuries have increased in many cities and that slow braking idea apparently doesn't work in real life.
6:59 wrote: I do not recall any post about the different genocides going by other governments.
-
I remember Openline doing something on Darfur. In fact, here's the link:
http://openline.blogspot.com/2006/04/
rally-to-stop-genocide-in-
darfur-sudan.html
Oh, so are you going to admit you were wrong little boy?
How ill is Ald Saville??
Magic Johnson is doing just fine. Hopefully Mike Saville will respond the same way.
Saville should just step down and we know Weisner has health problems. I hope it isn't contagious.
So 3:13, are you saying Saville has AIDS? The beconfused said it was a genetic kidney condition. Are you saying the Beacon is wrong?
Openline is delusional. He believes he is the high authority, reponsible and not a bully. He allows anything but personal attacks upon himself. Again faithful followers, believe half of what you read and all of what you see. Remember, this is an anonymous blog, irresponsible and accountable to no one. Openline is an administrator of this and he does not care. Says he does, but it is just all about him and what he wants. His good buddy Rick Lawrence needs to go along to get along. Nobody in any line of work likes bullies, know-it-alls and loose canons. And we do to know Rick Lawrences cronies.
ps
Before you do the usual rebuttal, I must emphasize I am not the Beacon News or in the Weisner camp.
And the Openline administrator doesn't know how to maintain a website. There are topics almost a week old that nobody cares about anymore let alone post a comment to. It also takes takes forever to download all his video's, ads, polls, pictures, and hyperlinks, that the site freezes. And that's when using DSL. I feel for those still with dialup. But he doesn't give a damn.
funny how you assume its a male that runs this blog.
this kind of business proposal has not been good for us and it should be ignore by the people who deal with this,.
Post a Comment