Who gets to watchdog every city vehicle to ensure they are getting cited and paying for every single traffic infraction caught on camera?

I note the deafening lack of additional concern and response to this issue. I can't wait to see what happens when the hundreds of tickets are received by hundreds of residents in Naperville, Lisle, Geneva, Lombard, etc., etc., etc.. If you drive a lot who knows how many Village and City coffers to which you can donate in just ONE SINGLE DAY!

Is there anyone that has had an opportunity to voice their displeasure to their local Government prior to implementation of these cameras? Has anyone seen just one study that substantiates the claim that total accidents are reduced? Does anyone know where all this windfall money is going? As Uncle Buckeye said, what money making scheme is already being considered next by your Government?

I have no issue with a system that will ticket red light runners - especially dead red light runners....however that is not what is happening in Bolingbrook. People are being ticketed for stopped inches over the white line...etc. And to answer where the money is going -- well anywhere from 25% - 50% of the money goes back to the company making the devices. Surprising ? Could this cause a vested interest in how one comes up with new accident figures ?

How the lights are used is more the issue to me than the fact they are there. For that we will have to wait and see, but not for long.

Big Brother baby. I'm going to get caught.

Bolingbrook – 75 tickets per day for the first two months of red light camera use, the preponderance being for incomplete stops and stopping over the solid while line that precedes a crosswalk: not for “running” red lights! Net result - $178,000 dollars collected with an additional $220,000 dollars outstanding. I wonder how many tickets are normally written and how many dollars they generate? I’m not sure, but this really sounds like a huge cash windfall to me! Well, I could be wrong though.

Lisle – elects, with no public discussion, to install cameras at five intersections, which is virtually every intersection of consequence in the entire Village! How greedy are those guys?

Some cities have been found to reduce the time of the amber light to generate even more money. Cool!

We all agree that those that either disregard or due to distraction, talking on their mobile phones, etcetera, fail to stop at a red light do deserve to be ticketed. Can we say the same about failing to “stop at the required zone” – too close to the crosswalk? “By law you have to come to a complete stop behind the heavy white safety line before proceeding,” said Lt. Chris Prochut, spokesman for the Bolingbrook police. A violation of the letter of the law, yes; an infringement on the intent of the law and accident provoking, not so much. And is this really a $100 dollar violation?

Has any Village or City bothered to mention the documented double-digit increase in rear end accidents precipitated by intersections with red light cameras? Ah, you don’t really think that all those phone talkers, the ones not really paying close attention to traffic, are going to stop in time behind you and your increased desire to avoid a ticket do you?

Is it right to ticket the car $100 dollars and not the driver as if it were a $5.00 parking violation?

Does anyone else find the RedFlex Traffic Systems claim of an 80% reduction in accidents just a little over the top? I read the figures but have never seen a specific reference to their study or just where this documentation can be found. I did see one report from El Paso, TX, same Company, which indicated a 50% accident reduction: that would be from 8 accidents to 4 accidents. Factual, probably, statistically significant, not so much. By the way, is being hit while stopped at an intersection included? It is at an intersection. RedSpeed, a competitor, is already peddling their system to over 100 communities in the State – good business don’t ya’ think? What government would turn THIS down for Pete’s sake?

Geneva touts that they anticipate revenues of $50,000 per camera, but provides no projected accident reduction figure. But aren’t reduced accidents and increased safety the reason and intent for this exercise?

Thank goodness Woodridge offered a breath of fresh air, at least in the short term. Carrie Noe of the Woodridge Police Department regarding red light cameras commented that they have “researched it in the past, but the accident data we collected didn’t seem to warrant going that route at this point”.

Gee, does anyone know just where all this money will be going? Will it merely be a huge boost to general revenues or will it be used perhaps to educate these terrible red light running offenders about traffic safety? Hey, after all safety is the prime reason for all this isn’t it?

Now don’t you forget: “There seems to be some confusion, but the rules of the road are very specific,” said Assistant Chief of Police Kevin McCarthy of Bolingbrook. “You have to know them to pass the license exam.”

Warning: Better start using those turn signals every time you change lanes – it’s the LAW!

The real question though is – just what is next from big brother?

I've long felt that we needed some sort of red light cameras in this area. I can't even count the times I've seen three cars that hadn't even entered the intersection when the light changed to red end up going through. Cars from the next direction that have the green arrow are already starting to turn and people are still pulling through the intersection just hoping no one will hit them if then stay close enough behind the car in front of them. The only reason I can figure that this doesn't cause more accidents is because people are aware of it and look out for it.

I'm not buying the argument from those who say it will cause more accidents from people who suddenly stop when the light changes. Do you honestly think people are going to suddenly start treating a yellow light as a sign to slow down, not to speed up? It's not happening. People are still going to push it as much as they can, only now hopefully they'll stop taking it as far as they do now, which is really getting ridiculous. We brought this on ourselves.

I can't say I'm entirely for or against this practice, video surveillance
is becoming common everywhere. On one side there are a lot of rushed,
distracted and generally bad drivers out there that might benefit from a
wake-up call like this. On the other hand there are many unreasonable and
poorly engineered traffic signals and intersections out there trying
people's patience. Part of keeping people "happy" and encouraging
reasonable driving habits is based on having reasonable traffic signals
and roadways.
There was mention of putting in cameras at Book and 95th streets, this
is an example of a poorly engineered intersection. If you are making a
left turn from 95th going East onto Book road going North you will never
get a left turn arrow if you stay behind the white line. In order to activate
the left turn arrow you need to go at least 1/2 car length over the white stop
line. Since most people do stop at the line and then get no arrow, it backs
up busy traffic and angers many drivers to the point where they do stupid
things to finally get though the intersection. Could this be why this
intersection seems so bad? Could we save the cost and hassle of installing
cameras here just by correctly positioning sensors and/or white lines? Installing
cameras at this intersection as it now functions would be like creating a money
printing machine.

Randy