Be a better neighbor. Sign up for EveryBlock to follow and discuss neighborhood news.

Sign up for free →

Added Nov 11 2011

Can we get speed limit cameras on:

Devon from Lincoln to Harlem
Caldwell from Cicero to Touhy
Central from Touhy to Irving Park
Forest Glen from Elston to Cicero

PLEASE City if you want $$$ these will be a goldmine! Also the entire stretch of Caldwell from Touhy to Devon is posted a school zone and Central from Devon to Touhy has school zone postings

  • Resident Live in the 45th

    Oh, dear Lord!

  • Are these the solution though? Coming from a country where they have these on almost every single street in some towns, I can tell you that these can cause their own problems. The UK is actually dismantling a lot of theirs after a couple of decades of having them because they generally didn't reduce the number of accidents.

    I feel the solution lies elsewhere.

  • Oh wow...those are my favorite places to speed :D (J/K)

  • Portage Patty 30+ year veteran of da hood.

    Problem is that any street in the city a traffic camera could make a few bucks.

    Here's a question for my estimed collegues. What are the speeds for streets in Chicago? 25 30?

  • As a reformed speeder and yellow light runner I am all for this. I have been hit too many times by careless drivers. I did get a ticket from one of these cameras at least a year ago and I have been far more careful since them. Turns out the yellow light does not mean go faster as I had always thought.

    Speed cameras are not a panacea but I don't feel sorry for anyone who gets a ticket for violating the rules of the road. No one has a right to speed or run red lights.

  • Resident Live in the 45th

    Ms. Jetson - can we legislate that we also set up cameras inside of your car? Just curious...I would like to make sure that you don't talk on your cell phone without a headset, or text.

    Can we also set up a Breathalyzer in your car (cost to be absorbed by you, of course...the city has no money)? I certainly want to make sure you are sober when getting behind the wheel.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    Here's my take on this B.S. it is statistically baseless! If they really are for safety they should put those Crime Cams in every street corner particularly in this current economic times and a lot of people are jobless and on the brink of going berserk. But why not? Because it is not income-generating.

    This is really not about safety, it's about the money.. money.. money.. It's about the Ain't about the cha-ching cha-ching!!

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    The stated reason (safety) or this by the mayor & his anti-automobile CDOT administrator is at best disingenuous.

    When the General Assembly was "debating" this, I questioned the "statistics" that City Hall was stating. And like their bogus stats regarding the "damage" caused by "heavy" passenger vehicles, these claims are bogus also.

    From the Chicago Tribune: “In addition, a Tribune analysis of federal data on crashes showed that Emanuel's proposal would have a limited impact on reducing fatalities. Of the 251 pedestrian deaths in the city between 2005 and 2009, fewer than half occurred in the "safety zones" and less than one-quarter of those involved speeding”

    The vast majority of collisions & near misses are due to unskilled and/or inattentive/careless drivers (& pedestrians & cyclists), not excessive speed. Shouldn't traffic safety enforcement target those individuals first? That can't be done with a camera.
    Automated speed enforcement also cannot do what officers on the street can do.
    The most effective deterrent is live officer patrols. These traffic stops result in real citations being issued with fines, possible court appearances and/or traffic school, points against the driver's record and higher insurance costs to the violator. Camera enforcement does none of this as the driver is not identified. An added benefit to live officer patrols is the possibility of encountering an unlicensed/uninsured driver, citations for equipment safety violations, and even arrests for criminal & warrant violations. Automated speed enforcement can't do any of this, and the removal of these drivers from the streets benefits everyone.

    <continued>

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Another concern. A private, out of state company will administer a law enforcement task & profit from it.
    From the Chicago Tribune. "State records show Redflex has hired the influential lobbying firm of Fletcher, O'Brien, Kasper and Nottage, P.C., to push its interests in Springfield. One of the firm's named members, attorney Michael Kasper, is the general counsel and treasurer of the state Democratic Party that Madigan runs. Kasper was also hired by Emanuel to beat back several residency challenges that threatened his mayoral run."

    Hopefully the governor has the good sense to veto this legislation, and failing that, the City Council votes it down or radically scales it back.

  • Great post, Bill. I knew the safety thing was a smoke screen. Thank you for the facts via Tribune.

  • Absolutely resident.

    In the spirit of intellectual debate I will characterize the difference of our comments as degree rather than kind. I won't waste my time with concern over what horrible things could happen to drunk drivers if we slide down your imaginary slippery slope.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Let the police spend their time fighting crime, catching criminals and policing gang activity, property damage, theft, violence, burglary domestic violence, drug selling, and other crimes.

    Use technology - cameras - to enforce driving laws before somebody gets killed or injured.

    The only opponents of the law are speeders. Those of us who don't speed aren't affected by the law. It doesn't cost us any money, it actually saves us money by providing income by fines instead of property or sales tax increases.

    Why the great fear of the law?

  • Speeding isn't the problem you make it out to be.

    No one fears the law.

    You don't speed because you don't drive a car. You can't speak for all those who do, so stop trying. I know plenty of people who don't speed and are opposed to the cameras.

    If you think your taxes won't increase (or will decrease) because of added revenue from these cameras then you clearly haven't paid attention to this town your entire life. Money evaporates yet we keep hanging out more.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    It's troubling that some citizens would willingly agree to put themselves and the rest of us under corporate and state surveillance in return for the illusion of "safety".

    A part of policing is making stops for traffic violations including excessive speed. As I said before, offenders of other serious crimes are apprehended in this manner. The solution is not surveillance, its more police officers.

    Regarding the wish list of "targeted" routes at the top of the thread.....A very small percentage of them currently qualify in the definition of the legislation.
    .

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Hiring more police officers would cost money, and would require higher taxes to pay for it.

    Why not use existing and excellent technology to enforce traffic laws? Speeding would be reduced and only the speeders would pay the fines, not most of the drivers willing to drive within the speed limits.

  • I don't know about other people but it's bad enough that I am made to feel like a criminal terrorist at the airports without having cameras every place I go. I suppose they're some sort of necessary evil but it's just getting creepier by the day. Maybe Burkhas are the way to go huh? ;)

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Yes, it does feel strange to have cameras all over the place, but it's just modern technology. Cameras are a fast, reliable, accurate, and efficient way to monitor and control.

    Look at the past: over 100 years ago there was TREMENDOUS opposition to the 'motor operated vehicles' that just started coming out. Buggies, pedestrians, horse-riders all found them of questionable value or worth. It took some time for motor driven vehicles to be accepted.

    Same with cameras - look at all the opposition here in this forum!

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    So you named a quite a few places where traffic etiquette is being ignored.Call the 16th district and complain.my problem with cameras is that they don't stop crime,but MAY be able to point out a criminal AFTER the crime has been committed.Camera does not make anything safer.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Bob says "Let the police spend their time fighting crime, catching criminals and policing gang activity, property damage, theft, violence, burglary domestic violence, drug selling, and other crimes"
    &
    "Hiring more police officers would cost money, and would require higher taxes to pay for it."

    Bob, you've stated this in other threads on the same topic along with your belief that street crime is rampant in Albany Park. According to CPD stats crime is down citywide, including Albany Park. So do you believe the stats? Do you believe staffing levels are appropriate? Do you not realize that offenders of other crimes are apprehended in traffic stops, including live officer speed enforcement actions? The money for more officers is there. It's just being wasted on other unnecessary programs.

    And certainly the camera expansion will require hardware changes that will COST MONEY to install and implement. What about the mobile van units? Of course they will have to be purchased & staffed....that costs money. And even if Redflex bears these costs, they will demand a return on their investment. Which means the Constitutional right to due process is disregarded in order to return that investment, as all challenges will be disregarded at the administrative hearings.

    Your analogy to early opposition by SOME to the automobile is without merit. The free market determined that the automobile would prevail as the personal transportation mode of choice. Government surveillance of its citizens through cameras and other means is being shoved down our throats with the assistance of the compliant. By the way. Technology is not infallible. I should know.

    Now, have accurate traffic studies been conducted to determine that excessive speed is a major problem on our streets? Or is this all based upon unscientific personal observations by a few individuals? I'm betting the later.....

  • Thanks everyone, sincerely. Reading these blogs can be absolutely hilarious at times ;)

  • Any law can be enacted in the name of "Safety" or for the children. We are treading a dangerous line when compromising our liberty for safety & security. The question no one is asking is: Will these cameras near school and park zones cause an increase in traffic speeding down side streets and thus increasing accidents and fatalities?

  • Budlong Woods neighbor Chicago girl for life

    I'm all for safety but as others mentioned previously speed cameras are not the answer. The speeders don't bother me all that much. It is the people driving recklessly that are the nuisance. I was beside a guy in an SUV this weekend on Lawrence at I90. He blew threw a red light because he was too busy talking on the phone. Then he slammed on the brakes in the intersection realizing he was blowing through a red light.
    I see more people talking on phones while driving, texting, etc. I even see the police doing it. That is much much worse and if you really want to increase safety, then the police should really crack down on those people.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    We've got really big speed bumps around the schools in Jefferson Park,so why do we need to waste money on cameras?

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Speed limit cameras threaten our liberty? C'mon, Carlos, you're stretching things a little far. You can always stay off the public city streets if you're concerned. Driving is a privilege, not a right.

    If the cameras near streets and parks increase speeding down other streets than we can just add more cameras down those streets as well. Problem solved.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    You better hope you never have a fire or police emergency in Jefferson Park - speed bumps significantly delay emergency responders.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    speed limit cameras serve no purpose other than another way to take tax payer money away.They will not add to safety,they will stop no crime,they will make no speeder slow down.Bob,I helped pay for the city streets,i can use them whenever I like.I will also be flipping the bird to the unnecessary cameras added to those already put in the city.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Since it's very obvious that the primary purpose of the speed camera proposal is REVENUE generation and not SAFETY, why not expand the scope to bring in even more money to the city. After all, they don't get enough......

    For instance. The redlight/speed devices could record traffic violations by cyclists. Of course this would necesitate the need to license them and their transportation devices. This alone should generate millions for the city to squander.

    And as Bob suggested put 'em all over the residential streets. What is the most prevalant call to 911? Domestic diturbances. Do you realize the number of domestic situations that go unreported?
    Make those cameras feed live just like the blue light cop-in-a-box units, and the operators can just train the lense within people's homes. They can send the Revenue Department officers to issue tickets for real or imagined situations. Then let the adminstrative hearing officers sort it out.

    After all. The police have more important things toi do.......

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    Speed bumps around the street of a park or school should do the trick. Here's the funny thing, since they already installed speed cameras, they will find no use for the speed bumps anymore and will actually remove them. Logic will tell you that City Hall has to.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Repeating: speed bumps impede first responders like fire trucks and police vehicle. Ask any fireman or policeman what they think about speed bumps.

    Speed bumps make it harder to plow the streets in winter as well.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    then install those hard rubber removable speed bumps, they are gonna repair most of those roads in the spring anyway.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    Moreover, other cities across the country are doing the speed bumps why can't Chicago do with it? Needless to say, the numbers does not support the need and the money could be put to better use. Oh did I mention, I drive 3 kids to school and regularly bring them to parks and never had a moving violation.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    That's good that you never had a moving violation.

    But lots of drivers have never had a moving violation and yet deserved one.

    Speed cameras will get them, but not you or anyone else who doesn't speed.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    <"Speed cameras will get them, but not you or anyone else who doesn't speed.">

    Are you 100% certain of that? The redlight cameras malfunction, and fines are levied against the innocent. The human eyes that review the photos mis-read plate numbers, sending greetings from the Revenooers to the innocent. Sure, those folks can and do contest, and on ocassion they prevail. But they still lose money through the time & expense of lost work. What makes you think this system is without flaw?

    I have yet to see a RATIONAL arguement in favor of this, but there is plenty against it.
    .
    The accident "data" provided by the mayor's office has proven to be flawed, if not outright twisted to force an agenda by the director of CDOT.

    No traffic studies have been conducted to prove that excessive speed is epidemic on any Chicago street, even the targeted "safe zones".

    The corrupting influence of lobbyists from Redflex and their connection to the mayors office alone should be enough to give pause.

    This is legislation borne of emotion. Witness the manaquin stunt downtown & the tear jerking display by the mayor two weeks ago in Springfield. The two incidents that the mayor cited did not even fall into the criteria of the legislation. And the 35 pedestrian deaths in 2010 cited by Klein? Less than 25% of them were due to excessive speed by the offending motorist.
    Emotional legislation is flawed legislation.

    No one here is advocation reckless driving. On streets where it is PROVEN to be a problem, target them with CPD run speed enforcement details. Real tickets will be issued with everything that goes with a true moving violation. They might even bag some real criminal offenders in the process.

  • As I said, I am a reformed speeder and yellow-light runner. I was caught going through an intersection which I go through almost daily. That time the light was more orange than yellow when I entered and red when I finished. No one has the right or liberty to speed and ignore traffic safety no matter how many other people are doing it. There is a method to challenge the picture but since I know they had me that time, I didn't bother.

    I am not saying cameras are perfect or no graft exists, but if used properly they can work. Whoever mentioned not frearing new technology was so right. I remember when certain professionals were afraid to use email due to confidentiality concerns. Now no business can function without it and the internet.

    I can hardly believe I am the only one who can't regularly pay such tickets. Maybe some of you are good drivers, lucky or both.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Cameras won't stop speeding.Cops handing out speeding tickets stop speeders. Around beaubien there are speed bumps,St.Cornelius there are speed bumps,Farnsworth there are speed bumps.Why do these areas need cameras? I have real problems with speed bumps,but cameras will not prevent anything.It is not a fear of technology,it is the problem that we don't need a technological solution to this situation.Cameras cost money.Installing cameras cost money.operating cameras cost money. We as a city don't have the money to pretend to be big brother.

  • kenji Find us here --> http://reddit.com/r/greatNWside

    @jane, if you are moving 30mph into an intersection and your car is 20 feet from the white line and the light turns yellow you'll proceed through legally. Yellow lights are 3 seconds long in Chicago in the neighborhoods. In the suburbs they are many times much longer.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Speed limits for city streets are 30 MPH unless posted otherwise.This includes side streets. Signs are posted to let you know when you are in a school zone and what the speed is to be during times when children are present.Pedestrian crossing signs are posted where a majority of foot traffic occurs. With all the signs littering the landscape and no enforcement,what makes you think cameras will solve the problem? When people willfully run red lights,what makes you think a camera will prevent this. Traffic offenses are crimes people.Let the police do their job.Not a camera.

  • kenji Find us here --> http://reddit.com/r/greatNWside

    Good post Gene, but we all know now red light and the speed cameras coming to the city aren't about primarily preventative measures or safety, their main goal is revenue and profit. Essentially another "tax" on us.

  • Portage Patty 30+ year veteran of da hood.

    This thread is beginning to remind me of discussions in my dorm room that were started by some herbs.

    Everybody is right to some extent and everybody is wrong to some extent. But bottom line is this. Many people IGNORE the traffic laws with their driving. When there is an accident or death the people howl for government to come up with a solution. Laws are passed and everyone is happy for about an hour, because in an hour somebody has already IGNORED the law. You cannot legislate intelligence. You cannot make a fool stop their foolish ways. They have to.

  • Shot-n-Beer Guy Retired from Jefferson's Park.

    Chicago's becoming Oceania.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    So,Patty,why should those of us who follow the law,pay the penalty for those who refuse to? In the name of safety? For the children? Those two arguments are worn out. The cameras are for money.Nothing else.

  • Portage Patty 30+ year veteran of da hood.

    Gene K. as we would have said back in the dorm.

    "Dude, chill."

    This thread is now in reruns. Say you won and walk away. All of you say you won and walk away.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Huh? Gene K, how do "those of us who follow the law pay the penalty for those who refuse to"?

    If you follow the law you pay NO penalty. Those who refuse to follow the law are the only ones that pay penalties.

    You've got it exactly backwards.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    kenji, If you're 100-feet away from the intersection and traveling at the 30 MPH speed limit you can still proceed ahead and go through the intersection. There's no need to jam on the brakes. It's a violation to enter the intersection when the light is red, not when it's yellow.

    Here's several videos I took at some intersections here in Albany Park.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kastigar/sets/72157627985642164/

    5,280 feet in a mile, 3,600 seconds in an hour. At 1 MPH you're traveling about 1.5 feet/second.

    At 30 MPH (the posted speed limit) you're traveling roughly 45-50 feet/second.

    That plenty enough time to stop. Even with a 3-second yellow, that's around 150 feet before the intersection when the light turns yellow and you have enough time to stop.

    If you're closer than that, keep moving. You can enter the intersection during the yellow and not get a ticket. You get a ticket only when you cross the line AFTER the light has turned red.

    If you can't estimate your distance from the light at the speed you're traveling then you shouldn't be driving or you need to go back to driver's ed.

    If everybody is observing the speed limit accidents are reduced because no one will be likely to rear-end the driver in front of you. You should have three car-length between you and the car in front, and three car-lengths between you and the car behind. Remember Drivers-Ed from high school? One car length separation for every 10 MPH?

    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

    Using speed cameras would improve the safety and reduce the amount of, and severity of, accidents. Safety is only threatened by those few who think they're better than everyone else and don't need to observe the posted speed limit. They may think they can drive safely at 40-50 MPH if they were the only cars on the road, but they're not. We all have to drive on the public roads along with everybody else using the same roads.

    Non-tax revenue is only a side benefit.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Insist that the police do their job to enforce the speed limits, not a politically connected profit motivated private company fronted by the Dept.of Revenue.

    And where are the *reliable* statistics that prove "speed cameras would improve the safety and reduce the amount of, and severity of, accidents" where they are already in use?

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    You don't need statistics, you just need to follow the logic. Of course the severity of an accident is reduced when the speed is reduced.

    And speed-cameras reduce speed because most people don't want to get tickets.

    It's just common sense.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    And common sense should tell you that a moving violation issued by a cop at the door of your car is more effective at changing behavior than a revenue only camera generated bill in the mail.

    Cameras will be as effective is reducing excessive speed as "No Parking" signs have been in reducing parking violations.

  • InTheManor Edgebrook resident

    At least initially, these speed "cameras" will be additional sensors added to existing red light cameras. I believe that it will cost the city nothing, as the operator recoups the cost via its share of the revenue. However I also believe that the city hasn't made a statement either way on what it may cost to install the additional equipment.

    "Chicago would use its current network of 191 red-light cameras, which are capable of detecting vehicle speeds, the administration said. Speeders would be automatically ticketed and face fines of up to $100.

    There are 135 schools and 107 parks within a quarter-mile of existing red light cameras, according to the mayor's office. That means most of the city's current camera network could be equipped with speed detectors." (see below for link)

    My understanding is that the "speed cameras" are not actually measuring speed with any type of radar or such. Rather, intersections will have trap sensors that measure the rate of speed from entrance to exit, and likely will use the cameras to correlate the vehicles to the monitored speed.

    Note this from SB 965 (see below for link):

    "However, if any portion of a roadway is within either one-eighth mile radius, the safety zone also shall include the roadway extended to the furthest portion of the next furthest intersection."

    (continued)

  • InTheManor Edgebrook resident

    This means that the "safety zone" is actually out to the intersection, where a red light camera may be installed, not just the 1/8 mile radius.

    So, while the state law permits the city to automate speed enforcement near schools and parks, in practice this will likely just be enforcing speed within the confines of an intersection, not before or after, and will nab a lot of people who goose it to make it through the light as it turns yellow and they fear a red light ticket. The city does mention mobile units, but those will likely cost money while the intersection based enforcement is likely free.

    As a parent, I would much rather have the city concentrate on actual speeding actually near schools and parks, not 1/4 mile or more away, and not only in intersections. As constituted, this is primarily a revenue generating mechanism. If the city actually starts to operate mobile units or install speed only (not with red light) enforcement sensors in close proximity to schools and parks I would be far more supportive.

    http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-21/news/ct-met-emanuel-red-light-cameras-20111021_1_red-light-cameras-redflex-traffic-systems-speed-cameras

    http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/fulltext.asp?DocName=&SessionId=84&GA=97&DocTypeId=SB&DocNum=965&GAID=11&LegID=55780&SpecSess=&Session=

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    I don't speed by schools,yet the city has conveniently decided to erect speed bumps around the schools in the neighborhood I grew up in .The city has decided that at every intersection in the neighborhood now needs a stop sign.The city has to pay to buy the signs posts,the city has to pay the asphalt crew,and the taxpayer has to pay for it.And people pay for it in time and aggravation having to stop every 250 feet for a stop sign.Which also wastes gas,so yes,people who don't follow the law are making us pay for their misdeeds.
    My time in the dorm was spent trying to figure out ways to keep government out of my life.We cannot say we have won on this issue while the city is still debating how and where to erect this cameras.

  • There is no reasoning with Bob. He is pro-nanny state. They should put cameras up in his home to make sure he isn't doing anything illegal there either.

  • kenji Find us here --> http://reddit.com/r/greatNWside

    Check this out. They'll be coming to town once the cameras are installed.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZUp-Bg0BF-Y

  • Lou

    Just what are these camera's error rate.. So, two weeks from now you receive a ticket for going 35-36 in a 30 zone because you accelerated to pass around a stalled or turning vehicle... are you supposed to just remember this, how can you fight this ticket ?

    Or is it that the City knows the majority of the people will just pay knowing
    it is cheaper to just pay the fine, than to fight it in court... your time, your gas and the cost of parking anywhere near the courts downtown + the fine ? You didn't really think you are going to get off without paying... did you ? !

    Kick backs, Pay-offs etc, just who's families and other underhanded deals are involved with these cameras ?

    This has nothing to do with safety for you, me or our Families !

    Without a doubt this whole " speed / red light camera " is all about the money Leboski !

  • kenji Find us here --> http://reddit.com/r/greatNWside

    looks to me if the cameras are set to document at 6 miles over. If you pass another car by going to 37 MPH maybe you shouldn't have done that.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    what will the penalty be to black out the cameras?

  • Lou: On the error rate - I'm not sure. I'm from the UK. There we have small lines painted on the road. The camera takes 2 pictures of a car. An operator then double-checks the speed manually by counting the number of lines the vehicles has crossed between the 2 photos. Errors are rare.

    Also in the UK though, the cameras are front-facing so they take a photo of the driver. When the fine comes in the mail you are asked who was driving the car, so that the driver will be fined, not the vehicle owner. Is that how it will work here? I'm not sure what the law is here, but we have the Human Rights Act in Europe which prevents people from incriminating themselves, which has caused significant arguments with these photos of the drivers.

    Practically every major street in the UK had speed cameras at one point, but they are slowly getting dismantled. They would routinely get destroyed by angry motorists and the sheer costs of constantly replacing them was more than the revenue they generated. People don't like policing by robots.

    Around schools in the UK we have big flashing signs during school entry/exit times that show a lower speed limit (20mph instead of 30mph). There are also signs which flash up and show YOUR speed as you drive through, which have proved to be effective in pointing out/embarrassing people into driving at the correct speed.

  • Lou

    Charles, thanks for your input. I guess we will all be waiting to see how these cameras will be used here.

    The other problem I have noticed is the time on the Yellow light... some seem to last only a few seconds... which seems quite unfair ?

    And probably not last or least... what do these Cameras Speed and Red light contracts stipulate as to the timing of these lights ?

    I have heard that the companies behind the contracts want to decide just how much time should be given on the lights in an effort to improve profitability... is that true ? !

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    I would think that a copy of the contract could be obtained under the Freedom Of Information Act. Maybe it's already available on the city's web site.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Lou, on the timing of the yellow lights...

    If you're 100-feet away from the intersection and traveling at the 30 MPH speed limit you can still proceed ahead and go through the intersection. There's no need to jam on the brakes. It's a violation to enter the intersection when the light is red, not when it's yellow.

    Here's several videos I took at some intersections here in Albany Park.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kastigar/sets/72157627985642164/

    5,280 feet in a mile, 3,600 seconds in an hour. At 1 MPH you're traveling about 1.5 feet/second.

    At 30 MPH (the posted speed limit) you're traveling roughly 45-50 feet/second.

    That plenty enough time to stop. Even with a 3-second yellow, that's around 150 feet before the intersection when the light turns yellow and you have enough time to stop.

    If you're closer than that, keep moving. You can enter the intersection during the yellow and not get a ticket. You get a ticket only when you cross the line AFTER the light has turned red.

    If you can't estimate your distance from the light at the speed you're traveling then you shouldn't be driving or you need to go back to driver's ed.

    If everybody is observing the speed limit accidents are reduced because no one will be likely to rear-end the driver in front of you. You should have three car-length between you and the car in front, and three car-lengths between you and the car behind. Remember Drivers-Ed from high school? One car length separation for every 10 MPH?

    You don't need to be a rocket scientist to figure this out.

    Using speed cameras would improve the safety and reduce the amount of, and severity of, accidents. Safety is only threatened by those few who think they're better than everyone else and don't need to observe the posted speed limit. They may think they can drive safely at 40-50 MPH if they were the only cars on the road, but they're not. We all have to drive on the public roads.

    Non-tax revenue is only a side benefit.

  • This is an excellent article about Chicago city red light cameras and yellow light timings:
    http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/03/yellow-lights-shorter-at-chicago-red-light-camera-intersections.html

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    The statement about the companies wanting to change the yellow time for more profitability is the exact reason we should not have them.That makes it a revenue issue and not a safety issue.

  • Lou

    Bob, thank you for the info, I will keep a lookout for the posting of the contract.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    For those of you on this thread who don't know, there's another thread on this same topic at http://chicago.everyblock.com/announcements/oct21-speed-limit-cameras-foster-4362390 - Just FYI

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    By all means, join the other thread. You can read how Taras tells us he fly's an airplane, frequently speeds, and his grandmother crosses at crosswalks too.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Yup, that's right! :) I do fly an airplane, I freely admit that I go over 30 mph on city streets when traffic flows faster than 30 so that I'm not a hypocrite, and I'm proud of the fact that my 86 year old grandma has the gumption to deal with life and cross the street without constantly whining about cars, or "Cages of Steel" as Bob likes to refer to them.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Crosswalks. Um,are not pedestrian crossings.before you cross the street,look in every direction before stepping out into the street.If a car is coming,wait until the car goes by.I thought everyone's parents taught them this.
    Pedestrian crossings.Drivers must stop at a pedestrian crossing if someone is trying to cross at a pedestrian crossing.If you get hit by a driver crossing a pedestrian crossing,sue them. If you get hit by a driver while you are in a crosswalk,didn't your parents tell you to look before you cross the street? Did you really think you'd win stepping out in front of a moving car?
    And for the new generation,what your parents told you about crossing the street is true,look before you cross.Just because you are talking on a phone,or texting doesn't mean you shouldn't be paying attention to your surroundings.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    That's right, Gene - you shouldn't be distracted by texting of talking on your phone.

    Neither should car drivers be texting, talking on the phone, or putting on makeup.

    Also, drivers usually have the windows closed in the winter when it's cold (and you're out walking in it) and they can't hear as well what's going on outside of their enclosure in the rest of the world

    Also, drivers usually have the windows closed in the summer when it's hot (and you're out talking in it) and they can't hear as well what's going on outside their enclosure in the rest of the world.

    They're frequently speeding too.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    That is why you should look both ways before crossing ! Streets are made to be driven on.sidewalks were made to be walked on.When crossing the street,a person should look both ways .I thought it couldn't get any more easier than that.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    I totally agree. If you REALLY want to increase safety it starts with education - like teaching people to look both ways instead of crossing.

    It's been established that the majority of pedestrian/car accidents have nothing to do with speeding.

    Look before you cross people, that's all you need to do. Pull those earphones out of your ears for a second!

    Speed cameras do not contribute to safety, personal responsibility does.

  • Now people forgot how to cross streets in a city like Chicago? That's scary.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    [quote] "They're frequently speeding too" [unquote]

    You have traffic studies on hand to confirm this?

    Evidence please......

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Just go stand along Foster Avenue by LaBagh Woods, Gompers Park or Eugene Field Park to watch the speeding. The posted limit is 30 MPH.

    Easiest form of 'traffic studies' and 'evidence' because you don't need to take the word of somebody else to confirm it.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    So you utilize a radar gun and can verify that that the 30 mph speed limit is ignored by the majority of drivers on this stretch of Foster?

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    No, just drive down Foster in that area at 30 MPH on your speedometer and watch the cars pass you.

    If you're going to be picky, take your car and have the speedometer calibrated first.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    I drive it regularly. Utilizing that unscientific method reveals that speeding is not the problem that you make it out to be.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    So you're willing to tolerate some speeding.

    You're willing to tolerate some law-breaking.

    Would you be willing to tolerate a small amount of, for example, shoplifting?

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Engaging in distortion again, eh Bob?

    Ecxessive speed is NOT a problem on Chicago's streets.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Thank you for sharing your opinion, Bill.

    Some may disagree.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    Let's keep it simple folks..

    Does the statistics support the need for speed cameras? NO!

    If I had a malicious mind, they probably did a study that leanst toward punitive rather than corrective. People, speeders or not, will still be caught speeding at one time or another. I bet that your 90 year old Cadillac driving Grandma will still be caught speeding by these cameras.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    "I bet that your 90 year old Cadillac driving Grandma will still be caught speeding by these cameras."

    If it's going over the speed limit, I hope so!

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    In countries like the Brazil, Mexico & the Philippines, I saw far worst traffic accidents in smaller streets in Chicago compared to highways/expressways of these countries. There are more alcohol related traffic accidents in America percentage-wise compared to these countries, WHY?! It's all about control & discipline and we don't need money-making cameras for that, that even statistics cannot support.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    [quote] "Some may disagree." [unquote]

    And based upon comments here and elswhere, those that disagree (such as yourself) are clearly in the minority in the court of public opinion.

    Crash statistics & data do not support the need for these devices.

    There is NO data to support the claims that excessive speed is epidemic on our streets.

    Likewise, no data exists to support the claims that these devices will bring a minority of motorists that engage in excessive speed into "compliance".

    The means in which this was passed, and the distortion of statistics & data should be held to account. Yes. The politics IS important. Why was THIS legislation pushed through in the way that it was, while more pressing issued were tabled? Again.

    Qute frankly and in my *opinion*, this measure is being pushed by members of what known in some circles as the "anti-automoble intelligentsia". People like the CDOT administrator, who on his 1st day on the job immediately labeled all Chicago motorists "dangerous". Because a cabbie yelled at him as he was crossing an intersection.

    Legislation passed on the basis of emotion, rather than logic, facts and data is bad legislation. And the governor has yet to sign it, so perhaps he is taking logic, facts & data into consideration before making a decision. One can only hope.......

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    When you are standing still, a car going thirty appears to be speeding.I've driven in this neighborhood and people have yelled at me to slow down when I am doing 20 MPH.There is no pleasing everyone.Hard to imagine how I played catch, football,and hockey in the street in front of the house so many years ago.There were more speeders and drunken drivers in that day and we survived,by practicing SAFETY.
    Cameras don't stop crime,they only record it.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    tolerating law breaking.Does he know anyone who gets high? Does he know that Chicago is a sanctuary city where illegal immigrants will not get hassled?tolerating lawbreaking?In the city and state where politicians write laws to make their friends money?Spitting on the sidewalk is still illegal,so is jaywalking, walking on the grass in some places is illegal,if you had a few beers you could be arrested for public intoxication.If you scream at someone that is assault,if you push someone that could be construed as battery.Smoking a cigarette or cigar in an open air stadium is now a crime,wasn't before.Smoking outside in some cities is a crime,but they allow auto pollution .Dancing at the Jefferson memorial in Washington DC is a crime.Common sense and courtesy used to hold sway in this world,we now live in a world where our government tells us what is right and what is wrong.

  • Lou

    There is an interesting article "School Is Never Out For Speed Cameras" that is worth a quick read. (http://blog.motorists.org/school-zone-speed-camera-tickets/

  • As I said long ago, there is no arguing with Bob. He is black and white. Everything is cut and dry.

    In the other thread, Taras challenged him to admit to any laws (however petty) he has broken and he's been too afraid to be labeled a hypocrite.

    In Bob's world, jaywalking is not a crime but going 1 mph over the speed limit is. He's simply anti-automobile. That's the heart of this.

    "Cages of steel." "Enclosed" in our own worlds. The poor pedestrians sweating in the summer and freezing in the winter.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    In response, I don't break any laws - intentionally. I make every reasonable effort to stay at or below the speed limit and allow pedestrians to cross at the crosswalk.

    Moreover, I try and go beyond what's required of my, by stopping in the middle of the street if a pedestrian is trying to cross.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    You don't break any laws intentionally? I call B.S. Sure, you may not break any car-related laws intentionally, but then tell me never jaywalked Bob, and I don't understand how you can "mistakenly" jaywalk. Because remember, jaywalking is a CRIME.

    You just make points that you never break automobile related laws, and fine I believe you there. But my point in the other thread is lead by example, if you're so hell bent on following the rules I say that ALL rules should be followed, not just those convenient to you. That includes things like jaywalking.

    At least I've got the gall to admit I'm human and I don't follow every dinky law out there. So before you go off an an enforcement crusade for people not following dinky little laws, please make sure you follow ALL the dinky laws yourself - not just the ones you want to follow.

  • Where does it end? There is already too much government control when it comes to automobiles. Enforcing seatbelt laws (for adults) is a joke. Should they force bicyclists to wear helmets too? How about the goverment forces pedestrians to wear helmets if they want to cross streets? By Bob's logic, it would be safer if a slow-moving automobile hit someone who was protecting his skull. It would lessen the risk of serious head trauma.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    The UK anti-speeding device system is much better than the system they will or have installed in this city but nevertheless people in UK hated it. The "Chicago System" is a REVENUE SYSTEM and not a safety system. That my friends, makes a lot of difference. Shorter yellows? Oh come on!

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    I honestly yet have to see somebody speeding in school zones during morning ingresses and class dismissals. You just can't because the streets are packed and there are road bumps around schools. In parks, I have seen a few speeders despite the road bumps. But still not enough to implement speed cameras. The speeding cameras were not really meant for park and school zones but FOR THE ENTIRE CITY, a sly move by Emmanuel I should say.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    That's very true KedzieKing, try driving by a school at opening time or closing time, there are so many parents double parked in the street sometimes you can't even get through. You physically can't even speed then.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    If the streets are that crowded when what's the complaint about the speed cameras? You won't get a ticket, nobody will get a ticket.

    So you should be happy and quit complaining.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Because remember, school's never out for speed cameras! :)

    When I'm driving by the school at 3 AM with no traffic and no kids, snap! I'm gonna get a ticket!

    That's what's wrong with speed cameras.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    @Bob: Then why the heck spend taxpayer's money for it and raise those taxes on a false notion of safety, when Chicago & Illinois have budget problems respectively? Answer: Because they were really not meant for the safety of schools and parks but to be City Hall's cash cows ALL OVER THE CITY. This move was really never about safety to begin with, even a 5 year old knows that.

    I sincerely hope that some speeding camera supporters here are really for safety and are not City Hall's pitbulls.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    If they are really about safety, they should install those removable rubber (for spring road work) speed bumps with a huge reflective sign that says "Park or School ahead" and a LED sign that measures your speed just like those toll booths. PROBLEM SOLVED! But of course, city hall won't stop there because there is no revenue involved.

    Everybody should agree, LOL..

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Every morning they close the streets off to let the buses pull up.everyday when the kids get out,they close the street off to get the kids on the buses. What do we need cameras for when the street in front of the school is closed?These cameras a waste of taxpayer money and the only purpose they will serve is to feed an already overbloated government.
    The federal government imposed the seat belt law in every state by telling states they wouldn't get federal funds unless they passed the law>This is not a democracy in action,this is business as usual in Chicago.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    City Hall will come back with the usual diatribe,it's really for safety,and it's really for the children.Two lies that have been overtold too many times in the last three decades.That's how they they work,for the children,I mean the pensions.

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    This thread has gone WAY off target and lowered to personal attacks. I agree with Bob that the stretch of Foster around Eugene field is horrible. Cars are always flying past me while I do 35. In regards to speed cameras, not sure HOW I feel. I honestly don't know enough to cast a strong opinion. What's the " wiggle room" on the over mph? If I'm going 45 in a 30 and a camera gets me......well wasn't that justified? 33 in a 30 I guess is a different story. I don't know what's so bad though about the cameras. " no turn on red" sign AND a camera = I don't do it and I'm o.k with it.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    John - you said you don't know enough to cast a strong opinion.

    So what questions, what information, are you unsure of in terms of this entire speed camera argument?

  • Shot-n-Beer Guy Retired from Jefferson's Park.

    Twisted logic by advocates for any tyoe of camera "enforcement".

    Cops on the street are the best remedy for ANY kind of law enforcement action.

  • Lou

    I see everyone is concerned with speeding on the stretch of foster, the speeding there is not new, and the Police are aware of it, they are giving you a 5-6 mph break.

    If the City or the Police were really concerned there would have been police stationed there on a regular basis.

  • Lou

    I believe these speed cameras will create a whole new problem and add to an old one ... road congestion will increase needless to say.

    Imagine just what the roads will be like during rush hour traffic... yes, that 10-20 minute trip time will increase drastically.

    So, what will people do ? If you haven't figured it out, many will turn to the side streets, speed bumps or no speed bumps... safety huh !

    Will the City then post Police to chase these speed criminals up and down your block ?

    Do you have a teenager or college age person at home that you support ? What will their new Insurance rates be after a few of these infractions ?

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Taras: I guess I have issue with why such strong opinion against it. I see that they will be using mostly in place red light technology. Obviously having law enforcement doing speed traps would be ideal, but that's not real due to manpower and budget. Also, I've lived on and off in Chicago for 20 years and can honestly count on one hand the times I've seen cops with radar. I know that it's mostly for revenue ( I'm a realist ), but...o.k?

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    "Do you have a teenager or college age person at home that you support ? "

    That's another benefit nobody's mentioned. Parents can't always monitor their kid's behavior when they're away from home - but the cameras can help them do that.

    And if they get a ticket the parents can take appropriate action.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    @Bob: They can Lo-Jack their teenies. That measures speed, sudden change of lanes, etc.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    @Lou: Sidestreets you say? Knowing Chicago's style of running things, they will have speed cameras soon because it was REALLY meant for the main roads and side streets NOT for the schools and parks.

  • We don't need the government raising our children, Bob. Again, more nanny-state propaganda.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    @Bob,cameras do not prevent anything only record.Bob,will you put cameras in your house so the government can watch everything you do?If you are not willing to do this,please don't expect the rest of us to follow your big brother train of thought.Even then,I won't follow.Live and let live.Do not go giving the government our right to police ourselves.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    @JohnAP - Why do people have such a strong opinion against speed cameras?

    1. Speeding is NOT a major issue in Chicago - the majority of accidents are NOT speed related.

    2. TRAFFIC is a major issue in Chicago. So let's snarl the traffic even further with speed cameras.

    3. The city needs money, oh so let's just put up some speed cameras in the name of "safety"...

    4. Speed cameras certainly don't contribute to safety and can actually negatively hinder safety in certain cases like when combined with red light cams.

    5. Speed cameras are just a slippery slope to a more big brother society.

    So now John you know why people hate them so much. Seriously, just raise my city sticker by $25 a year if you need money. Keep the speed cams out of Chicago!

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    this whole thread goes to prove the government of Chicago is overstepping its bounds

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Taras. You showed no facts. If I speed, ticket me. Don't speed = no ticket. kind of cut and dry when you take out the paranoia.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Ha funny... and it's as if Bob has shown concrete facts as to why speed cameras will improve safety...

    Here's a nice video about the cousins of speed cameras, red light cams, originally posted by lou on the other thread.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=njbG6Yeg3s0&feature=youtu.be

    Funny how a lot of the yellows in Chicago are less than 3 seconds....

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    people are talking about " big brother " and " common sense" " government regulating behaviour" in crossing streets etc... in such broad terms. This IS what government does; it regulates, makes, and enforces laws. Whether i get a speeding ticket from a cop with a radar gun, a camera, or black helocoptors, the fact is that I was speeding. I'll man up, not complain, and pay it.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    You should also check out this site:

    http://fightthelight.com/

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Again, I've heard nothing that shows me why I should be strongly against the use of the cameras. I can't say I'm for, just not strongly against. Cost, use of new revenue, lee way, etc... are all issues to be considered and as far as I've read, not addressed.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    If you're 100-feet away from the intersection and travelling at the 30 MPH speed limit you can still proceed ahead and go through the intersection. There's no need to jam on the brakes. It's a violation to enter the intersection when the light is red, not when it's yellow.

    Here's several videos I took at some intersections here in Albany Park.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kastigar/sets/72157627985642164/

    5,280 feet in a mile, 3,600 seconds in an hour. At 1 MPH you're traveling about 1.5 feet/second.

    At 30 MPH (the posted speed limit) you're traveling roughly 45-50 feet/second.

    That plenty enough time to stop. Even with a 3-second yellow, that's around 150 feet before the intersection when the light turns yellow and you have enough time to stop.

    If you're closer than that, keep moving. You can enter the intersection during the yellow and not get a ticket. You get a ticket only when you cross the line AFTER the light has turned red.

    If you can't estimate your distance from the light at the speed you're traveling then you shouldn't be driving or you need to go back to driver's ed.

    If everybody is observing the speed limit accidents are reduced because no one will be likely to rear-end the driver in front of you. You should have three car-length between you and the car in front, and three car-lengths between you and the car behind. Remember Drivers-Ed from high school? One car length separation for every 10 MPH?

    You don't need to be a rocket scientist or an airplane pilot to figure this out.

    Using speed cameras would improve the safety and reduce the amount of, and severity of, accidents. Safety is only threatened by those few who think they're better than everyone else and don't need to observe the posted speed limit. They may think they can drive safely at 40-50 MPH if they were the only cars on the road, but they're not. We all have to drive on the public roads along with everybody else using the same roads.

    Non-tax revenue is only a side benefit.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Show me video evidence Bob that the yellows are longer than 3 seconds... your stopwatch isn't good enough.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    I just posted the link to Flickr, not YouTube, video.

    I don't know how to edit the video. I made the videos with a Canon Powershot S3 camera. I don't know how to count frame-by-frame either.

    But all six yellow lights were ABOUT 3-seconds, and even if shorter not very much. They may be longer, I can't tell.

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/kastigar/sets/72157627985642164/

    Speed is dangerous. The higher the speed the more serious the accident. The difference might be the difference between an injury or killing. The slower the speed the less damage. Speeding goes on quite a bit on Foster or Peterson. How hard is it for you anti-government types to figure out?

    Just-don't-speed.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    "About 3 seconds" doesn't cut it Bob... you need exact measurements, that's what the guy in the youtube video did.

    I'm not anti-government, I just believe in the people standing up to their government when the government peddles B.S. down their throats.

    And Bob, jaywalkers are just as dangerous as speeders.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtZBOpJ0LfA&feature=related

    Video from the Chicago Tribune, which demonstrates that the yellow lights in Chicago are 3-seconds.

    No jaywalker has ever killed someone else. Speeders have.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    When I get a chance I'm going to personally go out and time some yellow stoplights with video to get some definitive answers here on the yellows.

    And how do you know that someone has never died in a car as a result of swerving for a jaywalker?

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    They were killed by the car speeding to fast to stop and swerving instead.

    They were not killed by the jaywalker.

    They were killed by the car.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    30 mph is too fast to stop, the reason they had to swerve was the jaywalker.

    You know Bob, people are just going to do as they please anyways. Regardless of these speed cameras, and if they pass or not, people like me are still gonna speed and people like you are still gonna peddle safety paranoia, in the end either way not that much will have changed.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    Whatever people say, picture this..

    My mindset while driving should be while the green light is on is.. This could turn yellow anytime so I should prematurely apply the brakes so that I won't be caught in between the intersection, or worse, run a red light? TOTALLY ABSURD! Why don't they just put the speed limit at 10 mph? This is one of the biggest, progressive, metropolis in America. That being said, do I need to explain why life in cities like Chicago is at a faster pace?

    Human nature would be, to maximize the speed up to the speed limit to beat the red light and because of that nature there goes your $100 ticket.

    If one is attentively driving at 30-35, don't you still get stomped when the light turns red after 3 seconds? Let's not be hypocrites folks! As I've said, even a Cadillac driving, 90 year old Miss Daisy will still get caught speeding because the system was designed to be that way.

    Even if have never had any moving violation in my life, I still get pissed at those seemingly 1 second yellows.

    If 4-4.5 works everywhere else, why not Chicago? As I've said for the nth time, it's all about the money.. money.. money..

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    @Bob: I don't mean to be sarcastic but it amazes me how you could actually estimate those calculations when you are behind the wheel everyday. I am just being realistic man.

    How about this for a little experiment, notice how many drivers despite of car model, gender or age slams or almost slams on the breaks in an intersection when it turns not even yellow to red but green to yellow.

    I bet almost every motorist will tell you that the yellow seems very short in Chicago or New York for that matter.

    Haven't you heard people from the 'burbs saying, "I hate driving in Chicago!" I tell you, that is a common rant and mind you these people are not speeders. There should be a reason for that other than formulas for velocity.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    jaywalkers have caused cars to swerve and hit other cars or pedestrians.Doesn't matter if the driver is speeding or not The unsuspecting walker appeared where he shouldn't have and caused the driver to swerve to avoid him.I'll even go as far as saying jaywalkers have given the elderly drivers heart attacks.Same logic.

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    WOW! " unsubscribed" before I have a heartattack.

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    There are lights in Schaumburg, I believe, which are being removed due to tea party prerssure. What I found amazing is that data shows the decrease in accidents at 2 of 3 intersections. I've gotten nabbed by " no turn on red" cameras, never by a " running a red light" camera.because.................I don't.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Where did you get that data from?

    If the data came from camera supporters, or was sponsored by red light cam companies, sure expect it to say that.

    If the study was sponsored by an organization like http://www.motorists.org/, which is against cams, don't expect it to say that.

    Rule #1 of studies - nobody ever does them for free, someone has to pay and back them. Whoever that someone is (including govt. agencies like cities who want cam $$$) always has an agenda, and you can count on the results of the study being in line with the agenda of the commissioner of the study, otherwise that's just bad business for the company producing the study.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    studies are like polls.You get what you pay for.The person who wants the study done only wants to hear what he wants found,like global warming.The person requesting the study manipulates his information to his hypothesis.Same with polls.I asked 10 squirrels and two ducks in my back yard if they thought Joe Biden is crazy,they said yes.Now would i have gotten a different result if i asked 10 ducks and 2 squirrels in my neighbors yard ? I don't know because my study was for 10 squirrels and 2 ducks.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    [quote]"There are lights in Schaumburg, I believe, which are being removed due to tea party prerssure."[unquote]

    You couldn't be more wrong John AP...... facts (something in short supply by advocates of *any* type of camera "enforcement")can be found quite easily.

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-red-light-camerasjul15,0,7535797.story

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Bill, I said, " I believe". maybe it wasn't Schaumburg, that's why I didn't throw it out there as fact. Again, personal attacks???? i have a great job, family, and social life. This is why I haven't spent my idle hours picking apart your hyperbole and conjecture throughout these posts.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    The latest on this brouhaha, http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=news/local&id=8616482

    "There are constituents who call and say, 'I want speed cameras around the schools. There are some, but 9 out of 10 have said, 'No,'"

    On a TV show, it has said to be that Rahm Emanuel intends to implement the SpeedCams all over the city EXCEPT the South Side. If this is true, then in that case Mr. Emanuelto is not on ly a dictator but a profiler as well.

    Why not the South Side Rahm?

    This is not any different from ComEd installing the new digital smart meters in Humboldt Park as the "pilot area." It has been about a year or two and they still haven't implemented it in our neck of the woods.

  • Jac Charlier AKA Citizen Jac Working to build community

    These cameras are primarily for revenue but are sold on an alleged perception of improved safety. As such, I'll take a pass on any more of these.

    For safety (something we "all" want "more" of), wonder what the research says about traffic circles, speed bumps, angle entry/exits for streets, and cul-de-sacs used in a comprehensive plan for a given neighborhood? I went through that stuff when I was active with the Old Irving Park Association - not sure what more current studies show but at least anecdotaly (yeah, I know, only my opinion), that stuff absolutely slowed people down when they were installed.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    It's all about show Rahm the money.When pressed for studies,he ain't got any. Do you think people will complain and ask the city to repair the cameras after vandalism occurs.That is one I'm NOT calling in.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Read this Gene.....

    http://www.beachwoodreporter.com/politics/mystery_speed_camera_plan_pass.php

    .....and tell me this mayor and his CDOT commissioner are ethical and have the best interests of the city in mind.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Thanks Bill,I hope everyone reads it .Isn't this what we have been saying all along?

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Most people know that speed cams are for money, depending on what statistic you use it's fair to say that 80-90% of the populace is against again, except those moronic few dumb enough to believe this is actually for safety. People's minds are made up. The question is whether our politicians in the city council will have the balls to stand up to Rahmbo.

  • Bill the Engineer NW Side Born & Raised

    Yes it is Gene...... ;)

    Taras...my suggestion is to keep the pressure on the people that we elected to represent us. They need to be reminded that they don't represent the mayor.

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    My Alderman is Waguespack - probably the most outspoken one of them all against speed cams, so not much more I can do. But if I had a different Alderman you bet I'd be lighting up their phone. So anyone reading this find out what your Alderman's position is on this issue and make sure that they are crystal clear that you are going to make this a voting issue when the next election rolls about.

  • I really hope the alderman don't bow to pressure from that goon Rahm.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    If your alderman went along with the speed camera money grab,vote him out when you can.

  • Josh. .

    The quickest way to prove that the Mayor and almost every alderman are being disingenuous when claiming speed cameras will save lives is to simply ask them why they are not planning on installing yellow flashing warning lights at each new reduced speed zone.

    Yellow flashing warning lights save lives, not a $35.00 fine.

    Check out this great study from the Mesa, AZ Police Department and AST.
    School zone safety cameras will detect vehicle presence and related speed 24 hours per day. The school zone safety cameras are interfaced with the flashing yellow warning lights at the school zones to determine if the speed limit is reduced to 35 MPH during school hours. If a vehicle commits an alleged speeding violation, the school zone safety camera will take two photographs of the vehicle. A second camera will photograph the front of the vehicle for driver identification purposes. The school zone safety camera will capture a 10 second video clip of the alleged violation.
    Based upon a City Transportation study, the 85th percentile speed for vehicles was 46.6 MPH during the 35 MPH school zone speed limit, with the original school zone signage configuration in 2005. City Transportation installed a driver speed feedback board and yellow flashing lights during 2006 and 2007. A follow-up study was completed in September 2008, after the installation of the school zone safety cameras. The City Transportation study reported the 85th percentile speed for vehicles was 36.8 MPH in a 35 MPH school zone speed limit.

    Full Article here: http://www.mesaaz.gov/police/PhotoEnforcement/FixedSpeedCameras.aspx

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    well put Josh!

  • Dickinson Park DP Lifer

    Vote out anyone who was in favor of this. Chicago is by far the most crooked, one sided, money hungry city in the states.

  • Conor McGrath Portage Park

    As dead set against the speed cameras as I am, I prefer to weigh my vote based upon a body of work, not a single issue. I am terribly disappointed in Alderman Cullerton for voting for these cameras.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    "Yellow flashing warning lights save lives, not a $35.00 fine."

    But the $35 or $100 fine could be used to pay for the installation of these lights. Only those who speed will pay, and us taxpayers who follow the law won't need to contribute.

  • Jac Charlier AKA Citizen Jac Working to build community

    A few ways I look at this. First, representation. I do not always believe elected officials must strictly adhere to the wishes of their district on every vote every time. This assumes they know what that is for every issue in the first place. Even more important, some issues can be for the common good and so go beyond a single district's desires. Finally, we live in a republic and so give authority to elected officials to act in our best interest. If they merely do what we tell them to do, we do not need them (California does some of this with ballot propositions-a form of direct democracy.) On this one, until we see really sincere efforts to guage the opinion of the electorate on major issues, we do not know if an alderwomam is going with/against the interests of their constituents.

    Second, the issue itself. In this case, it is about revenue first and foremost and not safety. As that is not being acknowledged by the mayor, it lends an air of mistrust to the discussion. How can I say that? Because their are non-revenue generating options such as speed bumps, traffic circles, stop signs, road narrowing, etc... that are legitimate tools for slowing and diverting traffic. I have lived through the city's planning process on this topic myself. Those things "work" yet do not create bucks for the city. I do not, therefore, support the proposed speed cameras as they are about revenue and not safety.

    Finally, a strong, non-issues alliance with the mayor i.e. power structure. This is a tricky one as opposing the mayor all/most of the time for the sake of it is as ridiculous as supporting the mayor all/most of the time. In that regard, I prefer an independent thinker who will weigh the merits of each issue including the political equation. That is, after all, what politicians are asked to do. On this issue (and likely the new capital projects funding too), I would prefer to see a vote against what appears to be an assumed foregone conclusion as to the outcome. Sad.

  • AJP

    i dont think anyone has a right to speed 10, 20, or 40 mph over the speed limit on city surface street. highways can be 85mph, i dont care, but not city streets. i am totally at my wits end with all the aggressive, dangerous speeders. i want to see people getting $50, $100 , $500 tickets. i have had it with being threatened, tailgated, cutoff because i am going 35 in a 30mph zone. i complain to the 16th, to the aldermen, and i never see any police speed traps, anyone getting tickets. if speed cameras are what it takes, im totally fine with it. its unfortunate, but its 2012. this is america, the privacy issues, the freedom issues, the big brother issues, those fallacies died a long long time ago.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    No they haven't

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Bob,quit saying the taxpayers aren't going to pay for this system.That is a lie.As per Alderman Cullerton,the city is going to pay for the system,pay for the set up of the system and pay for the synchronization of the system.The taxpayers have to pay for this to fine speeders.If the police would write tickets,we wouldn't need these cameras.Bob,quit saying that only speeders have to pay,every taxpayer in the city has to pay.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    The tickets will pay for the cameras.
    The tickets will pay for the installation.
    The tickets will pay for the maintenance.
    The tickets will pay for the monitoring.
    The tickets will pay for the synchronization.

    The taxpayers will NOT have to pay.

    Unless they speed.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    ...and the police can pay attention to more important crimes like burglary and gun crimes instead of ticketing speeders.

  • joanie Resident of Jefferson Park

    I've got mixed feelings about the cameras. I tend to drive the speed limit and am sick and tired of tailgaters who want to drive like road warriors. Speed limits, stop lights, and stop signs aren't suggestions; they're mandatory traffic controls. I've never gotten a red light camera ticket and I doubt that I'll have any problem with the speed cameras.

  • Josh. .

    I personally never speed through the city streets here, there or anywhere!

    My only concern is now that all the public parks will have new reduced speed zones, the signs will be difficult to see particularly if they’re on white background stock like most existing school zone signs. NEON yellow or green signage would be nice.
    Of course yellow flashing warning lights are the most considerate.

  • InTheManor Edgebrook resident

    My overriding issue with this is the clear disconnect between the reality of the law versus the marketing. If the mayor were to propose an ordinance to raise "necessary" revenue as an alternative to other taxation, by issuing automated speeding violations, that's one thing. I'd be fine with that, it's honest. However, in this issue the mayor is essentially calling the citizens stupid. Aldermen play the game as well, stating it is worth it if one, just one (a tear slowly forming) precious child's life is saved. Yet the only thing I have heard from the city, as reported in the media, are tickets being issued on major streets at major intersections, where there are stop lights and crosswalks. There *may* be other cameras, mobile units, we'll see.

    The vast majority of this equipment should be placed on neighborhood streets in front of and around schools and parks, and should not merely be intersection trap based -- radar or laser. As a parent, I am far more concerned with the people blowing through neighborhood stop signs and blasting down streets at 40-50 mph past parks, play lots, schools and residential housing in general.

    However, that will not happen, because it would not raise sufficient revenue. It would not pay for the cameras. It would not pay for the installation. It would not pay for the maintenance. Yadda yadda.

    This disrespect for and infantalizing of the citizenry is sickening, and I despise all of those who participate in it and support it with their votes, such as the 41st ward alderman. Despite a famous statement otherwise, process does matter.

  • AoifeSineadRonan babysitter & JP resident

    I do try to keep to the speed limit too but... Yes Neon signs would be great.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    The city is using taxpayer money to purchase, install and synchronize the system.The city may never get back the money it envisions in violations,like the parking lot deal.The city has to pay for the system.It has to Install the system.If the city pays,we all pay,violation money won't be coming in until after a fortune is spent in installation.There is no contract that says only speed violators will pay for this system.

  • No one knows how these cameras were work, where exactly the money will go, yet they all prematurely vote yes. Why?

    The thoughts expressed here by Citizen Jac and InTheManor are precisely some of the reasons I am adamantly opposed to these speed cameras. And no, I can't vote for anyone who agreed to this nonsense, particularly with the lie that it's for the children. They're asking for our money and smacking us in the faces at the same time.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    They're not ASKING for our money, they're FINING us for our money.

    But only when we speed.

  • Josh. .

    Lots of work for the IBEW- huh Bob?

  • Bob, it's called a metaphor. Google it. They're also not literally slapping us in the face.

  • Shot-n-Beer Guy Retired from Jefferson's Park.

    Kastgar sez: "The taxpayers will NOT have to pay."

    Wrong. As Gene says the city has to pay for installation etc. This is from CDOT docs given to aldermen forwarded by a friend.

    Responding to an alderman concern the same CDOT propaganda piece says that they HOPE that the surveilance program is "self sustaining". And they also refused to provide revenue projections which either means it will be low and taxpayers WILL make the diffrence to the connected contractor or it's so high that they didn't disclose cause it woulda ticked people off more.

    Kastigar also sez:"the police can pay attention to more important crimes like burglary and gun crimes instead of ticketing speeders"

    Pay attention here. The CPD is down at least 1000 coppers and your district the 17th is way down in proportional manpower. So cameras ain't gonna free up anyone to go after the criminal element since there ain't enough cops to do what they are supposed to do including traffic enforcement (including careless bike riders & walkers).

    And don't believe The Lie that the city "needs" more revenue. Chronic and longtime financial mismanagement continues not to mention the giveaways to the non-producers and connected. All thanks to the "go-along-to-get-along" gang that occupy the council chambers.

  • Frank Lifer

    Dear Shot, Well said.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    So if the CPD is down at least 1000 police (as Shot-n-Beer Guy says) then it only makes sense to install the cameras to enforce the law, to make up for the shortage of police.

    How can you make a shortage of police into an argument against the speed cameras?

  • Shot-n-Beer Guy Retired from Jefferson's Park.

    Ah yes. More twisted logic by the #1 supporter of the authoritarian/facist state.

    They should HIRE MORE COPS with the $$$ the city will shell out to implement this BS, not turn over public law enforcement to corporations and the revenue dept.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    cameras only take pictures Bob,they don't enforce anything.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park
  • OParker Native Chicagoan

    Some good info Gene, I'll have to take the time and review in greater depth.
    Not sure which area of Foster you refer to, but in my area there are problems on Foster and other locations. What the report can't account for, or at least from what I seen during my cursory review, are the near misses and walk always.
    I believe there are traffic vs. pedestrian problems, however I also believe there are other and better methods than speed cameras and that a majority of the problems aren't speed related, at least from what I've seen as a frequent walker and bike rider.
    The area I mention on Foster and most areas of the city I visit.
    is mostly due to drivers not obeying stops and cell phone along with other driver distractions.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    I really wish the police would enforce the cell phone texting law.That is worse than drunk driving because the perps are knowingly taking their attention away from the road.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Taras, on 11/25, said: "and I don't understand how you can "mistakenly" jaywalk. Because remember, jaywalking is a CRIME. "

    http://news.illinois.edu/ii/11/0818/crosswalk.html

    In the article:

    He said the law extends past crosswalk markings and actually gives pedestrians a right to cross at any point on a roadway as long as they don’t impede traffic.

    “To be clear, it is not unlawful to cross the street at other than a marked crosswalk,” he said. “The word ‘jaywalking’ does not appear in the Illinois Vehicle Code.”

  • Taras Hryniw A Resident on a Mission

    Bob you're either ignorant to dumb - not sure which.

    "He said the law extends past crosswalk markings and actually gives pedestrians a right to cross at any point on a roadway as long as they don’t impede traffic."

    Read - DON'T IMPEDE TRAFFIC

    You think cars should just stop for you wherever you damn well please on the street. My point is that if you just cross streets wherever you please with no regards to traffic one day you'll get hit by a car. Perhaps that physics lesson will finally make it sink in that it's not a wise idea to play chicken with cars, regardless of how the state laws are written.

  • While I don't necessarily agree with Taras name-calling, what was said is accurate. Bob has continually said cars should stop for pedestrians no matter what, when the source he cited CLEARLY says pedestrians can cross in places other than crosswalks so long as they don't impede traffic.

    People are jumping out in the way of traffic ALL the time without regard to their own well-being ASSUMING cars will stop. Well, what if they don't? Who's gonna win that exchange?

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Pedestrians have the " right of way" meaning if you look ahead and see someone wanting to cross, why not stop/slow down and let them cross? I don't think Bob said at all that it's o.k for people to bike or walk directly in front of traffic.I walk to the store often with my young nephews and nieces and rarely does a single car allow us to cross because they're in such a big hurry to get to the red light. I practice what I preach. If I'm driving and see pedestrians trying to cross, I'll stop. Guess what?!!!!! My 2 second decision made me no less ontime and I helped someone. Also, speed light cameras? so? really, so what!? Revenue, save lives, whatever. Don't do it, don't pay the fine. If I get a ticket after speeding in one of these areas, I won't do it again and can't be mad at anyone but myself. A lot of you on here have taken tis way too far.

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    One last ( I hope ) thing. There IS a problem on Foster, near Eugene Field. Whether trying to cross on foot or with my turn signal on way ahead, cars go flying past with near misses.

  • Pedestrians can go to designated crosswalks if they want to cross a street. It's simple. I don't drive my car across someone's front lawn because it's faster than driving to the stop sign to make my turn.

    As far as I know, and correct me if I'm wrong (not being sarcastic), cars have to stop for pedestrians at crosswalks and intersections whether there's a stop sign or not. If they're crossing in the middle of a city block, no, I'm not going to stop the flow of traffic. Walk to the corner.

    And John, I practice what I preach too. I don't expect cars to stop for me unless I'm in a crosswalk or intersection.

    I'm tired of rehashing the reasons why I (and others) are opposed to the speed cameras. You can scroll up if you really care, which you don't seem to, so it doesn't matter.

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Chris I read your responses. They were not well thought out or interesting. I have no energy to argue with someone who states they won't stop for young children and will race to the red light. You obviously don't care for or respect your fellow citizens. I just scrolled and saw nothing you said except for name calling and tea party lingo. thats it. Speed = ticket. don't speed = no ticket. Pretty sure I'm the genius of this thread.

  • Sorry if I bore you. This time I AM being sarcastic.

  • I never said I was going to race to the red light. I said I wasn't going to stop the flow of traffic. Children should be taught to cross at designated crosswalks for their own safety. When did I say I don't respect people who hoof it? I walk almost everywhere and rarely drive my car, especially the last half decade or so. Bought it Jan. 2000 and don't even have 70k on it.

    People will still speed. They'll just do so from camera to camera. This is for revenue, so they should just say that. It doesn't make anything safer. Most people who speed (that I've seen) due so from intersection to intersection, not through them, not excessively.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Chris,some of the people on this thread have had too much government kool-aid.The person who started this thread said at one point that all drivers should stop when they see someone when it is raining,or hot,because you are sitting in your nice warm vehicle staying dry.And alot of people aren't aware of the pedestrian law.John,where are the facts,data ,evidence that says there is a problem@Eugene Field.If you can supply the evidence,I and others will believe you.I'm sure there are crosswalks there and you are old enough to know how to cross a street.The people who are against this camera crap,do care about seniors and children,Chris has never said he was going out to hit anyone.Taras never said he was going to hit someone,but Bob has said on another post he wants his fellow cyclistas to snarl traffic.If you are worried about children and there is no light to cross,go down to where there is a light and you and your kids will be safe.What's a little extra time,for the safety of the children?That's what this is all about isn't it?The time worn cliche,if it saves one childs life it is worth it.Yet @ harlan high school are using GPS to get around gangs and flying bulletsto get to and to leave school every day.Here's a link from CDOT John.Have a gander and please quit calling people out and insulting them
    .http://chicagopedsafety.org/sites/default/files/2011%20Pedestrian%20Crash%20Analysis%20Summary%20Report_reduced.pdf

    More proof there isn't a safety issue on Foster.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    @JohnAP: I am not a speeder. I stop for pedestrians. The issue here is not about getting a fine. The issue is the city unnecessarily spending for something that is not supported by facts and could be in fact against the law.

  • KedzieKing New Mayfair Park resident & lovin' it!

    That money could be very well spent on improving the degenerating parks and the declining quality of education of CPS. There's just too much power play, red tape & B.S. in Chicago City Hall. Speed bumps are doing the job, caution speed sensing lights would be good to have and that's about it. Speed cameras that comes with fines should make a critical-thinking, self-proclaimed genius question the motive.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    If anyone is unaware of what pedestrians are supposed to do at an intersection,please troll up and find where I posted it,not once,but three times.I wish the people who are saying things off the wall would stop it because they are going to get someone killed believing their nonsense.

  • Bob Kastigar 15 Years North Park, bike rider, retired

    Gene: "but Bob has said on another post he wants his fellow cyclistas to snarl traffic."

    I don't believe I said that, or you interpreted it. Could you give us the date when I posted this?

    Thanks.

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    hahahahaah... Honestly Gene? The facts are....I stated that I live the facts. I'm out there, I live here. You don't. I drive, walk, bike, past this intersection every day. You don't.My "evidence" that cars drive crazy fast, swerve to avoid me turning, don't allow children to cross? Guess? I live it PLEASE you can question the necessity for speed cameras, funding, etc... . But never question that this is an unsafe corner unless you cross it 10 tens a week by car, bike, and walking.. Gene, who did I insult/ I called out an insulter because I'm bored by tinfoil hat wearing diatribes.

  • Lou

    If I stop for a pedestrian in the middle of the road to allow him/her to cross, that does not mean that other cars will do the same...

    So, if the ped. gets hit, I would feel that I enabled him in his unintentional suicide attempt or even feel some fault, for had I not stopped he wouldn't have continued to attempt to cross.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    For Bob But alas, when it comes to following rules himself he has no problem throwing them out the window...witness none other than his continued support for the disruptive "Critical Mass" bike movement, which promote such tactics as unscheduled and unapproved bike "runs" throughout the city, which disrupt traffic. Throw in ridiculous "corking", whereby his bike brethren block intersections to "raise awareness" for biking and it's all you need to know.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    I have driven down Foster at least 60 times a month multiply that by 40 years. Does that make me alive when I drive past it?Does that make it any different?

  • John AP 2 yr AP resident. LOVE the community

    Gene, do you turn there? I'll make sure I don't try to cross at the MARKED CROSSWAK if I see you coming. :) You obviously haven't noticed the crosswalk in 40 years there. Why are you changing the subject and trying to be a bully towards Bob. I'm beyond tired of internet tough guys.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    If you don't cross at the marked crosswalk,how will I know it is you i am running over John? I only try to run down people in the crosswalk,they are easier to aim at ;)
    There is no bullying going on towards Bob.Bob says things that are false,and when we prove to him his statements are false,he keeps saying them.
    If you want his statements that are false,I will have to unmute Bob and give them to you.There are three sites dealing with speed cameras,the first one is the longest with over a thousand comments.
    If you think I am an internet bully,just mute me.I don't pick on anyone here,and if someone is spouting misinformation,I will out them.

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    From a cyclista I don't stop for stop signs, unless it's necessary. I slow down, I stop
    pedaling, I look both ways and pedal like hell to cross the intersection
    where it's necessary. What will I gain by the passage of this law?

  • Lou

    I won't be surprised to hear of this type of thing happening here... enjoy, http://youtu.be/qDl2imgP7qo

  • Gene 50 year resident of Jeff Park

    Loved it Lou,won't be too upset if it happens here.

21 neighbors are subscribed to this conversation.

Posted to Ward 45

This was posted to Ward 45

What's the news in your neighborhood? Search for your ZIP code:

e.g. 60615