Bill to ELIMINATE Red light cameras in IL!!!
03-01-10, 01:12 PM
#1
Bill to ELIMINATE Red light cameras in IL!!!
Received this email today! Hell yea I'm going to voice my opinion!
You are receiving this email because there is an important bill under review tomorrow night by the Transportation Committee in Springfield IL. There is absolutely NO evidence that these devices save lives or provide any value to the community welfare other than to plug budget gaps with $100 fines for frivolous right hand turns while trampling on privacy. http://blog.motorists.org/illinois-r...-cameras-scam/
Synopsis As Introduced: Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that a county or municipality may not use an automated traffic law enforcement system to provide recorded images of a motor vehicle for the purpose of issuing violations to persons driving a motor vehicle who enter an intersection to turn right against a red signal indication. Provides that a county or municipality may require any registered owner responding to an automated traffic law violation notice to submit proof of minimum liability insurance coverage of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation. Effective January 1, 2011.
PLEASE take two minutes to call Mr. Sandovals office and voice your support for Senate Bill 2466 . . . to ELIMINATE REDLIGHT CAMERAS.
Chairman of Transportation Committee - Martin Sandoval 12th District
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1471
Springfield Office:
Senator 12th District
124 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5304
----------------
Illinois Lawmakers Push Red Light Camera Restrictions
Three bills pre-filed in the Illinois legislature would curb or eliminate the use of red light cameras.
A handful of Illinois state lawmakers are fighting to rein in and possibly eliminate the use of red light cameras when the legislature returns to session in January. The most ambitious proposal comes from state Senator Dan Duffy (R-Barrington) who last month introduced Senate Bill 2466 to wipe any authorization of automated ticketing machines from the statute books. Duffy complained on his website earlier this month about the corrupting influence that a UK-Israeli operator of traffic cameras has had on the statehouse.
"This company not only provides the red light cameras for much of the Chicagoland area it also lobbies for legislation to increase their business," Duffy wrote. "Redspeed uses email updates targeting specific legislators who are not voting in favor of Redspeed."
State Representative Angelo Saviano (R-Elmwood Park) has a more limited objective in mind. Last month he introduced legislation that would not ban cameras entirely, but instead would ban the most lucrative form of ticketing.
"A county or municipality, including a home rule county or municipality, may not use an automated traffic law enforcement system to provide recorded images of a motor vehicle for the purpose of issuing violations to persons driving a motor vehicle who enter an intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street," House Bill 4631 states.
Several Chicago suburbs have earned millions in revenue almost entirely from issuing right turn on red tickets with cameras. Very few accidents are ever caused by drivers making right hand turns on red after slowing, according to US Department of Transportation data (view report).
State Senator Rickey R. Hendon (D-Chicago) offered the least ambitious of the red light camera measures. His bill would prevent localities from issuing a ticket for a certain type of technical infraction.
"A county or municipality, including a home rule county or municipality, may not use an automated traffic law enforcement system to provide recorded images of a motor vehicle for the purpose of issuing violations to persons driving a motor vehicle who come to a stop one foot or less past the point where a driver is required to stop," Senate Bill 2477 states.
All three bills face an uphill battle in a legislature that has consistently expanded the use of automated ticketing over the past few years.
Synopsis As Introduced: Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that a county or municipality may not use an automated traffic law enforcement system to provide recorded images of a motor vehicle for the purpose of issuing violations to persons driving a motor vehicle who enter an intersection to turn right against a red signal indication. Provides that a county or municipality may require any registered owner responding to an automated traffic law violation notice to submit proof of minimum liability insurance coverage of the motor vehicle at the time of the violation. Effective January 1, 2011.
PLEASE take two minutes to call Mr. Sandovals office and voice your support for Senate Bill 2466 . . . to ELIMINATE REDLIGHT CAMERAS.
Chairman of Transportation Committee - Martin Sandoval 12th District
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/Senator.asp?MemberID=1471
Springfield Office:
Senator 12th District
124 Capitol Building
Springfield, IL 62706
(217) 782-5304
----------------
Illinois Lawmakers Push Red Light Camera Restrictions
Three bills pre-filed in the Illinois legislature would curb or eliminate the use of red light cameras.
A handful of Illinois state lawmakers are fighting to rein in and possibly eliminate the use of red light cameras when the legislature returns to session in January. The most ambitious proposal comes from state Senator Dan Duffy (R-Barrington) who last month introduced Senate Bill 2466 to wipe any authorization of automated ticketing machines from the statute books. Duffy complained on his website earlier this month about the corrupting influence that a UK-Israeli operator of traffic cameras has had on the statehouse.
"This company not only provides the red light cameras for much of the Chicagoland area it also lobbies for legislation to increase their business," Duffy wrote. "Redspeed uses email updates targeting specific legislators who are not voting in favor of Redspeed."
State Representative Angelo Saviano (R-Elmwood Park) has a more limited objective in mind. Last month he introduced legislation that would not ban cameras entirely, but instead would ban the most lucrative form of ticketing.
"A county or municipality, including a home rule county or municipality, may not use an automated traffic law enforcement system to provide recorded images of a motor vehicle for the purpose of issuing violations to persons driving a motor vehicle who enter an intersection to turn right, or to turn left from a one-way street into a one-way street," House Bill 4631 states.
Several Chicago suburbs have earned millions in revenue almost entirely from issuing right turn on red tickets with cameras. Very few accidents are ever caused by drivers making right hand turns on red after slowing, according to US Department of Transportation data (view report).
State Senator Rickey R. Hendon (D-Chicago) offered the least ambitious of the red light camera measures. His bill would prevent localities from issuing a ticket for a certain type of technical infraction.
"A county or municipality, including a home rule county or municipality, may not use an automated traffic law enforcement system to provide recorded images of a motor vehicle for the purpose of issuing violations to persons driving a motor vehicle who come to a stop one foot or less past the point where a driver is required to stop," Senate Bill 2477 states.
All three bills face an uphill battle in a legislature that has consistently expanded the use of automated ticketing over the past few years.
03-02-10, 10:39 AM
#4
Good one Mike.
But if I can just add something.... I got caught by one of the cameras by Woodfield. They were right, I rolled on through the light, turning right. My bad. But instead of giving tickets, (clearly there were no other cars around me) why don't they just keep them for accidents. It's a great he said-she said defense. Let the camer speak for itself. There was somethign on the internet that showed how they actually caught the person who was guilty. I'm all for the cameras....just better use.
But if I can just add something.... I got caught by one of the cameras by Woodfield. They were right, I rolled on through the light, turning right. My bad. But instead of giving tickets, (clearly there were no other cars around me) why don't they just keep them for accidents. It's a great he said-she said defense. Let the camer speak for itself. There was somethign on the internet that showed how they actually caught the person who was guilty. I'm all for the cameras....just better use.
03-03-10, 07:33 AM
#7
Good one Mike.
But if I can just add something.... I got caught by one of the cameras by Woodfield. They were right, I rolled on through the light, turning right. My bad. But instead of giving tickets, (clearly there were no other cars around me) why don't they just keep them for accidents. It's a great he said-she said defense. Let the camer speak for itself. There was somethign on the internet that showed how they actually caught the person who was guilty. I'm all for the cameras....just better use.
But if I can just add something.... I got caught by one of the cameras by Woodfield. They were right, I rolled on through the light, turning right. My bad. But instead of giving tickets, (clearly there were no other cars around me) why don't they just keep them for accidents. It's a great he said-she said defense. Let the camer speak for itself. There was somethign on the internet that showed how they actually caught the person who was guilty. I'm all for the cameras....just better use.
Yea, good plan only problem is you would be one of the select few in this country owning an LFA and it would be pretty easy to find you.
Trending Topics
03-03-10, 03:00 PM
#8
Takes money to manage and maintain the network so that would never happen. The way this state is with money especially "free" money like they have been making off these cameras. I doubt it will get removed without a fight.
Yea, good plan only problem is you would be one of the select few in this country owning an LFA and it would be pretty easy to find you.
Yea, good plan only problem is you would be one of the select few in this country owning an LFA and it would be pretty easy to find you.
how about if they use our tax money that we already over-pay???Orrrrr, if the cameras actually prove a guilty party, the state can go after them for the price of the camera!?!? Hey, I got a million ways to get this rollin'
Oh and I bet the LFA would be Matador Red, too!
Last edited by Luvmy350; 03-06-10 at 10:25 AM.
03-06-10, 09:53 AM
#9
Lexus Fanatic
I feel these red light cameras and warning signs actually cause panic and potential for accidents as people slam on their brakes on fresh yellow lights. The strobes at night can also be distracting.
03-06-10, 10:24 AM
#10
Maybe if you had too much of something that made those strobes that appealing..
I personally never slammed on my brakes because of these lights, I got caught because I didn't really pay attention to them. I drive defensively. So in MY mind, it was clear, and I proceeded rolling through the turn. I saw no harm in that.
03-06-10, 10:45 AM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Strobes, distracting Maybe if you had too much of something that made those strobes that appealing..
I personally never slammed on my brakes because of these lights, I got caught because I didn't really pay attention to them. I drive defensively. So in MY mind, it was clear, and I proceeded rolling through the turn. I saw no harm in that.
Maybe if you had too much of something that made those strobes that appealing..I personally never slammed on my brakes because of these lights, I got caught because I didn't really pay attention to them. I drive defensively. So in MY mind, it was clear, and I proceeded rolling through the turn. I saw no harm in that.
On a further note, their is the principal or "Retinal Adaptation." Having said this, at night, the human retina allows for more light and thus, the pupil is larger.......having an intense strobe light pulse and enter the retina (already adapted to the night vision), is quite intense regardless if you have light or dark eyes or are more or less susceptible to light intensity.
Furthermore, these are stroboscopic lamps with at least 5,600 kelvin light outputs.
03-06-10, 10:49 AM
#12
The strobes can be distracting to the proceeding traffic when some intersections that utilize these cameras are not well lit at night. Thus, the strobe is quite vibrant. For example, the light at Ogden and Yackley focuses on vehicles proceeding both east and west on Ogden. When you are turning from Yackley to proceed either east or west and a strobe activates for the cross traffic (recording offense or not) it is distracting while making the turn. This is not rocket science, but basic visual and psychological element.
On a further note, their is the principal or "Retinal Adaptation." Having said this, at night, the human retina allows for more light and thus, the pupil is larger.......having an intense strobe light pulse and enter the retina (already adapted to the night vision), is quite intense regardless if you have light or dark eyes or are more or less susceptible to light intensity.
Furthermore, these are stroboscopic lamps with at least 5,600 kelvin light outputs.
On a further note, their is the principal or "Retinal Adaptation." Having said this, at night, the human retina allows for more light and thus, the pupil is larger.......having an intense strobe light pulse and enter the retina (already adapted to the night vision), is quite intense regardless if you have light or dark eyes or are more or less susceptible to light intensity.
Furthermore, these are stroboscopic lamps with at least 5,600 kelvin light outputs.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
