During the first two months of operation, the city's red light cameras caught 1,906 violations at North Aurora Road and Route 59. Averaging 32.6 a day in February and 32.03 in March, it would seem that time and growing familiarity have not cut down on violations in any substantial way.
On Saturday, the city held its first hearings for those who wished to appeal their tickets, and 12 people showed up in person and 18 more did so in writing. They offered up a variety of excuses, but all ended with the same result. The appeals were denied, and the drivers were out a $100 file plus a $25 administrative hearing.
Is it worth it to appeal a red light camera ticket? Do you think it is possible to get a ticket overturned? Do you think the cameras are doing their stated job, i.e. increasing safety at the intersection?
I don't like the way these red light camera's work at all.
For one thing only certain lanes and certain directions are monitored at this intersection. I firmly believe that left turn, straight thru, and right turn should all be equally monitored and enforced. It would seem that the discrimination of what is monitored and enforced would alone be sufficient for an appeal due to "selective enforcement".
For a second thing I don't agree at all with a $100 non-moving fine. Running a red light is a moving violation period. If an officer witnesses you run a red light the fine to get in the game starts at $375 and goes up from there plus it is a moving violation. The structure of this makes it clear that it is more about a cash revenue cow than it is about public safety. The politicians should be ashamed of themselves because they are standing there with their grimy hand out and we are no safer from the morons who don't care about running a red light.
Lastly, I've asked before and no one from the city has had the guts or the intestinal fortitude to answer my question... how are violations of government vehicles handled.... Naperville and other villages, county, state, etc.? Is the language in the contract with the red light camera vendor written to prosecute these violators or are they specifically instructed to turn a blind eye?
Friday morning I was southbound on Naper at Chicago waiting to turn left... first car in line with a DuPage County Sheriff sitting behind me. After I got a green arrow another 3 cars proceeded to turn left from Chicago Ave to northbound Naper. The Sheriff would have had to be brain dead or in a comma not to see such a blatant violation right in front of him... yet he did nothing... absolutely nothing. Not the first time I have witnessed this by NPD or State Police either for that matter. Makes you kind of wonder what we ARE paying them to do and what kind of instructions they have received from their supervisors? I have reluctantly grown to be of the opinion that NPD could care less what any of us do while we drive on city streets and only if we have the misfortune of getting in an accident or worse then the NPD will simply throw the book at us... which means the NPD is operating in a reactionary mode as opposed to providing proactive or preventive policing.
I must be missing something... is there anyone who knows of any valid reasons why we NEED Dial to be Chief or our police department?
RE: Appealing a RL violation.
If you have a video to review and you technically broke the law, don't even bother. Only appeal if you are not in violation of any law whatsoever. This includes the stop-line, coming to a complete stop, etc.
Sucks, but save yourself the extra $25.00 and take the slap on the wrist for what it is and follow the law next time.
(not well-though out yet, but some ideas)
With my slightly libertarian bent, I cannot imagine how we can allow the owner of a vehicle to be responsible for the (non-accident based) moving violations of the (non-self) driver.
ILCS Vehicles
There is a section on "Automated Traffic Control Systems". It does not seem to include such intersections. Within this, it clearly states :
(625 ILCS 7/35)
Sec. 35. Response to issuance of a citation.
(snip)
(b) If the driver of the vehicle cannot be identified through the photograph or other recorded image, the owner is not liable for the fine.
The violations must be mailed within 14 days, preventing the person mentioned in the article from racking up 3 violations in over one month.
I guess our fine local officials decided to pass law allowing these cameras.
e^(i*pi)
LONG POST OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/IL/Naperville/index.htm
section 11-1-9
I will analyze this later. A quick look compared to the state is that the onus of paying is shifted from the driver to the owner. Nothing else here in this post but the code of interest.
11-1-9: AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM:
The city of Naperville hereby adopts an automated traffic enforcement system for the purpose of using photographic, video, or digital imaging equipment to record visual images of vehicles entering intersections in violation of this code and using said images as the basis for issuing a citation to the owners of such vehicles.
1.Definitions: The following words, terms, and phrases, when used herein, shall have ascribed to them the following meanings, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
AUTOMATIC TRAFFIC LAW ENFORCEMENT SYSTEM: The equivalent of "automatic red light system" or "traffic control signal monitoring device". Said system/device is any photographic equipment with one or more motor vehicle sensors working in conjunction with a red light signal to produce recorded images of motor vehicles entering an intersection against a red light indication in violation of 625 Illinois Compiled Statutes 5/11-306 as adopted by reference in section 11-1-1.1 of this chapter.
CITATION: The notice of violation and shall include the following:
1. The name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle;
2. The registration number of the motor vehicle involved in the violation;
3. The violation charged;
4. The location where the violation occurred;
5. The date and time of the violation;
6. A copy of the recorded images;
7. The amount of the civil penalty imposed and the date by which the civil penalty should be paid;
8. A statement that recorded images are evidence of a violation of a red light signal;
9. A warning that failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability in a timely manner is an admission of liability and may result in a suspension of the driving privileges of the registered owner of the vehicle; and
10. A statement that the person may elect to proceed by:
10.1. Paying the penalty; or
10.2. Challenging the violation in court.
IN OPERATION: Operating in good working order.
PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT: Includes, but is not limited to, devices which link a camera, and a computer, alone or in combination with other devices, to detect vehicles that have violated the traffic signal and to record an image of the motor vehicle, its registration, its occupants, and other objects. Such a system may also include, but is not limited to, devices that combine Doppler radar instrument, laser, camera, and computer, alone or in combination with other devices, to measure the speed of a motor vehicle or other object and to record an image of the motor vehicle, or other objects. The results of photographic, video or digital imagining equipment, means the images, speed measurement, and any other data or information produced by the automatic traffic enforcement system.
SYSTEM LOCATION: The approach to a street toward which a photographic, video, digital, or electronic camera is directed and is in operation. It is the location where the automatic camera system is installed to monitor offenses under this section.
VEHICLE OWNER: The person or entity identified by the Illinois secretary of state motor vehicle registration (or with any other state vehicle registration office) as the registered owner of a vehicle.
2.Implementation: The city of Naperville police department shall be responsible for implementing the automatic traffic enforcement system for traffic signal enforcement and is hereby empowered to direct placement of the photographic equipment at locations within the city where the police department considers there to be a need for enhancement of existing public safety mechanisms of enforcing traffic laws, in order to detect and record vehicles crossing an intersection against a red light. The police department shall maintain a list available to the public, of locations so monitored. The police department or its designee shall erect in conspicuous locations, including major thoroughfares leading into the city, signs notifying drivers that an automatic traffic enforcement system may be in use within the municipal limits.
3.Offense:
3.1. The registered owner of a vehicle shall be liable for a penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle violates 625 Illinois Complied Statutes 5/11-306, as adopted by reference in this title.
3.2. Officers or other designated employees of the police department are empowered under this section to examine the photographic equipment recordings authorized under this section to determine whether a red light offense has occurred. If it is determined that an offense has occurred and the license plate number or other source of identification of the ownership of the offending vehicle can be established through photographic recording or other means, the officer or designated employee shall within thirty (30) days after confirmation by the secretary of state of the identity of the owner of the vehicle, but in no event later than ninety (90) days after the violation, issue a citation to the vehicle's owner.
3.3. The city or its agents shall issue citations, issued pursuant to this section, and shall be forwarded to the vehicle's owner by first class United States mail.
3.4. A person who receives such citation shall be required to respond to it by either paying the civil penalty as directed on the citation within thirty (30) days of the issuance date or by contesting the issuance of the citation in court within thirty (30) days of the issuance date.
3.5. An imposition of liability under this section shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made a part of the operating record upon whom such liability is imposed.
3.6. Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit the liability of an operator of a vehicle for any violation of this section.
4.Penalty:
4.1. Any violation pursuant to this section shall be a noncriminal violation for which a civil penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) shall be assessed and for which no points authorized by the Illinois vehicle code shall be assigned to the registered owner of the vehicle.
4.2. The city of Naperville, its finance director, clerk's office, police department, legal department, or any other designated agent of the city, may establish procedures for the collection of the civil action in the nature of a debt.
4.3. If the penalties set forth in this subsection remain unpaid for more than ninety (90) days after the citation was issued, the penalties shall be collected, together with any interest and penalties thereon, by civil suit or other appropriate means of collection. Said means of collecting the penalty shall be made by the police department or its authorized designated agent.
4.4. The police department, city clerk, legal department, and/or finance department shall adopt procedures for the issuance of citations and the collection of civil penalties and costs under this section, to the extent they do not contradict or are otherwise inconsistent with the provisions of this section.
5.Contesting A Citation Or Notice Of Liability: A person who received a citation pursuant to this section may contest the citation within thirty (30) days from the date listed on the citation by making a written request for a court hearing to the address listed on the citation. The failure to give notice to contest or pay the civil penalty within this thirty (30) day time period shall constitute a waiver of the right to contest the citation and will be considered an admission. Any said failure shall result in an additional penalty of one hundred dollars ($100.00) for failure to pay the original penalty on or before the due date.
5.1. The court may consider in defense of the citation:
5.1.1. The motor vehicle or registration plates of the motor vehicle were stolen before the violation occurred and not under the control of or in the possession of the registered owner at the time of the violation;
5.1.2. The driver of the vehicle passed through the intersection when the light was red either: 1) in order to yield the right of way to an emergency vehicle, or 2) as part of a funeral procession; and
5.1.3. The automated traffic enforcement system was not operating properly at the time of the alleged offense. (Ord. 07-248, 11-20-2007)
George Pradel's KANGAROO Court... enough said.
Anonymous (April 20 @10:12 PM),
To answer you on some of your points:
First, I hate these things, too. They are moneymakers first and foremost, lack discretion, and promote lazy policing. A LOT of cops hate red light cameras and what they stand for. The powers-that-be don't care what we think.
I am a cop and assure you police vehicles, NPD and otherwise, are being cited if they go through. Several, from multiple jurisdictions, have already been cited.
The reason it is not a moving violation is because the driver is not cited, nor even known. There is no way to definitively tell who is operatiing the vehicle. I agree it is a big fairness issue on many counts, though.
Lastly, as to why you see traffic violations and officers who are present do nothing about them. Most likely the deputy (or city cop or trooper) was already engaged in something of greater priority and simply did not have the time to address the violation. It happens all the time. If I pull over a traffic violator while heading to a higher priority call my supervisor would hammer me, and rightly so. That is just the reality of what we do.
Hope this helps.
Duh! How are they going to get the money that comprised the entire reason for installing spy cameras if they dismiss cases. This was, is and will remain the only purpose for the big brother routine. Money and more money. Wouldn't it be nice if these elected decision makers would cut payrolls along with just about everything else and tried doing what the taxpayers are forced to do...LIVE WITHIN YOUR BUDGET!
Right on Red is the rule, not the exception.
With over 1000 tickets issued at two intersections for No Right on Red violations, the question should be
ARE THE SIGNS BIG ENOUGH AND IN THE RIGHT PLACE?
Or, should we either modify the intersection with turn lanes etc to allow right on red or see what happens if we allow right on red with the existing street configuration?
I definitely think the red light cameras are a cash grab. No, I don't think the intersections that are policed by the cameras are safer. I also don't think someone should be charged $25 to be able to be heard about a ticket.
On the other hand, I also agree with Anonymous above that if there are going to be red light cameras they should be set up to monitor all directions of traffic at an intersection, not just "selective monitoring."
Finally, I too have witnessed a person run a red light directly in front of a NPD squad (Ogden & Iroquois). Nothing was done. There are many, many violations that would generate cash for the city of people were fined for them. The video surveillance mode seems to be the one the city wants to employ as opposed to utilizing the NPD.
Personally, I am glad they have these at the intersection of North Aurora Road and Route 59. I have seen such ridiculous driving behavior there in previous years. When my daughter had tennis lessons in the Brookdale subdivision, we traveled through that intersection 5 days a week in the summer. When she finally got her driver's license, I continued to drive her to tennis for a while because of the way drivers disregard lights at that intersection. Every day we had something to discuss based on the behavior at that intersection alone. Once I knew she had a clear understanding of the idiots she would encounter while driving to tennis, I let her start driving herself. She always had a story to tell when she got home.
I am sure that the city of Naperville is making some money off of that intersection. Unfortunately, I don't know if it will change people's behavior there or not. I hope so though.
"selective enforcement"...
Isn't an officer who is on one side of a street trying to get speeders then also "selective enforcement" since he/she is not also looking at the other side of traffic flow. That is equal to one side of a red light than another flow of traffic.
I agree...you violate, you pay!
Also, just because not all are "caught" does not mean those who are shouldn't be. Did you ever think those officers who did "nothing" were on their lunch break, going home etc. Ya, if there was a major accident or HUGE violation I'm not saying they probably should not help or call in or both. There could be a reason they did not. And in this case if I'm imagining this correct, he is behind you...is someone behind him also? What is he suppose to do, do a U turn I think you're saying & go get them? How do you know he didn't report what he saw & later in the week they may not have someone posted in the appropriate direction to catch some or maybe it will be used as a future site for a camera based on what he saw?
I don't care for these traffic traps and view them as purely revenue producing devices for the city - why the city hides behind a story that all they care about is safety is beyond me. I would be curious if the traffic accident rate at this intersection is going down??
A few have discussed the fact that the car is cited and the ticket sent to the owner regardless of who was driving. While this seems unfair, it is no different than when a parking ticket is issued for meter violations, or when someone runs a toll booth and gets their ticket in the mail. In each of these cases the ticket has been ruled to be legit and is placed on the car or sent to the registered owner regardless of who was responsible for operating the vehicle at the time.
I also have a curious question. If someone runs a red light at this intersection and is actually ticketed by a cop who happens to be there, do they also get a ticket mailed to them a few weeks later due to the camera? Does double jeopardy apply to traffic violations?
I think the red light cameras are great - wish we had them at every intersection.
Anyone caught by one is an idiot, and deserves the fine. If you disagree, you don't know the rules of the road.
FIGHT THESE TICKETS
ARTICLE III. TRAFFIC SIGNS,
SIGNALS, AND MARKINGS
(625 ILCS 5/11‑306) (from Ch. 95 1/2, par. 11‑306)
Sec. 11‑306. Traffic‑control signal legend. Whenever traffic is controlled by traffic‑control signals exhibiting different colored lights or color lighted arrows, successively one at a time or in combination, only the colors green, red and yellow shall be used, except for special pedestrian signals carrying a word legend, and the lights shall indicate and apply to drivers of vehicles and pedestrians as follows: (snipped)
The Municipal code says: "3.1. The registered owner of a vehicle shall be liable for a penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle violates 625 Illinois Complied Statutes 5/11-306, as adopted by reference in this title."
Vehicles cannot be in violation of 5/11-306. These are laws against an individual's driving behavior. All of the state laws apply to the driver. Even the state laws on Photo enforcement are on the driver. I do not think the city can reference and enforce a state statute and apply it to a vehicle when the state clearly applies it to a person. And as written right now, the municipal code is non-nonsensical.
Any thoughts you lawyer types?
e^(i*pi) -- still fired up about Dr. Leis' recent staffing suggestion and his interest in only hearing from parents. Ridiculous!
Go out and protest at the intersections and see what happens... It might be a good idea to make a very large sign that might block the camera from taking a picture... Of course you would have to hold your sign, you can't permanently place it... Just an idea. See how quick you get a response from the NPD since they aren't concerned with the money after all....
1. Too many drivers are distracted and inattentive. If you're paying attention to the road and everything you're supposed to be looking at you can't possibly miss all of the signs. If you know the rules of the road you should know that you can't enter an intersection when the light is red, and you must come to a complete stop before turning right on red. if you're not paying attention and you miss all of the warnings, you probably deserve the ticket. I hope it makes you pay attention to your driving in the future. We'll all be better off for it.
2. People are constantly complaining about the cost of government. Here's a solution that makes money, enforces traffic safety in an undisputable way, and doesn't add any employees to the city payroll. If you're not doing anything wrong it won't ba a problem for you.
3. I am not a member of the safety fanatics/anti-destination league. The car I drive every day has 450 hp and is capable of breaking any speed limit very easily. I haven't had a speeding ticket or an accident in more than 25 years because I pay attention when I'm driving. I firmly believe the red light cameras will improve driver awareness and improve everyone's safety. You get whacked with a few $100+ tickets and it should get your attention.
To follow on some of the good questions posed by Thomas...
What happens if the vehicle is rented?
What happens if the vehicle is leased?
What happens if the vehicle has been stolen?
What happens if the vehicle has dealer plates?
What happens if it is an out-of-state vehicle?
What about vehicles in a funeral procession?
What happens if snow is covering the stop line?
oops-- I put an extra "non" in the incorrect "non-nonsensical".
I meant nonsensical. My spell check ran amok.
-1
Anonymous on April 21, 2009 8:57 AM
"Right on Red is the rule, not the exception.
With over 1000 tickets issued at two intersections for No Right on Red violations, the question should be
ARE THE SIGNS BIG ENOUGH AND IN THE RIGHT PLACE?
Or, should we either modify the intersection with turn lanes etc to allow right on red or see what happens if we allow right on red with the existing street configuration?"
I don't know who makes the decision as to who can or can not make a right turn on red at intersections like this where Rt 59 is a state road and North Aurora appears to be a city street. Fact is we used to be able to make a right turn on red at this side of the intersection and making a right on red is still permitted at the other three sides of this intersection. Granted there are issues with making a double right hand turn from both lanes and most of the time these intersections are configured to still allow a right on red from the inside lane. A total ban on any right on red at this side of the intersection just is not warranted unless you happen to be a city trying to put in a red light camera trap.
Anonymous on April 21, 2009 12:53 PM
Fact is we used to be able to make a right turn on red at this side of the intersection and making a right on red is still permitted at the other three sides of this intersection
----
Hi Anonymous. I would like to politely disagree with you on this one. I used to live off North Aurora rd from 1993 to 2004 and during that time the right turn on red was always prohibited (Eastbound North Aurora to Southbound 59). there are 2 turning lanes and I would sit and wait for the light to change. Quite often people would honk, or switch lanes to make the right turn on red, but I never did it. I never once saw the police stop anyone for the infraction, but in my mind I didn't want to be the first.
I'll back up Anonymous 1:41pm on that one. I know that the "no turn on red" signs from eastbound North Aurora to southbound 59 have been there since at least 2000.
By Anonymous on April 21, 2009 12:38 PM
To follow on some of the good questions posed by Thomas...
What happens if the vehicle is rented?
What happens if the vehicle is leased?
What happens if the vehicle has been stolen?
What happens if the vehicle has dealer plates?
What happens if it is an out-of-state vehicle?
What about vehicles in a funeral procession?
What happens if snow is covering the stop line?
----------------------
Stolen and funeral processions are covered exceptions in the ordinance. Rented cars have a procedure in the state statute that has not been carried over to the city ordinance. It will be interesting when the first one comes up as a contested matter. Leased cars are registered to the lessee and that shouldn't be a problem with notice, but it is a problem with who is responsible for the ticket. If I was a lessee, I would go to the hearing and tell them that I am not the owner and they should collect from the owner per the ordinance.
It's hard to say if those appealing were justly denied without seeing the evidence.
I would like to say about those citations in this intersection
I drive almost every day and make an stop on the gas station
and I see every time those flaxes from the camara driven east on North Aur. Rd turning South even when the driver do not turn as soon it cross the white line there is a flax, then when you drive North few times I observed when I was behind a couple 18 weels truck in the left line cars were turning on red and no way the camara would cach 'cause the trucks
It was a nice try for the people on Saturday to get the tickets overturned, but when living in a Socialistic/Communist society and the Naperville Gestago style police you don't stand a chance.
Big brother is here to stay. You wanted it ---------- now you got it.
The whole thing is a farce and nothing more than a Money Maker. Who is kidding who here!
It's all about money. It's all about money. It's all about money.
Keep repeating this and you will come to understand.
How can it be just a cash grab or any other label if everyone is obeying the law? They would not make money then. You know it is not a difficult concept to understand. People should have learned as a child that there are consequences for not obeying the laws. You misbehave you get fined. And why is this? The idea is to not let this continue! It may be your family who gets injured or killed by someone running a red light.
Now I do find it interesting if the owner of the car gets the ticket. I think back to when I was young...several siblings. Mom & dad got a 3rd car & between the 3 we all got where we wanted. Now you do know how teenagers drive and in particular we all know the young males have the highest insurance rates. It is for a reason! So now imagine mom & dad get a ticket for each child who just violates once. Ya...this will be interesting. Of course things have changed. Some parents are playing the car in child's name (if lucky) or the child has to buy they own car, but this is certainly not always the case. Maybe more in Naperville but...? Maybe this will help. When a parent’s teenager gets a ticket they may get away with mom & dad not knowing about it. Now…busted!
You know…maybe we should consider consequences other than $ or in addition to. I mean we do need to pay for the services of the cameras, paper to send the tickets, people to review ETC but maybe tack on some other things like some community service or something. Make them go clean the streets or hey they can clean up after the hot dog guy (sorry! HA!)
I loathe and detest all automated cash raising devices like these.
Ten years from now, I predict there will be thousands of cameras monitoring drivers in Illinois, and you will be ticketed day and night for going a couple of miles an hour over the limit or dropping off passengers in the wrong place. That's what happened in the UK. It's just too easy a revenue source for a greedy bloated government to resist. It's also what public safety CCTV cameras in towns are mainly used for (nothing to do with combating crime)
BUT. In the case of red light cameras the only time I would contest it is if I was flashed while stationary and the equipment was clearly faulty. Otherwise , you have been caught on video running a red light.
As for the people in this article, the guy tailgating a truck to the point he could not see traffic signals ahead should go back and learn to drive. And the woman who 3 times failed to see the clearly visible two foot square NO TURN ON RED sign should go get her eyes tested, and hand in her license in the meantime.
When I see undesirable people, people with loud music, people who look generally rude, people that drive big gas sucking cars in front of me at the red light camera I honk at them. They then pull through, and get a ticket. I find Red light camera's to be ridiculous, and I use them to take out revenge on those hurting the environment or those who have cut me off at earlier lights. I am certain I have personally caused at least 10 tickets, and I will continue to do so--for those of you who may be my victims, I can't think of a better reason to appeal!
Richard...
I agree on your last part. If you are dropping someone off at the wrong spot...sorry! I doubt they will do a few miles over. Again, we don't want to go overboard here. Then again maybe it will be like Demolitian Man & tickets will come out of the wall for swearing. Now if someone really wanted to make money that is what they need to ticket! HA!
And the woman who 3 times failed to see the clearly visible two foot square NO TURN ON RED sign should go get her eyes tested, and hand in her license in the meantime.
____________________________________________-
Not just one sign, but three No Turn on Red signs.
It does amaze me, no, actually it doesn't, at the lack of personal responsibility in the two people picked for the article.
As far as beating the ticket, it isn't going to happen. Before the ticket is issued, the video and still photos are reviewed by three or four individuals, and are available for viewing online by the law breaker. Why anyone would go to a hearing and pay $25 to watch the video again only to affirm they are guilty is beyond me. The camera doesn't lie.
By Thomas on April 21, 2009 11:57 AM
A few have discussed the fact that the car is cited and the ticket sent to the owner regardless of who was driving. While this seems unfair, it is no different than when a parking ticket is issued for meter violations, or when someone runs a toll booth and gets their ticket in the mail. In each of these cases the ticket has been ruled to be legit and is placed on the car or sent to the registered owner regardless of who was responsible for operating the vehicle at the time.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By One Who Values You on April 21, 2009 7:47 PM
Now I do find it interesting if the owner of the car gets the ticket. I think back to when I was young...several siblings. Mom & dad got a 3rd car & between the 3 we all got where we wanted. It is for a reason! So now imagine mom & dad get a ticket for each child who just violates once. Of course things have changed. Some parents are playing the car in child's name (if lucky) or the child has to buy they own car, but this is certainly not always the case. Maybe more in Naperville but...? Maybe this will help. When a parent’s teenager gets a ticket they may get away with mom & dad not knowing about it. Now…busted!
=========================================================================================================
Thomas and OWVU,
Very interesting comments. It can be a little unfair and even dangerous when the owner of the car is targeted instead of the driving teenager.
Remember the Napergate Man's daughter running the toll booth and not telling her Dad. Her Dad never getting a notice or ticket.
Guess who was busted!
Not the daughter who ran the toll.
But Daddy Napergate Man who spent the night in the Naperville Police Hilton while his friend had to dog sit his puppy all night long.
The daughter was not busted by the parents.
The daughter managed to send her dad to jail.
I guess you can not discipline your kids these days without ramnifications. If you get them mad enough they will run a few tolls and/or red lights if the vehicle is in your name and throw you in jail....right where they want you sometimes so they can party the night away with no one to impose a CURFEW....lol...
To make sure it happens successfully, all they have to do is make sure they get to the mail box before you do so the notice will somehow disappear.
Don't break the law, don't get a ticket. Whaaaaaa, it's not fair. What?? Just because you've never been caught before doesn't mean it's legal. If people would follow the law and the posted signs (the sign that says No Turn on Red is HUGE) this wouldn't make the city any money, plain and simple.
www.gpsangel.com
If you would rather send your $100 elsewhere rather than City of Naperville. Go to this website and check out this gadget. It is suppose to alert you to redlight cameras. I did see they listed some cameras that have long since been taken down. i.e - Book Rd/95th St. But it sounds like a good investment if you are intent on staying ahead of the game.
Another observation of what really has been happening for the last several years at intersections is that literally no one slows down and stops when a light turns yellow anymore. In fact, the exact opposite is what most usually happens... cars that, for the most part, are already speeding now go even faster trying to "beat the light".
It would seem to me that if we can put in a camera and all of the recording equipment up at an intersection then we could also couple that equipment with a synchronized series of images and/or an actual speed gun to determine how fast vehicles are moving. If a vehicle is over the speed limit AND they run the red light they should get two tickets. While the video is running let's check and see if the turning vehicles signaled correctly... if not, hit them with a second violation as well.
From an economic standpoint it doesn't seem to me to be a good or efficient use of the capital equipment investment to only monitor one single aspect of potential violations.
Experienced,
"Stolen and funeral processions are covered exceptions in the ordinance. Rented cars have a procedure in the state statute that has not been carried over to the city ordinance. It will be interesting when the first one comes up as a contested matter. Leased cars are registered to the lessee and that shouldn't be a problem with notice, but it is a problem with who is responsible for the ticket. If I was a lessee, I would go to the hearing and tell them that I am not the owner and they should collect from the owner per the ordinance."
My lawyer has told me I should create a family trust that will hold ownership to all of our family vehicles. He claims this is a good strategy for a number of legal reasons... I'm not clear on what all those reasons may be and I am looking in to it to learn more.
Seems to me though that this might be another loophole in the law where a municipality would have a pretty tough time collecting anything from a trust.
By Anonymous on April 22, 2009 10:59 AM
Just watch out that you don't get your plates suspended for racking up too many unpaid tickets.
The registered owner of a vehicle shall be liable for a penalty imposed pursuant to this section if such vehicle violates 625 Illinois Complied Statutes 5/11-306, as adopted by reference in this title.
I'm currently making payments on my car to the bank, so I don't technically own the car, so would the bank have to pay the ticket???
If your in that much of a rush to get to your destination where as you feel compelled to bend the law to suit your own selfish needs or driving habits, just man-up and pay the fine or leave earlier and don`t be so rushed. These fines do not go on your record. If someone else is driving your car, collect the fine from them or don`t loan it next time. Quit your whinning. Just be glad at the next intersection maybe someone else won`t bend the laws and create an accident involving you. Life is too short... slow it down.
If safety is what this is about, show us the numbers!
The city has stated that this is the most dangerous intersection but show us the statistics:
How many accidents occurred at the intersection during those same months the previous year?
How many tickets were issued by law enforcement during those same months the previous year?
How many accidents occurred at the intersection during that period of time when those cameras were being used?
The Naperville Sun should request this information thru the Freedom of Information Act and publish article with those statistics and the city’s response.
Now.....busted! on April 22, 2009 2:44 AM
Remember the Napergate Man's daughter running the toll booth and not telling her Dad. Her Dad never getting a notice or ticket. The daughter managed to send her dad to jail.
I guess you can not discipline your kids these days without ramnifications. If you get them mad enough they will run a few tolls and/or red lights if the vehicle is in your name and throw you in jail....right where they want you sometimes so they can party the night away with no one to impose a CURFEW
________________________
It sounds like the NGM has quite a handful in that daughter of his, but his issue seems to be more with his daughter than with the toll authority! It does seem unfair "Now...Busted" to blame the daughter unless you know the family situation. We want to keep this blog site factual, yet also be respectful.
There is no possible way these cameras are not a money maker. Being a civil suit is a plain example of that. Since running a red light is a crime, it should be criminal. But in Criminal courts, all of these would not have enough evidence. This is just a money maker for the cities which implement them. Also, in the article, there was someone saying that there was "no not turn on red
sign she could see. It sounded like Puscas somewhat agrees with her, saying "That may be a point, but on the other hand we have to work with what we have." No you don't. If it is truthful problem, the appeal should be granted and the problem fixed. It would be like just having it written in some document that there are no turns on red, and no notifying anyone. How is that correct?
If I am wrong with this, I welcome any person to express their views toward me.
Thank You.
Chris S., there are three very visible signs at that corner that state "NO TURN ON RED" that have been there years before the red light cameras. She either was playing dumb, or doesn't pay attention, either way, she broke the law.
Also, disobeying a traffic device is a traffic offense,a moving/points violation and not criminal. For that charge to hold up, a picture/video has to include a picture of the drivers face. So, they opted out of the moving violation and just made it a fine, for which the cronic lawbreakers should be grateful, as their insurance would go sky high, not to mention receiving license suspensions. For those complaining about the cameras, be thankful the city didn't contract for the full frontal view cameras, then you would be going to traffic court and getting a moving violation.
The way I look at it, it is a win win situation. The lawbreakers get off with only a fine, and the city makes some money so my taxes don't go up more. Just think of it as another sin tax.
To me, the debate as to whether or not the red light cameras are intended as 'money makers' is moot. Of course they will be money makers, but only if there are people breaking the laws. One way to quickly shut down the money making opportunities would be for drivers to obey the law. I know that's stating the obvious, but it seems to be a fact that people aren't recognizing. If you're going to break the laws, be accountable for your actions and ante up. But, if the majority obeyed traffic signals, we could let the cameras sit there, day and night, monitoring the intersection and it wouldn't matter. It's the people who choose not to obey the laws that are filling the city's pocketbooks... and then they cry foul when they are held accountable.
Chris S. you need to read the next sentence in the article:
Martin later said the signs were up for many years before the cameras were installed.
Apparently there is a sign, but she didn't notice it. I can't say I blame her, because those signs are usually small, and easy to lose amidst all the other visual noise at your average intersection. They should use some of the money they're making from the camera to put up a right turn signal light at that intersection.
-JQP
"I guess you can not discipline your kids these days without ramnifications. If you get them mad enough they will run a few tolls and/or red lights if the vehicle is in your name and throw you in jail....right where they want you sometimes so they can party the night away with no one to impose a CURFEW....lol..."
*****************
Oh you give up too easily. Actually, if you have a good relationship with your child prior to them turning the age to drive you won't have too many problems. They will still be good kids. And you can still do something after they do this behavior! Remember children learn from parents. You speed, go through red lights, rage at drivers, call an officer a name as they stop you what are you teaching your children? Actually, when I'm driving with the young ones related to me I use it as teaching moments. Anyone driving poorly I point it out & say why.
To One Who Values You, I am right there with you on the poor driving examples being used as lessons for new drivers. Unfortunately, there are many opportunities to point out to our kids the bad driving decisions made by adult drivers. Hopefully they will learn from them and hopefully there will be no accidents or fatalities due to the numerous poor drivers in our town.
People just need to slow down and understand that laws are for everyone... including them!
If the City of Naperville REALLY doesn't want anyone turning right on red at this intersection the city could do a lot of things to make the "No Right Turn on Red" signs more visible.
The city could make the signs larger.
The city could put up additional signs, especially straight ahead on the center median.
The city could put some of those flashing LED's that are gaining popularity on stop and other warning signs.
The city could put some of that highly reflective tape on the poles that hold the signs.
The city could make the signs themselves illuminated or even flash.
Fact is the city has lots of options. If this is really all about public safety the city will do something. If it is about money the city will do nothing. Time will tell...
I remember reading somewhere that Illinois law calls for a local government to provide statistics to justify the need for these camera at intersections deemed dangerous. The data was also supposed to be reviewed and if the cameras weren't having a positive effect then engineering changed needed to be done to the intersection like adding a right turn arrow. I can't remember if this was Illinois or another state. Aside from someone being an idiot and running a red, it's disingenuous for any city official to say these are not a revenue stream. If that's the case then cash should go into a fund to improve the intersection in order to make every effort to get rid of the camera. Just as an aside, the company who owns the camera and gets the lions share of the fine is an Australian company. We're just sending more cash out of our country into someone else's. If people get sick enough of them I suspect someone with revolt and vandalize them. Look what happened in Chicago when the geniuses there decided to sell off their parking meters.
Wow you want all that just to get the idea to not turn on a red? What does it take for you to even stop then? You put all that into effect & people will get use to it & need even more. They could put up some type of gate that comes down when the light turns red like a railroad crossing too but come on people. If you can't read the signs, you need to have your eyes tested. If you are not paying attention you should not be driving. Driving is a privilege not a right. I'd rather have people paying for violating than having me pay with my life or my childs.
concerned citizen wrote:
Just as an aside, the company who owns the camera and gets the lions share of the fine is an Australian company. We're just sending more cash out of our country into someone else's.
And not just any country: a country where drivers habitually drive on the wrong side of the road! ;-)
Well then lets just make sure it is just Aussie Drivers who are disobeying the red light law & it won't be out money!
For all those who think tough twinkies you break the you pay the fines keep this in mind... The Daily Herald ran a story a few weeks back about Redflex Systems making donations to local politicians. Yeah it's all about your safety and following the rules of the road.
communist naperville at it's best!
You should provide the link then to the article!
Maybe the city needs the redlight camera revenue to help suplement the pension of the TOP COPZ. Remember da' chief wants driving certificates provided to illegal aliens,why would that be?
What are the total costs to society (fines, repairs, medical, loss of life, lost wages, etc.) before and after installation of cameras in an itersection? Are these cameras decreasing or increasing this total cost to society, or just giving the city a bigger share as it goes up?
What are the total citations + accidents, per month, before, after, and ongoing? Is there really any deterrance that can be attributed to the cameras?
How many citations go to right turns inside of cross-traffic left-turn arrows? Legality aside, I would guess that this relatively safe maneuver accounts for a large portion of the citations, and a small portion of the safety concern. Are intersections with left-turn arrows, but without coordinated right-turn arrows, targeted for cameras because of their higher revenue potential?
The issue should not be "you got caught, pay up, na-na-na-boo-boo" versus "I got caught, whaaaa, how can I fight it?". Get over yourselves. It should be about measureable safety performance (where is that reported?), and holding accountable those who are responsible for it.
I wish some consideration were given to how the safety of an intersection relates to how well it was designed to handle the traffic load, instead of simply catching and fining those darn dangerous drivers. Intersections that don't work lead to confusion and frustration, which lead to violations, which lead to safety problems. Putting a red-light camera on a dangerous intersection doesn't address the root cause, and is like (to quote an astute democrat) putting lipstick on a pig, which, incidentally, works out great for the Austrailian lipstick vendors.
Pucker up, Naperville, your city council is on the case. They won't let this safety crisis go to waste. They'll find a way to squeeze more money out of you without really fixing anything (sound familiar?). That way the revenue stream will always be there. Kind of like a toll road.
Now that I think of it, the next "safety measure" will probably be open road tolls for dangerous intersections. You know, change the public's habits (instead of making real safety improvements), to cut down the traffic load, for safety (and the children). Then, we can sell these intersections to Australian companies.
That won't work, either.
How about a red-light camera tea party? "No citation without safety improvement". Needs a little work.
By Go Figure on April 29, 2009 12:08 AM;
"Are intersections with left-turn arrows, but without coordinated right-turn arrows, targeted for cameras because of their higher revenue potential?"
__________________
Apparently not seeing as N Aurora and 59 has right turn arrows.
Just a point about making left and right turns together...
For traffic heading in opposite directions on the same road... one driver is turning left and the other wants to turn right. There should not be any green arrow for the right turn while the oncoming traffic has a left green arrow. This is a recipe for a collision. Right turning traffic would be expected to yield while oncoming traffic has a green arrow.
For traffic in crossing directions on opposite road... one driver is in the left turn lane and u turns are permitted at the intersection and traffic coming from the right want to make a right turn. There isn't supposed to be any right turn on red or green arrows permitted when traffic from the other side is permitted to make a u-turn. Again a recipe for a collision because both drivers would tend to think they have the right-of-way. Technically the driver making the left turn is on the driver making the right turns right so the driver making the right hand turn should yield the right of way. Problem is those who are running red lights are not courteous drivers in the first place. Be careful out there. There are dozens of intersections all over Naperville that incorrectly permit both u-turns and right turn on red.
I just received a ticket in the mail for a violation for turning right on red at that Rt 59/north aurora rd intersection.
As previously stated, turning right on red is the rule, NOT the exception- they need to make the signs bigger or more noticeable-- I did not notice the no turn on red sign.
Babo
There is a uniform sign manual that all traffic control devices are to adhere. You can find it here: http://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/pdfs/2003r1r2/mutcd2003r1r2complet.pdf
State law says that if the sign doesn't conform, the sign is unenforceable: 625 ILCS 5/11‑209.1(b)
If you do a word search of the .pdf for "no turn on red", you will see the measurement requirements as well as the placement requirements. I don't know if the sign for which you were ticketed complies with these regulations or not. If not, it is unenforceable. You might want to do a FOIA for the specifications of the sign in question.
Now, if you find that the sign doesn't comply, your next task is to convince the hearing officer that s/he has the authority to dismiss the ticket for this reason. Remember, s/he is beholden to the city for a job and will normally voice the city's position. The ordinance doesn't list illegal sign as a defense to the violation.
I wish you luck.
Try opening your eyes, there are two signs at that intersection,one for each right turn lane and both clearly visible.
Experienced, are you trying to get Babo laughed out of court? You don't think the signs at a state intersection are going to be proper size?
Babo, maybe you can take the same lesson I am currently teaching my daughter as she learns how to drive. It is your responsibility as a driver to pay attention to all traffic control signs, big and small. Don't whine if you get a ticket because you failed to do so while assuming every intersection is the same.
Ken
Why shouldn't we educate Babo on the legal requirements? S/he believes the signs are improper. As signage is governed by statewide regulations, s/he should know where to find those regulations so that s/he can assure her/his self that the signs are proper.
Now, there are occasions that the signage is bad. For example, there are rules concerning the placement of the signs. I went thru this intersection last night traveling eastbound on North Aurora. The signs might be improperly placed.
If those signs are improper, then every other no turn on red sign in is. They exactly the same as every other no turn on red sign in the area.
Instead of trying to find a way to get out of the ticket, wouldn't it be better to realize the mistake, and chalk it up to one of life's numerous learning experiences? Most likely, those who claim not to see the sign come flying up to the intersection with their head turned to the left checking to see if it is clear to go on red, usually sometimes without stopping, not even looking at to see if it is legal to do so.
Over the past decade, a number of studies have examined the use of red light cameras. The most relevant studies examined the devices in light of changes in traffic and engineering conditions made at intersections during the study period and pulled actual police reports to examine the particular causes of each collision. The following studies are the most comprehensive available:
• A 2008 University of South Florida report found:
"Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety."
Read a summary
Full copy, 80k pdf
• A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found:
"The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1mb pdf
• A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found:
"The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."
Read a summary
Full copy, 541k pdf
• A 2005 Virginia DOT study found:
"The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.7mb pdf
• In 2005, The Washington Post found:
"The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."
Read a summary
Full article on the Post website
• A 2004 North Carolina A&T University study found:
"Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.7mb pdf
• A 2003 Ontario Ministry of Transportation study found:
"Compared to the average number of reported collisions occurring in the before period, the average yearly number of reported collisions increased 15.1 per cent in the after period."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.5mb pdf
• A 1995 Australian Road Research Board study found:
"The results of this study suggest that the installation of the RLC at these sites did not provide any reduction in accidents, rather there has been increases in rear end and adjacent approaches accidents on a before and after basis and also by comparison with the changes in accidents at intersection signals."
Read a summary
Full copy, 2.4mb pdf
• A 1995 Monash University (Australia) study found:
"a simple correlation analysis was undertaken for red light running data in the current study and revealed no significant relationship between the frequency of crashes at RLC and non-RLC sites and differences in red light running behaviour."
Read a summary
Related Reports and Studies
The importance of the yellow warning signal time in reducing the instances of red light running is found in the following reports:
• A 2004 Texas Transportation Institute study found:
"An increase in yellow duration of 1.0 seconds is associated with a [crash frequency] of about 0.6, which corresponds to a 40 percent reduction in crashes."
Read a summary
Full copy, 1.5mb pdf
• A 2001 report by the Majority Leader of the U.S. House of Representatives found:
"The changes in the yellow signal timing regulations have resulted in the inadequate yellow times. And these inadequate yellow times are the likely cause of almost 80 percent of red light entries."
Full version with summary
Pasted from