There are many types of homeland security cameras available in the market. Hidden homeland security camera has a secret security system. This system helps to keep an eye on your home while you are away. The hidden camera helps to know how your baby sitters take care of kids. Weatherproof wireless CCD color homeland security camera is another type of homeland security camera. It uses 2.4 G wireless technology. This camera can be connected to your TV or VCR. No wiring is needed and it installs within 5 minutes.

Spy cameras are great for mounting in a concealed manner for covert surveillance situations. You can place a spy camera virtually anywhere that is small and undetected, but the most common places you will find them at are in smoke detectors and small holes in a wall. The most common forms of spy cameras are motion detector cameras and smoke detector cameras.

BBIW,

You are right about the right-turn. Bolingbrook sent me one for not coming to a full and complete stop before the white line when no cars were coming from any direction. Obviously, I did the deed so I paid up. However, Bolingbrook forever lost my sales tax revenue since last July. Them wanting their $100 lost them more than 10 times that amount from me no longer shopping there, I assure you.

Naperville is on record for saying they would not ticket in those instances but would when pedestrians are present. They could always renege on that and I'm sure the citizens will find a way to stick it right back at them.

RC, I agree with you that the purpose is for $$$, but the excuse is for 'safety'. They can't use a fake excuse if there wasn't some truth to it. Again, this falls back to us, the citizens driving more responsibly. If we did, there would be no fake excuse for them to exploit to install the cameras (for revenue generation).

To Joe:

The perceived need is $$$ not public safety. And, if there were improvements made to intersections such as better turning lanes, better signals, etc. perhaps people would actually be safer. No red light camera is going to make people safer. People will make people safer. And, with a little help from the city/state to make needed improvements - using the red light camera funds - perhaps we can have less accidents and maintain our privacy.

Why would you want to allow anyone to monitor your every move with no margin of error, discretion or opinion other than the photo evidence?

I'd bet that a Police Officer wouldn't ticket you for turning right on red in instances where the camera would. It would be an interesting experiment for the Police Officers or the City Council to test prior to rubber stamping any sort of program. Not that I am condoning any red light program, because I'm not.

Power to the PEOPLE!!!

Joe,

I think we'll need to agree to differ. The primary need I see here is a bloated government's need to find ways to raise revenue other than by raising tax rates.

And it works, as you have demonstrated! 100% enforcement of traffic law using computers is incredibly cost-effective and raises a vast amount of money, and many people agree with it, particularly those who do not drive.

When people's elderly relatives start getting $400 tickets mailed by computer for going 2 MPH over the limit - and this is happening now, today, in Europe - people will start to realize what's really going on, but by then, it'll be too late.

RC,

People can stop it by driving better. This would not be pushed if there wasn't a perceived need. That perceived need comes from the number of incidents.

We have the power to stop it, and it's best stopped at the source (us).

Respectfully Joe, you are correct that there is a tolerance for error *right now*.

There was something like a 10MPH tolerance in the UK when they started down this route with speed cameras around 1992.

Now, there is none. You can get a ticket land on your doormat for going 32 in a 30 limit.

As government's need for funds grows, and people get used to it, the driver's leeway is progressively reduced to raise more revenue.

We need to put a stop to this right now before we end up where they are in the UK.

RC,

There is tolerance for errors. They spelled out the minor incidents they would not be ticketing for in the city council meetings.

Those mobile camera/computer devices can do 900 plates an hour.

Here is a neat video blurb about it.

http://video.msn.com/dw.aspx?mkt=en-us&from=truveo&vid=8d27e65b-7b71-4435-8f58-15f07ea75dc4

Heaven forbid the police get automated hits on vehicles they drive past informing them that they are stolen or wanted as part of an investigation for a robbery or murder, etc.

Sorry, but someone's desire to drive fast or drive like an idiot doesn't trump that.

There are plenty of race tracks around this geographic region if anyone feels the need to drive very fast in a vehicle.

Just think, all that new revenue can eventually make everyone's real estate taxes drop because of the new funding source to make up the difference.

Joe, no question there are a lot of people turning after the light has changed.

There's a wider issue at stake here though, which is the question of are we going to allow electronic monitoring of all drivers with no tolerance for error, as happens in Europe (and especially the UK) today.

Experience says that the authorities start off with red light cameras which are difficult to argue against. And gradually they ratchet things down tighter to the current position in the UK where town CCTV cameras supposedly originally introduced for public safety are profitably used to raise revenue from drivers who overlap a white line momentarily, for example.

Right now in Washington the companies which sell this hardware will be lobbying very hard for federal highway maintenance funds to be made dependent on communities deploying a wide variety of automatic driver monitoring devices like speed cameras, just like the way the drink drive limit and original 55MPH speed limit was imposed.

A $300 computer is capable of being hooked up to a hidden camera and radar and then storing an essentially unlimited number of digital images of any vehicle passing in excess of the limit - by any amount.

It is even capable of recognizing a license plate on those images, enabling a ticket to be generated and mailed to an "offender" without ever having been viewed by a human.

Do you want to drive under those conditions? I certainly don't. That type of approach belongs in Europe maybe but not here.

RC,

When you obey the traffic laws, there is no money to be collected from you via enforcement.

Rolling a couple of feet over a white line is not your problem. By the time the 5th car makes a left turn on RED, you already have a HUGE problem. Go hang out at Rt 59 and Ogden some evening/afternoon/weekend.

Anonymous - my first thought is that you must be trolling, but in case you are serious, have you stopped for a moment to consider what you are saying?

As long as politicians are looking for a way to raise revenue without raising taxes, the driver will always be an easy target. The politician's need to get his hand in the pocket of the productive members of society is never going to go away, because there are all the cronies in no-work jobs and their own gold-plated pensions to fund. And let's face it, many of them just like monitoring 'the proles' because they can and it's a power trip for them.

So I am sure you will end up with the 100% monitoring regime you are so keen on. The first time you (or an elderly relative with no other blemish on their license) get a $200 ticket in the mail for inadvertently rolling a couple of feet over a white line, I hope you get a warm feeling.

Electronic monitoring of motorists is a FANTASTIC idea.

If the motor vehicle laws on the books are for the common good then we should obey these laws 100% of the time, not just when we feel like it.

A huge number of motorists play cat and mouse with traffic laws. They drive any way they want when they know they can get away with it. Ever watch the "sea of red lights" come on when a police officer is spotted on an expressway? Probably 95% or more of the motorists on our expressways are speeding at any given time. If 95% of the people do not agree with the traffic limits then why have we not worked together to change our laws and raise the speed limit to reflect the speed at which the vast majority wants to drive? Majority rules, right?

What about that electronic ID badge most of us now carry to get into our workplace? It knows what time we came in the building. It knows what time we went home. In many cases it knows where we went in the building and even if we tried to go somewhere we shouldn't. Isn't that also "spyin" as was claimed in a previous post? What about all of the hidden camera's in buildings today? Isn't that spying?

If electronic monitoring is ok for retail stores, schools, airports, private and public corporation, etc. then why is there any difference if traffic is also monitored.

None of us want to be killed in an airplane crash and we put with an extreme amount of security in our airports to prevent security risks. Yet we are many, many times more likely to die in an automobile crash and there are those who are against these fledgling attempts to make our roads safer.

For those who are opposed to any kind of electronic monitoring of road I challenge you to just be the best driver possible. Lead by example. Comply with all of the traffic laws and set a good example for all other motorists to follow. If enough people voluntarily comply with our traffic laws there will be no need for these devices and all of us taxpayers can save a whole bunch of money and we can all work together by reducing accidents and deaths.

All you people who think electronic monitoring of motorists is a good idea, wait till the whole of Naperville is blanketed with CCTV cameras introduced for 'public safety', which then start being used to enforce traffic laws. It will then be quite feasible for all of you to be watched, all the time, and you'll never have any idea when or where.

Why Are Red Light Cameras Installed In the First Place? The Intersection of Strategy and Measurement--The Red Light Camera provides an interesting insight into the evaluation of that question!

What is next is that everyone who consciously chooses not to comply with traffic laws can look at themselves as to the explanation of why these types of monitoring systems needed to be invented.

Fact is, if everyone exhibited more citizenship then these systems would not have been invented because there would be no need for them.

There is a huge difference between electronic monitoring, electronic enforcement, and spying. The main reason people choose to call it spying is that it tends to invoke a more emotional response more than paint a true picture of what is occurring.

Go back and study and learn more about the very freedoms that this country was founded on. None of our freedoms were based upon a culture of motorists blatantly ignoring traffic laws enacted for the safety of all who share the road.

We probably don't need rules for everything, but that statement is in contradiction to the concept of Taylorism which is the premise upon which our current system of laws is written... the more i's you dot, the more t's you cross, the better our laws will be... Fact, is though, these are not new laws. They have all been on the books for decades. The only thing that is changing is the method of enforcement.

And if you are that terrified of "Big Brother" watching you as you move around then you better give up your IPass, your cell phone, your Blackberry, your WiFi card on your laptop, and possibly the black box installed in many of today's cars.

So what's next? You want everyone spying on your every move? We are slowly but surely giving up the very freedoms that this country was founded on. We don't need rules for EVERYTHING and we certainly don't need Big Brother watching us as we move around our cities.

Sam,

I think you make a valid point regarding longer yellow lights. There must not be any state law or state standard on how long a yellow light must be because the length varies from one town to another and there does not seem to even be any consistency on the length of a yellow light based upon the posted speed.

Common sense would dictate that somewhere traffic safety engineers have studied this and made recommendations for how long a yellow light should be based upon the speed at which cars are traveling.

Going one step further there is a lot of traffic traveling on roads who are unfamiliar with how long the local yellow cycle lasts. Compound this by the fact that a lot of traffic is already speeding and the culture in our country is to speed up and try to "beat the light" only exacerbates the problem of running yellow lights.

A while back I was traveling somewhere outside of the US and I remember they had their traffic lights set up with white strobe lights on top of the traffic signals. As soon as a light turned yellow the strobe would flash and then it flashed in one second increments for three seconds. Simultaneous with the fourth flash the light turned red. I recall the system being very effective at helping drivers gauge their speed and distance by knowing they had 3 seconds max. Make a decision. Go or stop.

You are spot on about the locations of stop bars. There are huge mistakes all over the city of Naperville with what is painted on the streets. Somewhere we need to have some people in the traffic department who actually go out and review what looks good on paper and see what motorists are up against in real traffic situations. And then they have to care enough to actually follow-through and make the necessary corrections. Besides stop bars painted in bad locations/positions citywide there are hundreds of striped out areas in the middle of the road before and after turn lanes that are marked for no traffic THAT MAKE NO SENSE AND FORCE TRAFFIC TO EITHER BLOCK OTHER TRAFFIC OR DRIVE ACROSS A NO TRAFFIC AREA. All because either the traffic department goofed or the guy with the paint either wasn't given specific instruction or didn't follow them.

While the city of Naperville is revisiting red light cameras I hope they will rethink the whole scope. I agree with an earlier assessment that if cameras are being installed they should cover all directions of that intersection, not just a single roadway. The printed material released by the City of Naperville on the test camera light sites was highly suggestive that only traffic turning right on red would be ticketed. I would like to see some assurance from the City of Naperville that the new vendor will install cameras capable of detecting red light violations of traffic proceeding straight through, turning left, and turning right. Left turn red light violations is a serious epidemic in Naperville and no system should be installed without the capability to detect this type of violation.

The City of Naperville is long overdue in working with the State of Illinois to change many of our most problematic intersections along Rt 59 so that left turns can only be completed on a green arrow. Somehow they were able to correct this at Ogden/North Aurora before far more dangerous intersections along Rt 59... go figure.

The test camera system that was to be installed appeared to take still photographs. If a change is to be made to a different system/vendor I do hope the City of Naperville will require video instead of still pictures. It tells a much more thorough and accurate picture of what happened and would be a huge asset to our police department when doing accident investigations.

Considering that a high percent of traffic on Naperville streets is already speeding and the culture is to speed up to "beat the red light" I would also like to see a system installed with the capability to measure speed. (Even the I-Pass transponders can do that.) Maybe one day we will have electronic speed monitoring and then these cameras could be used for dual purpose. Plus it would be really, really nice know to know the true facts in a case when a vehicle is traveling at 45 mph in a 35 mph zone, then spesds up to 55 mph to beat a red light and hits another vehicle.

I'm all for electronic monitoring of speed and red light violations. These laws exist for the orderly and safe flow of traffic. If motorists are obeying the law they have nothing to fear. Only those who do not obey the law and are used to getting away with it and not getting caught have anything to fear.

If the City of Naperville is going to spend tax dollars to invest in these systems I hope they will really take a hard look at the specifications and install a system that has more capabilities and flexibility than what was attempted with the pilot program. And I hope they are networking with other cities that have had both good and bad experiences. This will help them make the best decision possible and help avoid repeating mistakes made by other communities.

Last week, The Daily Herald reported that the contract provided that the city pay $1 million for this exercise, that it covered three years and 4 intersections. Further, the Herald reported that that city originally estimated $2.4 million in revenue from this project, but has since scaled it back. That's a lot of money.

There are contradictory studies regarding the actual effect cameras have on reducing accidents. But I have two suggestions that seem to be universally accepted as being effective. One, increase the length of the yellow light. Two, Have the light red in all directions for a few seconds each cycle. Both of these will reduce accidents and will cost very little. Granted, they will not increase revenue. But if we need the revenue, let the city get it honestly, by raising taxes.

Finally, since I'm sure the decision will be continue with cameras, could the city at least consider redrawing the stop bars. Currently, at many, many intersections it is impossible to get an unrestricted view of oncoming traffic if you stop at the line. In order to turn right on red, after stopping at the mark to avoid a ticket, you will have to stop again at a point where you can see oncoming traffic. I respectfully submit that this second stop will lead to an increase in rear end collisions. This is true at many stop signs as well as at the traffic lights. I encourage the council members to test this themselves when driving and I encourage them to consider the lower cost safety benefits of longer yellow signals.

I still think you're wrong about this, though I'm willing to stand corrected if you'll cite the appropriate section of the vehicle code.

Sorry John Q. Public,

The correct answer to how and when a vehicle may enter an intersection or complete a turning maneuver is found within the text of our Illinois State statutes which in this care is the Illinois Vehicle Code.

The Rules of the Road handbook is nice, but it is not a legal document.

"State law clearly states that it is illegal for a motorist to enter an intersection unless the intended maneuver can be accomplished completely and safely. For all practical purposes that mean, for example, that a car intending to turn left in an intersection is supposed to wait at the stop line until it is safe to proceed and complete the turn in one continuous motion."

According to the Illinois Rules of the Road handbook, you are wrong about this.

On one hand I think we are obligated to hold off on implementation until the system is working correctly.

On the other hand I do have to wonder why the fourth largest city in the state of Illinois could not partner with a vendor who would get it right the first time? Other cities much smaller than Naperville have their systems up and running without problems. We are paying top dollar in Naperville taxes. Obviously we are not getting top dollar in return somewhere in the city of Naperville. Is it the purchasing department? the Police Department? the traffic department? One should wonder who dropped the ball so badly that even the pilot test program is not up and running at this point.

On the other hand I drove by the Aurora Ave and Fort Hill test site the other day. Now I may be mistaken, but it appears to me from the location of the equipment that only red light running on Aurora Avenue is being targeted. There does not seem to be any equipment installed to monitor red light running by traffic traveling in either direction on Fort Hill. Why is that? If the goal is to reduce right angle crashes does it matter which light is being violated? Is someone running a red light on Fort Hill less likely to kill someone who is traveling down Aurora Avenue in either direction?

On the other hand, I know, bear with me, but there are a lot of hands in this, the printed material being published by the City of Naperville regarding who will be ticketed by this system, appears to me, at the very least to lacking in any serious logic. State law clearly states that it is illegal for a motorist to enter an intersection unless the intended maneuver can be accomplished completely and safely. For all practical purposes that mean, for example, that a car intending to turn left in an intersection is supposed to wait at the stop line until it is safe to proceed and complete the turn in one continuous motion. In reality it is common to see vehicles creep out into the intersection and sit there until they can gun it thru a hole in traffic. It is even more common to see two, three, four, even five cars follow each other making left turns at the end of a light cycle. This is not only dangerous, but it blocks and impedes the traffic in the cross direction from being able to take full advantage of their turn in the light cycle. If you don't understand what I mean here I would suggest anyone go to North Aurora Road and Rt 59 and observe the number of people running red lights while making left turns, especially from Rt 59 onto North Aurora Road from either direction. And this is happening ALL DAY LONG, EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK, not just during rush hour... even though that is certainly not a justification.

What is really interesting is that the printed materials being distributed by the City of Naperville clearly do not address illegal running of red lights by left turning traffic at the end of a light cycle. WHY IS THAT?

Granted, a right turn on red without a full and complete stop is illegal. But can anyone in the City of Naperville explain why the right turn on red is being singled out when the left turn on red does more to impeded traffic and create feelings of road rage then the right turn? How do they intend to defend this practice in court when both maneuvers are illegal and they are only enforcing one of them?

I think they should bag the entire red light camera project.

It's NOTHING but a money grab and has brought traffic to a halt at 95th street. People won't even turn right on red (after stopping) until the light turns green causing long lines and traffic snarls. Gimme a break. Use the money in a more productive way, such as intersection improvements, more turning lanes, better signals etc. to keep traffic MOVING not have it grind to a halt.

The traffic situation is one of the things that will be Naperville's undoing unless they address it. Cameras at intersections are not the answer.

Another company? Every other community that has implemented red light cameras have begun to collect money, too much in Bolingbrook.

No, this illustrates yet another FAILURE in City government. Should this failure be blamed on Furstenau as well?

City officials should start looking in the mirror, they are the ones who fail.