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.
I dispute the Chief’s reasoning saying it takes two officers and two cars to enforce red light violators. Last summer at War Memorial and University, one motorcycle cop parked right in the walkway at the light and watched cars. Any one entering the intersection on the yellow that did not clear by the time it went red, he pursued and I assume wrote tickets for red light running. Just one officer. On a motorcycle. So to say it takes two is wrong. I know of many officers who see a car run a red light and pull them over. Example: Friend ran red light at Northmoor and University. Was finally pulled over at the Metro Center and ticketed for running a red light. Maybe it’s just too many “day” cops just look the other way?
If they get rid of all the lights… guess what? Traffic slows down. But what is Peoria doing? Putting in lights every 100 yards or so. (And totally worthless ones like the E74 on ramp to North University… or Columbia Terrace. I don’t know how many times I have sat through a cycle of that light with ZERO, none cars going thru the intersection.)
“Red-light cameras will be little more than a means to extract more money from its residents under the pretense of improving safety.” Don’t you mean it would be one more way to extract justice from scofflaws, whether it improves safety or not? Running a red light is against the law, is it not? By your reasoning, the PPD shouldn’t enforce red light running at all.
Sud: And by your reasoning, we should live in a police state where every slight infraction is enforced and “scofflaws” punished. Do you own a bicycle? Have you registered it with the City of Peoria? If not, you’re a scofflaw. Turn yourself in to the police immediately.
All kidding aside, if red-light running were really a serious safety issue, then (1) there would be more evidence of accidents/injury resulting from it, and (2) there would be more enforcement of it with or without cameras.
I just listened to an interview about this on a Chicago radio station this morning. The person being interviewed was a Chicago area state representative (sorry I did not get his name) who co-sponsored the original legislation for the red light cameras. He now wants to change the law to stop it from being used to fine right turn on red violations because over half the violations are for this and that was not what the law was intended. He said if you stop one foot over the white line, Chicago area police are issuing a ticket. Most folks on right turn on red do not actually stop; just do a slow roll through, and that is a violation. Pulling forward a bit to see around the stopped cars to your left without first stopping behind the white line is a violation. Also, some communities are making shorter yellow lights and thereby creating more violations. The number of accidents at intersections have not changed. My opinion of the red light cameras is that it is a money maker and does not really make for more safety. The bottom line is fewer cops and more bucks. Republicans or Democrats – what the heck is the difference when it comes to money for the politicos to waste?
I can see where right turns on red could be a problem, but I lived in Europe for over two years where these boxes were set up all over the city and countryside. Some were set up for speeding and some were set up for stop lights. Many boxes were set up, but only three or four cameras were used and moved from box to box, so one never knew where the cameras were located. It saved on expenses and truly kept the drivers in line. When I first moved there I had no idea what the crazy boxes were until I got a $350 ticket in my mail box with a picture of my car’s license plate. From that point on, I followed the traffic laws scrupulously. I say, bring it!
CJ – I could have telegraphed your response. For the record, I do own a non-registered bicycle. I happen to think the registration law is silly, but if caught I would pay whatever fine. There is obviously a difference between bicycle registration and red-light running. You seem to be advocating that running a red light is OK as long as you don’t get caught. This is a method to get those who break the law caught, and maybe deter you from doing it in the first place. I do think cameras for right-on-red is a bit much because the reasons Ed gave make it more gray than black-and-white (or red-or-green).
As far as current enforcement, I think it is a matter of resource allocation. Is red-light running a problem? Yes. Can we devote a few officers solely to that infraction? No. I would argue that drunk driving is a much more dangerous activity, but the city cannot afford to run sobriety checkpoints every night.
Red-light cameras seem to be a common sense solution to a problem. Maybe you think red-light running is not a problem and therefore should NEVER be enforced.
By the way, what is wrong with doing this for revenue?? It might not just be city residents, you know. If you do not want to pay extra, don’t run the damn red.
I believe the chief has demonstrated his resourcefulness and his sincere desire for increased safety in several instances such as his use of the Armadillo to combat drug dealing, the use of the police website to combat prostitution, his support for concealed carry to combat violent crimes (many of which don’t get reported in media.) I do not doubt his stated intention. I believe if he says it two(2) officers to most safely enforce this type of crime, he’s probably got pretty good reasoning to back it up.
In regards to Emtronics post above, yes they can write a ticket with just the observations of one officer, but if the violater would challenge it in a court of law it probably wouldn’t hold up. Wouldn’t be long before other citizens caught on and followed suit.
There are definately intersections where these cameras would be useful. I’m thinking the intersections at Glen and Sterling (at War Memorial) and Allen and War Memorial, where it seems there is at least one accident a week, including a horribly fatal one caused by a red light runner a few years ago.
Not sure what CJ is afraid of. Maybe he is a habitual red-light runner 😉 ? Just a thought…
Sud says, “Is red-light running a problem? Yes.”
Based on what? You’re making an assertion without any supporting evidence.
“Red-light cameras seem to be a common sense solution to a problem.”
Assuming it is a problem, how will you know if this solution is working?
Sud also asks, “…what is wrong with doing this for revenue?”
Because such a pursuit is fundamentally opposed to improving safety. You improve safety by changing behavior and cutting down on the number of infractions. But to have a steady revenue stream, you need to maintain the number of infractions. To get more revenue, you need more infractions. We don’t employ police officers, give them a badge and a gun, for the purposes of extracting money from the citizens, but to protect citizens.
Prehaps the camera could be viewed as stopping the violation before it happens? Wouldnt preventing someone from running a red light because they know there is a camera there causing a change in behavior? Or as the infractions decrease one could then increase the fine on the infraction? So in that way the infractions would decrease but revenue could be maintained. Breaking any law is a problem. Red light running is a problem in that it is dangerous and can cause a major accident. I have had the fun first hand of being hit by someone who failed to stop at a red light. Try it out sometime then maybe your attitude will change.
I have yet to hear anyone complain about red light runners in Peoria. This is just one more entrance for bigger brother. Be careful what you wish for or it may one day come true.
I agree that photo enforcement is something that we should have at every intersection. We can catch all of the law breakers, or scofflaws. I think that we should have microphones on every streetlight to catch anyone planning a crime. Since there are so many law breakers on the south end of Peoria, I think we should build a fence from War Memorial to the river to keep them from robbing people on the north end of town. We should post guards with M16’s at every exit point.
To all who say this is crazy, I ask why? These measures will only stop people from breaking the law. Besides we are in recession, and all of the tickets and fines that are generated from catching people in the midst of committing, or planning crimes, will help the city.
Never mind that all of the decent people (which is a vast majority of the citizens in Peoria) are being treated like criminals. Never mind people can cross the river to live and do business. Never mind that this is unconstitutional because we are innocent until proven guilty (these cameras shift the burden of proof from the State to the citizen). The biggest question is, how much is too much? Ben Franklin warned, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.”
I think I have had a little too much safety at the expense of my liberty! Just because this administration and police chief have (or claim) benevolent goals, whose to say then next will be so benevolent?
Do the redlight cameras really change behavior on a permanent basis …. or only while the cat is watching the mousehole?
Does charging high taxes on cigarettes deter smokers? I am not sure why I should be outraged by fining people who run red lights. The only reason that there aren’t more accidents (for instance, on Main and Farmington Road) are that most of us wait, expecting a car to run the red light. Also, does fining people for running out of time on parking meters change behavior? As others have stated, we need policemen for more important crimes. I certainly have no problem fining speeders or tracking them electronically.
The law is the law is the law. Obey it or pay it. I have no problem with the red light cameras because I am not one that runs red lights. In my frame of mind a few more minutes to wait is no big deal. Its either wait for the next light or get a ticket or worse get in an accident. Everyone is in such a big hurry to get to the end of their life. Schedule your life a little better and don’t pack your plate so full that you can’t take care of it. Give the guy coming down the road the right of way and save both of you stress and anxiety. I’ve worked all my life and sometimes two and three jobs at a time and raised a lot of children and its still worth slowing down in order to enjoy that life.
The law is the law… unless it is unjust or imposes on personal liberty and then it is tyranny. We are not a nation of laws. We are a nation of people.
SD–What a great philosophy. Of course, since I am one of those people who is always early (just as hard for me to be late as it is for others to be on time), I always wonder why everyone on the road is in such a hurry–especially, those who have to weave in and out of traffic, only to arrive at the stop light to sit and wait (or to run the run light).
I don’t have a problem with the lights, however I’m hoping that they are calibrated to allow right turns on red, and not blast you for being an inch over the line or pulling forward to see if it’s safe.
Whats going to be REALLY annoying is all the people who will now refuse to turn right on red, or slam on their brakes if the light turns yellow while they’re in the intersection (or worse, start slowing down for green lights “just in case it turns yellow”) because they are so paranoid of getting a ticket.
“The law is the law is the law. Obey it or pay it. I have no problem with the red light cameras because I am not one that runs red lights.”
“SD–What a great philosophy.”
That’s scary. So SD and Sharon, I take it neither of you has ever broken any law ever no matter how severe or insignificant? I also suppose neither of you would be opposed to having a camera on you at all hours of the day? I mean, if you don’t do anything wrong than what’s it matter?? It’s not an important issue because you would or would not suffer as a result of this particular situation it’s what it could set the stage for in the future.
I don’t believe the cameras are on 24/7. I think they are triggered by something… perhaps a speeding car or movement at a red light. This is not a police state, though Switzerland basically is, and I felt more safe there than any other place in the world I have lived. Everywhere I went there were men in uniforms. If they don’t serve, they pay higher taxes. Cameras that go off when someone is speeding or running a red light aren’t that big of a deal to me. And yes, it makes people slow down and drive more carefully if they think they are going to get a $300 ticket in the mail. You’ll know because a HUGE bright light goes off when it takes the photo. Everyone around sees it and drives more carefully.
Then again, some people hate the speed boxes…..
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/30/3029.asp
11Bravo, as a matter of fact I did get a speeding ticket two years ago on Washington St., in Peoria. First ticket that I’ve had in 40 years. No, I’m not perfect, but I would prefet to make it to the end of my life in one piece instead of scrambled on the pavement because I just had to beat that other car through the intersection.
MAWB: you can always be counted on to voice the self centered, paranoid position… and I thank you for your consistency.
“I felt more safe there” well aint that wunnerful… to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, anyone willing to trade his liberty for security deserves neither. I doubt the police were there to make you feel safe.
“I believe the cameras… ” what you believe is irrelevant. They CAN BE on. And do you want people to have to testify against a camera? You have heard of Photoshop… right?
“This is not a police state” What do you think a police state would look like?
I can’t wait til having dirt on your license plate becomes a felony… (did you know that there is an alternative purpose to those tollway passes people put in their car?)
Oh Charlie, or is it kcdad, get over yourself. Obey the driving laws and you won’t have any problems. As for safety, Switzerland has one of the lowest crime rates in the world. You have obviously never lived there if you think for one minute they have traded their liberty for security. I don’t believe (yes, I have beliefs, so get over it) for one second the Swiss are sitting there photoshopping pictures of people speeding. And, I also do not believe (AAAH! Another belief) Settingsgaard will be having people doing it either. Who is paranoid? Look in the mirror, dear Charlie. Improve your driving skills and you shouldn’t have a problem with the cameras. It’s as simple as obeying the laws that are already in place.
“Never mind that this is unconstitutional because we are innocent until proven guilty (these cameras shift the burden of proof from the State to the citizen).”
Right but once you run a red light you have broken the law. You are no longer innocent. The camera is just acting as the sighting officer instead of parking a car at the light. Would the nay posters on here rather we just tie down two police units at each light so they can write the tickets instead of using the cameras? For people not breaking the laws already in existance you shouldnt have a problem.
The law is the law… bow down and worship it and the people who make it.
It is unbelievable how far we have come as a nation from the principles of liberty and self determination that founded this great experiment.
Gosh, wasn’t it some itinerant Jewish teacher that said something like: The law was made for man, not man for the law?
Its a red light law I think Jesus would support this one being that it prevents people from being killed or injured.
How Would Jesus Drive? I haven’t seen any itinerant Jewish teachers running red lights lately. Maybe they do and we simply need a camera to catch them!!
http://www.bumpertalk.com/bumpertalk/BA044A.html
Im sure if he can turn water to wine he can turn red to green.
I am the way the truth and the life no one yields on yellow or stops on red when I am at the wheel.
Gosh how I wish I had the liberty and self determination to decide to risk my life and the lives of those around me just so I can run a red light and arrive seconds faster to my destination.
I guess something is only wrong when you get caught?
SO… the only reason anyone drives carefully is because they fear being arrested or getting a ticket…
Red lights don’t make roads safer. Traffic laws don’t make roads safer. Safer drivers make roads safer. End of story.
CJ — you do amuse from time to time. I’m sure I have read your arguments before that digital billboards are a safety hazard because they distract the driver. But I’m not sure it has ever been proven that a billboard caused an accident. So, if red-light-running is not a problem (and I would contend it is just by simple logic), then how is that digital billboards, apart from your aesthetic tases, are?
“(and I would contend it is just by simple logic)”
There is no such thing as simple logic… I think you are proving that to us.
CJ didn’t suggest it wasn’t a problem, only that one shouldn’t assume it is, and if one DOES make that assumption, not to make a second assumption that taking pictures will reduce it.
The kcdad logic train leaves the station again. Your making the assumption that people drive safely because they want to and that there is not a portion of the population who only follow sociotal norms due to fear of legal recourse. Using your arguement why should we be upset that the city is cutting police? They dont make us safer or protect us our neighbors choosing not to break into our homes or rob us on the street are what will make Peoria safer. Wait laws are created so that would be offenders have to weigh the legal response to an action that they are thinking about doing. If an offender decides that the legal response outweighs the crime then the law has in effect made the situation safer. CJ states in his initial post that 2.8 percent of tickets issued are red light running. Thats a problem. Cameras are a good fix.
“Your making the assumption that people drive safely because they want to and that there is not a portion of the population who only follow sociotal norms due to fear of legal recourse.”
That is correct. and YOU are assuming people are evil and out to get you. I prefer living my way. I tend to like people… you tend to mistrust and fear them.
11Bravo–when I complimented SD for having a great philosophy, it had nothing to do with red lights and not breaking laws; it was his attitude about not being in a hurry. As usual, this discussion has gone way beyond traffic lights–into something much bigger. Yes, I do understand that the presence of cameras everywhere could lead to a police state where our every move is monitored–and that wouldn’t be a good thing. I guess I can even understand the fear that cameras at traffic lights would be the first step–the domino theory. Yes, 11Bravo, I understand your question about whether or not I would want my life on camera because I did have some negative reactions to the ideas that were floated now and again to put cameras in classrooms. I wasn’t at all certain that it was a good idea. That brings up the security cameras that will be installed at PHS. I don’t believe for one minute that the presence of cameras will provide a safe environment. Also, I believe the cameras could well have a negative impact on how students view school, etc. Isn’t it amazing how we can get in personal attack mode even when it comes to something as innocuous as traffic lights?
Charlie/kcdad says: “That is correct. and YOU are assuming people are evil and out to get you. I prefer living my way. I tend to like people… you tend to mistrust and fear them.”
And Charlie/kcdad says to me: “MAWB: you can always be counted on to voice the self centered, paranoid position… and I thank you for your consistency.”
Is this an example of how Charlie/kcdad likes people? Hmmm How would Jesus like people?
Its not an assumption. There are people in our society that have proven to not be trust worthy and who are evil. My position is one based in fact from observation and your position is based on personal choice. Im not saying that I never leave my house and live in constant fear of everyone around me but I think it is naive of you to pretend that evil people do not exist and that our system of laws should be formed around that idea.
http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/02/chicago-motorists-sound-off-against-red-light-cameras.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChicagoBreakingNews+%28Chicago+Breaking+News%29
Interesting comments, also.
MAWB–Interesting, yes. I didn’t realize cameras tracking red light runners had become a political issue. Now I have to decide yet again whether I am a Republican or a Democrat. 🙂 I hope that someday we can return to a point of non-partisanship when we can discuss some (even most) issues without putting a political label on them–a time when we could actually see both sides of an issue instead of taking to our respective corners to the left or to the right. Just as with this camera issue, all of you have made valid arguments on both sides of the question. I started out seeing no problem with the cameras. Now I can see that there is another valid point of view.
Sharon, I do not see a problem with the cameras at all, especially having lived in a country where they were used. I do believe it will take some time to get the bugs worked out, however. Until then.. best to find an alternate route, wherever that may be!
C.J. said, “Because such a pursuit is fundamentally opposed to improving safety. You improve safety by changing behavior and cutting down on the number of infractions.” Could we make the same argument about capital punishment–that punishment doesn’t change behavior and, therefore, doesn’t improve safety? And–I have not yet been able to decide how I feel about capital punishment, so it’s another one of those areas about which I remain conflicted. So my question: Should we stop punishing those who break the law if the punishment doesn’t improve public safety? Also, if we object to cameras on traffic lights, how should we feel about cameras on corners in high crime areas or in the halls of our schools? Or is the “money handed over to a government body” the main objection to the traffic light cameras?
MAWB–I’m leaning in that direction. I can’t quite see the cameras as a road down which my liberties are in danger of being threatened. Cameras watch us in stores, etc., so I don’t see much difference. I haven’t even decided for sure how I feel about cameras in the hallways of our schools–just don’t think they will result in a safe environment.
“How would Jesus like people?”
Why don’t you ask him… he was quick to point out people’s hypocrisy.
Kc, do I remind you of your ex-wife or something because you are simply infatuated with me…..
So if you ran a red light and killed somebody. That person would be dead and you would get a ticket anyway, camera or no camera.
Another revenue source for the city. Another small reason unigov won’t work in Peoria County.
The Chief can’t fight City Hall and keep his job.
Sud: I’ll make a deal with you. If you answer my questions, I’ll answer yours.
Stephen S-Y asks, “Would the nay posters on here rather we just tie down two police units at each light so they can write the tickets instead of using the cameras?”
Yes. If red-light running is such a major safety problem in Peoria, the police should (and would) stake out stop lights. The fact that they’re not currently staking out traffic signals is instructive.
Charlie asks, “wasn’t it some itinerant Jewish teacher that said something like: The law was made for man, not man for the law?”
Jesus said that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath, but I get the allusion. I’m not sure that’s contextually relevant here, but I agree with your borrowing of the construction. Traffic lights were invented to facilitate the safe movement of motorists, and the police enforce traffic lights for the same ends. Once that changes, and the goal becomes revenue generation instead of safety, you end up with problems like this: http://bit.ly/8Yq6sS.