Hey N,

Just how many times have you been nabbed by various red light cameras to have a rabid attitude like that? Not a single person who drives safely and follows the rules of the road have a single thing to worry about in terms of red light cameras. The only people who don't like red light cameras are the people who think they are too important to follow established driving laws that are in place to keep everyone safe on the road.

If red light cameras are a bad thing then maybe so is allowing right turns on red. If we are going to do away with red light cameras then let's do away with right turn on red and just let everyone sit and wait until the light turns green.

If red light cameras are a bad thing then maybe those who are caught running red lights should have a different fine schedule if they are caught. How about a $500 fine for simply running a red light, $2,500 fine if it causes an accident, $5,000 fine if it causes an injury, and a $10,000 fine if it causes a fatality?

If people want to run red lights it should not be with impunity or without consequences. Those who cause accidents or worse should be held responsible for the severity of their actions and our judicial system has a long history of using stiff penalties to encourage cooperation.

Personally I would favor maintaining and adding to red light cameras, adding speed cameras, and do away with the $100 ticket. In many other countries that use this technology the cost of the ticket isn't reduced and the ticket goes on your permanent record. A violation is a violation and it shouldn't matter if it is recorded electronically or witnessed by a live person. As we have all learned from "instant replays" the electronic record is far more accurate than the human eye and brain working together.

Red light cameras are a scam and have been found on multiple occasions to violate 5th and 6th amendment rights provided by the US Constitution. The best thing anyone can do is to vote the people who approve this desecration of constitutional rights out of office.

Germany considering Red Light Camera (scales at the schools) for obesity.

Germany Weighs Tax on the Obese

http://www.aolnews.com/world/article/germany-considers-tax-on-the-obese/19566425

Marco Wanderwitz, a conservative member of parliament for the German state of Saxony, said it is unfair and unsustainable for the taxpayer to carry the entire cost of treating obesity-related illnesses in the public health system.

"I think that it would be sensible if those who deliberately lead unhealthy lives would be held financially accountable for that," Wanderwitz said, according to Reuters............

............Others are suggesting even more extreme measures. The German teachers association recently called for school kids to be weighed each day, The Daily Telegraph said.

The fat kids could then be reported to social services, who could send them to health clinics.

Red Light Cameras for gold coin purchasers.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gold-coin-dealers-decry-tax-law/story?id=11211611

FEDs now building a data base of who owns gold coins and how many. The data collection device is the 1099 form, the IRS will populate the data base.

FDR confiscated all private gold in the US just before he devalued the currency something like 75% by printing money. This is why the IRS has a space on the 1040 form so you can list your safe deposit box. BOHICA.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/gold-coin-dealers-decry-tax-law/story?id=11211611

Section 9006 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will amend the Internal Revenue Code to expand the scope of Form 1099. Currently, 1099 forms are used to track and report the miscellaneous income associated with services rendered by independent contractors or self-employed individuals.

Starting Jan. 1, 2012, Form 1099s will become a means of reporting to the Internal Revenue Service the purchases of all goods and services by small businesses and self-employed people that exceed $600 during a calendar year. Precious metals such as coins and bullion fall into this category and coin dealers have been among those most rankled by the change...............

More "Red Light Cameras" for your pay check.

First collect the data, create the regulations, begin the fines.

Another example of how they think.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/69746

(CNSNews.com) – The Obama administration is backing legislation that includes regulations requiring U.S. businesses to provide to the government data about employee pay as it relates to the sex, race and national origin of employees.

.............and the establishment of a data base of U.S. workers’ pay in both the public and private sector.

Rich,

You ain't seen nothing yet, wait until the "smart meter" is attached to your home, monitoring your behavior 7x24 and spitting out the fines. The ultimate goal of the smart grid is the rationing of electricity based on how the FEDS think you should use it.

Phase 1, attach monitoring devices to homes, the "smart meters" are capable of controlling your appliances the day they are installed. This is going full implementation in CA as I write this. "It's green"

Phase 2, require all manufactures to make only smart grid compliant appliances including your thermostat and clothes washer. "It's green".

Phase 3, mandate that all smart grid appliances are attached to smart grid so that "you can better manage your electricity consumption", and so that a data base of your appliances and behavior can be built. "It's green."

Phase 4, formerly voluntary, now mandatory, use of appliances at govt approved times so we don't have to build any new power plants. If you do break the rules, the utility under federal guidance will simply turn the washer off and the thermostat down. If Granny has a heat stroke, well too bad she wasn't paying much in taxes anyway. "It's green"

Green = No nukes, no coal, no hydroelectric, no oil fired, no natural gas fired, and now we have learned that wind generators may hurt the birds off of Cap Cod, so restricted wind generation which could never meet the demand in any case.

Less we forget, humans are the biggest carbon emitters, especially non-Ivy League non University Marxist humans.

Rich,
After grabbing our medical records last year so that all knowing big govt can tell us how our health is going to be managed, based on how many tax paying years we have left; Is it any surprise that the FEDs are now coming into our homes to to learn how we are using electricity and if it meets the government's approval?

Think about it, the Feds now have your colonoscopy results and are reviewing it, can your AC temp be far behind (no pun intended).

"Rationing with our eyes open"

By Rich on July 20, 2010 4:00 PM

Government will always have an insatiable desire for more and more of your cash.

Do not allow them to get any further down the road of using automated devices to scam motorists.

Let them fund their activities honestly, through taxation

Government will always have an insatiable desire for more and more of your cash.

Do not allow them to get any further down the road of using automated devices to scam motorists.

Let them fund their activities honestly, through taxation

City Council needs to make a decision on this, and not based on the whining and complaining of its citizens because the majority broke the law. Keep the cameras or don't keep the cameras. Don't sit on the fence. "We'll keep the cameras, but not enforce right turns on red."

Generating revenue is irrelevant. Everyone knew that this would bring money in, long before the decision was ever made to get these cameras. It's either that or raise taxes, and I'm pretty sure everyone on these blogs is against that.

Are cameras desirable for regulating things like running red lights, yes. The cops can't be and aren't everywhere.

Did we prove that we need a right turn lane at Aurora and RT 59, yes. Why did the planning, transportation and zoning departments miss this one and what has to be done to fix it?

Could Deltasonic have been a little smaller? Yes

The more we hear about this, the more it sounds as if the cameras are far more about revenue than safety. Even given that, I don't have a problem with people being ticketed for right-turn-on-red violations, as long as a reasonable person would conclude that the action violated the spirit of the law and not just the letter. But from the articles I've read, it's not really clear exactly what is considered a ticketable offense, and I get the impression that a loose standard is applied, which would increase revenue. If so, that is not right.

-JQP

The City needs the revenue from the cameras. It is really that simple.

I do wish they would drop the charade that it's about safety. None of the data presented to date support any correlation between the cameras and improved safety. The data clearly show a similar drop in accidents two years before the installation of cameras. The cameras couldn't have contributed to that drop since were not yet installed. None of the data reported in the newspapers is controlled for changes in traffic volume and that is critical. The number of accidents is more a function of traffic volume than it is days on the calendar, yet all of the data published is based upon accidents over time, not accidents per thousand vehicles. Finally, the most recent data indicates that accidents are down slightly, while violations are nearly constant -- that statistic, also not controlled for volume, contradicts the entire premise that the cameras would reduce accidents by reducing violations by influencing driver behavior. The number of violations is reportedly constant, so it follows that any reduction in accidents is not due to changes in behavior, it is due to some other factor.

I'm certain other readers noticed that if photo enforcement of right turn on red is eliminated, then the staff recommends removal of one camera as it will no longer pay for itself. Apparently, no concern for safety in that situation.

To repeat, keep the cameras -- we need the money. If people break the law, make them pay, but stop insulting us with platitudes about safety -- it's also about money!

Plain and simple ----------- NO MORE RED LIGHT CAMERAS!!!! This is nothing more than a revenue builder. (I have been told that rear end collisions have gone up. Is this a fact or rumor ??)

Let the Naperville Gestapo issue the tickets and not some machine.

Wake up people ------- just another fine day in George Orwell's 1984!

This is the biggest scam that municipalities have come up with in quite a few years. And what compounds that frustration is driving behind a cop who rolls the light just like the average citizen. Double Standard.

I read few months ago where the mayor of EGV was spouting off about the "turn right on red light" rule is saving lives and reducing injuries blah blah blah. Yet he couldn't sit a study to make his point. Why? Because it is not true.

All this is a revenue generator for municipalities. Any official who tells you otherwise is lying. Vote them out for making stupid decisions.

The change about stopping before or after the white line might be a good thing in general; provided drivers do come to a complete stop before proceeding. I'm not sure who decides where white lines get painted but there are many intersections that don't have them or where the line isn't in a place that meets drivers needs.

On the other hand if we are going to do away with red light cameras then I expect that all of the bad drivers who are running red lights are going to get worse not better in their general driving habits and overall disregard for motor vehicle laws that exist.

My own observation has been that running red lights has gotten much worse in general but even then that pales in comparison to what is happening at all of the stop signs on side streets.

Since it seems like just about no one wants to stop any more and since everyone is so up in arms over getting caught by the red light cameras maybe the city and state should just take down all of the stop signs. Instead of having stop signs let's replace them with yield signs so that if no one is coming drivers don't have to stop and can just keep going which is what they are doing anyway. If a driver fails to yield and causes an accident how much of a difference does it really matter if it was a difference between failure to yield or failure to stop?

As to the red light violations for left turn and right turns the solution for them is pretty simple. Change all left turn intersections to left turn on green arrow only and completely eliminate the 3 or 4 or 5 or more cars that try to sneak through and make a left turn after the light turns yellow at the end of the cycle. As for right turns on red just eliminate them at all intersections. Up until about 1975 making a right turn on red wasn't permitted. Being able to make a right turn on red after stopping was designed to keep traffic moving and eliminate congestion. However, if people are so impatient that they can't come to a complete stop before proceeding then maybe the law should be changed back to the way it was. The old give an inch take a mile analogy comes to mind here with what some drivers are doing.

Eliminating straight ahead red light violations is a bit more difficult but traffic engineering solution do exist. One of the most successful approaches has been to simply lengthen the yellow light cycle. There are some other options that work well too like the yellow flashing lights on Naper Blvd that when they go off warn you that you are going to catch the next light. We need more lights like this simply because they work.

Where the city council was short sighted in the past but could easily change course would be to pass an ordinance that all revenue received from traffic cameras only be spent to improve and enhance traffic safety instead of just dumping the money into the general revenue fund to be spent on anything. This money should not be spent on maintaining existing traffic systems either.

Many of the reasons drivers violate traffic laws is that they are frustrated by traffic, they are frustrated by the length of the light cycle, they are frustrated when it takes 2 or 3 or more cycles to get through an intersection, they are frustrated because traffic lights on major thoroughfares are not synchronized, they are frustrated because the traffic light preemption for emergency vehicles might work for them but really messes things up for drivers in traffic. All of the time and effort wasted on the horribly stupid idea of "traffic calming" was a total waste. Traffic calming is one of those nice "feel good" ideas that sells well in the board room and doesn't translate into changed behavior behind the wheel. Traffic calming hasn't worked and Naperville needs real solutions that do work.

With the current budget there isn't a lot of places to find extra money to solve traffic problems. Using red light camera revenue to improve the infrastructure makes the most sense and would be a step in the right direction to demonstrate the reason why cameras exist is for public safety and not just another source of revenue. If all of the money was spent to improve traffic safety, ease congestion, improve traffic flow, etc. then many of these violations would naturally decrease anyway.

Here is your chance city council members to really prove to us that red light cameras exist for traffic safety. Please do.