Other studies nationally have shown that crash statistics rise at intersections with cameras. Why? Motorists facing yellow lights slam their brakes suddenly to avoid a costly ticket…more rear-end crashes.

The FHA data says that rear-end crashes go up by 15% at RCL intersections.

Even more offensive than those numbers, is the elimination of our due process rights by “streamlining” the tax collection.

When the original studies (Oxford CA and Iowa) have been exposed as having used selective data that supported a predetermined bias, when every independent, government funded, and international study shows they make intersections less safe, when traffic experts shun the concept in favor of proper engineering…yep my bias is showing.

Ask yourself this; if a red light camera is supposed to prevent deadly accidents, how can that passive device accomplish it’s intended function? By a sign warning there’s a camera? The warning sign is directly tied to the increase in rear-end collisions.

The driver blowing through the intersection towards the T-bone in the making is already ignoring a red light glaring at them. Where is it that the camera reaches out and actively cautions the T-bone victim of their impending collision? Does it sober up the drunk driver that would have been pulled over by a cop on the beat? Does it dry out the rain slicked pavement? Salt the icy road?

This budget cycle the DGPD’s analysis (see Information please, page 7 here) estimates the monetary benefit of RLC to DG: about $122,000/year. Is it worth $122,000 to be the documented cause of less safe intersections? At one time I said yes, have at it, take the money. But in light of the facts that RLC make intersections less safe, I can’t support that anymore.

SB2466 was introduced and sent to committee in October. The bill is sponsored by Dan Duffy (R-26) and Chris Lauzen (R-25) and would repeal the enabling legislation.

PS- Libertarian? They think I’m a godless commie tree-hugger…

You state that the Tribune reports that “at almost every intersection with a red light camera, the opposite is true: accidents have gone up, making the intersections less safe.”

I had read the Tribune article and that didn’t sound right, so I looked again. And here is a quote from the store: “In fact slightly more intersections saw an increase than a decrease, the data show.” (Last sentence, second paragraph, here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-red-light-cameras-22-nov22,0,2590486.story)

So, which is it: “almost all” or “slightly more”?

And again you make the flat out claim that “RLC have ALWAYS (my emphasis) been about the revenue”, which you cannot support. (You might be able to support “mainly” but not “always”.)

I realize that this must be a hot-button issue for you–I didn’t realize that you were such a libertarian–but I have found your reporting on this subject to be MUCH less than objective. Perhaps you should turn this topic over to a real journalist like Elaine, if you are going to continue to show your bias.