City Speed Traps Backfire - Chicago

Chicago has a $50 Million shortfall from its redlight cameras. It seems that people became smart about the cameras and did not run redlightts and speed. Thus, the projected income from the cameras is going to fall short by millions of dollars.

City's Speed Traps Backfire

a reply to: feldercarb

your link is missing the "h"

this kind of stuff has happened too in small college towns where they hit underage drinking hard...what happens...the kids drink in their apartments or go to a different town to party. Cities stupidly budget for money assuming they will keep making the same amount every year. So they spend all this money in overtime to catch more kids drinking underage only to get less results.

a reply to: rockpaperhammock

Thanks for info. I have corrected the problem. Thanks again.

I was working in Oklahoma a few years back.
The oilfield traffic going through one small town was being targeted real hard by the local cops.
The oilfield guys, truckers, service people and even some of the local companies that supplied oilfield all quit going there.

They didn't stop for food, gas or to buy anything.
That went on for 2 months before the locals got the cops to back off.
They started putting up signs that said "oilfield welcome."
They lost a hell of a lot more revenue than those cops ever made writing tickets.
Sometimes greed backfires.

a reply to: badgerprints

You are exactly right...if people have a bad experience somewhere they avoid it..or try to...even a bad vacation or buying a product that ended up bad.

I remember one time I ordered something at a restaurant that was awful..I didnt go back until I had a group dinner at the same place and ordered something that ended up being one of my favorite dishes...the place later became my favorite place to eat until it closed down.

It is the same with stuff like this. There was a red light in a city I was traveling in...it had a camera and in a very small tiny sign it said "no right turn on red". Most people assume you can turn right on red and there was nothing obvious for why you wouldn't. People started complaining about the photo tickets and eventually started using a different street. That meant all the gas stations there now received less business.

it is always about money...pretending to be covered by safety...was the same with ebola...all about not spending money to have safety.

Another nail in the concept of law enforcement. It's not about enforcing the law. They, obviously, do these things hoping people will break the law. Greed.

a reply to: feldercarb

So actually the project was a huge success in that it reduced those traffic violations to near zero. Isn't that what those devices are for? Or do they admit they care nothing about safe traffic and only wanted to get paid?

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: feldercarb

So actually the project was a huge success in that it reduced those traffic violations to near zero. Isn't that what those devices are for? Or do they admit they care nothing about safe traffic and only wanted to get paid?

Every time a town or city proposes light cameras, they say "It will bring x amount of income."
It's about the money...usually.

Devil's advocate here, I guess...

Essentially the cameras stopped people from running red lights and speeding. That's a good thing, right? Serving their intended purpose?

I know it's a great jab at the inefficiency of the police but, really, this is what they are supposed to do. Stop crime before it happens. It's not a waste of money if it works.

a reply to: kalunom

I bet the redlight camera owners will not see it as being beneficial and stopping crime before it happens. I bet they are crying over their "lost" revenue.

Another question came to mind. How much does it cost to operate the red light cameras. Who pays for the basic operation and maintenance of the red light cameras. The municipality or the red light camera companies?

Ya well at least people are slowing down for intrsections and not running reds . Thats the point isn't it . Save lives who cares about short falls in revenue

Next they will be putting gun-shot detector cameras up.

Hmmm.

Yes, the lights are effective at stopping what they were measuring to begin with. And yes, for the taxpayers this is somewhat of a win. Except I am not sure the taxpayers really were willing to spend that much money on a problem that really isn't a significant problem.

But it isn't "successful", because the premise for the installation of the system wasn't public safety. It was tax revenue. So, by its own measurement it is a failure.

On a side note, police are absolutely not supposed to stop crime before it happens. It almost hurts to read that, because unless we accept the possibility of thought crimes, there is no real way for an enforcement group to prevent anything. It is beyond their scope. Police are there to investigate crime and enforce laws.