Speed Cameras In Chicago Earn $50M Less Than Expected 398
countach44 writes that (in the words of the below-linked article) "Chicagoans are costing the city tens of millions of dollars — through good behavior." The City of Chicago recently installed speed cameras near parks and schools as part of the "Children's Safety Zone Program," claiming a desire to decrease traffic-related incidents in those area. The city originally budgeted (with the help of the company providing the system) to have $90M worth of income from the cameras — of which only $40M is now expected. Furthermore, the city has not presented data on whether or not those areas have become safer.
Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Insightful)
Also, can we stop pretending these are about anything other than revenue generation?
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Insightful)
You can also hide a max speed sign behind something, like a bush, and install it in otherwise higher speed zone.
You can also install speed trap on the down-slope road, where drivers would naturally speed up without any conscious input.
You can also offer "early payment" discounts on tickets, where if you pay and plead guilty your fine reduced to the point of not worth the time fighting it.
You can establish a ticket challenge procedure that would conflict with working hours, making it logistically difficult for people to challenge.
You can intentionally mail tickets to old addresses, then rake up late fees and interest.
Oh, all of these happened in one or another municipality at some point in time.
Isn't that what they're doing in I-90? (Score:3)
The construction zone that runs basically from Rockford into downtown is like 45 MPH the whole way, despite the road being two lanes and the construction nearly complete.
I drove it last week and it was agonizing AND the State Police were actively pulling people over.
I thought they could have set the limit to 55 MPH very reasonably; there were only a couple of places where I thought it realistically should have been 45 MPH.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
"It was a fraction of a second that no driver really noticed. But the difference between a 2.9 second yellow light and a 3.0 second yellow light meant about 77,000 tickets for Chicago motorists, and a $7.7 million windfall for the city’s coffers, according to the Chicago Tribune.:
Also, a shoutout to anybody who's interested in doing open data in Chicago to fight systems like this with data crunching: http://ope [opengovhacknight.org]
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Informative)
From the actual tribune article.
Correction, October 20, 2014: This post originally misstated that Chicago's government had reduced the duration of the city's yellow lights. The timing of the lights has remained consistent overall but can vary in individual instances due to electrical fluctuations. In February the city changed its policy to begin giving tickets in some cases when, due to fluctuation, the yellow signal lasted less than three seconds.
And the statement is plausible, according to the traffic engineers I work with,
Re: (Score:3)
GPS logs do a great job. An NMEA log showing time stamped location, position, speed, etc of the trip is pretty solid evidence in court. To further question the camera's data,, these are often included in upscale dashcams. GPS log is easly compaired to the video log where speed time distance between known landmarks such as crosswalks is solid evidence.
A judge throwing out evidence to protect revenue risks a youtube and social media revolt when the video is posted online. Anti speed camera folks eat those
Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:3)
Also, can we stop pretending these are about anything other than revenue generation?
This. Just the mere fact that they actually budgeted against the ticket revenue tells you everything you need to know.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, can we stop pretending these are about anything other than revenue generation?
This. Just the mere fact that they actually budgeted against the ticket revenue tells you everything you need to know.
And that they have access to the revenue data but have no idea if the roads are safer.
Jesus Christ, READ TFA! (Score:5, Informative)
First off, because of state law, the speed cameras can only issue a ticket for going 6+ over the limit. So, 25 in a 20 school zone, or 35 in a 30 "near a park" zone is OK. Second, the 6-10 MPH over the limit is a $35 ticket. BFD. Only when you do 11+ over the limit (e.g. 41 in a 30), that's when it shoots up to $100. Finally, speed cameras are NOT allowed on Lake Shore Drive, Lower Wacker, and (obviously) Interstates.
On top of that, because of state law, the city had to paint "SAFETY ... ZONE" on the street in each lane, along with putting up extra speed limit signs with "PHOTO ENFORCED", by every camera installation, on that street and on all intersecting streets...
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
You want me to link it for you, tough, go find it yourself, not that you ever will.
The keyword rot and search engines ignoring boolean expressions makes it more of a pain than I care to look up something I've read years ago just because you are a doubting thomas too lazy to do it himself.
Even so, here's a
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Informative)
The red light camera issue is easily Googled, many municipalities have found that the companies installing these have turned down the timing between amber and red in order to catch more people running the red.
http://www.motorists.org/red-l... [motorists.org]
Re: (Score:2)
many municipalities have found that the companies installing these have turned down the timing between amber and red
Citation please. I am unaware of a single time where a company has changed the timing. In every instance it has been our elected officials that made the decision.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Where I live they are considering installing red light cameras. They specifically have said that the company will control how long the yellow light gets shown.
Of course, this could just be elected officials spreading misinformation so that they can get the red light cameras installed but deflect any criticism away from themselves.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
many municipalities have found that the companies installing these have turned down the timing between amber and red
Citation please. I am unaware of a single time where a company has changed the timing. In every instance it has been our elected officials that made the decision.
The revenue stream for the speed camera company comes from a share of the traffic citations. The legal contracts are drafted in such a way that incentivized both parties, the municipality and the firm. To deny the soft and hard influence that takes place to "tweak" revenue is just be ignorant.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Insightful)
Easy solution, STOP letting for profit companies run these things. If a community wants red light cameras, they can buy them, install them, and manage them all under heavy citizen oversight.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Insightful)
Incorrect. When you see light turning yellow, you are suppose to stop when it is safe to do so, otherwise proceed through the intersection. If you are a municipality concerned about safety - increase timer on yellow light.
Instead, exact opposite happens - municipality concerned with a budget shortfalls decreases yellow light timer to generate additional red light ticket revenue. As a result, many people slam on the brakes increasing instances of rear-end collisions.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Interesting)
>>>You're not even supposed to run the amber, never mind the red.
Incorrect. When you see light turning yellow, you are suppose to stop when it is safe to do so, otherwise proceed through the intersection. If you are a municipality concerned about safety - increase timer on yellow light.
Instead, exact opposite happens - municipality concerned with a budget shortfalls decreases yellow light timer to generate additional red light ticket revenue. As a result, many people slam on the brakes increasing instances of rear-end collisions.
Yep, I remember years back when some of these companies and cities were getting sued by the insurance companies for making the accident rate go up at these intersections.
I've only had one cop ever give me crap for running the yellow, in Chicago of course. He must have not felt like doing any paperwork that day because he dropped it when I made it clear that I'd take it to court if he wrote a ticket over such a spurious thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Increasing the time on yellow encourages more people to proceed through even if it was safe to stop.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't increase time on the yellow.... you let the yellow turn red on the same timer, but you leave both directions red for 2 seconds just to ensure the intersection is clear before showing a green light. That's how you make it safer.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Insightful)
You don't increase time on the yellow.... you let the yellow turn red on the same timer, but you leave both directions red for 2 seconds just to ensure...
...that drivers will feel safe going through the intersection after the light turns red.
It's a nice idea, but the universe will always build a better idiot.
it's funny what people will spend their money on.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Cars have airbags so that the people who refuse to buckle their safety belts wont die.
That's just so wrong. Nope, the airbags are the supplemental restraints. They work together with seat belts. Airbag deployment in a frontal collision actually makes you more likely to get injured if you wear no seatbelts, than if you had none - at least for the driver. I've had a T-bone with side airbag deployment, and I can assure you that in this particular case, the seatbelts alone would have done nothing. Again: the restraint system in a car is designed as a system. It's not designed to save you from a
Re: (Score:3)
You don't increase time on the yellow.... you let the yellow turn red on the same timer, but you leave both directions red for 2 seconds just to ensure the intersection is clear before showing a green light. That's how you make it safer.
But this doesn't stop rolling-rights-on-red which are the bread and butter of these revenue machines.
And I have yet to see any data that r-r-o-r are dangerous.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Informative)
If it still reduces accidents [stpetecameras.org] as well as red light running, does it matter if 'more' people run the yellow? The goal of traffic signals is safe intersections and driving, not a 'Simon Says' game.
Note: Link provided not for unbiased site, but because site does have links to reputable studies.
I DID read a biased FAQ [atsol.com] by a red light company. Note how they pound the cost of accidents in life and property damage, citing studies. But when it comes to how red light cameras effect the crash rate? 'If red-light and speed safety cameras reduced by an additional 25%...'. Uncited supposition.
Fact is, the 'typical' fatal red-light running is a person going through an 'aged' red, at high speed, while drunk. Not the type to be worried about a camera at that point. Most accidents involving 'fresh' reds are minor, comparable to the rear-end collisions that increase due to the cameras(google should give studies easily).
I apologize for not linking a study, but I have to head out.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Insightful)
There are established laws/standards for how long a yellow should be given the speed limit of the road. Municipalities have been caught violating their own laws/standards to increase revenue. A yellow light needs to be long enough to include a normal reaction time, and still leave a safe stopping distance. The best option for safety is to abide by established standards and law for yellow light times. Yellow lights should be predictable, not too short and not too long, or you stand to cause accidents at intersections that do not obey the norms.
The real issue here is that yellow lights have become a tool to tweak revenue for cash strapped towns, cities, and the companies they contract with. I can see it being a very easy trap to get caught in when you are facing closing schools and delaying pot hole repairs, but it should be off limits. The rules of the road should be optimized for safety and efficiency, not plugging budget holes.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Interesting)
If you are a municipality concerned about safety - increase timer on yellow light.
It's not quite that simple. This has to do with how people learn a system and react to it.
You have a population that expects a warning a certain time before a condition applies. If you fiddle with the timing of when the warning comes up, the population will eventually learn the new timing and adjust to it. In the meantime they will either be surprised at a change in either direction. But shortening the light is more like "HOLY FUCK it's already red BRAKE SLAM" as opposed to "huh, I could have made it through this light".
But it's not quite that simple. You also have people from out of town that have learned their own light timing system and have an expectation when they visit you. You can essentially treat these people as people who haven't learned the new timing yet. And this is a bad thing because whenever you have two actors working on different systems they have different expectations and they both expect the other guy to do something different. We all expect to drive on the right side of the road in the USA, and we all have a general idea of how long a yellow light is supposed to last. It should be a rock-solid standard.
But it's not quite that simple. Even though there's a system and people learn it eventually, once it becomes a note-worthy thing and people start talking about it or worse, it becomes news, then you have the added factor of people preemptively stopping sooner or later. The benefit of having longer yellow lights is annulled if people know they're given a longer yellow light. Now you have people that haven't learned the new system, people who have learned the new system, and people who are trying to game the new system based on what they've heard.
Welcome to sociology where the factors are endless, the system is beyond our ken, and the points are billions of dollars and literal corpses.
I'd prefer if they didn't change the timing.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:4, Interesting)
You're missing the important aspect of the point. Increased yellow light timer, means increase span of time to determine whether it's safe to proceed through the intersection. Whether that means people figure they have more time to get through the intersection is moot. They have more time to decide on a safe course of action before one HAS to be made. So yes, it is that simple, and you've over thought the issue.
Re: (Score:3)
Basically, what you need is a national code for the programming of lights.
We have it in Australia, yellow light timing is the same nationally and you can report shortened yellow lights to the local council or state roads department. The biggest problem is with old lights using a mechanical system for timing (yes they still exist, its expensive to replace every traffic light
Re: (Score:3)
NHTSA has recommendations for lots of traffic factors... why not yellow lights?
Just Googled it and it turns out that there is a manual:
http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/ [dot.gov]
Fact: Yellow light time is set to optimize safety and traffic flow. Federal
guidelines recommend yellow lights last from 3 to 6 seconds. Local authorities
set the duration based on many factors including: traffic volume, speed, roadway
grade and intersection design.
Source: “Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices 2009 Edition.” FHWA. Nov.
Re: (Score:2)
You're not even supposed to run the amber, never mind the red.
It is a physical impossibility to avoid running the yellow light in all cases. If the length of the yellow has been decreased, it may be impossible or extraordinarily dangerous to avoid running the red in some cases as well.
Re: (Score:2)
There's one intersection in my city where I enter it on a green, and it turns red before I'm on the other side. People have learned to wait 20 seconds after their light turns green to let traffic in the other direction finish.
I don't know what it's like in your country, but in the UK, the light you pass when you enter is the relevant one. The other is just there to make it easier to see. There's always a white line to denote the real stop line.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's say that a driver going 60 mph notices the light turn amber 1 ft. from the intersection. According to your statement, they are not supposed to enter the intersection.
This would require a deceleration of approximately 120 g. Not only is this physically impossible for any vehicle (short of hitting a very thick concrete wall), you'll flatten the driver and passengers like pancakes.
Re: (Score:2)
While I disagree with the "you should never go through a yellow light" statement, I've got to question your example. Every section of road I've ever seen that has stop lights also has speed limits much less than 60 mph. Usually 40 mph max. If you're going 60 mph down a stretch of road with a 40mph speed limit, then your problem isn't the yellow light.
Re: (Score:2)
There are traffic lights on dual-carriageways in the UK, so a 70mph limit. Rarely on the motorways, although technically there are traffic lights used on some entry slip roads at rush hour, although you'd be lucky to be doing 70 on them then...
Re: (Score:2)
the amber is there exactly for the purpose that you don't need to slam on the brakes as it turns red.
if it just turned red instantly and you had cameras, it would be fun times for both the company charging for the camera service and for the insurance repair companies.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Informative)
Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices [dot.gov]
The definition of what a yellow light means is in section 4D.04, and the federal rules for yellow lights is in section 4D.26.
For the definition of yellow: Vehicular traffic facing a steady CIRCULAR YELLOW signal indication is thereby warned that the related green movement or the related flashing arrow movement is being terminated or that a steady red signal indication will be displayed immediately thereafter when vehicular traffic shall not enter the intersection.
For the minimum and maximum timings: A yellow change interval should have a minimum duration of 3 seconds and a maximum duration of 6 seconds. The longer intervals should be reserved for use on approaches with higher speeds.
Re: (Score:3)
It's amazing how many people who claim to have a sub 0.4s reaction time suddenly have a 4 second reaction time when faced with a yellow light.
Re: (Score:3)
So you violated the speeding law, based on an assumption about a yellow light time(which varies both per light and electrical fluctuation), thus jeopardizing others.
You need to have you drivers license taking away, cut into pieces, and the shoved up your dick hole.
Re: (Score:2)
Please follow at a safe distance, and go back to drivers training.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Please follow at a safe distance, and go back to drivers training.
Never! It's in the Constitution that I can drive as fast as I like and everybody else has to get out of the way.
Why do you hate America?
Re: (Score:3)
No, you apparently don't. In every state I'm aware of yellow means "stop if you can". It's effectively red, but lenient enough that if you're close to it and can't stop when it appears, then you're still fine.
Re: (Score:3)
That's interesting. The rule here has always been that you must clear the intersection before the light goes red. I wonder why you'd ever be in the intersection after it has turned red?
There are a few reasons. One is the lights are normally timed based on the road's speed limit, so if traffic is going a lot slower for some reason, then the time to cross the intersection may be greater than the yellow light interval. Another reason is the people who set the timings may be idiots. For example, there is an intersection near where I live that is many lanes across in both directions, and if you enter the intersection to make a left turn on a green light, not even yellow, the light will ofte
Re: (Score:3)
Civil servants used to have these skills in the mid 50's because we built an economic system that wasn't focused on useless financialization. Now we have a legacy 20th century infrastructure that no longer has a 20th century revenue stream. The 21st century revenue streams are so messed up and unbalanced that only Fraudsters and liars can get elected, because no sane person could promise the things most of our elected officials promise.
At the heart of all this is the lack of federal deficit spending. Hasn't
Re: (Score:2)
There HAVE been news reports of SOME communities putzing with stuff... or having them fail "accidentally"
However, over the last 10 years I only remember reading or watching 2 such stories. I *think* one involved the timer set incorrectly so it would take pictures of people "running the red" before the light was red.
So either it's a much more rare occurrence than people assume, or it just isn't reported often.
To your overall question though -- I do not recall the actual sources / citations. Though a Google
Re: (Score:3)
Then you haven't been paying attention, ATS, Redflex, and the other red light camera companies have been getting bad press all over the country, from Florida, to NJ, to Chicago where Redflex personnel bribed officials to get the $2B contract there, and there are public allegations [chicagotribune.com] from a former executive that they routinely bribed officials in at least 13 states: California, Washington, Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Florida, New Jersey, Tennessee, Virginia and Georgia.
Re:Easy to solve - calibrate them to overestimate (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes:
http://www.realclearscience.co... [realclearscience.com]
http://www.nbc-2.com/story/122... [nbc-2.com]
http://www.youngcons.com/texas... [youngcons.com]
All 3 of those were beaten with MATH as in, irrefutable proof that the camera was wrong and setup to intentionally give tickets to people that did not break the law. (unless the software itself is hopelessly flawed)
biatch
Re: (Score:3)
dozens of examples. Judges across the country are ordering them illegal, the citations non-valid, and there are corruption investigations.
Some of the investigations have shown that city council members were getting their condo's paid for by the red light company.
These things are a scam. They're never put in places where there are safety concerns. They're always placed at busy yet statistically safe intersections. And they are typically configured to maximize tickets rather then flag unsafe or even just ille
Re: (Score:3)
In the UK they draw rulers on the road and the camera takes two pictures of you, one second apart.
Who's [sic] second are they using?
Interestingly enough it's a secondde or "short second" which is equal to 0.94 Imperial seconds.
This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
It proves the cameras are working, and people are speeding less. What's the problem? In an ideal world, the cameras would never go off, and never issue a ticket.
Re:This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
The point of the cameras was revenue, not traffic safety. They've failed at their intended goal, and I don't see evidence for attributing it to traffic safety. The only person who benefited is the vendor.
And that's before the court challenges. Doesn't "Due Process" ensure that the accused can say, "That's faked, Photoshop. The network and servers are hacked, and PROVE THEY ARE SECURE."
Ever seen a municipal vendor who could certify under penalty of perjury complete compliance with all applicable law, regulation and policy?
Re: (Score:3)
The point of the cameras was revenue, not traffic safety.
Says the article...
No one else has claimed that. They merely predicted that driving was bad enough that it would happen to bring a certain revenue. It turns out that driving is better than they thought, and now they're happy.
Re:This is good (Score:5, Insightful)
It proves the cameras are working, and people are speeding less.
No, it does not prove that. Another possible explanation is that people were never speeding much in the first place. They may have overestimated the potential revenue.
Re: (Score:2)
Third explanation: People are speeding just as much as before but are now slamming on their brakes when the light turns yellow potentially causing more rear-end collisions. There are a lot of explanation that don't involve "red light cameras worked as intended" so we shouldn't jump to that as the first and only explanation.
Re: (Score:2)
In before "why won't you think of the children!?".
It does not. It may indicate that problem was overblown in the first place. Also since report focuses on revenue, and no accident rates (possibly because there is zero impact) we can conclude that these were always about revenue-generation.
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether they're identified. In Boulder Colorado, I was nabbed by a speed camera. I know the area where I generated the infraction and there was no notice, no sign, no nothing other than a letter a few weeks later.
[John]
Re: (Score:3)
Depends on whether they're identified. In Boulder Colorado, I was nabbed by a speed camera. I know the area where I generated the infraction and there was no notice, no sign, no nothing other than a letter a few weeks later.
[John]
I also live in Boulder and know the City spends a lot of money on their speed and red light cameras. When ticketing by mail for speeding, Colorado law requires an enforcement officer operate the equipment, record each infraction and post a warning sign ahead of the trap that reads "Photo Radar Ahead". The officer puts the sign up on some random street sign (usually not the speed limit sign) and parks the van down the road. They document the road signage and camera placements. The signs are green, only po
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The fact that this is a problem for the City of Chicago actually points out that the cameras were never about safety, they have always been about money.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know how it works in Chicago land, but speeds are supposed to reflect the average speed of traffic on the road. The problem I have with automated enforcement is that it doesn't take into account that speed limits are well below where they should be on most streets. There's a highway near me that was designed for traffic to do 70mph but the road can't be signed for it because the state police won't sign off. So it sits at 55mph and everyone does 70mph anyway, and a few get ticketed each day. Same
It is a common thing right now in other cities (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is that these entities have integrated punitive fines into their standard funding expectations and financial plans.
I think that sort of thinking needs to be scorned. It is a poor way to manage an institution. You don't want your model to be 'well, we will depend on and be incentivized to encourage people to break the rules we claim we want them to follow'. It's a rather ethically laughable situation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If they wanted to discourage [alcohol and cigarettes] they would either be illegal or they would stop issuing things like liqueur licenses
They tried that. It didn't' work. [wikipedia.org] Turns out it just give a big fat income to organized crime. Kinda like how the cartels in Mexico are fueled by weed sales up here.
What works better is regulating it, taxing it, and dealing with the consequences. The campaign against tobacco has done fantastically well and should be a role model for how to steer culture away from self-destructive recreations. You know, to the extent that culture should be steered. But seriously, fuck those tobacco companies. Fucking death-m
Re: (Score:3)
I would not be surprised if Comcast was making big money from late frees, etc.. Other companies certainly do. One company I dealt with, my payment arrived earlier than expected so was treated as a payment for the previous billing cycle and caused a late payment fee even though I had already paid that cycle on time (as shown in my statement). Then another late fee was generated for the new billing cycle even though my balance was 0. While I was able to get the fees removed, it still wasted my time and effort
Actually, they're *saving* chicago that much. (Score:2)
Yet the camera marketing companies keep spinning them as ways to provide money to cities.
In reality, that only works for the rare city where most drivers are from out of town.
Re:Actually, they're *saving* chicago that much. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some states have laws against small communities enforcing speed laws on state or interstate highways, so that the town doesn't become a revenue-generating speed trap.
Gadget enforcement never works (Score:2)
Furthermore, the city has not presented data on whether or not those areas have become safer.
That's because they haven't, otherwise the city would be taking a victory lap. That's because gadget enforcement can't change human nature.
We won't see any real safety improvements until we take human nature out of driving and turn it over to machines.
My prediction (Score:2)
Funny how they budget project income for these.... (Score:3)
I mean, *if* you believe what they spout off all the time about the REASON for installing these cameras in the first place? Clearly it's about improving safety. Who in their right mind tries to project potential profits from implementing a safety measure?
Think about it ....
OT: ":Fine money should be burned (Score:2)
Money collected as punishment for crimes should be destroyed either literally or as a bookkeeping entry, so nobody* benefits from its collection.
Ditto punitive damages from civil suits.
This would remove the financial incentive for governments to fine people and remove the financial incentive for plaintiffs to seek high punitive damages. The stated "justice/deterrence" purpose of fines and punitive damages would remain.
*I'm ignoring the theoretical, negligible gain in the value of everyone else's dollars as
Re: (Score:2)
I'd argue that we should find something that helps people, but isn't "sexy" enough for politicians to use it for political gain. Something like libraries. Make all crime-punishment-fines go directly to library coffers. However, said money shouldn't be budgeted at all to prevent politicians from saying "We're expecting $X in fines so we can reduce the library's budget by $X and move that money to CAUSE Y."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:OT: ":Fine money should be burned (Score:4, Interesting)
How about use it to fund public defenders? Those guys are always getting a raw deal (as are their clients), and it would create a bit of a stabilizing feedback loop. More fines means you need more defense lawyers, a win-win. Or have we given up on having a fair legal system?
Re: (Score:3)
Then you're incentivising them to not have their clients found innocent.
there is a solution to law enforement for profit (Score:2, Insightful)
it will require a constitutional amendment
1. no government entity (fees, fines, tolls, tariffs, settlements, and seizures) may use non-tax monies for any of its operating expenses
2. all non-tax revenue are distributed evenly amongst the citizens of the collecting jurisdiction on an annual basis
People who break the law or use limited government services still pay. People who don't break the law and don't use services are rewarded with an extra tax refund. And politicians can't be sneaky about the amount of
Re: (Score:3)
it will require a constitutional amendment
1. no government entity (fees, fines, tolls, tariffs, settlements, and seizures) may use non-tax monies for any of its operating expenses
2. all non-tax revenue are distributed evenly amongst the citizens of the collecting jurisdiction on an annual basis
People who break the law or use limited government services still pay. People who don't break the law and don't use services are rewarded with an extra tax refund. And politicians can't be sneaky about the amount of money they spend since 100% of it will have to come directly from taxes.
Of course this will never happen because of entrenched power and the 1% benefiting from the current system fleecing the general public.
This. PLEASE! I've been saying it for years.
How does one measure safety? (Score:2)
I know TFS says they haven't presented data... I wonder if they were collecting data at all.
But the speed camera folks are laughing .... (Score:5, Informative)
Most likely the camera companies have minimum guarantee payments, will not let changes to traffic lights and timings that would reduce both accidents and fines etc. There was the fiasco with parking spaces, that makes it impossible for Chicago to create more parking spaces without paying the private company for their "loss of revenue". The private bridge owner of the bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Canada is suing to block the building of any new bridge. When turnpike operations are sold to such private companies, they have clauses preventing the improvement of alternative roads owned by the state or city that would divert traffic away from the turnpike.
The great American rip-off is the private companies taking over tax funded infrastructure and then preventing improvements to alternatives, and extracting rent. I think the only way to stop them is to sue such companies for criminal conduct and bad faith and have the original contract declared null and void. Two bit politicians coming into office for a single two year term should not be able to burden all the citizens for eternity to such contracts.
Financial gains over safety (Score:2)
Anyone considering the use of speed cameras for anything else than safety in high-risk areas is doing something wrong in my opinion. Just as much is it wrong to review their use by any other criterion.
In this case, both the review (based on financial gains) and the expectation of revenue show me that they are doing all this for the wrong reason. And I find that really sad. How wrong can that morally be, to install speed camera based on expected revenue... that's quite a low. I'd rather have a totally unecon
Re: (Score:2)
In both cases, a data set of vehicle speed at the site in the year before and after the cameras were introduced would be very useful.
Case 1: No change in traffic speed
Case 2: Dramatic reduction in traffic speed
Assuming they had that data set.
Case 1: would be kept as quiet as possible because it means the came
Re: (Score:2)
Case 2: would be shouted from the rooftops (from both the local authority and the company running the scheme)
Unless safety was not the goal aimed for at all.
Goal Should Be Zero Revenue (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm a big fan of both red light and speed cameras, so long as it's clear that the goal, and the only goal, is to improve traffic safety by getting people to abide by speed limits* and obey traffic lights. The ideal scenario would be one in which the cameras generated zero revenue at all, because everybody was following the law.
*I'll be the first to say that speed limits on highways are too low, I'm talking about areas where cars have to share the road with pedestrians and bicyclists.
Re: (Score:3)
It shouldn't be zero revenue because there would be no 'deterrance' which is their stated goal.
However, the revenue should go into a different pot, like an annual donation to local charities that are not otherwise funded by the city.
Re: (Score:2)
I do think the goal should be zero revenue, since if everybody's following the speed limit and not running red lights, then there's no revenue (i.e. the deterrence has been successful).
I agree on the "different pot." At the very least, the companies that provide the cameras shouldn't be compensated on a revenue share arrangement - it creates all the wrong incentives. I can see why cities go for it ("We get the cameras, but don't have to pay for them out of pocket? Great!"), but that's no excuse.
Voting Machines (Score:5, Funny)
Auto cancelling contracts anyone? (Score:2)
1) Do the installation in phases
2) Only move on to Phase 2 if Phase 1 works without any problems, as expected.
3) Require third party testing to be sure that Phase 1 is done fairly
Cochrane review of red-light camera studies (Score:2)
A Cochrane meta-analysis of red-light camera studies concludes:
Red-light cameras are effective in reducing total casualty crashes. The evidence is less conclusive on total collisions, specific casualty
collision types and violations, where reductions achieved could be explained by the play of chance. Most evaluations did not adjust for
RTM or spillover, affecting their accuracy. Larger and better controlled studies are needed
http://www.thecochranelibrary.... [thecochranelibrary.com]
Re: (Score:2)
And a Cochrane review of speed cameras concludes:
The quality of the included studies in this review was judged as being of overall moderate quality at best, however, the consistency of reported positive reductions in speed and crash results across all studies show that speed cameras are a worthwhile intervention for reducing the number of road traffic injuries and deaths. To affirm this finding, higher quality studies, using well designed controlled trials where possible, and studies conducted over adequate
Chicago caught red handed gaming the system (Score:2)
http://www.chicagotribune.com/... [chicagotribune.com]
Thousands of Chicago drivers have been tagged with $100 red light fines they did not deserve, targeted by robotic cameras during a series of sudden spikes in tickets that city officials say they cannot explain, a Tribune investigation has found.
The Tribune's analysis of more than 4 million tickets issued since 2007 and a deeper probe of individual cases revealed clear evidence that the deviations in Chicago's network of 380 cameras were caused by faulty equipment, human tink
Budgeting....always a problem (Score:3)
I really do think Budgeting is one of the places that one has to be the most careful about creating perverse incentives.
Frankly, cities should not be using fines in budgeting, but rather, should have a designated fund for ALL fines and fees to go into, which should simply be added to next years base tax income or, used to offset an entirely unrelated portion of the budget to the fine.
In this way, while there may be a sort of general incentive to increase general revenue, but the one thing you don't want, is the budget of any department with any control over either enforcement or policy making seeing any direct effect on his budget from the making or enforcing of the policy.
"Earn"???? (Score:3)
Here, fixed it for you:
"Speed Cameras In Chicago confiscate $50M Less Than Expected"
The cameras don't earn anything, as they don't produce anything of value. They are simply taxing devices, yet another way to confiscate money from drivers, and justified with an unproven "keep your children safe" blanket
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Colorado made a big deal of how much money they would take in by legalizing marijuana. They, the state, predicted they would take in $184 million in the first year and now it looks like they'll be lucky to hit $40 million [yahoo.com].
Wow only $40 million? What an insignificant figure ....
Re: (Score:2)
Money is relative. If you are in government and want to buy something, it's only 2 billion. If you are against buying something it's an outrageous 2 million.
Re: (Score:3)
They're still making money from marijuanna sales there. I could have told them they wouldn't make that much money, they were way too optimistic, and set the tax rates too high to properly compete with illegal sources.
Compounding that was a federal campaign against the financing and housing of legal dispensaries - they have a hard time getting the money to get the economy of scale necessary for profit. Leasing commercial property is also almost impossible.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Crime went down in colorado. Along with drug overdoses.
Productivity might be an issue. But your other point is pure bullshit.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't count on law-breaking as an income model, or you by definition automatically have no moral right to claim it's for safety. The ultimate goal of whatever system you put in place is to put itself out of business. Instead, the system is put in place to serve itself and NEVER accomplish it's goal of stopping people from breaking the law.
But it's the system we HAVE. It's not called the corrections industry for nothing; one of the largest businesses in the country is catching people and punishing them. There's a reason we have the largest per-capita incarceration rate in the world. If there were no crime... the cops, lawyers, prison guards, surveillance equipment company employees, would all be out of work. For heavens sake, if you're a patriot and love your country, support it by breaking the law today!