1. - Hanging Chad - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 9:55 am:

   I expect Dear Leader to propose $819 million in new spending to offset the $50 million he expects to raise.

   Rich, please let us know when they schedule the press conference.




2. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 9:57 am:

   1:00 p.m. at the Polk Street Accident Investigation Site.

   Now, get back to the question, please. Didn’t you read the admonition?




3. - Hanging Chad - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 9:58 am:

   To answer your question, though, it’s nothing more than out-sourcing law enforcement.

   Good PR, bad idea.




4. - prowler - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:01 am:

   Another over-estimated revenue generator.

   I guess it’s refreshing to see them state that the whole purpose is to raise $50 million a year in revenue. Has nothing to do with public safety. But it sounds like these would be fixed cameras. Won’t take long till the location is known and published and revenue drops drastically.

   Oh, and will these same tickets apply to the representatives that I always see flying on I-55 and I-72 going to or from sessions. Must be nice to write exemptions for yourself into the law.




5. - Ted - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:01 am:

   Illinoians will resent the cameras as they, as a group, think driving within 10 miles of the speed limit is ok. As long as the flow of traffic is moving at the same pace, the fact that it might be flowing at 72mph instead of 65mph strikes few as punishable conduct. It would be one thing if the Governor rolled out the program to identify only dangerous or reckless drivers by video surveilance. To do it merely as a way to inflate state coffers will not be well-recieved. Nobody likes getting a ticket; wait until they have a politician they can blame for it. I wonder how much support legislators will give him, especially in a strange and unsettled election year. There is no good timing to roll out such an idea, but there is lousy timing and I think that time is now.




6. - GoBearsss - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:03 am:

   On the plus: Speeding will definitely be reduced. Significantly. When they did it in Arizona (near Scottsdale I think?), speeding went down dramatically.

   Also, that debate in the GA about more red light cameras probably would be rekindled, but the main objection was that it was just a revenue raiser for general funds.

   Given that it would a) make an impact on a serious and dangerous condition and b) fund something worthwhile and related, I think it has sense to it.

   On the down side: I won’t be able to speed anymore. And frankly, that weighs very heavily!




7. - downstate hack - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:04 am:

   A horrid idea. Big brother government growing to increase big brother capabilities.




8. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:08 am:

   Whenever I hear of deals like this I think, who has the camera contract, however, in this case it is just bureaucratic greed. If you install cameras to do the police work on the highways, why not cut the force and lower taxes? If the Governor wants elite special forces to finally invade Indiana-I’m in, otherwise, it’s just another excuse to load the payroll and stick drivers with the bill.

   Having said that, This would go a long way into keeping our status as the number one nanny state in the nation.




9. - Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:08 am:

   It is a miserable idea that is completely contrary to what most serious traffic experts advocate.

   Traffic should move at a safe speed, taking into consideration the road, traffic, etc. Arbitrary speed limits make people focus on signs and the speedometer rather than on traffic (The Atlantic had a great piece about the issue recently). The cameras will lead to less safe traffic. People will look down at the speedometer rather than up at the road.




10. - Ghost - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:08 am:

    It depends on how it is implemented. My first thought was if these are fixed location cameras, then what you are really doing is creating a very small section of highway where people will slow down. There are lots of sources of information on speed traps, cameras etc for travelers. I dispute the income potential from this because people will just adjust dirving habits around the camera locations.

    This could be useful if placed around areas that have accident problems, say exit/entrance ramps etc if speedinf is casuing problems to reduce accidents.

    I think it could be usefu for creating safer zones around accident prone areas, but I do not think it will significantly generate revenue as people will adjust driving habits to account for the cameras. Unless you put cameras every mile of the interstate, it will not significantly slow traffic donw, it will just create sites where people briefly reduce speed.

    Also keep in mind police instan on radar devices pretty much render radar detectors useless. these cameras use always on radar which is pretty much 100% timely detected by radar detectors. So this is the easiest type of speed enforcement to avoid. if we want to increase the number of speeders caught the best way is to hire 50 Mil in personal and radar guns, not cameras.




11. - Speaking At Will - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:09 am:

    Personally the idea gives me the creeps. I dont want any more big brother in my life. These kind of ideas always get expanded little by little in the name of “safety” or “security.”

    This is going to simply be another way to squeeze more money out of an already over taxed illinois public.

    Since Illinois politcal leaders at all levels dont know how to balance the states check book the citizens get more police state measures, and a little less freedom.

    Due to the admonisment I wont say any more.




12. - countryboy - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:10 am:

    Smells like a tax on (some) people…




13. - montrose - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:13 am:

    Revenue considerations should not be driving a policy like this. It should be based in public safety. A revenue-driven policy like this means they are keeping their fingers crossed that people break the law.

    Putting that aside, I do think any policy like this should be complimented by an increase in the interstate speed limit to 70, which, again would undermine the point of the policy, which is to generate money.

    All that being said, if a solid argument can be made that the roads are safer (not just that people slow down, but roads are safer) with using these cameras, I am fine with it.




14. - Thanks for taking my call - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:16 am:

    This is outrageous. Why bother with the cameras, why don’t they just require all cars in Illinois to have a chip and the minute you go over the speed limit, presto, they send you a ticket. Is anyone else tired of politicians taking away our rights? Enough already.




15. - GUV IS ELVIS - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:19 am:

    I agree with “Thanks for taking my call”




16. - Phineas J. Whoopee - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:22 am:

    Thanks for taking my call,

    It is funny you mention that because we hear at Pre Crime are working on a chip that actually anticpates when you intend to speed and slows the car automatically while sending out a violation notice.




17. - downstate dem - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:23 am:

    Another big brother idea . . . will it make anything safer? Probably not. Will it save lives, maybe. But to use it for budget making to raise money for other things is truly bad government.




18. - Justice - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:26 am:

    From a law enforcement point of view it would help with tracking drugs runners, illegals, and if the case warrants even a speeder or two. It is still another tax as far as I’m concerned. Like others have noted, fixed cameras will slow traffic in the area, for locals, but will nail those pesky tourists. In the back of my mind, this indicates to me that there will be fewer patrols on our Interstates and more video studios, in spite of what Rod, or is it Ron, promises. In short, grab your wallet when Blagojevich gets behind an idea, as you just might lose what it rests against! Could have merit but the big brother idea concerns me. I opt for no cameras. Something about trust and abuse, not to mention the doubtful $$ results and ultimate uses of money raised..




19. - Anon - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:26 am:

    The cameras will dissapear the first time a speeding state rep traveling to and from Springfield for a special session gets caught. And any additional money generated before this happens will be squandered on lavish patrol cars for state police command.




20. - OneMan - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:31 am:

    The ‘you have to be doing 80 or 85′ comment in the Sun Times was interesting. Seems to me this is going to be a way to get money out of downstate to help Chicago. Hard to do 80 in Chicagoland for a big chunk of the day.




21. - Another Retired ISP Command Officer - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:33 am:

    As a retired ISP officer I would like to see speeding reduced on all roads. When it comes to ISP, under current management alot of Troopers are sent off the interstates to arrest people for not wearing seatbelts and interstates go unchecked. Today ISP manpower is down 20 % from all time highs, in next 4 years ISP expects to lose about 700 officers to retirement which is over 30 % loss in manpower, but to get to point, today not 1 dollar from any speeding ticket goes into Ill coffers, it goes to the County and/or Township that it is written in. Tell me then how does the State get money from these camera tickets to hire 500 more Troopers, but did they say they would hire 500 more Troopers(more than they have now) or hire 500 Troopers(which means hire 500 when perhaps you lose 700 which means you are at a negative 200).Another PR stunt, perhaps all Ill cites could call Blago and get ISP to patrol there town.




22. - Ahem - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:33 am:

    Ted makes a good point. Does the camera have any discretion with regard to “acceptably” close speeds, or is literally anything over the posted limit an offense? What about .1 or 1 mph over? And I am wondering if everyone is speeding and the traffic is heavy, can the camera keep up with the volume? Even so, driving 55 when everyone else is doing 70 is potentially worse than speeding when traffic is heavy and police routinely allow for that.




23. - Soy Milk - Formerly Known As Napoleon has left the building - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:35 am:

    I think its a very good idea. I am a recovering chronic speeder who used to only slow down when I see the ISP. There aren’t enough cops to enforce the traffic safety laws on all those miles of state highway. More cameras will force us all to slow down.

    I generally support more cameras to enforce traffic safety and safer streets (Chicago) so long as there is some oversight or audit process to ensure proper use protocols. I understand the big brother argument, but don’t agree with it when these cameras are set up and used for specific limited purposes.




24. - Crimefighter - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:36 am:

    More people will drive two-lane roads to go faster and avoid the speed cameras entirely. Really with all the fuss raised over the red light cameras, it’s gonna be a lot louder over these.




25. - Cassandra - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:37 am:

    It doesn’t seem to be working in work zones. I really do try to observe the speeding limits in work zones,as I do everywhere, but if it’s down to one lane I frequently find myself at the head of a long line of unhappy motorists including the one behind me hugging my bumper. If it’s more than one lane, everybody, I mean everybody, zips around me.
    Sometimes, I resist. Sometimes, I bow to the pressure and speed up, especially if what is hugging my bumper is an enormous menacing-looking truck.

    Most motorists simply don’t take these work zone limits seriously, including a lot of professional truckers, who should know better.

    Having said that, I generally agree with the use of cameras to catch speeders. Cameras don’t discriminate by race and they allow police to do real police work instead of playing traffic cop.




26. - Rich Miller - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:39 am:

    I’ve already deleted about a half dozen comments on this thread because some people cannot read. I specifically asked that this not be about the governor. Stop making my life more complicated. I have other work to do this morning. Thanks.




27. - fed up - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:42 am:

    Chicago has put cameras up all over the city to generate revenue. The only problem is the city is addicted to increased revenue. No matter what the city wants more money, more money. The state is the same way is this really about safet on the highways and increased traffic enforcment or just generating more revenue.
    I have a little question for all the smarter types out there. If the state police in the speeding van take a picture of a car going 90 down the highway and then just let it go flying by and a mile down the road the driver slams into a church van killing everyone on board is there any liability since the police took no action to stop the illegal act.




28. - Ghost - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:47 am:

    What we really need are speed rocket launchers. If they detect a vehicle traveling over x miles an hr they open fire. This will help to create jobs. The speediers position will be open to be filled by somone else, and we will of course see indriect jobs in the slen up area and induced jobs in the cemetary and post life care fields. it may also lead to an increase in organs for organ donations; increasing medical jobs, hospital faicilites and the health care of the people of Illinois. We can have a catch new slogan “Illinois, its a blast” or “Come to illinois, our employemnt rate is rocketing up”. Over all rocket cameras will create millions of new jobs, improve health care and support the medical industry. its a win win.




29. - zatoichi - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:48 am:

    It is proposed as a means to raise money to pay for more police. But of course this is not a “tax”, it is a safety issue which only effects those who are caught speeding. Once those 500 officers are hired and speeds go down, where will the $50M come from if the number of speeding tickets drop? What is the extimated cost to install and maintain this system? Seems like an OK idea for areas where there is a major history of accidents and other problems, but for the entire highway system it sems like dubious overkill. I can see once the system is in place statements coming about not needeing as many officers to patrol the highways. What then happens to the 500 hires and the additional cars they will need? Extra money to use elsewhere.




30. - Plutocrat03 - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:51 am:

    Automated speed enforcement, much like red light cameras is just another tax on the people. (which I believe the Governor does not want)

    For a real insight, look at the annual reports of the companies who trade in that equipment an see their comments relating to the loss of freedoms resulting from their systems. They do not care. They make big money now and bigger money in the future as big brother ideas percolate through society.

    Since we are now fully embracing the nanny state, I have a few new ideas for revenue generation which can “save us” from ourselves while filling the state’s coffers.

    We can criminalize obesity! Cameras can be placed at any eatery. We can fine people who eat too much while being fat. Similarly we can fine eateries for serving food to to fat people. This will lead to a reduction in obese people and lower health cost for all while providing revenue for….

    We can criminalize politicians committing crimes. (as if it is not already illegal) Each elected official would be forced to wear a lapel camera 24/7 which would feed a signal directly into Fitizgerald’s office. Tickets would be issued when they violate a law. Fines would be levied on the elected official as well as the other party leading the official into temptation. This would lead to a decrease in criminal activity by the political class and provide revenue for….

    Lets get a few more programs like this and really end our budget woes.




31. - Illini - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:52 am:

    I thought that all the fines went to the county that the ticket was issued.




32. - Joe in the Know - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 10:53 am:

    This is going to answer the age old question: “if a tree falls in the forest, does it make a sound?”. Except this time, the question will be: “if a car is speeding and the police don’t catch him, is he really speeding?”. As a frequent driver on I-55 south, I like the idea. Some drivers are just too fast. On the other hand, give the drivers what they have in neighboring states, the ability to drive 70 mph. The real perps will just get plate covers that hide their identity.




33. - North of I-80 - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:01 am:

    Sounds good. By current law, traffic fine $$ goes to county & township where citations are written. ISP gets nothing, IL gets nothing. Exceptions are 1) DUIs; 2) overweights and 3) Work Zone speeders [where portion of $$ goes to alc programs and IDOT for road repairs [unless skimmed into other funds].

    Last month, 30+ ISP squad cars were fitted with Chicago radios…. something has been in the works for a while.




34. - Captain Flume - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:03 am:

    Reducing the number of ISP on the interstates will free up manpower to fight crime in Chicago. Though, as I have personally seen, cameras do make mistakes, especially in plate identification, and that is one BIG hassle to straighten out.




35. - orlkon - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:04 am:

    If its revenue, place the cameras on city streets to fine jaywalkers, if its public saffety, require vehicle manufacturers to installspeed govenors in every vehicle and set them for a maximum speed of 65 mph–saves gas too!




36. - John Bambenek - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:06 am:

    Fun story, perhaps aprocryphal. I have a Spainard as a friend and apparently they have had these speeding cameras for years. They take a picture of the plate and the driver and send tickets in the mail. The police, for their part, stopped patrolling the highways because the cameras did the job. Not all together, but there was a significant pullback. A few years ago (probably more than a few now), a couple guys got an idea and started speeding around the country in pig masks. Without being able to identify the driver, the ticket wasn’t valid. After getting a few dozen of these tickets, police started patrolling again to find these guys.

    The point: Cameras tend to be effective at punishing the *vehicle owner* for violations, but if the owner isn’t driving then what? If I let someone borrow my truck and I get a $75 tax in the mail, how do I go about saying “it wasn’t me”? Will judges even care?




37. - Vote Quimby! - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:09 am:

    To quote Bill Murray, I think it sucks. There are already cameras on interstate rest areas to look for drug dealers and such. While most governments who use traffic cameras say they are for public safety, this is only about the money. If they want to slow traffic down, just install a bunch of devices which emit the same frequency as an ISP radar gun. That would slow down people with radar detectors, who are the real threat on the interstates.




38. - Mr. Ethics - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:10 am:

    Plate covers are already against the law.




39. - anon sequitor - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:11 am:

    How many convictions a year will generate the necessary revenue?

    Will the structural budget needs for the “special state police unit” define how “justice” will be determined in a revenue driven enforcement system?

    If I run the court system in a county where these cameras are located, I’ll be looking at a fantastic payday.

    Please keep this in mind when considering this proposal: “The outcome of a trial by “kangaroo court” is essentially determined in advance, usually for the purpose of providing a conviction, either by going through the motions of manipulated procedure or by allowing no defense at all.”




40. - Joe in the Know - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:15 am:

    Mr. Ethics,

    With all due respect, so is speeding.




41. - Little Egypt - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:16 am:

    I am guilty of speeding. If it’s a 55 zone, I will go 58. In a 65 zone, I’ll go as high as 69 or 70. I’ve always felt a little comfortable doing so thinking that the ISP would pull over people going further over the speed limit than me. However, since moving to a smaller community, I find that if I put the pedal to the metal, I get about 27-28 MPG on the 2-lane highway. As an experiment (when gas got to $4.17), I held tight on the speed limit, coasted down hills, slowly went up hills and found that I get a little better than 32 MPG (my car has one of those readouts that tell me this). So why wouldn’t I go the absolute speed limit, or even just a little below, to make my money go a little further? Now for the interstates, it’s a big difference as well by holding at 65 or even just a little under.

    I believe that a lot of people are going to slow their speeds down voluntarily to save gas. I don’t mind the cameras, but I do think this should have been done a couple of years ago to maximize the money that could be made.

    What wouldn’t surprise me though is an effort by the Feds to roll back the speed limits on interstates while this gas price gouging and oil speculation is occurring, thus creating a possible waste of money on the cameras. Construction zones are a different matter. Absolutely put them there.




42. - Simple Man - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:16 am:

    Thumbs down as a revenue strategy, thumbs up as a speed reduction strategy in areas too remote to patrol. Placing cameras in every State Patrol district sounds great and comprehensive, but it would not be an efficient approach.

    The revenue may be “enough for 500 state troopers”, but the troopers will be pouring over mounds of paperwork, pursuing people and companies in other states, processing lots and lots of film, and maintaining equipment.

    What’s ironic to me is that the Tollway just screwed-up big time collecting fines. Is the state really ready to charge down this path?




43. - Undercover - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:16 am:

    I don’t like this idea at all. The stated purpose is to raise revenue, but for what? State agencies, including state police, are ridiculously underfunded and understaffed and it’s gotten much worse on this Governor’s watch. What reason do we have to suspect that this revenue will actually go to paying more police officers?

    Rich, I know you asked that we not rail on the Governor, but it’s impossible to make this point without pointing out that his entire time in office has been based upon saying one thing and doing another and a preference for public political ploys over policy. That is the way he and his allies operate. There’s no reason why any sane human being should trust his word on anything.

    And does anyone think for a second that people outside of Chicago will appreciate being targeted for tickets to “fix” Chicago’s violent crime problem? This is a political ploy tossed out right before an election to call the question on state legislators and make elections tougher for Blago’s opponents. A legislator will either come out as a supporter of “big brother government” or as a non-supporter of quelling violent crime and supporting our police force. It sure seems like Blagojevich is looking to paint a very particular group of legislators and/or candidates a certain way to voters.

    I haven’t even touched on the fact that funneling more and better-trained police into Chicago isn’t going to fix the root of Chicago’s violent crime problems. And all this while cutting funding for Ceasefire, which was making a huge difference. What a mess.




44. - Former State Employee - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:16 am:

    Haven’t there been lots of problems with the cameras for open road tolling? Many downstaters have gotten ticket notices when they have been no where near Chicago. This seems like a way to further that problem




45. - anon sequitor - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:17 am:

    If State gets $50 per ticket, that is 1 million tickets a year, or 2,740 a day.

    If state gets $100 per ticket, that is 500,000 tickets a year, or 1,370 a day.

    Lots of unhappy campers.




46. - Vote Quimby! - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:18 am:

    My favorite part of the article:
    ==The idea is in its infancy, with no budget and no timetable.==




47. - Anonynick - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:18 am:

    Big Brother = BAD




48. - Chief Kay - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:30 am:

    Is that 50 million GROSS or 50 million NET to state? What is cost of installation and maintenance of cameras? What is threshold of the issueing of ticket? How many of those will be thrown out of court? Oh, and where does the figure 50 million come from anyway? Love how these guys talk about how much could come in revenue wise but never about what is costs to do these “revenue enhancements”. Just some questions.




49. - Steve - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:30 am:

    It’s all about money.Illinois is in serious financial trouble.I guess it’s expensive to allow government workers to retire in their fifties.Until we have some sort of real public pension reform,we will be hearing more of these ideas.




50. - Ghost - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:35 am:

    John, those kinds of old wives tales miss a critical point, the owenrship of the vehicle combined with the mask designed to conceal identity create what we call circumstantial evidence that the owner was driving. In the US all the State would need to prove to meet its burden in court. BTW I was unable to find any record of the Civil Guard stopping patrols on highways. With the problems they have with Lories and speeding they have been increasing their presence to supplement the fixed camera locations with mobile units. The Civil Guard also relies on its highway presence to deal with smuggling etc.




51. - What planet is he from again? - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:38 am:

    Two things:
    1) http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/Traffic-Enfarcement-Camera.aspx

    2) As my mother used to say (and being a mother, she is by definition correct), it’s not the speed that’s the problem, it’s the difference in speed. I.e., the problem isn’t when everybody is going 80 (although I admit everybody going 65 will be safer than everyone going 80), the problem is when everyone is going 80 except for Elmer (usually from Wisconsin) going 63 in the left lane.




52. - Fearless Leader - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:52 am:

    Why don’t they raise the speed limit to something reasonable instead of giving away our rights to raise money. When the Tollway was built in the 1960’s, the speed limit was 70 mph. Cars are twice as good today: tires, suspension and safety. So, I doubt anyone would go for 140 mph, why not 80 or 90 as the top? Motorists seem content at 85 mph in Indiana, never in Illinois (?). Pulling people over for speeding on the way to Springfield on a long straightaway through the farm fields is nonsense, unless they are driving poorly.

    Don’t forget Germany makes some of the best-handling automobiles, because there is no speed limit on the autobahn. Over here, who cares if your engine outruns the supension on some poorly designed car, the driver broke the limit? Watch what happens as areas develop, taxes go up and speed limits go down. That’s progress? The ideal for the broke bureaucrats in Springfield would apparently be drop the limit to zero in your driveway, give you a ticket as you back out and be done with it.




53. - Muskrat - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:05 pm:

    I’m all for it if it includes tickets for going too slow in the fast lane, going too slow in the slow lane, and tailgating. And for drivers who refuse to turn on their headlights no matter how dark the sky because dad-gummit it’s not sundown yet….. heat-seeking missiles.

    Also, the fine should be a set fraction of the retail value of the car. Old beater — $5 ticket. Ferrari — $500.




54. - skeptica - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:05 pm:

    The “state” intends to come to the aid of a city that has a police force refusing to aggressively approach criminal incidents and only respond to calls-[look at their blog]What good would a camera \revenue scheme be when the problem is within the City government itself?–the State Police and their mission are being used and not for the benefit of the public good




55. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:16 pm:

    I don’t know which poster has the best idea here, but I do know that Ghost’s 10:47 post made me spit out my coffee.

    Retired ISP had some good points, from one that had to deal with this issue day in and day out. The lack of enforcement today is due to reduced numbers in the field and increasing tasks that take away from their primary mission. All in all, I would favor more live patrollers and less Big Brother.

    As far as raising the speed limit, we are starting to see some blowback on that one in the name of energy conservation, just like in 1973. The end result is likely to be things remaining as they are, with about 10 mph tolerance on the freeways and the occasional blow your doors off speeder who should be introduced to Officer Friendly.

    Cassandra makes a good point about work zone speeders. I have no problem with camera enforcement and additional troopers there - the motorist usually has ample fair warning coming into the zone. I suppose the same could be said about school zones.




56. - Pavlov's Dog - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:21 pm:

    Besides the dubious quality of a policy that touts fines as a revenue producer…the cameras will undoubtedly cause a learned response from drivers. Even those drivers unaware of the strategic position of Blago’s peek-a-boo cash cows will be forced to slow to stay in line with the flow of traffic–slowed by frequent freeway drivers familiar with the camera positions. Perhaps the purported $50 Million in extra revenue generated by the state’s dabble in voyeurism can be used for facial recognition software. This way the state can prove the person fined for OWNING the car was in fact DRIVING the car. Sounds like most of the extra revenue will be eaten up in administration and court costs. Sweet gluttonous bureacracy.




57. - One of the 35 - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:25 pm:

    Strict enforcement of speed limits will undoubtedly save lives. but that is not the only question. Society always weighs the cost benefit ratio of any rule of law. We want safety, but not at any cost. If the cost were not applicable, then the speed limit on interstate highways should only be 25 MPH. The cost of such “safety” is too high to personal convenience. We are willing as a society to sacrifice some lives for the greater convenience of the many. This latest Blago proposal may step over the line in the minds of the majority.




58. - BehindTheScenes - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:27 pm:

    Illinois should join adjacent states with more reasonable speed limits, e.g., 70 or 75. The interstate highways were built for vehicles traveling at speed.

    Some jurisdictions have already removed the cameras installed (largely on city streets) for this purpose because they didn’t work, and didn’t raise the money they cost to purchase and install.




59. - Little Egypt - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:29 pm:

    It really makes no difference to me if there are cameras, except for the expense of buying them. I can avoid this additional “tax” by driving the speed limit. I don’t pay a couple of additional “voluntary” taxes (casinos and lottery) and I don’t intend to pay this one either.




60. - BIG R.PH. - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:36 pm:

    “I can’t drive….55″

    Sammy Hagar




61. - annon - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:37 pm:

    The comment form the former ISP officer is actually funny, He wants to see the speed reduced on all highways!!!

    I travel quite a bit and its a very rare day that I’m not passed by an officer or two going well over the speed limit, just to see them either stop in the median or on the side of the road to start their radar operations again. And the numerious officers I know think nothing of speeding in their personal cars, after all they have that badge that the can flash to another officer if they are stopped, professional courtesy and all that you know.

    Begs the ethical question of how an officer can be out writting tickets all day long for the same crime as a lot of same the officers are committing everyday. Both in their squads and in their personal vehicles.




62. - Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:43 pm:

    At risk of banishment, there is something strange about a government proposing a regulation that will inconvenience everybody but one person [and the Barcelona FC, from my observation. I also think that the Bears get a police escort through traffic on the way to Soldier Field].

    The government funds the road. The governmment decides the priorities for road work. People in the top levels of government should have to sit on those roads in traffic so that they can experience their handiwork. Think cameras for 55 are a good idea? Then drive 55 yourself.

    From my perspective: A drive a pretty nice car. I often am surprised at the speed I’m traveling, since the car is designed to go pretty fast. When I’m going those speeds, I’m alert for what is happening on the road. I’m looking at traffic and not at the speedometer. This plan will make people like me far more dangerous on the road since instead of continuing with our safe procedure of watching the road, we will have to continuously take our eyes off the road and look at a guage that is otherwise irrelevant.




63. - Pedestrian Rights - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:47 pm:

    I really care about traffic safety and in general support cameras for enforcing the laws. However, this hastily-crafted program doesn’t make sense.

    If we actually care about highway deaths/crashes due to speed (and subsequent congestion caused by crashes), then camera enforcement makes a lot of sense.

    However, this program ties two unrelated issues together: Chicago gang activity to be solved by revenue produced by speeders on the interstates?!?! Doesn’t make sense on several levels.

    Now, if the suggestion was to use speed cameras to fund additional traffic safety education and police to enforce traffic rules, then I think its a great idea. However this is a bastard hybrid of too many differing issues that rightfully should be shot down.

    Final thought: how did no one else mention Madigan’s repulsion to traffic cameras? Certainly Blago considered this when he hatched this crazy mutant of an idea.




64. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:53 pm:

    Skeeter-

    With the vast majority of vehicles on the road having cruise control, it could be argued yours is a mostly moot point. Set it at 55 (or 65, whichever the speed limit is) and concentrate on the road.

    Not that I am always in compliance, of course:-)




65. - ISPman - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:53 pm:

    The state of Illinois does get a little over ten dollars for each $75 citation written. The Illinois State Police does not directly get any money. It is also true that a citation is only processed if the operator is able to confirm the driver matches the registered owner. Through use of the S.O.S. database with our driver’s license photos on it. fyi trooper




66. - Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 12:58 pm:

    Six,

    That’s just as bad. Then I’m not adjusting my speed for traffic around me. If I’m alert, my speed varies. Coming up a hill and not sure what may be just past it? Slow down a bit. A wide open flat road? Time to pick up the speed.

    Americans feel this need to be told exactly what to do on the road. They want signs providing detailed instructions, instead of just driving in a safe manner. With all of those comes a lack of attention to what really matteers — traffic, weather, the slope and curve of the road, and everything related.




67. - Anon - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:02 pm:

    I hate it




68. - so-called "Austin Mayor" - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:04 pm:

    “[W]hat do you think of this idea?”

    Opposed.

    No more cameras.
    No more spying on the public.
    No to the panopticon.

    When everyone is perpetually, universally monitored, there cannot be universal enforcement. Only some of the criminals will/can be punished for crimes that are widely committed.

    And in such a system, there is no need to prosecute political enemies for political “crimes”. Those in power merely need to prosecute their enemies for the many crimes that free people commit at the margins every day, e.g. speeding, traffic violations, file sharing.

    A free society doesn’t need outlaws, but a free society does need room for outlaws.

    – SCAM
    so-called “Austin Mayor”
    http://austinmayor.blogspot.com




69. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:06 pm:

    Skeet-

    Slightly off topic, in Europe they are experimenting with removing all signs and pavement markings in an effort to get drivers to use more common sense and to increase their awareness of their surroundings. “Shared space” is the buzzword.

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/23/AR2007122302487_pf.html




70. - Anon - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:22 pm:

    The construction zone speeding cameras have been very effective, the problem is there is only one or two of the equipped vans so most of the zones do not have camera systems. I would venture that less than 5% of the issued tickets are dismissed in court or are even challenged. The picture of the driver is extremely clear even at night and two other photos of the car and plate are visible with the speed indicated. If the state had a dozen of those vans in Northern Illinois right now, they would be generating 375.00 each and 135.00 in fees (in Cook County anyway). There is no reason why 1000-2000 tickets everyday wouldn’t be issued in construction zones alone for each cmera system. That is 375,000-750,000 everyday times 365 days is a minimum of $ 13.505 million per van. The vans pay for themselves in a matter of hours. Why aren’t there more of them out there right now? That is the question to be asked.




71. - I pray I get a ticket! - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:27 pm:

    I say more power to them! They oughta have these all over the place. For all those that get the ticket, I’d encourage you to take this to trial.

    Under the 6th Amendment of the constitution, we can learn that we have the right to face our accuser. It reads:

    “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

    Therefore, not only would I subpeona the operator of the camera (despite his geographical location in the state), I would also subpeona the inspector of the camera (afterall, I want to make sure it was working properly and had been inspected recently to be working properly), and I could probably think of a few more people to call as witnesses that would be directly/indirectly involved with me receiving that ticket. And of course, all those involved would certainly have to present documentation on their credentials to operate/inspect such as well as documentation that the camera had been recently inspected. One would think all witnesses would have to attend for me to be proven guilty otherwise it would violate my constitutional right to be confronted by the witnesses against me.

    Just think, it could be fun and educational.




72. - Freezeup - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:28 pm:

    The purpose of traffic enforcement should NEVER be to generate revenue. Never. Traffic enforcement exists only to enhance traffic safety.

    500 Troopers won’t touch what the ISP needs to do this job. It would take more like 1,500.

    The rural areas of Illinois are neglected and underprotected due to lack of manpower in the ISP. The ISP is nonexistant in rural areas. Where is the a plan to deal with that? After all the Chicago Police Department is the largest P.D. in the state. Why must an overburdoned state again bail out Chicago? The answer? Because it is the right thing to do, just not at the expense of the rest of the state.

    In days past, there was a large ISP presence in Chicago and downstate. The ISP is needed in BOTH for different reasons.




73. - Rubber Duck - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:28 pm:

    It looks like setting up a huge fund supposedly dedicated to “super troopers”, which, like all special funds, would wind up swept. I like the idea of the cameras at construction zones (though I have yet to see a single one of the vans or trailers in one). Putting them in random spots on the interstate with the very plain declaration that they are there to shear some revenue off a continuous flow of sheep- I don’t approve of this.

    Our troopers have many important jobs to do, including keeping the truck drivers driving safe and honest. They have been under-funded for years, their cars are all old and decrepit.
    Fund them properly and actually assign them to the work. The camera thing seems like a way to hand-wave towards a safety issue while really, cynically, being just about raising revenue. Couldn’t we do the same thing with higher fines for traditional tickets?




74. - PhilCollins - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:28 pm:

    I think it’s a great idea. Too many people ignore the laws, without being punished. If more speeders receive speeding tickets, the government will have more money and might not have a deficit. When people hear about the increased number of tickets, they’ll drive more slowly, and their cars will have better mileage, helping the drivers save gas money.




75. - 47th Ward - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:33 pm:

    Fine, bring on the police state cameras. We’re pretty much constantly under surveillance outside of our homes in Chicago already. Plus with the Patriot Act, who knows which of the computers sending comments here have already been “photographed” by the federal government.

    We’ve given up whatever rights to privacy we feel this technology would violate. The city and the feds do it, why shouldn’t the state get in on the action?

    But if the state goes forward with this, please don’t limit it to speeding violations. How about improper land useage, failure to yield, signal, recklass driving, etc.? There are many violations occurring daily on the roads that are as bad as speeding and all are illegal.

    Here’s an idea to improve driver safety: why don’t you give us all cameras and let drivers tape each other speeding, or otherwise driving illegally. We’ll send you the video and split the whatever revenue you collect 50:50?




76. - Anon - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:34 pm:

    Sounds like a good reason to “draft” a legislator’s car when they come down to Springfield.




77. - celtictc - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:44 pm:

    Between Hizzoner Da Mayor and the Gubernator Jr we will have goverment by Miss Demeanor by fines. The next step is to pass more laws to catch more payers/perpatrators. Bounties should be paid and then citizen groups can raise money for charity by turning in your neighbors and family. Say, isn’t that what the Bears want to do. We can call it Democra$y. It will be “to the people, for the people, by the people”. I think I hear “Big Brother” laughing in the not too distant future.
    I didn’t even mention any officeholders by name?




78. - Anon2 - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:46 pm:

    No extra manpower will be added to the ISP as the cameras take away the need for ISP to patrol for and stop speeders. Any revenue from the reduction in patrol units will be channeled elsewhere. I guess some of the ticket money, that doesn’t go locally, will be used for the technicians to operate the system.




79. - A Citizen - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 1:50 pm:

    The demeanor of State Troopers I have encountered is almost always friendly, respectful, and helpful. I especially appreciate seeing them helping someone with car trouble - changing a tire for someone not able to - or apprehending drug runners or illegal immigrants, etc. The cameras won’t do those things and will cost us in the loss of a human contact and presence on the interstates. Generally I don’t like the idea, but would be adamantly opposed if it reduced the Troopers’ presence out there. All the pros and cons aside though, the idea is just another in a constant stream of self serving PR pandering.




80. - cleanairguy - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 2:42 pm:

    I’m surprised no one mentioned the clean air and health benefits, as well as the pocketbook benefits (assuming you don’t speed). The Union of Concerned Scientists says that dropping from 70 to 60 mph improves fuel efficiency by an average of 17.2 percent. Dropping from 75 to 55 improves fuel efficiency by 30.6 percent. slowing down about 10 mph would save about $10/week per driver and at $500/year, that’s a lot of money.

    Assume there are 6 million drivers in the state, each saving $500/year by driving slower because they don’t want to get slapped with a ticket. If I get the zeros right, that’s about $3 BILLION dollars that actually would stay here in the Illinois economy as purchasing power, rather that going to the oil companies, or worse, other counties. Heck, even if it’s a THIRD of that, you’re still talking about a BILLION dollars. Again, this is money that would stay in people’s pockets and be pumped into Illinois economy at a time when it could really use it.

    And, on air pollution, cars that speed also pollute more per mile. Since 2/3 of Illinois population lives in areas that don’t meet minimal EPA health standards, cutting speeding would help clear the air, reduce doctor visits, medication use, and ER visits for people with lung diseases and other conditions that make them the most sensitive to air pollution. Adopting clean car standards in Illinois would save a similar amount, as we’d get more efficient and cleaner cars here in Illinois in coming years, just as 14 other states will. HB3424 would so just that.

    But slowing down speeders is something that could be implemented immediately that would save money and improve health.




81. - Skeeter - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 2:51 pm:

    Cleanairguy,

    That sounds great!

    You can crive slowly and save yourself money.

    I will drive fast and save myself time.

    That’s what is great about this country — we can make our own choices.

    Of course, if you, while driving slowly and watching your speedometer rather than the road, get into an accident I expect you will pay for it just as I will if my speed cause me to not have sufficient reaction time to respond to a hazard.




82. - WARDOG - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 3:51 pm:

    I think there are far greater issues and much better ways of generating revenue without implementing more invasions of ones privacy of the bigger percentage of law abiding people. As in war, the job isn’t done until the man or woman on the ground comes in and cleans things up. With the likes of ISP and DOC being very dangeriously short on people, it all becomes a matter of safety to the workers and public.




83. - Louis G. Atsaves - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 4:18 pm:

    At least the governor is being honest when he calls it a revenue generating plan. There are mayors all over the place that pretend it is just about safety. But if it raises $50 million, how much will be spent on the enforcement side?:

    1. Mailing out tickets
    2. Collecting fines and logging them
    3. Maintaining computer systems
    4. How many bodies will be hired to perform this task, or
    5. How much will we pay an outside contractor to do this
    6. Will it be patterned after the Illinois Tollway collection efforts which have been spotty at best?

    Leading to the final question: What will be the final NET figure to the state once the expenses of maintaining such a program are paid?

    Or will we be seeing a headline someday that says “Expected to bring in $50 million, actually brings in $6 million”




84. - Captain America - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 4:20 pm:

    Opposed. I lkie to drive 4-5 miles over the speed limit - raod and traffic conditions permitting. I slow down in construction zones. Nothing is more irritating that being forced to slow dowm when there are no hazards and no construction workers are present.




85. - Six Degrees of Separation - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 4:23 pm:

    Cleanairguy,

    The 2/3 of the state’s population that lives in areas that don’t meet the EPA standards also drive on highways where it’s unlikely to find much “speeding” - like the Ike at 8 AM. I’d wager there is a lot more pollution from cars waiting for a red light, or by vehicles sitting in one of our freeway “parking lots” than there is by speeders in the 6-county Chicago metro area.

    The “need for speed” above 60 mph is, by and large, a downstate phenomenon, and those attitudes will be hard to change, and downstaters will be the people most resistant to photo enforcement.




86. - Angry Chicagoan - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 4:38 pm:

    I’m torn on the issue. In general I think law enforcement by camera is a horrible idea. But people drive so badly and so dangerously and face so few consequences that I am not sure what else besides a good paddling by their mothers will do the trick.

    If it does go through the state also needs to do what it can to nab out-of-state drivers too, many of whom are conditioned to higher speed limits, less law enforcement and even worse drivers’ ed than Illinois.




87. - six points - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 4:42 pm:

    This will never work. First off they need to talk with the troopers who man these vans now. The only ones who are going to be getting tickets are the people from Illinois. We do not have the capabilities of obtaining out of state photos to identify the drivers. Out of 30 hours of sitting in the van they have only had 3 tickets that are going to be prosecuted. If Blago thinks this is going to generate all this cash he is wrong. The only cash it will generate is campaign cash for him through the camera contractors. Give it up Rod




88. - downstatelaw22 - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 5:03 pm:

    I agree with six points. This sounds good but will not be enforceable as to out of state drivers and even problematic to Illinois drivers if drivers spend time to ask for a court hearing. I work in Southern Ill law and we need help from the state in crime lab services. More dollars need to be devoted downstate to this vital crime fighting piece. When I report on a home burglary, I tell the homeowner we will wait a minimum 6 months for the lab to analyze latent prints. In St. Louis Mo it takes 24 hours. Larry Trent is aware of problems but sadly is totally emasculated on the ISP budget. So, Larry, allocate these dollars to your labs or keep the cameras in Chi-town.




89. - howie - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 8:31 pm:

    Forgive me for not taking the time to read the previous 88 posts….I may be repeating what others have said.

    IF this proposal were to generate the amount of money which was stated, you can bet the State Police budget would be cut by that much, just like the education system being funded by the lottery. I’m sorry, but any time the govt says “If we raise fee ‘A’, or increase tax ‘B’ we can pay for project ‘C’” that immediately sets off my BS alarm.




90. - Arthur Andersen - Thursday, Aug 7, 08 @ 11:19 pm:

    This nifty new plan will turn out to be another t*** in the phony revenue punchbowl right up there with Shared Services, Naming Rights, and Pension Reform.

    As our brothers in blue and brown have correctly noted, the primary downside to the Kodak Kojak is that it is worthless as a tool to nail out of state speeders. Concurrently, by incenting one group of drivers, like Hoosiers and Missourians who are already lousy drivers, to speed with impunity (immunity?) in certain areas while us locals are plodding along at 65-ish, Illinois sets up what both cops and traffic safety pros will confirm is a sure way to decrease road safety-raise the variation in driver speed on a given section of highway. Their studies show that more accidents are caused by speed deviation than by absolute speed.

    Besides, the ISP can’t hire, train, outfit, equip and pay a new troop for $100k the first year. Cop-haters, don’t fear-most of the money isn’t spent on the officer’s salary. More than you would imagine is spent on pension and health care (SERS contribution rates are breathtaking) and the cost of squad cars, radios, etc., etc. AA is making the perhaps naive assumption that for once the “administration” would do something right and use a dedicated revenue source to buy the ISP some new squad cars to repalce the rolling rustbuckets held together by the big yellow stripes which have duct tape on the back side.

    Speaking of naive assumptions, Blago & Co. are assuming that the IML and related local government groups will just roll right over on yet another idea of the moment which oh, by the way, yanks $50 million bananas a year out of your coffers and uses it to pay for State Troopers patrolling the City of Chicago. Yeah, right.

    Oh, and Skeeter, I just have to say your “I have a nice, fast car, so all you Sunday-driving ninnies who obey the speed limit, please move aside” attitude makes AA want to puke.
    I have two nice, fast cars. One in particular would probably blow anything not Italian-exotic right in the weeds if I chose to drive it that way. I don’t.

    As an attorney, I would expect more reasoned opinion from you than “I will drive fast and save myself time…That’s what is great about this country — we can make our own choices.”

    Is the freedom to pick and choose which laws we follow in the Bill of Rights and I missed it?

    Just keep the hammer down and you may have the chance for some CLE along the side of the Interstate some day.

TrackBack URI

Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.