As Oak Forest prepares to activate its first set of red light cameras I thought it worth while to share some interesting articles about their use.
Red-Light Cameras Increase Accidents: 5 Studies That Prove It
Benefits of red-light cameras far outweigh the costs
Red Light Camera Studies Roundup
Oak Forest Officials look to catch light runners along Cicero at 159th, 167th streets
Devices help drivers spot ‘cops in a box’
#1 by The Law - August 18th, 2008 at 17:58
They’re great… it’s like a voluntary tax on stupidity. Dont want to pay it… don’t run the light.
#2 by Brad Duff-Hudkins - August 19th, 2008 at 11:22
E-mail From: Felicia DePyper
There are some misconceptions regarding the red light Cameras that need to be clear
Right Turn on Red: As long as the vehicle comes to a complete stop a driver can not be issued a citation, even if the front wheels have slightly crossed the intersection.
Yellow Light: The system is configured so that the camera does not take a picture unless the light is a solid red. If a vehicle enters the intersection during a yellow light and the light turns red once the vehicle in inside the intersection, that vehicle did not violate the law and will not be cited. This also means if you are turning left and get stranded in the intersection when the light turns red it will not trigger the camera.
All pictured vehicles are observed by a member of GATSO USA for violations before they transport that information to the Oak Forest Police. Next, a trained policeman must observe the pictures (and video) to make the final determination if a violation was in fact committed before a citation is issued.
#3 by galileo - August 19th, 2008 at 12:23
I have no problem with RLC’s per se, as I am one of those idiots who obey the rules which infuriates many of those behind me when either driving the limit or turning left (or right) at intersections.I am often intimidated by tailgaters who must get through a turn regardless of the color of the light. If I slow to be ready to stop on a long yellow there is a very real possibility of being rear ended and shoved through the intersection. I’m wondering if RLC’s will exacerbate this kind of scenario. We’ll have to determine in a split second if we want to pay a fine or be dead.
#4 by Anonymous - August 20th, 2008 at 12:45
It is my understanding that the owner of the vehicle will be ticketed no matter who is driving when the violation occurs. Perhaps another member of the family is driving. Does the violation go on the owner’s driving record? Who is responsible for paying the ticket? The owner or the driver? In other words, a car can’t be ticketed but that’s exactly what would happen if the driver isn’t identified.
#5 by Ed - August 20th, 2008 at 23:44
Who needs red light cameras?
You can make intersections safe - w/o cameras or increasing rear-enders. Repeat: Without increasing rear-enders!
A. Increasing yellows by 0.5 sec. yields a 69% drop in violations (fn.2). And it’s cheap to do all over town - reducing running everywhere, not just at “camera” intersections. Also see (fn.1).
Longer yellows reduce severe accidents. A 2004 study (fn. 3) by the Texas Trans. Inst. found”…an increase in the yellow duration of 1.0 sec. is associated with a [crash freq.] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40% reduction in crashes.” (fn.3)
(Whenever someone suggests lengthening the yellows, someone else will say, “Drivers will just get used to the longer yellows, and run those, too!” Actually, the running stays down. It does not “rebound.” In Mesa, Arizona, they increased the yellows by 1 second in late 2000, and running dropped to 1/3 of what it had been, and stayed down. See the table: (fn.5))
B. Improve street markings. 2005 research (fn. 4) by Florida’s Dept. of Transportation found that improving markings near intersections reduced red light running by up to 74 percent without increasing the likelihood of rear end collisions. Repeat: …without increasing rear end collisions.
Ed
FN1. http://thenewspaper.com/news/04/430.asp (Roundup)
FN2. http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-06242004-230619/unrestricted/Thesis_3.pdf Fig. 4.1 on p. 67
FN3. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/04-alternatives.pdf Fig. 2-8 on p. 2-20
FN4. http://thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/05-simulator.pdf at p. 69
FN5. http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsMesaMain.html
#6 by galileo - August 21st, 2008 at 00:18
Running a red or yellow will arguably seldom result in a rear-ender, but often is deadly nonetheless. This is the raison d’être for RLC’s. However your point is well taken; the risks of driving have always been present since before the advent of the Model T. (which barely predates my driving experience). However I am sure most reasonable people would agree that there is always an element of indecision when approaching changing traffic signals while in a stream of rapidly moving vehicles. I ordinarily might proceed while in a left turn lane on a yellow being cognizant of that 18 wheeler on my rear bumper, and carefully complete the turn, maintaining speed, to keep that truck at a safe distance. What I’m saying is, the thought of being caught by an RLC could influence many (newer?) drivers during said nanosecond of indecision into making a panic stop to avoid prosecution; and that could be deadly.
#7 by Lisa - September 10th, 2008 at 19:33
How about something for blowing stop signs? I live near a school, and worry every time I see someone keep doing 30 (or higher)mph through the sign. I cringe every time I hear someone peal away from the stop. I’d gladly let the police put something on my property if it would get drivers to slow down & help keep people safe.
#8 by Anonymous - September 17th, 2008 at 07:33
Has anyone received the flyer from the city with their water bill showing a picture of two children and explaining how these cameras are going to help keep these kids safe. I don’t know about anyone else but I’ve never seen kids cross at either 159th & Cicero or 167th & Cicero. There are no schools or parks near those intersections. If the city needs the revenue, just say so. Don’t hide behind the safety of children!
#9 by Eva - August 19th, 2008 at 13:42
I wouldn’t call us idiots, galileo. We are the sensible ones.
When I have a tailgater, I reduce my speed even further and nine times out of ten they will decide to pass me leaving a whirlwind in their tracks and signaling some amusing sign language. I pretty much laugh it off; because I fully believe in what you put out there will come back to you in some form or another and it won’t be pretty. You know, that karma thingy.
So don’t beat yourself up about being a human being that cares for your own life as well as others. Be happy that you are one of the few, the proud and the cautious.
#10 by Felicia DePyper - August 20th, 2008 at 14:39
Reply to galileo - “We’ll have to determine in a split second if we want to pay a fine or be dead”
Interesting concept, yet is this not something that may happen to any one on a daiy basis, running a red, or caution light and or get rear ended Regardless if there is a Camera or not. It certainly has been my experience during my 25 years of driving
#11 by galileo - August 21st, 2008 at 00:34
The violation is a civil offense and does not go on your driving record. It is not a moving violation.
The owner gets the ticket, and, if he’s lucky the driver will pay it. If it’s his kid, fogettaboutit.
#12 by Felicia DePyper - August 21st, 2008 at 07:15
FYI…
The ticket is an administrative citation so the Secretary of State has no part in it and no points will be assigned against ones Drivers License. The violation ticket does go to the registered owner, who is responsible to pay the fine. It would be up to the owner of the vehicle to make any arrangements with the driver to reimburse the owner for the cost of the violation, however, there is a way the owner could pass on the actual drivers information and then the driver would be pursued for the fine.
#13 by Sharon Pepper - September 26th, 2008 at 08:11
@Anonymous,
I did not receive the flyer you mention but I find it strange that the “stop bar” has been painted at the intersection of 167th and Cicero yet the pedestrian crossways at Fieldcrest Drive and Cicero are barely visible. If the city does indeed wish to use that type of propoganda to sell the use of red light cameras, then I suggest they complete the project by making sure all crosswalks are painted. Otherwise it just looks like what it really is.
#14 by Mike - September 26th, 2008 at 09:06
Used to be a school there. Now its a parking lot.
Hmmm, that line kinda sounds like something from Big Yellow Taxi, by Joni Mitchell.
#15 by Sharon Pepper - September 26th, 2008 at 18:57
@Mike, the intersection I was referring to is at Fieldcrest Drive and Cicero. It’s a crosswalk that leads to the walking path. The crosswalk, when newly painted, would allow people to walk this way.
Hmm…sounds like a line from an Aerosmith album.
#16 by Mike - September 26th, 2008 at 20:55
Sorry, Anonymous mentioned 159th & Cicero and thats what I was replying too.
Kudos on working in the song reference. Maybe thats what this board needs to lighten things up? Everyone posting has to end there response with a song reference.
#17 by Sharon Pepper - September 27th, 2008 at 18:52
@Mike,
This board lighten up??? That’ll be the day….
Buddy Holly