Peoria Police Chief Steven Settingsgaard says he’s not proposing red-light cameras as a way to bring more revenue into the city, but only as a way to improve safety because speeding is one of the most common causes of rear-end collisions.
“I don’t care about the revenue, not one bit,” Settingsgaard said via e-mail. “It would be a Council decision ultimately but I would like to see any revenue go toward something that also helps traffic safety in the City rather than going into the general fund or to the police department.”
For example, he suggested the revenue could go toward construction or repair of sidewalks, which would improve pedestrian safety. “I believe there a lots of options here that would put the money to good use but would also alleviate any fears that red light cameras are first and foremost revenue generators.”
According to a recent Peoria Times-Observer article, Peoria Mayor Jim Ardis also “told [state] legislators this request was not being sought to create a revenue generator for the city.” Instead, it’s all about safety. “Our community is very dangerous,” he was quoted as saying.
According to the 2009 Crime Summary and additional statistics obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request, only 2.8% of all traffic citations (721 of 25,476) and 3.8% of total accidents (173 of 4,560) were for red-light violations. But Settingsgaard believes these numbers can be deceiving.
“The number of citations or percentage of citations issued do not reflect the severity of the problem,” he explained. “It is the difficulty of enforcing red light running that is a major deterrent to enforcement and contributes to the low number of citations, not the lack of violators.”
For the police to safely and effectively enforce red lights, it takes two officers and two cars. One officer (the “witnessing officer”) is positioned in front of the intersection and is the one who actually observes the violation. The other officer (the “pursuing officer”) is positioned on the other side of the intersection and is the one who pursues the violator. It would be unsafe for the witnessing officer to try to pursue the violator through the intersection.
Given the time and staffing required to stake out traffic signals, Settingsgaard believes it would be cheaper and more effective to use photo enforcement.
While recent studies have shown that red-light cameras actually increased the number of crashes at photo-enforced intersections, those crashes have been rear-end fender-benders. In contrast, red-light runners cause “T-bone” style crashes, Settingsgaard point out, which “are extremely hazardous and injuries can be severe if not fatal.”
“It is important to note though that the need goes beyond the actual number of crashes or even the severity of crashes,” he continued. “Just like perception of crime is nearly as important as crime itself, perception of traffic safety is important. It is a common perception, and maybe a common reality, that it is wise in Peoria to pause before proceeding with a green light due to the prevalence of red light runners. This perception/reality impacts the quality of life in Peoria and it frustrates the public when they believe the police don’t give it enough attention.”
My take: With all due respect to the Chief and the Mayor, I don’t see any warrant for using photo-enforcement. I think it’s clear that all safety concerns are based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence and subjective experience. Thus, if photo-enforcement were established, there would be no objective way to quantify or measure its effectiveness. Any claims of improved safety would be anecdotal as well.
The only thing we would be able to measure is how many citations are being issued and how much money it’s bringing into the city. Despite the Mayor’s and Chief’s professed disinterest in that revenue, I don’t think it’s cynical to recognize the city will inevitably become addicted to the revenue once it starts. So even if the establishment of photo-enforcement is not motivated by desire for a new revenue stream, the end result will be the same. Red-light cameras will be little more than a means to extract more money from residents under the pretense of improving safety.
Cedar Rapids, IA (a town very similar to Peoria) just turned on its red light cameras this past week. It might be a good city for Peoria to check out how it works in the coming months. CR officials project $750,000 a year in revenue, but they also say it isn’t about the revenue.
Iowa Public Radio show “The Exchange” on red light cameras:
http://iowapublicradio.org/audio/perma/news100129c.m3u
Isn’t it fairer for all who run red lights to get fined instead of just those who happen to do so in the presence of a policeman (and we know there aren’t enough policemen to be at every red light)? Also, we know that there is a more urgent need for policemen in other places. I know that in a classroom students complain when one student is punished while another goes unpunished for the same offense (which the teacher didn’t notice).
Jonathan, great link! Seems turning right on red is the HUGE money maker.
But CJ isnt the camera acting as a police officer? Does it matter if it is a physical officer doing the spotting or the camera? Prehaps its a man power issue and there is just not the number of bodies needed to enforce the law at all the lights? Maybe people like me who are not running red lights feel like this is not a big deal and wont effect me at all so I dont really mind if the city stops the red light runners and makes a little money on it?
I see people run red lights almost daily at 2 intersections I cross going home at 5 pm. One is at Madison and Hamilton. Cars coming eastbound on Madison run through the light daily. I am usually a pedestrian at that intersection and I can never cross Madison when the Walk light comes on, I have to wait a few seconds. Another intersection is at Sheridan and Loucks. At 5:15 or so, when I am going home, that light is ran, usually from northbound Sheridan traffic.
It’s all about the $! We don’t need big brother watching at every intersection.
With the way you’re virtually guaranteed a red light at EVERY controlled intersection you encounter in Peoria, this could generate Millions!
Way to attack the symptom rather than the problem, Peoria. How about timing the lights to create traffic ‘waves’ along the major streets in the city, rather than having us wait at every stinking light? I can see how regular Peoria drivers get fed up with all the red lights and start going through on those ‘orange’ lights. I don’t support their actions, but can sympathize.
Do these lights allow for a slow-and-go with right-on-red? How about when you’re turning left and get stranded in the intersection waiting for the stragglers in the opposite direction?
No one says how much the cost to install and maintain. Where is the $$$ for this project? Once in will they “pay for themselves” Also will they Increase accidents due to people slaming on the brakes at a yellow ?
What about the neighborhood cameras that were to be installed with a grant from Ill/American Water? That money was in hand by the COP.
Martin, if you listen to the link that Jonathan Ahl posted above, I think your questions will be answered. People in Iowa asked the exact same questions. It does sound like the cameras are big money makers. It sounds as if they will definitely pay for themselves. Heck, they might even pay for the museum!!! : )
So govt. should install cameras in parents homes to ensure proper nutrition and to guard against abuse?
So for those of you who don’t like the idea of paying fines for running red lights, what do you believe would be the appropriate punishment? or do you believe there should be no punishment for running red lights unless a accident is involved? I’m not sure why you believe that policemen randomly hanging around traffic lights is an acceptable way to spend taxpayer money–when a police presence is needed for so many other reasons. If it were depriving someone of a job (such as automatic checkouts at grocery stores), I would be against it, but we all know that the city can’t afford to pay for more police.
I have no problems with red light camera, or general street cameras. I guess maybe because I lived in Chicago where they have both. In London, almost every area of the city is being watched by camera. I guess I don’t think you should have an expectation of privacy on the street. In your home, that’s another story.
How do these red-light cameras handle left turns? When you are preparing to make a left turn and have already advanced into the intersection, oftentimes it is not possible to make the left turn until the light turns yellow (or red) because opposing traffic has not cleared the intersection. Would you be ticketed in this instance? If so that seems ridiculous and dangerous, since it is certainly not safe (or feasible) to turn left until the intersection is clear.
“Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”
The temple authority was concerned that Jesus and his followers were scofflaws disregarding the laws regarding The Sabbath.
So the analogy is right on. Thanks for concurring.
I could quote Jefferson, Paine and others on this subject, but it would be redundant.
That it is the law, is NEVER an excuse for surrendering one’s liberty.
We can never be a free people if we only treat our neighbors the way we would want to be treated BECAUSE OF the law.
And what about 3am on a clear night when there are no other cars or pedestrians around? You gonna sit through the light sequence anyway?
Charlie, anyone who is out at 3 a.m. probably should follow all traffic laws so as not to attract attention to himself/herself. 🙂
I would say that anyone who is out at 3 a.m. should observe all traffic rules so as not to call attention to himself/herself. 🙂
NEVER SURROUNDER TO BIG BROTHER! KEEP YOUR RED LIGHT RUNNING LIBERTY! SOON THE GOVERNMENT WILL HAVE CAMERAS IN OUR HOMES OR MOUNTED IN OUR BRAINS AT BIRTH! THIS IS ALL PART OF THE GOVERNMENTS PLANS TO BUILD SUPER ROBOT ATTACK DROIDS!
Yes kcdad at 3AM all bets are off just do whatever you want. Everyone knows the after 3AM no laws apply ordaniance. Drive around drunk, speed, set some fires I mean according to you everyone is generally good so Im sure there could be no negative reprocussions.
Lets say I run a red light and hit you and then proceed to drive off? No cop on sight catches it. Camera is there and catches me you get my insurance etc.. No camera there you basically have little to no legal recourse.
What liberty is this camera taking from you? You keep using that line but you fail to address what freedom is being infringed.
The council just got done laying off police officers and washing their hands of animal control. So anyone who thinks this councils motivation for red-light cameras is safety are in the mayors words “kool-aid drinkers.”
Stephen:
Did I say anything about operating a motor vehicle in an unsafe manner? You must really hate people to think that everyone driving at 3am is drunk, speeding and setting fires… or that that is what people would do if there were no police or laws. I merely commented on the fact that I wouldn’t “honor” a red light if there were no pedestrians or cars around.
You obviously have no idea what the social contract is.
The freedom not to be spied on… privacy. Self efficacy.
Charlie, does our privacy truly extend to what we do in public places (public streets, etc.)?
I know I’m late to the discussion, and I apologize for that. However, like everyone else here, I have a few points to make, so I’ll get on with it.
First off, maubs posted: “With the way you’re virtually guaranteed a red light at EVERY controlled intersection you encounter in Peoria, this could generate Millions!
Way to attack the symptom rather than the problem, Peoria. How about timing the lights to create traffic ‘waves’ along the major streets in the city, rather than having us wait at every stinking light? I can see how regular Peoria drivers get fed up with all the red lights and start going through on those ‘orange’ lights. I don’t support their actions, but can sympathize.” There are roads in Peoria with synchronized lights; Adams and Jefferson through downtown are (usually) synchronized beautifully so drivers won’t hit a red light from north of I-74 to south of O’Brien Field. Likewise, Madison (northbound) and Monroe (southbound) tend to be synchronized well if you get the speed right. Going northbound on Madison with a speed of about 20 mph will get you all greens between the Civic Center and Spaulding… the issue is, then you have to accelerate, hope there’s no one at the stop sign, and accelerate a bit to catch the tail end of the green light at Monroe.
My issue with red light cameras is that they’re being installed in the name of safety, which seems to be a concern of other posters here. However, given the current financial situation that the city is in, I’d be perfectly fine if they were implemented to raise some cash. If the Chief came out and said that, instead of improving safety at X number of intersections he said that fines generated by these cameras would allow the police department to keep X number of patrolmen on the budget, I’d be perfectly fine with that. Provided, of course, that the signal itself wasn’t tampered with to cut down on the duration of the yellow signal phase to trap more drivers.
It also seems like a lot of commenters here are fundamentally unaware with how the cameras work. These aren’t live-action video feeds that big brother can use to hunt you down. Most red light cameras utilize a camera or two and a motion detector. The camera takes still images, not video. There are versions of the system where two pictures are needed to issue a citation: one of the vehicle entering the intersection while the signal is red, and one of the vehicle proceeding through the intersection while the signal is still red. A system like this helps to protect against improper citations if a vehicle stops forward of the stop line but doesn’t go through the intersection, or if the vehicle makes a legal turn on red.
The argument that, if it is established as a revenue stream, increasing tightening on the controls will be needed (i.e., rigging a short yellow) to maintain the stream is pretty far-fetched. If a cop is sitting at a “speed trap” looking for speeders, while people do slow down to avoid getting a ticket, there’ll always be someone who keeps speeding and gets busted. Drivers who drive the same route regularly will know where these areas are, and likewise with the red light cameras, but lo and behold, people are still getting tickets for doing something illegal.
To those who cry “big brother” at projects like these, keep in mind: driving is not a right, driving is a privelege. Anyone who has gone through driver’s ed has had this statement pounded into their skulls very often. You are permitted to use public highways for driving provided that you comply with the rules of the road, easy as that. If you violate those rules, the state (or city, in this case) has the right to appropriately punish the offender. Red light cameras aren’t implemented to make sure the Marxist or Fascist or [pick your bad-ism]ist overlords in the government keep the proles in lock-step with them; they’re simply there to punish drivers for violating rules in place to keep the public safe. Let’s not forget that these cameras are only triggered once a violation occurs using a device as simple as a motion detector. Fact of the matter is, if you’re worried about Big Brother being able to watch you pick your nose while you’re on the streets, red light cameras are the least of your worries — many new intersections use video cameras mounted on street lights to trigger stop lights. That’s right, live-action video cameras peering down at you from above at intersections all over town. Furthermore, some traffic modeling efforts in larger communities use cell phone signals to study traffic patterns, assuming (often correctly) that most American drivers are by themselves, and most drivers have a cell phone on when they’re driving (therefore, each cell signal is a vehicle on the road). Don’t forget, you don’t need to be on a call with someone for your cell phone to transmit your location to the phone companies. If you’re worried about a still-frame camera set up on a motion detector, you’re going to need a bigger tinfoil hat than that to hide from the overlords.
In a nutshell (or tl;dr, for you internet types), if it is properly implemented, a red light camera can be a viable revenue stream for a community by simply issuing a fine to drivers who are doing something wrong already, provided there’s no tampering with the system to squeeze every last penny out of the system. Safety may be a secondary benefit, but if the primary purpose is to raise funds, just come out with it and admit it.
Sterling: Finally someone who has got it right. Great Post!!! I hope this info cures the ignorance in the masses.
Bowing to Sterling!!! ::applause::
Sterling–excellent! I particularly like the point about driving being a privilege, not a right. Also, I agree that honesty about its being a revenue source would be welcome. I have no problem with fines for running red lights being a revenue source–just be honest about it.
From the government, I think so. What we do in public is society’s business, not the Feds or other spies sitting behind cameras…remember we are talking about machines determining your guilt or innocence in violating an arbitrary law designed for public safety, which may or may not have any bearing whatsoever on the safety of driving through a red light. If , for example the lights aren’t working properly, it will be your responsibility to prove your innocence instead of the city or county having to prove your guilt… what if someone else is driving your car? What if, what if, what if…
“These aren’t live-action video feeds that big brother can use to hunt you down.” Maybe not right now they aren’t… Just accept them and see what comes next…
Have you all forgotten Orwell and Huxley’s warnings? One step at a time… one step at a time.
All you camera supporters have yet to address this point. If the reason is public safety then why did the council just vote to lay off 17? police officers and punt animal control to the county? Oh they don’t have enough revenue to provide these services.
Kcdad the ability to drive is granted to you after you pass a driving class and road test. When you recieve a license you agree to follow the laws associated with driving or you will face legal punishment. You gain the right to drive when you surrounder your “state of nature” or your ability to do whatever you want behind the wheel of your car, good or bad, and agree to follow the laws that society have set.
As a nation anyone who legally drives have agreed to follow the laws governing driving, and have ceded the right to break them, so that there is a set code of conduct while driving. When someone, even you at 3am, run a red light you are violating the contract that society has agreed to in regard to what is and is not acceptable when operating a motor vehicle. If you are not willing to give up your rights as an idividual, and do not want to agree to what society has decided are the laws, dont drive. You are not being forced to drive.
Even with the camera Kcdad you are still able to go to court over the ticket. The camera just acts as a piece of evidence just as the testimony of a police officer would be if the ticket had been written on site.
Right Kcdad society makes laws through elected officials. Those laws, like running red lights, are based on legislation that are created by your elected representative. The only rights you have in a public place are those that society has granted to you. We dont want you running red lights at any time day or night under any conditions so you do not have that right no matter the situation.
My, my, how far we’ve come from the American Revolution. I’ll bet you all think that Jefferson and Paine were paranoid, tinfoil-hat-wearing goofballs as well, given their distrust of government power and attempts to limit it. This blind faith that government will do the right thing is quite disturbing.
Sterling says, “The argument that, if it is established as a revenue stream, increasing tightening on the controls will be needed (i.e., rigging a short yellow) to maintain the stream is pretty far-fetched.” Yeah, so far-fetched that six cities have already been caught doing it. And let’s not forget that a Chicago Tribune investigation showed that traffic collisions increased after cameras were installed. But then, who cares about safety as long as the revenue is rolling in, right?
Whether driving is a right or a privilege is a debatable, and moot, point. I prefer to say that driving is a potentially dangerous activity that is therefore regulated for the purposes of public safety. You have to get a license to own and fire a gun, too, but that doesn’t mean owning a gun is not a right, only that it’s regulated.
Sterling also says, “if it is properly implemented, a red light camera can be a viable revenue stream for a community by simply issuing a fine to drivers who are doing something wrong already, provided there’s no tampering with the system to squeeze every last penny out of the system.” Hmmmm…. let’s see. Third-party vendor that gets a percentage cut of the fines. Millions of dollars. Cash-strapped municipalities. Yeah, I’m sure it will be properly implemented and there will be no tampering to squeeze every last penny out of the system. Government is our friend! Golly, I can’t imagine this setup being ripe for corruption of any kind.
There’s an effort underway in the State Legislature led by Sen. Dan Duffy to ban red-light cameras. Here’s what he has to say about them:
Stephen; “The camera just acts as a piece of evidence just as the testimony of a police officer would be if the ticket had been written on site.”
I can cross examine a police officer…
“anyone who legally drives”
That is it, isn’t it? We have to surrender our rights as a person in order to legally participate in driving.
“society makes laws through elected officials” ha ha ha ha
Is it grape or cherry? (the kool aid)
“The only rights you have in a public place are those that society has granted to you”
You are so funny… I am so glad you weren’t in charge in 1776.
You remind me of the Illinois Senator a couple of years ago who claimed that if there isn’t a law allowing you to do something, it is illegal.
Are you familiar with the term “unalienable rights”?
UNALIENABLE.
The state of a thing or right which cannot be sold.
Things which are not in commerce, as public roads, are in their nature unalienable. Some things are unalienable, in consequence of particular provisions in the law forbidding their sale or transfer, as pensions granted by the government. The natural rights of life and liberty are UNALIENABLE. Bouviers Law Dictionary 1856 Edition
“Unalienable: incapable of being alienated, that is, sold and transferred.” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, page 1523:
You can not surrender, sell or transfer unalienable rights, they are a gift from the creator to the individual and can not under any circumstances be surrendered or taken. All individual’s have unalienable rights.
Inalienable rights: Rights which are not capable of being surrendered or transferred without the consent of the one possessing such rights. Morrison v. State, Mo. App., 252 S.W.2d 97, 101.
C.J.–Now I agree. The money going to the company that installs the cameras–that is unacceptable.
I am still looking for the provision in the US COnstitution that states what or if we have in or un -alienable rights
I would just as soon they find a better way to combat speeding and/or tail-gating. There is nothing more frustrating [especially during winter months], when some guy in his 4X4 is riding you because your vehicle will go only go so fast in poor conditions!
I am going to search the i-net for a few stats. I would like to see how many traffic accidents occur because people run red lights, etc, versus committing some other traffic violation.
I wonder if living in [or near] a city with red light cameras will lower my car insurance rates…?
Ahhhh… it isn’t there. Although as President Lincoln wrote: you can repeal the Missouri Compromise, you can repeal all compromises, even repeal the Declaration of Independence… repeal all past history, you still can not repeal human nature.”
The Declaration of Independence, whether you like it or not, is the one unalienable declaration of rights that no government can repeal.
Let me remind of its declaration: When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
…
it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security
…
by Authority of the good People
…
That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance…”
We are free by declaring ourselves free, even if the government decides to war against us, we are free as long as we refuse to be not free.
That many people would rather be “secure” in slavery or servitude is not relevant. Majority rule does not apply to personal, God given unalienable rights.
Laws, by their existence, do not legitimize themselves. Again, quoting Lincoln, “some things legally right are not morally right”.
NEWVOICE… lower insurance rates?!?!?! ha ha ha … ugh.
Must we suffer again at the hand of the learned professor Charlie- KCDAD or what ever his or her moniker has evolved into, through an internet clinic on life, government, the rights of man, and any other esoteric subject of the moment.
Wait you should rephrase that life, government, the rights of man according to kcdad and his cherry picked interpretations of various historic socio, government and economic documents. Also dont forget that his opinion is the only correct one and his reading and interpretation of those documents is the only correct one.
Stephen: multiple thumbs up!
Oh PC and SSY… it is a strain to have hear the words of our Declaration of Independence over and over again… they are so subversive.
No I have no problem with the document. In fact many of the documents you refer to and qoute often I have no problem with. It is your interpretation and opinions that you inject into them that I disagree with.
Sorry Chief ,the figures do not lie !
maubs; if you are turning left and are in middle= Yep you will get ticket! same as stopping and turning right THE CAMERA is like some politicians “DUMB’ just does not know! So get your check book out! Remember it used to be Red [stop,danger],then yellow[meaning caution] then Green [gomeaning safe] . Some how the Yellow got turned off as people thought that meant GO to make it thru at last minute and go to get a jump. The traffic in peoria is not meant to flow smoothly . it is all stop and go. Try going E & W on Glen at University during home bound travel .
New voice; no it will not lower your car insurance rates but the tickets will guarantee you higher auto rates and affect your homeowner rates as well.
and your credit rating. part of your over all profile.