Wednesday, October 02, 2013

Red Light Cameras Being Removed?

Only 36 though:
  • Chicago motorists are getting some relief from video surveillance just when Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s speed cameras around schools and parks are about to start churning out $35 and $100 tickets.

    City Hall is removing 36 red-light cameras at 18 intersections where cameras have succeeded in reducing right-angle crashes caused by red-light running and most likely to cause death or serious injury.

    That will leave Chicago with 348 red-light cameras at 172 intersections.
Ah, we see it now - the City is declaring success in reducing accidents at these intersections, therefore, the cameras are no longer needed. Brilliant.

Of course, it was pointed out that most of the affected intersections didn't need cameras anyway:
  • Earlier this year, Inspector General Joe Ferguson concluded there was no evidence to substantiate the city’s claim that red-light cameras have either reduced accidents or are installed at the most dangerous intersections.

    Under former Mayor Richard M. Daley, the Chicago Department of Transportation claimed to have chosen intersections with the highest number of “angle crashes” caused by red-light running to pump out $100 tickets that now generate $72 million in annual revenues.

    But Ferguson said CDOT was unable to produce evidence that accident data was used in the selection of red-light camera locations or that CDOT continually evaluates accident data to relocate cameras to the most-dangerous spots.
Money grab, plain and simple. And as the revenues declined due to people learning a painful lesson, you can bet that Rahm is looking for 36 new places to put cameras to make up the shortfalls.

Labels:

19 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Right-angle crashes 'reduced'? Nobody mentions rear-end crashes INCREASED.

10/02/2013 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I searched google for this story, to find out which intersections are affected.

This insignificant blog is third on the results list, right behind the two major newspapers. Nice, SCC.

10/02/2013 12:34:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

$72 mil. Now that is real money. Personally, I think those cameras would provide righteous targets for some night stalking hunter with an accurate .22 rifle.

10/02/2013 01:16:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Only got clipped by one. The one next to a hospital while rushing an injured child to the ER.

You've got a lot of class Mr. Mayor.

10/02/2013 05:31:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The revenue hasn't exceeded the cost of the cameras at those intersections. Revenue decreases monthly but the contract cost stays the same. I would bet the city lost money the last few months.

10/02/2013 07:39:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Asshole government in charge and stealing from the citizens. Terrible. But the citizens voted for this with their apathy and indifference. You get the government you deserve.

10/02/2013 08:01:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gawd this place is so dirty

10/02/2013 08:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep them up on the Northwest side. We got to slow those folks down.

10/02/2013 08:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"And as the revenues declined due to people learning a painful lesson, you can bet that Rahm is looking for 36 new places to put cameras to make up the shortfalls."

Pretty much what I thought when I read this, even though the story didn't mention it. Too bad the press didn't ask the obvious follow-up questions on the camera removal.

10/02/2013 09:57:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was once a red light camera at Madison and Halsted that was up for a short period. Someone of power must have gotten a ticket and it was removed, sign was still up but no camera. Too many influential people might be getting tagged and down comes the cameras, and the safety of the children. We must think about the children.

10/02/2013 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger SpankDaddy said...

Crafty bastard.

10/02/2013 11:21:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who got the contract to take them down ?

10/02/2013 11:35:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


kinda begs the question; which clouted campaign donors drive those routes, keep getting nailed, and how much in campaign donations did it take to get the camera's removed -- doesn't it.

10/02/2013 02:08:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


my country my ass

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=VzKSs3shyoQ#t=44

10/02/2013 02:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

never could figure out why there was one in front of St. Juliana's other than to yank the cop's chains

10/02/2013 04:56:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
"And as the revenues declined due to people learning a painful lesson, you can bet that Rahm is looking for 36 new places to put cameras to make up the shortfalls."

Pretty much what I thought when I read this, even though the story didn't mention it. Too bad the press didn't ask the obvious follow-up questions on the camera removal.

10/02/2013 09:57:00 AM

Today, after the big splash of "I'm removing all these cameras", two tv news shows stated the cameras are being relocated to other intersections.

10/02/2013 06:13:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Will the city have to return the bribes to the camera company?

10/02/2013 07:33:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The cameras are no longer generating the kind of cash they once did and are now being moved to more dangerous, er I mean profitable intersections.

10/02/2013 10:50:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous Anonymous said...
Who got the contract to take them down ?

10/02/2013 11:35:00 AM


The Vanecko, Thompson & Conroy Red Light Camera Taking Down Company.

Inc. 2013

10/04/2013 08:49:00 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer Posts.......................... ..........................Older Posts