15 Comments Add your own

• 1. hokumboy  |  March 17th, 2008 at 12:01 am

  I find red light running an abomination but I also feel that Severson’s right ( possibly for the first time in his career) and that this could be just another “You can’t fight City Hall” way to fill the coffers with taxpayers money. There are a lot of studies out there with other options. Simply adding 1 second to the yellow has lowered red light violations in many towns. But, that would add no money to the city treasury. Would it?

• 2. Heather  |  March 17th, 2008 at 12:51 am

  I just moved from Rockford to Texas and in the city that I live in, we have cameras over the lights. I can say that it deffinately makes people think twice about running red lights. Also, it has cut the amount of accidents at itersections here. i think it is a brilliant idea and shouldnt even be a question.

• 3. Denny j  |  March 17th, 2008 at 3:44 am

  putting cameras on all major exits of our city is a great idea to help catch and solve crimes, as many who commit them are from out of our city. If we snag a few red light runners in the process, it will be a bonus. Many major cities have them now. Good idea.

• 4. SonyXBR  |  March 17th, 2008 at 7:01 am

  Adding a second to the yellow light is just encouraging people to push the limits even more. I personally don’t have a problem with the red light cameras. Don’t run red lights and you will not have a problem either.

• 5. concerned  |  March 17th, 2008 at 7:15 am

  I have seen too many times where people are intentionally running a red light (as there’s no other explanation for what happens). When there are cars routinely entering the intersection after the light turns red, it is nothing more than a delivebate attempt to run the light. Adding one second to the length of time for a yellow light is only giving leeway to these people and making it a more acceptable practice (so, of course it lowers the number of violators). This is a constant problem at the I-90/Clock Tower interection around 6:45 am (almost daily). It seems like this light has an especially long delay between the red-to-green switch (between directions) and yet I’ve seen people still in the intersection when the opposing light turns green. I am now to the point where I look for people who seem to be intent on running the light before I pull out.

• 6. Some1WhoGetsIt  |  March 17th, 2008 at 7:32 am

  If this were about safety they would be issuing the driver of the vehicle and not the registered vehicles owner!

  Your story states: “Does Syverson have a problem with nabbing and fining drivers who run red lights?”

  Obviously, the truth is not what Chuck is trying to relay to the citizens of Rockford!

  Try reporting the truth instead of spreading misinformation and lies Mr. Sweeny.

• 7. Justin Time  |  March 17th, 2008 at 7:51 am

  At least one story in Florida has found that the lights actually cause more accidents because people hit the brakes on yellow, knowing they are there. Check into it, Sweenster.

• 8. Richard Cordonnier  |  March 17th, 2008 at 8:01 am

  Running red lights in Rockford has reached epidemic levels and needs to be addressed. It’s not the seniors that are running the lights, it’s the young folks. Senator Severson is DEAD WRONG on this one. Put in the cameras and let’s arrest those who are in violation. This senior would applaud it.

• 9. Some1WhoGetsIt  |  March 17th, 2008 at 9:22 am

  What Mr Sweeny fails to report is that the registered owner of the vehicle will be the person held accountable for the fine. Not necessarily the person that committed the offense. How does this make our streets safer?

  The violation of state law “running a red light” will not be reported to the IDOT and will not be reported to insurance companys. How does this make our streets safer?

  While my daughter was away at college in the Quad Cities, she was driving a car registered to me. Her boyfriend was driving my car and was caught by one of these cameras on 2 occasions. Who got the fines in the mail 130 miles away? I did! Did i commit the offense? NO
  The city makes appealing the ticket more expensive than the ticket itself. But it’s not about the money, it’s about safety. Yea right!

  This law does nothing to penalize the offender.

  Other cities using this technology have decreased the amount of time for the yellow light to increase revenues. How does this make our streets safer?

  There is currently a class action lawsuit in Davenport Iowa being heard by the Iowa supreme court on this very issue. The city will be out millions of dollars once the court rules this law illegal.

• 10. Some1WhoGetsIt  |  March 17th, 2008 at 9:26 am

  http://www.qctimes.com/articles/2008/03/11/news/local/doc47d6c05716eaf240033722.txt

• 11. Mike Fortner  |  March 19th, 2008 at 5:31 am

  Bring on the cameras! But if what I see is true- then ticket the current driver-not the registered owner-unless the car is stolen! When the cops or paramedics are pulling out a lifeless body or bodies- it is too late to think about prevention. It all boils back to driving and living irresponsibly. They should have field trips to morgues or funeral homes. PREVENT the problem in any reasonable way. I see this as reasonable. 40,000 people a year woke up and didn\\\’t realize that day was their last. It always happens to someone else. You can be the best driver in the world- then someone runs a red light- for whatever reason- drugs, alcohol, etc. Nuff said.

• 12. SonyXBR  |  March 19th, 2008 at 7:17 am

  Why is your daughters boyfriend driving your car? What did you do to address it? Stop putting off parenting on someone else! This is why Rockford needs the red light cameras. Just another case of someone not taking responsibility and trying to make excuses for it. What if your daughters boyfriend would have killed someone? Would you be writing in this blog complaining about red light cameras? Time to change your name to, “IDontGetIt”.

• 13. Samal  |  March 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm

  6 Cities caught shortening yellows to boost income:

  Short yellow light times at intersections have been shown to increase the number of traffic violations and accidents. Conversely, increasing the yellow light duration can dramatically reduce red-light violations at an intersection.

  Some local governments have ignored the safety benefit of increasing the yellow light time and decided to install red-light cameras, shorten the yellow light duration, and collect the profits instead.

  Here are some of the cities that have been caught with short yellow light times over the past few years:
  http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras/6-cities-that-were-caught-shortening-yellow-light-times-for-profit/

  Cities at the link.

• 14. Samal  |  March 27th, 2008 at 5:10 pm

  Crossposted from the, “In Chambers Blog,” here:
  http://blogs.e-rockford.com/inchambers/2008/03/12/senators-shine-red-light-on-red-light-plan/#comments

  “A report last year, funded by the Federal Highway Administration and the Virginia Department of Transportation, said that “cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes.”…
  Crashes were up in Stockton, California, too, from an average of 14 per year before to more than 20 per year in the 2004–6 period, after red-light cameras were installed. Same story in Seattle, where crashes rose from 4.94 per intersection before to 5.25 after cameras were installed at four intersections….

  If red-light cameras don’t reduce violations, what does? The length of the yellow light is the most important factor, says the Texas Transportation Institute, which studied 181 intersection approaches over three years. Adding one second to the Institute of Transportation Engineers formula cut violations by 53 percent. Conversely, shortening the ITE time by one second hiked violations by 110 percent.

  This dovetails neatly with a report by the California state auditor that studied camera results in eight of that state’s cities. Overall, 77 percent of the violations occur in the first second of the red. ”
  http://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/c_d_columns/robot_revenuing_shots_were_fired_column

  A recent study by the University of South Florida Public Health agrees that the cameras actually cause accidents.
  http://hsc.usf.edu/publichealth/fphr/index.htm

  It’s all about the MONEY!

• 15. Samal  |  March 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm

  Crossposted from the, “In Chambers Blog,” here:
  http://blogs.e-rockford.com/inchambers/2008/03/12/senators-shine-red-light-on-red-light-plan/#comments

  DALLAS - Dallas has turned off about 15 red-light cameras used to monitor busy intersections. The city said the cameras are failing to generate enough red-light-running fines to justify their costs.

  Dallas lawmakers originally estimated a gross yearly revenue of about $15 million for the system. The city is about $4 million below that estimate.

  http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23647272

Leave a Comment

Name Required

Email Required, hidden

Url

Comment

Security Code:

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed