Chicago Sends More Than 100,000 "Bogus" Camera-Based Speeding Tickets 200
Ars Technica, based on an in-depth report (paywalled) at the Chicago Tribune, says that the city of Chicago has been misusing traffic cameras to trigger automated speeding tickets. In particular, these cameras are placed in places where there are enhanced penalties for speeding, putatively intended to increase child safety. The automated observation system, though, has been used to send well over 100,000 tickets that the Tribune analysis deems "questionable," because they lack the evidence which is supposed to be required -- for instance, many of these tickets are unbacked by evidence of the presence of children, or were issued when the speeding rules didn't apply (next to a park when that park was closed).
Putatively (Score:3)
Re:Putatively (Score:5, Funny)
No doubt derived from the Spanish "puta."
Camera companies are raking it in (Score:2)
With so many cities banning the cameras, I'm still wondering how these companies can get their costs back?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Illinois needs some way to raise enough money to pay its lottery debts.......
Re: (Score:3)
Chicago involved in racketeering...I am shocked! (Score:2)
Wow. Who would ever expect a city like Chicago to be involved in something that is essentially racketeering?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not the 1st time for Chicago, cameras & corrup (Score:2)
Don't forget that Redflex's CEO was bribing Chicago officials [arstechnica.com] to help get her cameras in there.
Need to use the system against itself (Score:5, Interesting)
(1) go to the local police station, city offices, courts, city hall and make a note of a bunch of license plates in the employee lots.
(2) print out paper license plate sized versions of the plate numbers
(3) park a car at the speed sensor.
(4) tape a paper copy on the back of the car
(5) cover a softball with tin-foil
(6) play catch in front of the speed sensor
(7) repeat for all your fake license plates
(8) ?????
(9) Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
That's one of the most inspired posts I've ever seen. 1) Find out the douche who approved the cameras. 2) Hire a car closely matching what he drives. 3) Passable cutout plates with metallic paint. 4) Get him enough points in varied locations in a single night to get his license suspended. 5) Retire.
The douche gets it dismissed but it takes him a court fight to do so.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> Chicagoland works like this: if you have the political clout to approve cameras, you do not need to worry about traffic tickets
This. Plus the state helps by issuing specially numbered license plates to the connected so that any cop or other official can tell who not to ticket/bother from distance.
Private operators and traffic cameras (Score:3)
A criminal charge of obtaining money by deception? (Score:2)
The state attorney general? (Score:2)
Illegal Here. (Score:4, Informative)
One of the best perks of living in MN: :)
These got their day in court a number of years ago and LOST! Photo traffic enforcement is unconstitutional according to MN's version. A real cop has to do his job for you to get a ticket.
We had that problem in Az (Score:2)
Not the first abuse (Score:2)
I seem to remember a few years back when there was a particularly snowy winter they were handing out tickets for illegal right turns like candy. The city wasn't able to keep up with snow removal and had just been plowing snow and slush to the side of the road. This eventually caused the right hand turn lanes at most intersections to be covered in banks of snow and ice several feet tall. Drivers did the common sense thing and were turning right on red, normally legal, from the right most lane that was passab
Cash Registers (Score:2)
Great story on this! (Score:4, Funny)
We have time-based speed limits? (Score:2)
What else is new... (Score:2)
Photo-radar and red lights cameras being used to generate revenue rather than to increase safety? What else is new.
Re:Children or not (Score:5, Interesting)
False. It can clap a number on any car going by.
Problem is that speeding and red light cameras are easily abused. I remember talking with someone related to this, and even though it shouldn't be possible, he said that the red light cameras he put up had the ability to flip a green light red, pop the picture, flip it back to green, as well as just have varying yellow light timings, so one car may have four seconds... another, late at night, may wind up with a direct green -> red transition and a ticket.
Once you have a private party that can allege something that can't be disproven, it is ripe for abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe it is possible that the ability exists, but in every state and jurisdiction, this sort of thing would be highly illegal, and extremely unlikely due to the fact that sooner or later a citizen with pick up on it, document it, and people would go to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
I am willing to believe that yellows are shortened at camera-intersections, but a system that randomized the timings / flipped red just long enough for a picture would be quickly caught by someone on video and the local news outlets would have a field day.
Re:Children or not (Score:5, Informative)
The computer doesn't lie about the speeding. People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well. (and they drive like a-holes)
When the sign says "Speed limit 25 when children are present" then it's not speeding to go 30 when no children are present. People are afraid of these traps because they don't want their money stolen from them by government thugs under the pretense of "safety".
Re: (Score:3)
I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.
Re:Children or not (Score:4, Informative)
It seems that most jurisdictions have got around the right to face our accusers and cross examine them in court by modifying the statue and removing the criminal penalties for moving violations which makes it strictly an administrative/civil matter. Since there are no longer criminal penalties all of those pesky constitutional guarantees fall to the wayside.
Oh, you didn't pay your ticket? Well the vehicle that the ticket was issued against can't be registered and will be impounded on sight - and the owner driver's license can't be renewed either until the (increasing amount of) fines are paid in full.
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.
It exposes the highway robber nature of government, as opposed to the caring safety monitor meme it is wrapped in.
Re:Children or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, one of the things we've heard cities do is make the length of yellow lights shorter so they can maximize revenue at the red-light cameras.
I once got an automated ticket for running a red light.
Essentially I was doing the speed limit (it was a 4 cylinder Jeep, speeding wasn't really an option) ... when the light went yellow I was close enough to the intersection I had to decide if I would slam on my brakes and make a panic stop, or acknowledge no way in hell I can stop.
At the time I decided in the remaining 30 feet or so no way I could safely stop.
By the time I'd got 35-40 feet, the light had already changed to red. That triggered the threshold for the red-light camera ... it doesn't care, you passed the line after it went red. There was less than 3 seconds between the yellow coming up and the red coming up, and not nearly enough space to stop in.
The problem with law enforcement by automation is there is zero room to say anything about it, or point out how the light was impossibly short.
And then people are left trying to explain how it simply wasn't getting the whole idea of what happened because it's a simple binary decision.
It's actually scary to see how short some yellow lights are, especially when there is a traffic camera involved. It's like they know damned well you have no chance in hell of stopping, but since it generates more revenue they should keep doing it.
With a human police officer I could say "look, I was here, I was going this fast, stopping would have been unsafe and dangerous". Instead you have a computer which spits out something which says you're guilty, and has no context for anything else.
Re:Children or not (Score:5, Insightful)
Furthermore, they really don't care at all about safety. Studies have shown that while this sort of thing reduces T-bone incidents (which were rare to begin with), they cause a much greater increase in rear-end accidents because people wind up slamming on the breaks to avoid the sudden red light. Studies have also shown that there's a much more effective way to increase intersection safety, such as longer yellow lights, and/or a 1 to 2 second "all red". Of course, neither of those generate tons of money for the municipal government, let alone the camera company.
Re: (Score:2)
That's true [dot.gov], but understand that T-bone collisions tend to be much more severe than rear-end collisions.
Anyway, this is why red light cameras should also be speed cameras, to help prevent tailgating which is the main cause of rear-end collisions.
Or we could just make the yellow longer (Score:2)
Re:Children or not (Score:5, Interesting)
When I drove for UPS they teach you to always be wary of "stale" green lights.
That is, if you didn't see the light go from red to green, you have no idea how much time is left on the clock and should be prepared to stop.
So they taught us to take our foot off the gas and be ready to apply the brake up until about 30 feet before the light, then, if it still had not changed to yellow, clear the intersection by scanning both directions, then accelerate slightly to the other side of the intersection.
Of course, we were also taught that ALL accidents are your fault no matter percentage the law may assign to an outcome.
Re: (Score:2)
That is, if you didn't see the light go from red to green, you have no idea how much time is left on the clock and should be prepared to stop.
After turning green from red, how long will it stay green? 50 seconds? 10 seconds? 4 seconds? Basically you have no idea either.
Re:Children or not (Score:4, Funny)
It only took 1 ticket to convince me to keep the bike rack on my car at all times...
Re: (Score:3)
My guess ... from a certain angle it blocks the license plates -- no plate, no ticket. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Which is illegal in many jurisdictions. In some jurisdictions you can actually get a "bike plate" for the bike carrier/rack. It's about the size of a motorcycle plate and carries the car's number.
Re: (Score:2)
Why, gee officer ... I had no idea you couldn't see my plate from the red-light camera ...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The most effective way to improve safety is to do what Austria does - a blinking green light indicating it is about to turn yellow, and an appropriately timed yellow for the speed limit of the road. Note that Austria also has no "All Red" lights. When the light turns yellow, those waiting also get a yellow, like the countdown to green for a drag race.
The one thing I'll note - very very few red light runners in that area of Europe. Oh, they also use red light cameras, and the "entered on a yellow" is not a
Re: (Score:2)
Also, many red light camera tickets are for right turns. Accidents caused by people turning right at red lights are very rare -- and serious accidents from this are even more rare.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not in California then? California has laws that specify the minimum time the yellow light must be active, based on the speed limit in force at the intersection. A city near me had to refund thousands of tickets when it was caught
Re: (Score:2)
I would like to suggest that our right to face our accuser is being usurped . Some things just shouldn't be automated, even if we are able to.
"No, it's a tax." - Roberts
Because you have the constitutional right to trial for both criminal and non-trivial civil cases, the government just invented a third category. These tickets are in the "look at what we made up" category, which isn't mentioned in the Constitution, so it's fine. Just fine. Just a fine.
Once the government decides it doesn't care to be limited by the Constitution in principle, the actual wording of the document becomes sadly unimportant. And that ship sailed decades ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I got nailed in a neighboring town which couldn't be bothered to do any more than the "when children are present" hiding-in-plain-sight signage. And the school in question was not visible from the road you're on, given it's laterally a full block away, but was apparently close enough to justify the sign. I simply had no idea it was a school zone, and no idea when the school zone hours are enforceable even if I had known. Despite the hard-ass reputation of the local cops for that town, he let me off
Re:Children or not (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, if the signs say "speed limit is x between the hours of y and z", and the ticket is issued at z+c ... then the ticket isn't valid.
I'm not saying people don't speed (not even a little). But I will readily believe these things don't align with the law, and give tickets which are incorrect because they aren't accounting for time of day.
Often these are set up to just call everything a ticket, and collect extra revenue. If that's by policy or incompetence that's not always clear.
Re: (Score:3)
Computers against "prosecutorial discretion" (Score:3)
Absolutely! I, for one, welcome camera-based and other automatic enforcement of speeding and other traffic-laws (such as based on the toll-road receipts). The complaints against the particularly-effective enforcement techniques are misguided and stupid — the laws need to change instead.
I drove on a German "highway" in March. Compared to America's interstates, it is, actually, a pathetic roa
Re: (Score:2)
The complaints against the particularly-effective enforcement techniques are misguided and stupid — the laws need to change instead.
Yeah, if we could just change the laws to a zero mph speed limit everywhere, all the time, then all speeding tickets would be valid and nobody would complain about that.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem is that the cameras cost money. Many cities pay for them by shortening yellows to the point that they're unsafe. That is, they REDUCE safety in order to use civil penalties as revenue. In other cases (such as in TFA), where the speed limit varies based on time of day or other conditions, they are triggering for exceeding the lower speed limit even when it isn't applicable (fraud).
These issues come up sufficiently frequently that it's best to just not allow the cameras at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure. But police officers are much more expensive.
Even if this really is a wide-spread problem, it does not detract from my point and is not too relevant either — a shortened yellow would be just as helpful to a human ticket-issuer as it is to a robotic one.
A problem easily fixable with a software
Re: (Score:2)
You should look at what cities are paying for the cameras. Oddly enough, real cops really aren't more expensive. Using real officers also avoids pressure from the camera provider in a revenue sharing contract (very common) to up the revenue.
They shouldn't be used for the same reason we find it suspicious when a group of people wearing ski masks and carrying shotguns gather outside of a bank.
Re:Computers against "prosecutorial discretion" (Score:5, Interesting)
A traffic engineer once explained that the American highway system was designed so that cars would be able to go 100 MPH safely (with regard to curves, etc.) And that was using assuming the tech of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
Theoretically, it is possible to install a speed camera that measures speed very accurately. That does not mean that the speed cameras that are currently being installed are accurate.
I've received a ticket from a photo radar van that miscalculated my speed. If these systems continue to be installed everywhere, eventually you will too.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently, it does, if "speeding' means driving in excess of the speed limit. Even from just reading the summary, one should understand that the speed limit in these locations varies, depending on time of day, or whether children are present, etc. So, what may constitute speeding under some conditions may be a legal speed under others. "The computer" is apparently conflating the two, and sending out speeding tickets when there was no evidence of the lower spee
Re: (Score:3)
Speeding fines were set back in the days when it required a cop to catch them. The fines were considered fair back then. Deterrent math works out like this:
Deterrent factor = (Likelihood of getting caught) X (fine when caught)
Another reason for fines might be to pay for the cost the society must bear for the fallout from the transgression. This math works out to:
Money available to fix mess = (fine amount) - (cost of catching and processing violators)
In both cases, automating the process of issuing speeding
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is that the speed limit is different when the parks are open than when they're closed. The cameras triggered on the lower speed limit even when it wasn't applicable.
I live in Chicago, and you HAVE IT WRONG... (Score:3)
"SPEED LIMIT 20 ON SCHOOL DAYS WHEN CHILDREN ARE PRESENT"
No flashing lights indicating when (e.g. in Ohio, it's a school zone when the MPH is lit and the yellow lights are flashing), and so on. To add to the confusion, good luck finding "regular" (non-school zone) signs in Chicago. Supposedly that's 30 MPH when no sign is present, but unlike the suburbs, they don't have that info on
Re: (Score:2)
I was under the impression that the "when children present" meant that when one could reasonably expect a child to be in the area. So during the week in the day and during the school year for a school but not on weekends, nights, or summer vacation. For parks you would basically assume anything during the day. Just because you don't see a child doesn't mean that there isn't one there that can walk into your path.
Re: (Score:2)
I would "reasonably" expect children to be present in a school zone an hour before school starts and maybe a couple of hours after school ended.
I wouldn't consider it reasonable to expect children to be present while school was in session -- I mean, they're inside being taught, right?
Re: (Score:2)
Did you care to even ready the fucking summary? Just wondering. Because: "[speeding tickets] were issued when the speeding rules didn't apply". So, yes, the computers did in fact lie about the speeding by processing the wrong set of rules for the given time period.
Re: (Score:2)
People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.
The main problem with these systems is that they issue too many tickets to middle class white people. If they worked like human cops, and just focused on teenagers and black people, they would be more acceptable.
Re: (Score:2)
The computer doesn't lie about the speeding.
TFA says the computer is lying about the speeding.
People are afraid of these traps exactly because they work so well.
No, people hate them because they don't work. They don't change behavior. Sending someone a ticket weeks after an event will not work to modify that event. And hiding them to try to catch as many people as possible makes them less of an immediate deterrent as well. Post a "speed camera 50m" sign (as I've seen in some places outside the US) and paint them bright yellow, and you'll do much more to reduce speeding than hidden cameras mailing out tickets lon
Re: (Score:2)
You're trolling, and I'll bite. Though there are cases where speeds have been calculated incorrectly, they're usually correct.
They have also, however, been just as efficient at exposing the problems with hard speed limits. Sometimes 45 is too fast; other times it's too slow - and machines can't (yet) calculate that. Many speed limits are set due to politics/fearmongering, environmental views, and revenue streams - not science/facts. It's a mini-miracle that we aren't still under the shackles of the 55 MPH n
Re: (Score:3)
Also - not everyone that drives fast is an ahole. And not everyone who drives the speed limit is NOT an ahole.
Agressive and inattentive drivers are the problem - slow or fast. Speed cameras and other forms of photo enforcement, however, are just safety theater that happen to make a buck or two for the camera companies.
On Arizona's ugly history with speed and red light cameras (short, short version):
Former governor Janet Napalitano signed a contract for Redflex to put up cameras (fixed and mobile) everywhere
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
These cameras are a scam in almost all cases. Speeding in-of-itself is rarely a safety concern. Speed-limits are artificially too low.
Care to cite your source on this information? I mean other than your rectum.
Re:Children or not (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/publications/pdfs/ontario-road-safety-annual-report-2012.pdf
Read the reports, especially page 35 of the PDF, sum the total of accidents and the reason for them, realizing that "speed too fast for conditions" means going at or below the speed limit when the road is not safe for that speed, typically due to ice or heavy rain (ie: For conventional speeding, focus on the "Speed too fast" statistic). Tell me where speeding fits. Well, I'll do it for you. It is the third LEAST likely cause of a collision. The only items ranking below it are, ironically, speed too slow, and driving against traffic.
Those stats are from the government itself, and the government of Ontario along with police officers is working to lower speed limits ostensibly because they are too high and are the largest cause of accidents. Yet their own evidence suggests the opposite.
Now have a look at the most likely cause (other than driving properly), following too close. Ask yourself *why* that happens. Because someone is pissed off at someone driving too slowly for them! Psychologically, excessively low speed limits are increasing the number one cause for accidents.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't believe that speed limits being too low is the primary cause of people following too closely. The primary cause of tailgating is poor driving habits. Most drivers that tailgate will do so REGARDLESS of the prevailing speed of traffic. They either don't know any better, are not paying attention, or are just raging a$$holes (mostly this).
In fact, it is my opinion that raising the speed limit will actually increase the incidence of people following too closely, because most drivers don't seem to have a
Re: (Score:3)
First, there is a difference between going at a speed appropriate to road conditions that happens to be above the speed limit (often the safest speed, depending on how fast other traffic is going), and going at a speed inappropriate for conditions.
Second, is this an account of what the people in accidents are doing? Driving slower than prevailing traffic disrupts it and increases the chance of other people having accidents.
Third, this looks like totals of accidents caused by X, not how safe or dangero
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It is government's job to prove the law is useful, not just assert it while mandating ticket quotas.
"But they aren't quotas! They're Minimum Recommended Cash Flow Activation Vector Data Points To Continue Supporting Government In The Manner To Which It Has Become Accustomed!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Children or not (Score:4, Insightful)
Contrary to popular belief, whether or not something can be sourced has no bearing on whether it is actually true.
So, you're just making facts up and when someone calls you on it, you dismiss it with a pithy (and profoundly stupid) remark? Might I suggest a career with Fox News or the Daily Mail?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
A couple of seconds spent on an internet search [google.com] shows that speeding is, in fact, a safety concern. Apparently a big one. There are literally reams of data [dot.gov] showing that speeding contributes to a significant number of accidents.
Not to mention the fact that for anyone who's ever driven a car, the notion that speeding is dangerous IS COMMON FUCKING SENSE.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It could also be that if you set the speed limit artificially low, that it makes the problem worse as there
Re: (Score:3)
True, but if you'll recall, the claim was, "Speeding in-of-itself is rarely a safety concern." Safety is determined not just by the frequency of crashes but also the severity of the crashes. The severity is proportional to the kinetic energy, which in turn is proportional to the square of the velocity. So the original claim is obviously false.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Those factors combine to a bathtub graph of safety that's centered *above* the speed limit. Generally becaus
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?
Re: (Score:3)
And all the farmers driving their tractors on the road. And bicyclists. And the Amish.
All of those are banned from the interstate. They are limited to slower and smaller roads, ones appropriate to that type of vehicle.
Do you think the fastest 15% of the people on the road (the speeders) should determine the speed limit? That sounds like an extremely bad idea to me.
I'm telling you what the traffic safety experts recommend after years of study. That you object to reality will not change it.
Common sense is rarely right when applied to a subject you don't have actual knowledge of. That you think it's a bad idea is proof that you are both ignorant of the topic, and arrogant about your ignorance at the same time. A lethal combination.
I'd like to look at the data. Could you provide a link to this information?
You
Re: (Score:2)
The law says if you're on a 2-lane road and five or more vehicles are formed in a line behind you, you have to pull off where it's safe and let traffic pass. It also says if you're driving slowly, you should be in the rightmost lane. And implied is that you're allowed to drive slowly if it's necessary for safety or to be in compliance with the law.
The law does NOT say you can't ride a slow-moving tractor or a bicycle or a buggy on the road. So the idea to "Pull over all the slow cars and ticket them" is rid
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your confusing the chance of an accident and severity of accidents. Speeding increases the severity but not in moderation the chance.
Speed limits have their issues, the limit should vary significantly by vehicle, driver and road conditions. Safe following distances are a function of speed, reaction time of the driver and the breaking performance of the vehicles involved (which varies greatly with road conditions). Safe speeds outside of highways generally relate sight distance + the previous bits.
But rea
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
> Out in the burbs your effective sight distance increases at night as you can see headlights before you can actually see the car.
Only if they have their headlights on. Effective sight distances _decrease_ for pedestrians, cyclists, dogs and much else.
In my experience, those that speed and defend the 'right' to do so, fail to notice the actual problem. The problem is that others on the road, non-speeders, pedestrians, children, have an expectation that cars will be driving at or around the limit for tha
Re: (Score:2)
The reason for lower speed limits near parks, schools, etc isn't to do with kinetic energy. It's so that drivers have more time to react to unexpected events such as a child running out onto the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazing you mean people can by themselves determine the correct speed? That's also a 10-15mph bump on all roadways and a much bigger in the burbs land of 25.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The camera also uses the pocketbook to encourage people to drive more safely. It can do this much more efficiently than a police officer.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
I used to live in Alaska. I was traveling down a busy road one day and saw the light ahead of me turn yellow. This intersection was well know for being covered in ice. I also knew that my vehicle would not be able to stop in time on the ice. I was going to end up in that intersection weather or not I wanted to.
I ran the light.
I was promptly pulled over. The police officer asked me why I ran the light and I told him I saw the light turn yellow, knew I would not be able to stop so I didn't attempt to. I
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Children or not (Score:3, Informative)
Fun story, I lived in crook county for a time, whilst going to school. One day I received a letter informing me of a parking ticket, alleging a vehicle with my plate number blocked a receiving dock at some theater I've never been to, and that they were going to send it to collections for being unpaid. I called the campus cops to dispute the ticket, and they wouldn't have any of it.
Fortunately, I was at work l that day, and had my time sheet as evidence. They still gave me shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Speeding certainly leads to accidents.
Are you sure about that [carbibles.com]?
Re:Sounds about right (Score:5, Insightful)
Chicago is the "Fuck you! Give us our money!" capital of Illinois, the "Fuck you! Give us our money!" state.
Contrary to popular belief, organized crime in Chicago wasn't stamped out in the 20's and 30's.
Nope. All the crooks went into local government because there were more (and more lucrative) opportunities to steal, legally.