Before the surrounding towns do it? Reminds me of the old joke about fund raising with cans at stop signs, and "all the good diseases being taken." But this has to look like golden eggs to towns strapped for cash.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-red-light-cameras-12-jul12,0,7945020.story
No, don't support/follow a (further) move towards an "Orwellian" world state!
Besides, wouldn't it be the strangest of combinations...historic village in the forest/oasis in the middle of a concrete jungle combined with (pervasive) government surveillance?
I personally agree - but that won't stop those other towns from doing it. Berwyn is already bringing in large numbers of dollars from the one at Harlem/Ogden. Opting out of the revenue stream won't necessarily stop it from happening. This is similar to Riverside opting not to be included in the annexation of the Tree farm, etc. that became the mall.
I didn't think any of our interesections qualified, either under some state law or maybe grant of possibly the company that installs them (I think an intersection has to meet certain criteria for the company to install their camera there.)
I couldn't find talk of it on the Village website, Landmark or Suburban life, but I seem to remember Riverside looking into it, but maybe the chief of police reported that our intersections don't qualify.
Here's an opinion on why NOT to install the cameras:
http://www.ridelust.com/red-light-cameras-just-dont-work/
I think they are in operation at Ogden and Harlem. Also at 39th (Pershing) and Harlem - or they are going in. 26th and Harlem has Morton on the corner. Lawyers can make a case for anything, as we know, and all these towns are looking for revenue - so I expect them to happen whether we are in the revenue stream or not. I am, repeat, against them, but if they are going to happen we should share the revenue if the street is a boundary with Riverside. How's that for double-speak?
speaking of Berwyn and Harlem and Ogden, people apparently are gun shy, too, in even doing what the law allows for fear of the Computer from Camazotz, the great Eye of Sauron: there is a giant sign on the northwestern side of Ogden going west that says 'Red light photo enforced', I do not see a 'no turn on red' sign there (going west), but I have seen a million times cars just sitting there and not turning on red when they could do so.
Am I missing something - can you turn on red onto Harlem, going west bound on Ogden at that corner?
I think "just because everyone else is doing it" is a really bad reason for doing something. If it were a good thing, we'd already have a TIF.
I just saw the article I gave the kink for, and I see the revenue stream some of them are making. We are one side of the street, Berwyn the other, but I don't see any of the revenue coming to Riverside. That was my point - are we entitled to part of that or not? I'm not advocating we do this, but I think it is already being done and I don't see Riverside getting any of what is a fairly hefty piece of change. Hence I raised the issue.
As far as I know, you can turn right on red - after a full stop - at any intersection that is not marked to the contrary.
FYI - for the last two nights we were awaked by crashes right in front of our apartment at Kimbark and Woodside. Early Saturday AM another drunk driver missed Kimbark and plowed into the berm at the apartment on the SW corner of Park Place and Kimbark - the second in a couple of months. He tried to drive away but I called the cops and they picked him up going back north on Woodside. Early this morning three guys in a Camaro came barreling down Woodside and missed the turn in front of the church and disabled their car. Again I called the cops as it was stuck across the road, and these guys were so drunk that they took the driver away in cuffs and had the car towed off - leaving the other two sitting on the curb calling their friends to pick them up. Guys love to race down Woodside toward town from 31st because it looks like a big divided street with no traffic, but several have ended up on the lawns in front of Kimbark houses.
We also have guys that show up to race around the Hauser lot and drive through the grass ball field, churning up the turf. The more of these drunks (or whatever they are high on) they toss in the can the better. One night two guys were racing down Fairbank side by side and nearly ran into my car which was parked there, and they piled up in N. Riverside. It's OK with me if Riverside gets a rep as a place where you don't want to get caught. I see from the papers that we pull down a lot of DUI drivers on Harlem and First Avenue every month, so I think we are being forced into this by circumstances. I just hope it doesn't end up with a kid or a dog getting hit by these idiots. Or even a raccoon.
Sequel: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/chi-red-light-cameras-part-two-jul13,0,6603390.story
If we had these then our intrepid but out-of-office prosecutor and public defender candidates could be rooting out local corruption too. Maybe that opportunity would put them in a better mood.
In searching for the info about the village sticker lawsuit (which I remember as well but cannot find online today) I found this:
http://rblandmark.com/main.asp?SectionID=1&SubSectionID=1&ArticleID=3702&TM=60549.09
No cameras for Riverside, Brookfield
The Village of Riverside had also considered installing Redflex cameras in that village, but surveys by Redflex found only one intersection with enough traffic and violations to justify a camera.
However that intersection, at Harlem Avenue and East Quincy Street, runs adjacent to railroad tracks. State law does not permit red light enforcement cameras at railroad tracks, said Riverside Police Chief Thomas Weitzel .
Glad I found that.
You must log in to post.