Naperville sucks, wouldnt expect any less

How many pictures does the camera take to be ticketed? I've seen it
Go off twice and some times 3 times?

Chris Magee... did you ever get an answer to your original question at the beginning of this thread; "Have you noticed any change in behavior?" There were far too many responses for me to consider reading through to see if it was. And if it was, by whom was it answered and what analysis could possibly have been used to measure and compare behavior?

Honestly, the city of Naperville (or any city using the cameras) is the real addressee of the question since they are the ONLY ones who can evaluate how many violations were committed at any given intersection employing the red-light cameras compared to an identical period of time at the same intersection prior to their deployment. They would have to compare the statistics with how many "manual" citations were issued at the same intersection and within the same time period being analyzed in order to actually be comparing apples to apples. It simply is not possible to come up with any sort of accurate conclusions because it is an apple to orange comparison.

If one considers this whole concept with pure common sense, the red-light camera systems will always infer more violations, and subsequently be issuing more citations (and amassing untold revenue), than any manual effort because the cameras are always on... they are ALWAYS there. Unlike any physical police presence would or could ever hope to be. Prior to installation, if a cop isn't around, no occurance would have "transpired", and be logged, and no ticket will ever have been issued. Right? It's like, if a tree falls in the forest and there is nobody around to witness it, does it make a sound? Even if the cameras do affect say 50% of people who are even aware that the cameras are there, there will ALWAYS be those who ultimately run the red light for whatever reason. This fact alone will show an increase of violations simply because it is ALWAYS scrutinizing EVERY single vehicle at EVERY instance of a red light.

How could a comparison ever be made to evaluate behavior when comparing to a period of time where there was no 24x7x365 method or means to generate the statistics to be compared? ...sort of sounds like, "How many woodchucks could chuck wood if a woodchuck could chuck wood?", doesn't it? :-)

The bottom line, in fine print and well sequestered indeed, is the reason these cameras are being installed is not because of saftey, but under the guise of "common good" as it generates a never ending source of revenue that every municipality so desparately seeks. It is yet another cash cow like the Illinois Tollway that was supposed to cease after the bonds that paid for the construction were paid off. Yeah, right.

Besides, what ever happened to the concept of being able to face your accuser in open court? What are we supposed to do, talk to the camera? We seem to be losing a small chunk of our liberties every single day in this country.

Did that all make sense?

have to agree with the person that wrote about Naperville Courthouse demoralizing people that go there regarding their tickets. You go there because you want to stand your grounds and you no what you did was not wrong. They want you to state your point and before you can say anything they only give you three options. They dont tell you that in the letter they send to youwhen you have to go to court and dispute what you feel was right. No, they just tell you to look at the computer they dont. They walk in and sign away your fate on the ticket before they see you. Not only do you pay the hundred dollars you have already lost another $25.00 dollars just to go there so they can tell you, you lose idiot we didnt put it on the letter but you never had a chance to beat it anyway. This is terrible and demoralizing and it is like we are in a communist society. You are not innocent until proven guilty and your guilty and even if you tried to tell the truth you dont have a choice you are only given three. Why dont they just put this in the letter when they send you the ticket to not even bother coming down here and driving an hour in a half thru construction because you only have three choices so pay up because we have to fix our roads and you lose. This is terrible and goes against everyones constitutional rights.

Monique Bridges
Chicago, IL
Southside

Naperville Greed, it doesn't matter what the statistics are as the law states you must come to a complete stop before making a right on red. We don't get to pick and choose what laws we obey...

State law is that you must come to a full stop at a red light before making a "right turn on red." The statistics don't matter in this case since you broke the actual law and just admitted it. While you and I know that most people do not come to a complete stop when turning right on red, they city is still in the clear to charge you a fine in this case. It's not BS in this case. It's you making a mistake and getting caught.

From the Illinois Rules of the Road
"Red light – Stop at the marked stop line. If there is not a marked stop line, stop before entering the crosswalk. If there is no crosswalk, stop before entering the intersection. Do not go until the light is green and the intersection is clear.
You may make a right turn at a red light. You also may make a left turn at a red light when turning from a one-way street onto another one-way street that has traffic moving to the left. In both instances, drivers must come to a complete stop and yield the right-of-way to oncoming traffic and pedestrians before turning."

Recieved a fine and the 3 photos they illustrate showing the violation did not show any wrong doing. I was ready to fight it! I then played the video link and noticed I made a right turn on red. Note there are no signs indicating "No Turn on Red." However I think that because I coasted instead of coming to a complete stop prior to turning, I got nailed for $100! I would love to see statistics on safety for coasting vs stopping on a right turn. This is BS!

I received a ticket for a right on red from Southbound 59 onto Westbound Diehl Road. The timing on the turn from yellow arrow to no arrow to my passing the white line was .27 seconds. Yes, a quarter of a second! I requested a hearing and big surprise, the ticket stands. How can a person react in that amount of time? The camera-a machine-yes. A person, no. Regardless, there is no consideration for this. No one at today's hearing was able to negate their ticket. So, Naperville makes even more money on the additional $25/person admin fee. They give you about 2-5 minutes per person so they are raking in the money. There are only 3 reasons listed on their ordinance which they consider in these hearings: 1) If your plate was stolen and placed on another car 2) If you were proceeding through red for a funeral or to allow an emergency vehicle through 3) The equipment malfunctioned They state this before the "hearing" and then shoot everyone down who comes up there without one of these situations. One bright spot, after the hearing one of the Naperville councilmen pulled us aside and said they (city council) are rethinking this whole red light camera issue and many are against it. It does not reduce accidents and de humanizes human situations. Naperville is the worst.

If I drive North on Rt 59, is it legal to turn right onto N. Aurora to East? There is a right turn lane there.

This morning I was driving thru one of the new intersections with a camera and noticed that just about every time I am at that intersection I see the flash going off. Nearly every single time, which means for every light cycle I'm not at the intersection there are plenty of other violations. I wonder how many have already been racked up so far?

Also got me to wondering... if a police officer saw someone blatantly run a red light and pulled them over for gave them a ticket the old fashioned way... would they still get the automated camera ticket and would they have to pay both... not necessarily a double jeopardy situation since each of the citations most likely would be written for different violations. As has been noted before the camera is kind of like a parking ticket and a police officer would most likely be issuing a moving violation.

By Naperville Sun editors on February 6, 2009 12:07 AM
Something I was curious about as I was sitting at that intersection is how the cameras can see an individual plate if there are a lot of vehicles in the area. It seems like a big boxy truck could easily block the view, or if cars are really close together it couldn't get a view of the plates. They probably have it angled to get most of them, but I'd imagine there are some cases where it just can't see.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

It is not a camera taking still pictures as I once thought but a continuous video camera recording. My child got a ticket and we were able to go online and witness the car making a right hand turn without ever stopping. Amazing clarity. The pictures they sent us in the mail led us to believe it was a still camera taking pictures at intervals. But it was a very clear motion picture camera that had an opportunity to pick up the license plate at many different points in the intersection despite other cars and trucks in the intersection.

I would say the evidence they presented was irrefutable and beyond dispute. We just have to pay the 100 dollars now. The kid does not have a job so it falls on me.

The ticket was not from Naperville.

Anonymous,

I am not mixing things up. I am presenting circumstantial evidence in support of my position. I have also searched in vain for any evidence that supports your opinion---and, yes, until you provide evidence, it is just your opinion. I did do research; I did go on online and check the Illinois Vehicle Code. I could not find anything that says you can't enter an intersection when the light is green and wait until it is red to complete a left turn, or that (your words), "a motorist isn't supposed to enter an intersection until it is safe to complete the intended motion on one continuous action... whether it is straight thru, left turn, or right turn." There's not much more I can do, here; I can't prove a negative. So the ball is really in your court.

As for Chief Dial, it is my understanding that police officers are required to have a pretty thorough knowledge of the Illinois Vehicle Code, so I think he would be a legitimate source to answer this question. It shouldn't require a lawyer, because it really is not a complex issue. But if you want to call a lawyer and have him tell you where it is in the vehicle code, be my guest. I'm not going to do it for you, though, because you're the one who has to prove his point.

-JQP

JQP,

You are mixing up a whole bunch of things.

First, do your own research... all of the Illinois State Statutes are posted online. If you can't find what you are looking for in the statutes try asking a legal expert for an opinion... that would be a lawyer in your case.

Second, I could care less what Chief Dial's personal opinion is on the matter. He isn't a lawyer nor a licensed prosecutor in the State of Illinois. He gets paid to enforce the laws and if the police department did that efficiently and effectively why are so many of their tickets thrown out and why do so many drivers flagrantly violate the motor vehicle code?

Third, read what the quote states: "If a driver enters an intersection on a green light that turns to red before they have a chance to make a left turn, no citation will be issued." The camera system can not simultaneously record all of the activity at an intersection. The camera system is not making a determination if a motorist entered an intersection when they should not have because they couldn't complete their maneuver. The law does permit a motorist to enter an intersection while the light is green and there are certainly times and conditions when a light might turn red before the car is able to completely clear the intersection. The system is giving the driver the benefit of the doubt in these circumstances but it highlights my point that the stop bar is the critical point in the system... if a driver crosses it at the wrong time they will get a violation. This is somewhat different than the wild west approach we have at a lot of Naperville intersections where the light means nothing and the game is to beat the cross traffic before they begin to accelerate.

It's BS. Just today I turned into the right turn lane at this light. I was not speeding, did I move a little too fast into the right turn lane before I STOPPED COMPLETELY AND SAFELY behind the car waiting for the red light to turn right? There was no danger. I did nothing wrong. There was nothing but a complete stop.

I saw a flash go off WHEN I WAS COMPLETELY STOPPED.

Huh? What?

When my BS ticket shows up in the mail, what will the pic show? Me sitting behind a car for :30 waiting for a red light to turn so we can both turn legally?

Congratulations, Big Brother. I hope you use the money to fix the pot holes I have to dodge in order not to ruin my car when I'm going the speed limit.

I hope you enjoy the cameras naperville. I hear you want more of them all over the downtown area too. I hope you don't jaywalk or accidentally forget to turn your signal on!

I remember reading that, too. I only asked you to forward the question to Chief Dial because some people don't take this as definitive proof that the maneuver in question is allowed by the Illinois Vehicle Code.

Thanks.

-JQP

Scott Huber, I suggested the same, however it is apparently not a viable solution for many drivers in Naperville. Common sense and rule-following seems to be a rare commodity.

Anonymous,

Apparently you couldn't find it in the vehicle code, either. One more point in my favor: according to the article in the Sun, the red light cameras specifically will NOT flag any driver who waits until the light turns red to complete a left turn if he/she entered the intersection when the light was green. Why do think that is?

-JQP

P.s. Note to the moderator: This issue of completing left turns after the light turns red has come up more than once on these boards. Perhaps the Sun could ask Chief Dial to clear it up in one of his columns? A quick refresher on the rules of the road from time to time couldn't hurt.

I just came up with a way to avoid getting a citation at the Rt59/North Aurora intersection....if the light turns red, dont drive thru it. Also known as COMMON SENSE. Scott Huber/Ambassador for North Korea

Rules of the Road is not a legal document. It is used for training and education. In the past other errors have been found in this document.

The concept, regardless of the maneuver is the same... a motorist isn't supposed to enter an intersection unless it is safe to do so and they can complete the action intended without stopping or otherwise be a hazard to other drivers on the same side or the opposite side of the roadway. This doesn't mean that all drivers always drive correctly.

A similar maneuver that is frequently violated is making a left turn out of a driveway across a busy road like Ogden Avenue with a center turn lane. A lot of drivers complete this left turn as a two-part process... the first action being to cross the lanes of traffic approaching from their left and then to sit and wait in the center turn lane until their is a break in traffic approaching from the right. Stopping and waiting in the center turn lane is not permitted. The correct maneuver is to make the left turn as a continuous motion without stopping.

Sitting in the middle of an intersection waiting to make a left turn is essentially the same thing from a practical perspective.

Green does not mean go. Green means proceed with caution. In theory the law expects everyone to slow down and look both ways before proceeding through ALL intersection regardless or right-of-way and regardless of green lights. You are only supposed to proceed thru the intersection if it is safe to do so and if it is not safe to do so you are not supposed to enter the intersection. The key to understanding this concept is to understand the provisions of when it is safe to enter an intersection and when it is not.

Poor driving habits, ignoring traffic laws, impatience, running late, and a whole other factors explain in part why some people drive the way they do. That doesn't make it right nor does it mean that others should mimic this kind of bad driving behavior.

By way of clarification, I am only talking about entering the intersection to turn left when the light is green, and completing the turn after the light turns red.

Anonymous wrote:

"The statute states that a motorist isn't supposed to enter an intersection until it is safe to complete the intended motion on one continuous action... whether it is straight thru, left turn, or right turn."

This subject came up on another blog a few months back. I pointed out that Chapter 4 of the Illinois Rules of the Road handbook states:

"A driver must yield...to oncoming traffic when making a left-hand turn. If you enter an intersection while the light is green, you may finish your turn even though the light turns red."

Someone responded that the Illinois Vehicle Code is the definitive source for traffic laws, not the the Rules of the Road. So I checked the vehicle code, and did not find anything there, either. If you can cite the section of the vehicle code that supports your position, and quote the relevant text, then I will stand corrected.

-JQP

Last year, after many months of being unable to get across Rte. 59 from the Metra station each evening, due to left-turning cars continually blocking the intersection and the very short light allotted to Eastbound traffic on both North Aurora and Bruce/Brookdale, I called the Naperville PD to suggest that they deploy an officer to direct traffic for an hour or two each evening.

They simply didn't know what I was talking about. It seems that they don't understand the concept of manually directing traffic. The only solution they could suggest was ticketing offenders, but that that would cause even more congestion. Now they come up with this electronic solution, which apparently does nothing to address the problem of cars turning left from Westbound streets when there is no room for them. Wouldn't the presence of a uniformed traffic cop deter more of this careless and aggressive driving, and at less cost than hiring a camera vendor?

I would also point out that I tried riding a bicycle to and from the station and found it to be quite hazardous, again because drivers turning left onto Rte. 59 seem to find pedestrians and bicyclists to be invisible. If they are willing to ignore an SUV or a 40-foot semi sitting right in front of them, I guess I shouldnt' expect them to see a single person on foot.

By the way, my observation, while waiting through those many light cycles on North Aurora, is that Southbound truck drivers in the evening seem to avoid proceeding through the intersection when there is no room for them on the other side. They aren't the problem.

Actually AA is closer to being correct than JQP.

The statute states that a motorist isn't supposed to enter an intersection until it is safe to complete the intended motion on one continuous action... whether it is straight thru, left turn, or right turn.

Green means proceed with caution. Yellow means caution. Red means stop.

Ninely percent of people make improper left turn. The correct maneuver is to wait behind the stop bar until it is safe to make the left turn, period. Creeping up into the middle of the intersection to wait for a break in traffic is not a correct way to make a left turn.

Even going thru an intersection when traffic is backed up it is incorrect to enter the intersection unless the end of your car can clear the intersection on the far side... thus not impeding cross traffic should the light change.

Rudeness and lack of courtesy... impatience and a lot of other negative traits explains why many people drive the way they do. Please don't be one of them and please don't follow their bad example.

Unless, you get 5 and then I believe they can revoke your license or so they threaten on the back of the notice. I will try to read it again but that is what I believe I read the first time.

Or maybe it was if you don't pay for 5 tickets, you will have your license revoked. Not 100% sure!

My guess is if the Tollway Authority can suspend your driver's license after a few tickets, these red light cameras can do the same.

Before your time, Moderator, the Napergate Man was arrested because one his teenagers blew a few tolls off. The car was registered in his name so he got arrested and not his son.

I am willing to guess this is something similar and drivers should pay up and not take any chances as to what may or may not happen.

Since they don't know who is driving as the Toll Authority does not know, I suspect they will come after the owner of the vehicle and not the driver of the vehicle if these tickets are not paid.

With parking tickets they usualy never revoke your license but try to collect civilly. I got a letter from a lawyer for a 2003 expired meter ticket in Chicago. They were offering an amnesty program of 30 dollars instead of 60 if you paid up. I really don't plan on paying them anything over my meter expiring for a few minutes before I could get back. I put the maximum amount of quarters allowed. I doubt the lawyers will take me to court for 30 bucks. It is probably a bunch of collection clowns impersonating a law firm or lawyers....lol!

All the cars in my family are registered in my name. I got myself, the wife and 4 kids driving cars in my name since I bought them and insured them on the same policy to obtain a deep discount.

Basically, I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY TICKET UNDER THIS SYSTEM. It sucks. I could have my license suspended if each one of my kids blew one red light per year. Or maybe only 3 have to blow red lights for me to be suspended. Can't remember how many chances you have before you lose your license.

Maybe JQP knows.

Thankfully, I have not been busted by one of these cameras yet, but my college kid got busted and she does not have a 100 dollar bill. Guess it falls on me. It all sucks! Where is Blagojevich when you need him? Believe it or not he was on Larry King tonight trying to further contaminate the jury pool. He is a former prosecutor so he knows what he is doing.

He is asking everyone to tune in to his trial and he will explain everything. That is a joke. The minute his trial starts he will exercise his right to remain silent under the 5th Amendment.

What do you think JQP? Do you expect Blago to give us any answers?

Actually, AA, as long as you don't enter the intersection after the light turns red, you'll be okay.

Everyone is getting their undies in a bundle over the red light cameras when there is a very simple solution... don't run red lights. Slow down when the light is yellow, do not enter the intersection until you are sure you can complete your action before the light turns red. If you can't, then take a deep, cleansing breath and sit tight... behind the white line... and wait for a green light. In short, obey the law and it won't matter WHO is watching you or recording your every move.

Naperville paid $374,000 to Redflex Traffic Systems.

The procedures for hearings were championed by Alderman Bob, so perhaps he'll respond here.

Why would ANYONE want to have red light cameras?

1. It is not in the red light vendor to lose money by reducing the number of fines. Why would you invest in a company expecting to lose money?

2. You cannot fight the ticket in a court of law. You are automatically considered guilty comrade.

3. Ask anyone in Chicago about the shorter length of time of the yellow light with cameras.

4. If your not driving the automobile, you can still get ticketed. It's whoever the car is registered to. You can't fight this because you can't bring it to court.

5. Anyone know who the red light vendor is? Guess who is running it and who is making siphoning the money to?

6. Someone please run their car or truck over these cameras.

The point is don't be stupid. It is your car and you are responsible. If you get a citation and it wasn't from when you were driving the car make sure you know who was and make them pay.

If you have so little control over who is driving your car or when or where then do me a favor and I'll come over and borrow it too.

If you don't want to be stupid it helps not to act stupid.

Hey Anonymous 2/2/09 2:30 PM

Wow... lay off the caffeine! Do YOU know every single move made by someone you lend your car to? You EXPECT them to follow the rules and one would assume you would not lend your car to them in the first place if you did not trust their driving skills. If they breach that trust, that makes you 'stupid'???

Geesh... pay attention to what you are reading already... The vendor SCHEDULES the administrative hearing... it doesn't CONDUCT the hearing. The vendor has accepted all of the administrative duties associated with running this system so there is no additional expense to the city or the police department to operate it.

The police department on reviews the violations forwarded to them by the vendor. Of the violations forwarded the police department makes final determination which violations receive citations.

Considering the police department's own poor record of rolling through stop signs and right turns on red along with the fire department and other marked city vehicles while it has been asked previously there has been no answer as to how violations related to drivers of city vehicles will be handled. Someone from the city whether it be the Police Chief, the City Manager, Mayor, or even Councilman Bob needs to step up to the microphone and reassure the motoring public that the police department will not be giving city vehicle drivers a free pass on these violations.

From the story, today:
http://www.suburbanchicagonews.com/napervillesun/news/1408516,6_1_NA02_REDLIGHTS_S1.article

Dial said offenders who receive a citation in the mail can view their offense by logging into the vendor's Web site and entering the information from their citation. They will be able to view both static photographs and the video of the offense. They will have the option to pay the citation via mail or Internet, request a hearing via administrative adjudication, or request a hearing via notarized letter without appearing at the hearing. The vendor will schedule all administrative hearings, which will be held at 1 p.m. Saturdays at the Municipal Center.

And we're all quite sure, aren't we, that like a judge, the VENDOR will be interested in justice, fairness, open dealings...

Hey stupid it is your car... pay attention to who you are letting drive it and when. If you are letting some idiot drive your car and they are running red lights don't you want to know about it BEFORE they wreck your car and kill someone? As the car owner you can place a very safe bet that if someone driving your car gets into an accident both you and your insurance are going to be examined by the plaintiff attorney to see how much blood they can suck out of you.

Does anyone have a problem with the fact that the driver of the car does not get a ticket? The Owner of the car gets the ticket. It may be that the Owner of the car is not the driver. The potential for abuse here is insidious. At the risk of introducing a scenario that will bring about all kinds of distraction and conspiracy theories out - suppose the Owner of the car is a local business person and the that Owner's daughter is driving the car when the car is photographed breaking the red light law. Suppose the notice of the violation does not get promptly and properly sent to the Owner of the vehicle and, during a subsequent traffic stop, shows as an outstanding warrant against that Owner. Does any of this sound familiar? Could this ever happen in Naperville?

OK,
I'll give you this: it's a bad intersection and I simply don't go anywhere near Rt. 59 except when I absolutely have to, typically one or two times a year. That said, I do feel sorry for those of yuo who have to deal with that area regularly.
On the other hand, I am bothered by the 1984 aspects of these kinds of cameras, for a couple of specific reasons and for one general principle. The general principle is an easy one to explain, I think. If traffic related problems can be solved by ticketing people and hoping that doing so affects the drivers enough, then the underlying problems that cause this behavior won't be corrected. In many cases, drivers run red lights in this fashion because they're impatient. Ok, ticket them. If, however, this regularly happens at one specific intersection during all times of the day and with great frequency, it shouldn't be viewed as a money making opportunity by the city/state, but as an impetus to change the traffic signals, the timing of the signal or the number of lanes available, even those cost far more. If that corner is as bad as I've been reading about here, it's offensive to me as a taxpayer that they're making money off the problem, as opposed to fixing the problem.
Specifically, my first objection is that the revenue of these sorts of operations is often shared with for profit corporations. They have a motive for making as much money as possible, where the motive for the police department is SUPPOSED TO BE to protect and serve the public and the public interest. So, as noted above, many of these cameras will wind up being placed in locations that will maximize the profit for all, and that flow of money will keep the city/state from wanting to fix the underlying causes. It's a bad piece of work.
My last objection is constitutional. The 6th amendment gives me the right to confront my accuser. In other states, the law for these devices is written in such a way as to avoid that issue. I have not been able to find the language here. Anyone know where it can be located?

Please note: I'm not recommending nor am I advocating breaking traffic laws, driving dangerously or etc. I just think that the implementation of these devices is a dangerous assault on civil liberties, and worse, I believe that the money that derives from them keeps the government from fixing traffic related problems to that the payments continue to flow.

Smile when you see the flash go off... it means someone just got hit with a fine. Let's hope all of those who are running red lights have DEEP pockets and will take care of the budget deficit in Naperville.

Last week or so I heard about a similar camera set up in Schaumburg by the enterance to Woodfield Mall. In just six weeks they racked up 7,000 fines at this intersection alone.

Let's see 7,000 times $100 equals $700,000... WOW and in only 6 WEEKS! If that doesn't tell us that we have a serious problem with people either deliberately ignoring red lights or having too little awareness of what they are doing while talking on cell phones, etc... I don't know what does!

HIt 'em where it hurts! Hit 'em again. Hit 'em again and harder.

Thankfully, since you did not complete your turn, you will not get a ticket. But my suggestion would be to get in the habit of always stopping at the white line first, then creep forward if you need line of sight. You might not be saved by the flash of light during daylight hours and who know how many of these intersections we will be dealing with in the future.

i got nailed by the red light camera turning right (south onto 59)last night, and i'm not really too happy about it, BECAUSE I NEVER TURNED RIGHT. i just stopped two feet over the line n i saw the flash. haha, does anyone know if i will get a violation or warning or what? help me out here.

To (the other) Anonymous 1/22 7:53 a.m.,

Thanks for the 411 on Ken. I couldn't understand why someone would jump on my opinion like he did, but after your comments it makes sense. I will avoid all things Ken in the future. Thanks for saving me some time.

That's quite a long post for someone who is ignoring me. Just another anonymouse who can't debate with the usual diatribe...

Fred,

Please don't expect Ken to give anything up anytime soon. Ken has only one opinion on every subject on Potluck and that is always the only correct opinion. Respecting other posters or tolerating other opinions never has been one of Ken's strong points. However, Ken is very dependable for many things. We can count on Ken to spin, twist, distort, and manipulate what others write to his personal advantage. We can also count on Ken to come out of his corner attacking everyone and anyone who dares express an opinion different from his. Most of all we can always depend upon Ken to play silly, childish semantic games with what others write.

It really isn't worth attempting to debate Ken... most of all because it really isn't a debate and it only gives him the audience and attention he craves. Pathetic keyboard bullies like Ken never give up and alway have to have the last word on everything... go back and scroll through all his thousands of prior posts and anyone can see what I mean.

Sometimes it is hard but I find taking the high road actually more enjoyable these days. I simply refuse to personally acknowledge Ken or to reply or respond to his posts no matter how insulting or infuriating they might be and as more posters have followed this same logic the quality of the discussion on Potluck has actually been improving lately. So please don't give him an audience... it is exactly what he wants and needs. If everyone simply ignores his posts maybe Ken will finally get the message and go find some other forum where other unsuspecting posters will fall into his trap and play his silly games.

Ken, you might as well give it up, Anonymous has you outnumbered, like 30 to 1. You can't win.

Maybe you should go back and read slowly, Anonymouse 7:26pm. I said you indicated most trucks, even though your post clearly states "Trucks blow red lights more than they obey them" which clearly is directed at all trucks. You stated you opinion and observations, and I stated mine; where is the attack? If you don't want a debate, don't post where debates happen, especially when you post obvious falsehoods.

Fred,

I'm right there with you on the Don't Walk problem. People look at me like I'm crazy if I stand there and actually WAIT for the Walk signal.

Ken, your attempt at wit or humorous sarcasm failed. I was stating my own personal observations and my own opinion and you felt the need to attack. Do you always attack others for their opinions? Did you even bother to ask the reason for an opinion before you attack? No. I never stated ALL truck drivers or ALL pedestrians acted in a particular way. You just 'assumed' I was and you know the old saying about that, don't you?
Maybe you should go back and reread. Slowly.

I for one would like to see Don't Walk Cams put up downtown. The city would make a fortune at Chicago and Washington. Every time I am attempting to turn left from Chicago to southbound Washington, as soon as the left turn arrow changes green, the herd disobeys the don't walk sign and crosses Washington resulting in no one being able to turn.

I think both of you need to chill! HA! First, just because you point out a pattern of behavior does not mean it is slamming all truck drivers. If someone said "All truck drivers" or "All the pedestrians" then I would take some exception to that myself but when you just mention there certainly seems to be a lot of trucks at this intersection who....I mean cops look for patterns of behavior "trends" also. So it isn't really that big of a deal. You may be making a point Ken, but when I read it I couldn't tell until you said that later so I can understand. I thought it was more attackish but that is just insignificant me which counts for you know what so...Heck those same trends are what make them even place a traffic light in a particular location or to reduce the speed limit etc.

Have a witnessed my share of truck drivers being unintelligent? Yep, cars? Yep, Pedestrians? Yep. The idea of the law is for everyone else but me, and people not paying attention crosses all demographics so everyone is guilty of it from time to time & some are just really gifted in it!

Actually, Anonymouse, that was not an attack on you. I answered in the same tone you used and I just wondered at your habits as you labeled most truck drivers and downtown traffic as lawbreakers. I just pointed out that there are two sides to every story, yet you completely over reacted. Doesn't say much about your patience, does it?

Your attacks on my driving habits are also wrong. If you had any reading ability, you would see what I have already posted on proper driving habits at the beginning of this thread. But in answer to your attacks, no, I do not go over the stop line or the crosswalks when pedestrians have the right of way. It would be nice if those same pedestrians would have the same consideration of obeying the law before they enter the intersection.

In answer to your other questions, yes I did at one time drive a truck, and no, my little four cylinder Hyundai Accent isn't going to impress anybody with quick takeoffs from the stop line.

Wow Ken, chill! You have no clue about me, so why the attack? I follow the rules of the road and I have enough common sense to know that my car is no match for a truck. Are you a truck driver, by chance? I'll leave the daredevil acts to the blowhards that don't have other ways to act out their aggressions. Have at it, my friend.
And when I'm a pedestrian I follow traffic signals and use common sense. I cross in the crosswalk when it's lit for pedestrians. Of course YOU are probably one of the clueless drivers who sits over the crosswalk and creeps into the intersection, ignorant of any innocent pedestrians so you can beat everyone off the line. Impressive. Or, are you the guy who comes blasting out of the alley by Mongolian Barbeque without yielding to pedestrians? I bet you get fried when you have to wait patiently for a pedestrian to cross your path. It's all about you, right? In any event, you are probably the hot head who screams out the window at pedestrians who don't anticipate your sudden/dangerous/illegal antics. You certainly don't know how to conduct yourself on a blog site, so why would mainstream society be any different?

It's amazing, Anonymouse 1/21/09 8:23am, that trucks cause all that havoc. I wonder why they even let them on the road. Actually, I wonder if you are one of those drivers that has to go 20-30mph over the speed limit to get around a truck, if you are one of those people who use the turn lanes at 111th and other intersections to get around trucks, or are one of those who think nothing of pulling out in front of a truck because you think they don't belong on the road.

I also have to wonder if you are one of those pedestrians that feel the walk/don't walk signals are just a suggestion, not actual traffic devices to be obeyed. The only problem I see in downtown Naperville is pedestrians that think they own the road and constantly disobey traffic signals as they walk out into the roadway. It is only the vigilance of drivers in that area that keeps those fools who walk in front of them from getting killed.

The amount of traffic violations is out of control in this town. I have lived here for six years now and am still not used to the blatant light running and non-pedestrian friendly drivers. Downtown Naperville on a weekend night is downright dangerous and the southwest end of town is a free-for-all. Trucks blow red lights more than they obey them. I avoid 111th and Route 59 like the plague. I think the police need all the help they can get to get this under control and I think the red light cameras are a productive step in the right direction.

I completely agree with Mr. 66 about this being Big Brotherish. The whole traffic camera thing is taking away my constitutional, God-given right to run red lights. Let's all band together people - FREEEEEDOM!!!!!

The city's focus on red light enforcement is headed in the right direction. The intersection at Rt. 59 and North Aurora Road is a dangerous place to run red. I have witnessed several accidents and close calls that corner due to people in a hurry to get to the slow crawl at Fox Valley Mall or the intersection of 59 & I-88.

Everybody has an excuse for running the red lights and they are all just as pathetic. I don't like stopping at every light but, it's the law and that's the way I play! Those who get these tickets might change from their bad driving habits but, I doubt it. They will continue to run red lights where they are not likely to get caught.

Finally...Maybe all the idiot drivers who dont pay attention to the simple traffic laws will pay Mr. Ticket Distributor. How many times do you witness all kinds of morons on their Blackberry's, cell phones and other distractions blasting through red lights?????????? Come on fellow Napervillians...this is easy, DONT RUN RED LIGHTS.

Maybe the gravel trucks will finally stop instead of blasting their horns and completely disregard the lights.

Thank you city council and PD...nail 'em all!

OMG Mr. 66...are you kidding!

They have so much to do that is why they are getting so much overtime. This may save some overtime though? You know it is no different than students who are suppose to read their syllabus to know all the questions they ask professors. No we do not mind answering their questions but it is really a waste of their time of us. They can get their answers if they read the syllabus & use our time more efficiently. This is the same thing. Everyone is SUPPOSE to be driving Correctly! If they did we would not need the cameras much less the cops to watch. It is PEOPLE who cost the city money. You want to reduce the money you spend on police then get people to act responsibly! Save yourself money by not even questioning if you did go through when it was red & slow down in enough time to stop by the time it is red. Do not speed. Do not park illegally, do not get drunk & then get behind the wheel. You can control this all!

One Who Values You,
You make several good points and I agree with you. In a perfect world, everyone would follow the laws and the 'rules' of common sense and common courtesy. In the absense of a perfect world, there is a need for police officers, security guards, border patrol, TSAs, and the additional non-personnel assistance like security cameras and red light cameras. In this litigious society, I think the use of these red light cameras takes the doubt out of the equation when the violator is caught 'red-handed'. Supposing the camera system is operating correctly, they are helpful in addressing those that break the laws. If they don't like being caught on camera, then they can obey the rules of the road and it won't be an issue.

I am far more worried about Big Brother and 1984 than being hit by someone. It has become a way of life (right or wrong) and most people are pretty defensive.

Personally,the cops should be be giving out the tickets and not some computer. Let them do their job. Maybe we should figure out what the savings is and do layoff in the police department. Oh--- I forgot, this would give them more time to issue speeding tickets !

Have a nice day in paradise!

What is the difference between a camera taking a picture & a officer being at the intersection & seeing what you did? I don't see any difference. People call it "Big Brother" when they just are prevented from doing wrong when no one is looking! We have cameras in our school...pretty soons students will say it is big brother & illegal. If people did what is right there would be no need. Or if they did not whine & complain when they did wrong there would be no need. If you do wrong you pay that is all there is to it. First you all complain too many police officers & now you don't want cheaper cameras to do one of the jobs. I suppose you just rather it get worse & when it is your family member who is killed by someone running a light you won't complain 'where were the cops' or 'why wasn't there a camera there' so the person who ran the light gets off. I don't think it is any different than the camera's in the cars that tape when a driver is drunk or catches them driving off or trying to harm an officer etc. The more proof the better. And I was told the pictures were looked at for interpretation before tickets were issued. No system is perfect but I'd rather have them rather than nothing. Just drive the way you are suppose to & you should have nothing to worry about.

As I said in an earlier discussion on this subject, I moved from Naperville to Scottsdale, Arizona 5 years ago. I had never seen a red light camera until I moved to Arizona. They only had 2 or 3 at the time, now they are everywhere. Recently, they installed about 50 of them on all the freeways. That's when the protests started. Talk about big brother watching, wait until you start seeing them on the tollways. There is a movement here to have a vote on the legality of the freeway cameras in 2010. The intersection cameras in Phoenix, Scottsdale, Mesa, and Chandler are probably here to stay. I and my wife used to have to deal with the train station crowd too. Sounds like it has gotten worse. I miss Naperville, but I don't miss the traffic. Oh by the way it was 76 degrees here today.

You know, I'm actually far less worried about "big brother" and "1984" than I am from being killed by some moron who can't follow the rules agreed upon by a civilized society.

And if in fact if we can use a "big brother" system to catch and fine the heck out of these morons until they learn some respect for the law and other drivers I actually believe that it is a good thing.

The old saying is that fool and his money are soon parted and these reckless fools will soon be parting with a lot of their money. Kaching, kaching, kaching! Let's hope all of the arrogant, spoiled drivers in the Naperville area will single handedly help solve our current budget deficit problem!

Misguided Plan,

My guess is the the camera does not start shooting until after the light turns red, at which point the system only flags cars that are crossing the stop line. If you're already in the intersection, you won't (or, rather, you shouldn't) be asked to say, "Cheese!" I don't know how it deals with a car that is stopped only part of the way into the intersection while turning left. Hopefully, if it's smart enough to distinguish when a car has paused while turning right on red, it's smart enough to know that the driver of the left-turning car that was partially in the intersection when the light turned red was waiting to make a left turn.

My guess is we'll hear about it one way or another. I'm not opposed to red-light cameras in theory, but they should not be implemented in such a way as to exacerbate traffic problems at busy intersections. The first time I get fined for pausing to check on-coming traffic while turning right on red is the last time I turn right on red at that corner; I'll wait until the light turns green no matter how many drivers behind me are honking at me to move.

-JQP

JQP,

The article says

"if a driver enters an intersection on a green light that turns to red before they have a chance to make a left turn, no citation will be issued."

It does not say how this is determined. I think the Sun needs to put a little more ediotrial effort forward rather than parrot City press conferences.

Particularly as Naperville moves to implement 1984.

Misguided Plan asked:

"If I crossed the line and was in the intersection and blocked from completing my action (such as a left turn after the light turns red and oncoming traffic clears), the camera will not go off? Wouldn't my subsequent movement trigger the camera?"

Not according to this article. On the other and, it is disturbing that you can be ticketed for turning right on red if you stop after crossing the limit line.

-JQP

Is everyone sure how this 1984 technology works?

If I crossed the line and was in the intersection and blocked from completing my action (such as a left turn after the light turns red and oncoming traffic clears), the camera will not go off? Wouldn't my subsequent movement trigger the camera?

And isn't it suspect when the initial vendor could not provide adequate technology?

And once there is an infraction, the premise is guilty until proven innocent, a total violation of our constitutional protections.

What I love, is the other day driving home, I was making a left turn, I got into the intersection and waited for a safe time to turn. The guy behind me didn't like waiting, so he went ahead and turned left while I was still waiting to make the turn. He swerved into the oncoming traffic and made the turn. People just don't have patienced anymore, it's very frustrating. I had a long day at work too, I want to get home too, but I follow the rules when I go home, why can't other people?

By Misguided Plan on January 14, 2009 8:07 PM

"Further, the camera should go off once the light is yellow so the person reviewing the film can see if the vehicle entered the intersection legally during a yellow light."

_____________________________________________________

The camera doesn't snap a picture until the light is red and someone crosses their stop line.

thank u for that answer!

Please put the camera system at 59 and Ogden next. It is not unusual at all to see ten or fifteen or more cars going through the red light there. I swear, the City could make a mint nabbing people at that intersection. The biggest violators are those drivers eastbound on Ogden making north (left) turns on to 59. A lot of times, especially on Saturdays, the illegal drivers will completely block the intersection when others have the green light and right of way.

This "1984" process is a poor excuse for bad planning. As a person who drives through Chicago partcularly going to Cubs games, these photo intersections cause more delays. Same for southbound Route 53 whre Lisle has placed a camera.

Obviously, the roads should be adequate or no camera should be allowed. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Second, where there are photo cameras, there should be longer and maybe even flashing yellow lights. Further, the camera should go off once the light is yellow so the person reviewing the film can see if the vehicle entered the intersection legally during a yellow light. This information should be available to people ticketed to appeal their tickets.

And if a ticket is found to be wrongly issued, the government should pay the person ticketed a fine for his or her lost time to appeal.

Otherwise, we are taking one more step to a "1984" police state.

In defense of the westbound left turning traffic from N Aurora to Rt59...

the problem isn't their's alone... southbound Rt 59 traffic completely fills the roadway back to the intersection. Eastbound traffic from N Aurora runs the right on red... what this gives the westbound traffic is no stacking space for their vehicles when it is their turn and Rt 59 is seriously backed-up... which is most of the time.

Having had to sit and wait sometimes as many as 10 light cycles to turn left because there is no place to for the left turning vehicles to go I share other drivers pain on this. Not helping as well is that the Rt 59 gets a much longer green light than N Aurora. Little wonder why some motorist finally don't care if they block eastbound traffic... they figure they have been waiting far longer and it is simply their turn... maybe not right but I can at least understand where they are coming from... everyone wants to get home.

Until someone figures out how to synch the lights better I expect this situation isn't going to improve.

"That said, I have to question why Westbound traffic gets a pass"

Me too Sam.

Heading east on N Aurora in the evening after leaving Rt 59 station, my observation is many many vehicles Westbound on N Aurora turn South on Rt 59 blocking the intersection.

I drive this intersection every day, like many others. Also like many others, I've grown tired of seeing 3, 4, or 5 cars turn after the light changes. (It is the same a mile north at Brookdale Road, only there are usually only two cars running the light and several blocking the intersection) That said, I have to question why Westbound traffic gets a pass. That traffic consistently blocks the intersection at rush hour.

Since I travel south in the morning and turn west onto North Aurora, I have a serious question about the right turn rule. If I stop at the bar, it is impossible to turn on red because you simply cannot see around the traffic on Rt 59. If I stop behind the bar and then creep forward while the light is red,(without moving any pedestrians), would this be a violation? My read of the flyer is no, but I'd like to know for sure. Of course, now that I know no one is monitoring, I guess it doesn't matter.

As to other behavior, I think that the northbound traffic entering the intersection on green has been reduced to one car. On the other hand, a lot of eastbound traffic crosses the stop bar before stopping. Don't know if the rule is the wheels crossing or the bumper crossing. But so far, most cars seem to hang over the bar.

That is true that they cancelled the prior vendor contract because the system could not do what the city wanted it to do.

However, that first test was at an entirely different location with an entirely different set of needs. Plus back then it seemed that the city could only install at an intersection in which it controlled both streets and not on state or county roads. Obviously in the intervening time someone changed the rules now that this is installed on a state and county route intersection.

What has not been confirmed or verified is that running left turns are monitored and enforced as well as straight thru red light running is also monitored and enforced with this system... at least in both the northbound and eastbound directions of flow that is.

My question is why was this red light camera stuff dumped previously at other intersections and now implemented here? Kinda like left overs?

Mike,

Sorry to be the bearer of bad news... but if you had read the post above you would be aware that this new red light system does not monitor any westbound traffic on North Aurora Road. Not that I am condoning what is currently happening... just pointing out that as soon as people figure it out there won't be any improvement on what you have been experiencing.

The system does monitor eastbound traffic and especially all of the right turning traffic who constantly run the "No Turn on Red".

I travel thru this intersection every working day (twice a day) and have done so for approx. 12 years in association with my taking the BNSF downtown and back home.

All I can say is that the traffic in this entire metro area (Naperville, Aurora)is just a mess and poorly planned!!! The roads need more lanes to move traffic better!!!!

Every day on my way home from the commuter lot, I travel east on N. Aurora to the light and then south on Rt. 59. I am sick and tired of all the people who are traveling west on North Aurora and turning south onto Rt. 59. To all the people who try to sneak thru the red light so they can go south on 59: I hope you all get tickets!!! I hope they increase the fine to $1,000.00 and take away your license!! You all deserve it. All these people block the intersection and stop people from going east on N. Aurora and block people from turning south on 59. Which backs up N Aurora into the commuter lot. It's a total mess.

Every day I dream of a "Skyway" type of road, constructed above Rt. 59 from N. Aurora to 111th.

To try to explain Ben's observation it is my understanding that if a car crosses the stop bar while the light is red the system is activated. If someone overshoots the stop bar but comes to a complete stop and does not proceed AND doesn't scare the heck out of a pedestrian in the crosswalk the system will not issue a violation.

I travel thru this intersection a lot. Sometimes I see it flash once and sometimes I see it do a double flash. I think the single flash is for when someone overshoots the stop bar and the second flash is when the system verifies that the car proceeded thru anyway.

Another good question for the technical geniuses behind all of this considering yesterday and today's weather is what happens when the street is snow packed and the stop bar isn't visible.

Ken points out what I believe I learned in drivers ed and I think still reflects what is in the law books... motorists are not supposed to cross the stop bar and enter an intersection unless it is safe for them to complete the anticipated maneuver. So if you want to make a left turn you are supposed to wait behind the stop bar until it is safe to make the left turn in one continuous motion without stopping or yielding. Granted current practice is such that as many cars as possible crowd up on each other in order to get past the stop bar and "technically" be past the stop bar while it is still green or yellow and thus have not crossed the bar while red. I hope these motorists also realize that if they are involved in an accident while sitting past the stop bar they very likely may be held partly accountable and from a technical standpoint now that we have these systems available to us there is no reason in the world while the level of enforcement can't or shouldn't eventually be dialed back to the point where violation are given to motorists who do cross the stop bar before they should.

Like Ken I guess we all have have grown to expect to see that last car want to make a left at the end of a traffic cycle. It is the second, third, fourth, and sometimes even fifth car that come thru on their heels that bother me and right now I'm not sure this system is monitoring and enforcing left turn violations.

The only permanent solution to left turn violations is to convert all intersections to left turn on green arrows only. I imagine this will happen when the state eventually gets around to widening and improving RT59. It is a shame because it will mean longer wait times for all of us in the end because a few bad apples don't have the maturity or self control to obey the signal lights.

As to paying for the system there are several different funding models being utilized. In some models the municipality purchases the system. In others the manufacturer retains ownership and shares in the funding. I also would like to point out that my personal opinion is that we should know exactly how much the City of Naperville will receive for each citation that is issued along with how that money will be deposited into the city coffers. I for one am fully supportive of that money being earmarked solely for physical improvements that enhance or improve traffic safety in Naperville. I would prefer not to see it just dumped into the general fund to be used for whatever.

At the same time I would also like to state that I think the state legislature is completely wrong in treating moving violations like this the same as a parking ticket. These are blatant and willful traffic violations that can result in significant personal injury and death plus untold property damage. Moving violations should be treated like moving violation no matter how they are monitored and enforced and these violations should go on these drivers permanent driving record and the fines should be exactly the same as if a police officer witnessed the violation.

Unfortunately a $100 fine is not much of a deterrent to some of the overpaid and arrogant drivers in this area who can actually afford to pay such fines without batting an eye. Paying $370 plus for a moving violation along with corresponding hikes in insurance and the threat of loss of their license will cause even the wealthiest among us to reconsider their bad driving attitudes.

My understanding is the electronic monitoring system at the train crossing starts with a $500 fine and goes up from there for repeat violations. With a train-car accident the driver of the car puts themselves and the occupants of the car at risk if they violate the signal. Rarely is there another vehicle involved and the car usually loses the contest with the train.

As a comparison though with typical road intersection signal violations the driver of the car not only places themselves and their occupants at risk but they also place the occupants of many other vehicles at risk.

This lopsided approach to fines and even escalating fines for what someone can mostly do to themselves or the occupants of their vehicles at a railway crossing does not make good sense or even strike as close to fair when one considers how much harm can potentially be done to other motorists. Hopefully after a few years experience with these systems some fine tuning and other adjustments will come about.

I was sitting in the turn lane to go North on 59 and I saw the red light cameras going off at strange times. Once was when the light was green and another when a car pulled up to the line but did not go past it. I think its a bit buggy!

I also approve of red light cams. What happened to not entering an intersection unless you know you can legally go through it? It always annoys me when I see numerous cars turn right or left after their light has turned red.

My question is if the red light cams can ticket the people who entered the intersection knowing they wouldn't be able to make the turn on their green signal. There should only be one car beyond the stop line; the rest should get tickets.

This system is poorly designed and a questionable use of taxpayer money. We should all be asking our city council what they were thinking when they approved this installation.

Let's look at it like this... there is some thru traffic at this intersection that is only going in one direction and may never pass through it again. On the other hand the vast majority of traffic is local traffic going to and from somewhere meaning they are likely to pass thru this intersection in one direction and then pass thru in the opposite direction on the return trip. Few people are aware that the system is only capable of monitoring northbound traffic on Rt59 and eastbound traffic on North Aurora. If eliminating or at least minimizing red light running is the goal at this intersection it doesn't make any sense to me to only monitor half of the approaches to the intersection.

The second part of what has not been clearly communicated thru the police and city announcements is whether or not all three opportunities to red lights will be monitored and enforced. By opportunities I am referring to making a left turn on red, going straight thru on red, and turning right on red. Much has been communicated about right turns on red and from the location and placement of equipment at this intersection it does appear that right turns on red are being monitored. What is less clear and questionable from the placement of the monitoring equipment is that left turns on red or straight thru traffic is also being monitored and enforced. I think we need the city to clearly confirm and verify exactly what is being monitored. If in fact all that is being monitored and enforced is right turns on red from two directions then we need to rethink the whole approach to what the goals of this program are from a community perspective because right now I do not think that the city staffers who are writing the specifications for these systems are on the same page with the community, especially those who are completely fed up with how blatant red light and stop sign running has become.

The third part of what has not been clearly communicated thru the police and city announcements is how violations involving police, fire, and other city and government vehicles will be handled when these vehicles are also found to be in violation. Sad to say this but the Naperville Police are no longer a good example or role model of how to come to a complete stop before proceeding thru a stop sign or making a right turn on red. I have personally witnessed fire trucks and other city vehicles, in addition to police vehicles, fail to come to a complete stop at intersections. The city should have detailed records of who is driving all city vehicles at all times and the city needs to verify that they will hold drivers of city vehicles to the same standards expected of the general motoring public.

I agree with Original Joe. Unfortunately, I think the cameras will only help poor driving habits at that particular interestion, but it's a start. The problem is all over.
I live on the south end of town and see drivers go through red lights on a regular basis. Usually if a light turns yellow, you will see drivers creep up into the intersection to get their turn in before the light fully changes, or they will speed up to get through the intersection so they don't have to wait for the light. I hope Naperville police crack down on drivers who feel the laws don't apply to them. A red light isn't a suggestion.

When it starts nailing them in the pocket book I hope to God it changes their behavior. Sadly though, it may only change their behavior at THAT intersection and not the others around town where the average is sometimes 8 people running the red light.

I have 0 sympathy for that stuff from cars 2 and up. The first person going through right *at* the light change MAY be excusable, but more than that? C'Mon, you know damn well you're doing the wrong thing. Enjoy the fines.