Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Rate the new TV ads by Irvin, Proft, Giannoulias, Pritzker, Rabine and Bailey
Next Post: U of C’s randomized controlled study produces “striking” findings about anti-violence program
Posted in:
* Let’s start with the synopsis to HB3772…
Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. In provisions concerning the administrative adjudication of violations of traffic regulations, automated traffic law violations, and automated speed enforcement system violations, provides that a person shall not be liable for violations, fees, fines, or penalties during the period in which the motor vehicle was reported to the appropriate law enforcement agency as stolen or hijacked. … In provisions concerning administrative fees and procedures for impounding vehicles for specified violations, provides that no administrative fees shall be imposed on the registered owner or the agents of that owner if the motor vehicle was stolen or hijacked at the time the vehicle was impounded.
The bill, which is awaiting the governor’s signature, also allows victims of violence to be reimbursed for towing and storage of up to $1,000 under the Crime Victims Compensation Act.
* Now, let’s move to Crain’s…
Chicago could soon end the practice of forcing the victims of car theft and carjacking to pay towing and storage fees to retrieve their vehicle if it ends up in one of the city’s sprawling impound lots.
On Friday, the Committee on Public Safety unanimously advanced a measure to waive those fees—if the victim is able to obtain a police report verifying their car was stolen. The full City Council will likely approve it next week.
Notice that the city council apparently didn’t include waiving red light and speed cam fines for carjacking victims. But, no matter, the new state law will soon require that as well.
* Speaking of red light cams, here’s the US Attorney’s office…
The former mayor of Crestwood, Ill., was sentenced today to a year in federal prison for improperly soliciting and receiving benefits from a representative of a red-light camera company that provided services to the Chicago suburb.
LOUIS PRESTA, 71, of Crestwood, pleaded guilty last year to one count of using a facility in interstate commerce in aid of bribery and official misconduct, and one count of filing a false income tax return. U.S. District Judge Thomas M. Durkin imposed the year-and-a-day sentence after a hearing in federal court in Chicago. […]
According to Presta’s plea agreement with the government, the red-light camera company provided camera services to Crestwood that enabled the municipality to issue tickets to motorists for certain traffic violations. While the company was attempting to provide additional such services to Crestwood, then-Mayor Presta asked for and accepted benefits from a representative of the company. Presta told the company’s representative that the percentage of red-light traffic violations that Presta approved would remain high or increase – in exchange for a cash payment to Presta from the representative, the plea agreement states.
The plea agreement describes a Feb. 27, 2018, phone call between Presta and the company’s representative in which Presta updated the representative on the higher percentage of red-light traffic violations that Crestwood approved the previous week. During the call, Presta stated, “We’re starting to get the numbers again… you got a new sheriff in town.” Shortly after that call, Presta on March 7, 2018, received a $5,000 cash bribe from the representative of the company. When subsequently questioned by federal law enforcement about his receipt of the $5,000 bribe payment, Presta falsely stated that he neither asked for nor received the $5,000 bribe.
* Aside from the corruption angle, opposition to red light and speed cams often comes from people who can normally talk themselves out of a traffic ticket, so it’s no surprise that the Tribune editorial board hates them. But they do make a good point about the companies…
Red-light cameras are supposed to snag traffic scofflaws. For the last few years, they’ve done a much better job giving a green light to corruption.
The latest nominee for the Red-Light Camera Hall of Infamy is Tony Ragucci, an ex-cop and former mayor of west suburban Oakbrook Terrace, who recently was charged by federal authorities with honest services wire fraud and filing a false tax return. Ragucci was mayor when he allegedly accepted money to permit the installation of red-light cameras in the DuPage County town he ran. He has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
He’s preceded by a long line of politicians who twisted whatever safety benefit red-light cameras could offer into a conduit for corruption.
They include former Crestwood Mayor Louis Presta, former state Sen. Martin Sandoval and John O’Sullivan, a former Worth Township supervisor and state lawmaker. Sandoval, who died from COVID-19 in 2020, and Presta pleaded guilty to accepting bribes from an executive at SafeSpeed, a firm that installed red-light cameras in several suburbs. He was sentenced to a year in prison Monday. Prosecutors say O’Sullivan, who also has pleaded guilty, conspired with the SafeSpeed executive and political operative Patrick Doherty to pay bribes to secure backing for the placement of more cameras in south suburban Oak Lawn.
We need a different and improved process for installing these cams which either bypasses local electeds or replaces the current system with a new one.
Maybe we should start talking about cutting these for-profit companies out of the equation altogether. I mean, the government can install traffic lights, so why can’t it install its own enforcement cameras? Why should these heavily tainted private companies be making such big bucks off of government tickets?
posted by Rich Miller
Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:16 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Rate the new TV ads by Irvin, Proft, Giannoulias, Pritzker, Rabine and Bailey
Next Post: U of C’s randomized controlled study produces “striking” findings about anti-violence program
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
“The government can install traffic lights, so why can’t it install its own enforcement cameras? Why should these heavily tainted private companies be making such big bucks off of government tickets?”
Any discussions of automated policing should BEGIN with these questions.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:18 am
The same could have been said of the parking meters, yet here we are.
Comment by Jagdish Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:24 am
I agree with your argument that we should not allow for-profit companies to profit off the cameras, once they are sold to a municipality. That business model is and always has been problematic. For profit prisons, for profit jails, for profit red light cameras, etc. are rife with abuse. When a person is issued a summons to appear, and pleads guilty, the person already pays a fine, and an amazing array of court-related costs.
Comment by H-W Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:28 am
==Any discussions of automated policing should BEGIN with these questions.==
AMEN!!! The surveillance state is actually a for-profit enterprise.
Comment by Out Here In The Middle Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:31 am
Why not just prohibit these cameras all together?
Comment by Bubba Gump Shrimp Emporium and Lasso Factory Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:34 am
I’ve been saying the same thing about municipal ownership versus lease contracts for years. I’d add that the funds brought in need to be lock boxed and only go to funding road safety and maintenance of the system, not be a general revenue replacement or adjunct. And camera placements should have sunsets on them to confirm retention periodically.
Comment by Give Us Barabbas Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:37 am
An Illinois legislator could become a statewide hero for getting a law passed that stipulated a minimum length of time for a yellow light on any red light camera.
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:37 am
“Why not just prohibit these cameras all together?”
Because there is some evidence that they make streets safer. I’m not sure that that evidence is conclusive, but it’s out there.
– MrJM
Comment by MisterJayEm Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:40 am
You’re supposed to have a right to face your accuser. Who verifies the calibration of the camera? The angle of the photo? The authenticity of the image?
Red light cameras & speeding cameras should be banned.
Comment by SKI Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:42 am
===You’re supposed to have a right to face your accuser===
Civil fines.
Comment by Rich Miller Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:44 am
How about running all the tickets through the traditional court system? Making the information available to auto insurance companies?
There is a 1992 Attorney General’s Opinion saying such plans are ” … void and unenforceable.” When the first legislation was proposed by Cullerton, running a red light was defined as a ” … non-moving violation … .”
https://www.illinoisattorneygeneral.gov/opinions/1992/92-013.pdf
Comment by Anyone Remember Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 10:45 am
“stipulated a minimum length of time for a yellow light on any red light camera”
Institute of Transportation Engineers has a recommended equation to calculate the minimum amber time for a traffic signal.
Regarding MJM comment about the red light cams improving safety, the research says there may be a small reduction in turning and angle crashes, but there is a fairly large increase in number of rear end crashes.
Comment by Huh? Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 11:01 am
Huh?,
The galling aspect of the red light cameras is that once installed, many were altered so that the yellow light time was reduced. There was not justification for this other than “revenue enhancement”. A minimum state standard would help reduce this type of “gaming” of the system(s).
Comment by Downstate Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 11:23 am
Man, I was really hoping the future would have hoverboards and commercially-available cold fusion.
Instead, we got automated civil traffic enforcement and Biff Tannen as president.
Comment by sulla Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 11:25 am
===Because there is some evidence that they make streets safer. I’m not sure that that evidence is conclusive, but it’s out there.
We could flip the use of the cameras to a record of what happens so if you are in an accident you can access the video and it could be used for evidence of fault taking the state enforcement out of it. I’m sure there would still be issues and I would want the city to run it itself (or state).
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 11:31 am
===but there is a fairly large increase in number of rear end crashes.
Face palm. Presumably because people aren’t used to defensive driving and so aren’t used to people stopping quicker? Making slightly longer yellow might make that better?
Comment by ArchPundit Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 11:33 am
What a putz. Louie Presta joins a long list of two-bit criminals who can’t resist dipping their beak.
Teefs…all of them.
Comment by Rudy’s teeth Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 11:44 am
“stipulated a minimum length of time for a yellow light on any red light camera”
The statute already has requirements for yellow-light duration. The statute, 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(k-5), requires that the yellow change interval complies with IDOT’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 12:23 pm
=== The statute already has requirements for yellow-light duration. The statute, 625 ILCS 5/11-208.6(k-5), requires that the yellow change interval complies with IDOT’s Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. ===
…yet it would appear the Illinois supplement to the MUTCD is silent on a specific interval, and the federal language allows for considerable discretion by a local engineer. A “recommended” equation is just that: recommended. Anyone who has driven in Chicago knows that the duration of a yellow is much shorter there than in the rest of the state.
https://mutcd.fhwa.dot.gov/knowledge/faqs/faq_part4.htm#tcsfq20
That said, I support the use of cameras, as there is plenty of data showing that driver behavior is changed for the better. I also wish they could be used at certain intersections on Lake Shore Drive where drivers are documented running the light every day. A pedestrian was recently killed while crossing with a walk signal at Balbo as a driver went straight through a turn lane. Video evidence is on Twitter, yet state law bars any part of Lake Shore Drive from being considered a “safety zone.” 625 ILCS 5/11-208.8(a)
Comment by Tim Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 1:14 pm
===the funds brought in need to be lock boxed===
This.
===You’re supposed to have a right to face your accuser===
You can have your day in court complete with discovery, but imma guess that $200 ticket is gonna get expensive real quick when your lawyer is fishing through camera calibration data to find out you did in fact run the light.
===Biff Tannen as president===
Haha. I love it. More true 2 years ago, but solid gold regardless.
===The statute already has requirements for yellow-light duration.===
But if we pass ANOTHER bill that says the same thing, that’s a double dog dare, triple stamp, no take-backsies. Like a 9th contempt of court charge.
Comment by thechampaignlife Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 1:14 pm
===But if we pass ANOTHER bill that says the same thing, that’s a double dog dare, triple stamp…===
This is the Illinois General Assembly we’re talking about here. If history is any indication, it’s beyond our legislator’s ability to pass another bill that says the same thing. They would come up with a a different statute that is sort of similar, but also sort of different, resulting in conflicting statutes, confusion, and legal billable hours.
Comment by duck duck goose Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 1:29 pm
Red light camers won’t matter much longer anyway. Your insurance company will ask you to install their app which will monitor your drivng habits. You can decline but your insurance costs would be higher as you are more of a risk.
Comment by Publius Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 2:05 pm
I was surprised to get a notice my car was caught speeding in Chicago. It said next time I would have to pay a fine.Trouble was it was not my car.Somehow the camera did not notice the difference between handicapped plates and regular plates.This happen to anybody else?
Comment by bob Busch Tuesday, Apr 26, 22 @ 4:38 pm
===Somehow the camera did not notice the difference between handicapped plates and regular plates.===
That is probably one of the hardest parts of the system, technically, is plate recognition. I count 58 different plate designs that can be used on a passenger vehicle just from within Illinois. Now add the different plate designs from other states and territories.
Comment by From DaZoo Wednesday, Apr 27, 22 @ 9:59 am