City audit shows Chicago, Illinois unable to justify red light cameras as a safety tool.

[Brent]

5/15/2013
Chicago, Illinois Inspector General Rejects Red Light Camera
Justification
City audit shows Chicago, Illinois unable to justify red light cameras
as a safety tool.

http://thenewspaper.com/news/41/4101.asp

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

Sounds like the inspector general appealing to the ignorant rabble.

Today I saw an entire beer truck blow a stale red light on Armitage and
Western. Had that intersection been RLCed I'm sure that driver would be
up on the boards whining like a fucking pussy about these cameras.
That's about all you read on Reddit over this subject as well. Try and
dissent and you'll get downvoted into oblivion. The ignorant rabble
form the hive there.

[gpsman]

On May 15, 1:25 pm, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com says...

>
> > 5/15/2013
> > Chicago, Illinois Inspector General Rejects Red Light Camera
> > Justification
> > City audit shows Chicago, Illinois unable to justify red light cameras
> > as a safety tool.
>
> >http://thenewspaper.com/news/41/4101.asp
>
> Sounds like the inspector general appealing to the ignorant rabble.

There's nothing to suggest the IG is not part of the ignorant rabble.

Something about motor vehicles renders even the most intelligent
people stupid.
-----

- gpsman

[Brent]

You should form a new religion around red light cameras, because that's
all you have, faith.

Fix the underlying engineering problems and the red light camera program
will require an increase in your property taxes to keep going.


Meanwhile in Fl:

http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/316418/8/10-News-Investigators-discover-short-yellow-lights

[gpsman]

On May 15, 2:53 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-15, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>
> > Sounds like the inspector general appealing to the ignorant rabble.

> Fix the underlying engineering problems and the red light camera program
> will require an increase in your property taxes to keep going.

And you base that on the many red light camera tickets you've managed
to accumulate?

> Meanwhile in Fl:
>
> http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/316418/8/10-News-Investigators...

Pfft. The bias is latent in the headline "Florida quietly shortened
yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera
tickets for you"...

Meanwhile, everywhere, the vast majority of motorists manage to not
collect a RLC ticket... I assume you believe that's by luck.
-----

- gpsman

[dye]

In article <f1f02260-99bf-42a5...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

The 1 tenth of a billion dollars per year disagrees with you.

--Ken

--
Ken R. Dye an optimist is a guy |
Chicago, Illinois that has never had |
http://dye.datsun510.com/index1.html much experience |
dye1146 at g mail dot com archy |

[Brent]

On 2013-05-16, dye <d...@adsl-64-108-195-41.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:
> In article <f1f02260-99bf-42a5...@z8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
> gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>>On May 15, 2:53 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On 2013-05-15, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Sounds like the inspector general appealing to the ignorant rabble.
>>
>>> Fix the underlying engineering problems and the red light camera program
>>> will require an increase in your property taxes to keep going.
>>
>>And you base that on the many red light camera tickets you've managed
>>to accumulate?

>>> Meanwhile in Fl:
>>>
>>> http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/article/316418/8/10-News-Investigators...
>>
>>Pfft. The bias is latent in the headline "Florida quietly shortened
>>yellow light standards & lengths, resulting in more red light camera
>>tickets for you"...
>>
>>Meanwhile, everywhere, the vast majority of motorists manage to not
>>collect a RLC ticket... I assume you believe that's by luck.
>
> The 1 tenth of a billion dollars per year disagrees with you.

Pretty much. RLC intersections are chosen based on design defects,
signal timing issues, and if there is a lot of right on red traffic.
Understanding the nature of the scam is the way to never get one of
these tickets. Those who think they are for safety will have the timing
come up snake eyes on them eventually. Or they will slip up on a right
on red in some technical way that has no safety issue. It's all a
numbers game to harvest money from people just often enough, but not too
often or they get together with the pitchforks and torches.

[gpsman]

On May 16, 12:48 am, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, dye <d...@adsl-64-108-195-41.dsl.chcgil.ameritech.net> wrote:

> > gpsman  <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>Meanwhile, everywhere, the vast majority of motorists manage to not
> >>collect a RLC ticket... I assume you believe that's by luck.
>
> > The 1 tenth of a billion dollars per year disagrees with you.
>
> Pretty much.

Yeah, "nyuh-uh" is a devastating refutation...

> RLC intersections are chosen based on design defects,
> signal timing issues, and if there is a lot of right on red traffic.

Fascinating... sequence of words.

> Understanding the nature of the scam is the way to never get one of
> these tickets.

So... how many do you have...?

> Those who think they are for safety will have the timing
> come up snake eyes on them eventually.

Non sequitur, of the gross variety.

> Or they will slip up on a right
> on red in some technical way that has no safety issue.

Irrelevant. Red means stop if it's 4am and no traffic is in sight.

> It's all a
> numbers game to harvest money from people just often enough, but not too
> often or they get together with the pitchforks and torches.

Anything but learning to "drive", huh...?

Once upon a time yellow interval timing was 1 second per mph of speed
limit, and the vast majority of motorists managed to stop while
piloting a land yacht with manual 4-wheel drum brakes and bias ply
tires.

And, of course, the vast majority of motorists, clueless as they might
be, still manage to not earn a RLC ticket. And you want to explain
that away by proposing the deck is stacked just exactly enough to not
cite the vast majority of motorists...?
-----

- gpsman

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

> > Today I saw an entire beer truck blow a stale red light on Armitage and
> > Western. Had that intersection been RLCed I'm sure that driver would be
> > up on the boards whining like a fucking pussy about these cameras.
> > That's about all you read on Reddit over this subject as well. Try and
> > dissent and you'll get downvoted into oblivion. The ignorant rabble
> > form the hive there.
>
> You should form a new religion around red light cameras, because that's
> all you have, faith.

I have faith in my ability to avoid becoming a victim of reckless
driving. In the above situation, had someone been turning left from
south western to east Armitage, they would have gotten an arrow. Two
things could have happened had that hypothetical left turner not been
paying attention to the beer truck blowing through the red going east on
Armitage past Western:

1) she makes it far enough so the beer truck hits her. Based on simple
physics, beer truck wins causing most of the wreckage to travel
harmlessly east of Western but probably staying within the road
boundaries. The people stopped at the light going west on Western would
be in peril but they have a metal car cage to protect them.

2) she hits the beer truck. In this case the vector of wreckage would
probably travel towards the SE corner where Mark stood waiting to cross
Armitage. Mark knows not to stand next to the roadway but several feet
back with clear escape paths in multiple directions. Mark has faith
that he would have been able to see the situation (which he did) and
avoid becoming part of the carnage (no one was turning left however).
In Mark's cartoon world, Mark envisages that through the ensuing chaos,
no one will notice or care if Mark walks away with one of the cases of
Becks beer strewn about.

Note: A giant green Becks truck did blow a stale red there yesterday at
around noonish while I waited to cross. He was probably on his way to
the Map Room.

> Fix the underlying engineering problems and the red light camera
program
> will require an increase in your property taxes to keep going.

This is an economics problem -- not engineering. Without a cost
associated with reckless driving there is no incentive not to drive
recklessly. RLCs and other automated enforcement systems begin to
provide a cost to driving recklessly. But it's far from being enough.
These systems need to be ubiquitous. Speed cameras, RLCs, stop sign
enforcement all can be and should be done to increase the cost of
driving recklessly. Once you increase the cost of something, the demand
for that something goes down. Plus the city rakes in revenue.

Win win.

[Brent]

On 2013-05-16, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
> In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
>> > Today I saw an entire beer truck blow a stale red light on Armitage and
>> > Western. Had that intersection been RLCed I'm sure that driver would be
>> > up on the boards whining like a fucking pussy about these cameras.
>> > That's about all you read on Reddit over this subject as well. Try and
>> > dissent and you'll get downvoted into oblivion. The ignorant rabble
>> > form the hive there.
>>
>> You should form a new religion around red light cameras, because that's
>> all you have, faith.
>
> I have faith in my ability to avoid becoming a victim of reckless
> driving.

Red light cameras will not and have not changed anything in that regard.

> In the above situation, had someone been turning left from
> south western to east Armitage, they would have gotten an arrow. Two
> things could have happened had that hypothetical left turner not been
> paying attention to the beer truck blowing through the red going east on
> Armitage past Western:

> 1) she makes it far enough so the beer truck hits her. Based on simple
> physics, beer truck wins causing most of the wreckage to travel
> harmlessly east of Western but probably staying within the road
> boundaries. The people stopped at the light going west on Western would
> be in peril but they have a metal car cage to protect them.
>
> 2) she hits the beer truck. In this case the vector of wreckage would
> probably travel towards the SE corner where Mark stood waiting to cross
> Armitage. Mark knows not to stand next to the roadway but several feet
> back with clear escape paths in multiple directions. Mark has faith
> that he would have been able to see the situation (which he did) and
> avoid becoming part of the carnage (no one was turning left however).
> In Mark's cartoon world, Mark envisages that through the ensuing chaos,
> no one will notice or care if Mark walks away with one of the cases of
> Becks beer strewn about.
>
> Note: A giant green Becks truck did blow a stale red there yesterday at
> around noonish while I waited to cross. He was probably on his way to
> the Map Room.

Your fear of punishment model is clearly not working.

>> Fix the underlying engineering problems and the red light camera program
>> will require an increase in your property taxes to keep going.

> This is an economics problem -- not engineering. Without a cost
> associated with reckless driving there is no incentive not to drive
> recklessly. RLCs and other automated enforcement systems begin to
> provide a cost to driving recklessly. But it's far from being enough.
> These systems need to be ubiquitous. Speed cameras, RLCs, stop sign
> enforcement all can be and should be done to increase the cost of
> driving recklessly. Once you increase the cost of something, the demand
> for that something goes down. Plus the city rakes in revenue.

You assume all or almost all redlight running is intentional. The data
shows otherwise. Yellow signal length increases drop RLC violations
dramatically. As do fixing the other underlying engineering problems
with intersections. Meanwhile to increase revenues intersections are
cherry picked based upon having design, engineering, and signal timing
defects. When not of course chosen for large volumes of right
on red traffic to nail people doing rolling RoR, which the
data shows no negative safety impact from. Furthermore municipalities
shorten yellow signal length to increase red light running. The entire
modern red-light running problem likely stems from the changes to yellow
signal timing when RLC enforcement was developed. This is well covered
in the congressional report of some years ago.

> Win win.

For RLC contractors and political office holders looking to take more
from the public at large that does not drive recklessly. The RLC is to
create violations for the benefit of political insiders. This is why
every time RLCs are put a vote they fail. They have no benefit to the
public at large and likely given the studies that fairly looked at it,
have a negative effect with rear end collisions.

I nearly got rear-ended myself when the light changed while I was
in the dilemma zone. The driver behind me switched lanes and probably
got a ticket in the mail.

Odds you'll eventually get what you want in principle, then you'll
complain about it because those running things chose differently than
you would have.

[Mark Anderson]

In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...

> You assume all or almost all redlight running is intentional. The data
> shows otherwise.

This is all I need to know about your thesis. There is no "data" that
can show "otherwise." How can running a red light not be a conscious
choice one makes or do you support the Curly Howard "I'm a victim of
circumstance" thesis?"

> This is why every time RLCs are put a vote they fail.

That's because a great majority of drivers drive recklessly and vote
their self interest -- free reckless driving. I proved this last year
with data.

[Brent]

On 2013-05-16, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:

> In article tetraethylle...@yahoo.com says...
>> You assume all or almost all redlight running is intentional. The data
>> shows otherwise.
>
> This is all I need to know about your thesis. There is no "data" that
> can show "otherwise." How can running a red light not be a conscious
> choice one makes or do you support the Curly Howard "I'm a victim of
> circumstance" thesis?"

I've explained it to you countless times. When the underlying defects of
the intersection are fixed the violations drop dramatically. If it were
all intentional fixing the problems would do little nothing.

>> This is why every time RLCs are put a vote they fail.

> That's because a great majority of drivers drive recklessly and vote
> their self interest -- free reckless driving. I proved this last
> year with data.

I've not seen you prove anything. Your thesis is inherently flawed by
the fact that longer yellow signals reduce violations so much that RLCs
become unprofitable. If your thesis were correct you shouldn't care
about adding say a second to the yellow signal on every intersection
that gets a RLC.

[Nicko]

On Thursday, May 16, 2013 8:17:46 AM UTC-5, gpsman wrote:

> Once upon a time yellow interval timing was 1 second per mph of speed
>
> limit,

Really?!

[gpsman]

Lol. I musta read that 5 times, never caught it.

10 mph. Thanks!
-----

- gpsman

[gpsman]

On May 16, 5:37 pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2013-05-16, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>

> > In article tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com says...

> >> You assume all or almost all redlight running is intentional. The data
> >> shows otherwise.

'Fraid not, Aristotle.

> > This is all I need to know about your thesis.  There is no "data" that
> > can show "otherwise."  How can running a red light not be a conscious

> > choice...?

Pretty easy. Visual perception is so fallible (sober) people get hit
by trains and run into cop cars on the shoulder with their lights
going and straight into the back of school buses with their lights
going.

> I've explained it to you countless times. When the underlying defects of
> the intersection are fixed the violations drop dramatically. If it were
> all intentional fixing the problems would do little nothing.

False dichotomy. There are more choices than intentional/
unintentional.

> >> This is why every time RLCs are put a vote they fail.
> > That's because a great majority of drivers drive recklessly and vote
> > their self interest -- free reckless driving.  I proved this last
> > year with data.
>
> I've not seen you prove anything.

I believe you may be on the record as never seeing proved anything
with which you disagree.

> Your thesis is inherently flawed by
> the fact that longer yellow signals reduce violations so much that RLCs
> become unprofitable. If your thesis were correct you shouldn't care
> about adding say a second to the yellow signal on every intersection
> that gets a RLC.

Adding a second rewards those who speed, increase speed for stale
green signals, and accelerate for yellow signals when they should
brake.

The idea of RLCs is to discourage red light running by encouraging
approaching signals with caution... and of course nabbing the many
that do run lights intentionally.
-----

- gpsman

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Why would he? He'd just have to pay a $$ fine and move on. It doesn't count
against license or insurance... it just raises revenue.

--
John Nelson
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chicago Area Paddling/Fishing Page
http://www.chicagopaddling.org http://www.chicagofishing.org
(A Non-Commercial Web Site: No Sponsors, No Paid Ads and Nothing to Sell)

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

>On May 16, 5:37?pm, Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On 2013-05-16, Mark Anderson <m...@nospambradnylion.com> wrote:
>>
>> > In article tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com says...
>> >> You assume all or almost all redlight running is intentional. The data
>> >> shows otherwise.

>'Fraid not, Aristotle.

>> > This is all I need to know about your thesis. ?There is no "data" that
>> > can show "otherwise." ?How can running a red light not be a conscious

>> > choice...?

>Pretty easy. Visual perception is so fallible (sober) people get hit
>by trains and run into cop cars on the shoulder with their lights
>going and straight into the back of school buses with their lights
>going.

>> I've explained it to you countless times. When the underlying defects of
>> the intersection are fixed the violations drop dramatically. If it were
>> all intentional fixing the problems would do little nothing.

>False dichotomy. There are more choices than intentional/
>unintentional.

>> >> This is why every time RLCs are put a vote they fail.
>> > That's because a great majority of drivers drive recklessly and vote

>> > their self interest -- free reckless driving. ?I proved this last

>> > year with data.
>>
>> I've not seen you prove anything.

>I believe you may be on the record as never seeing proved anything
>with which you disagree.

>> Your thesis is inherently flawed by
>> the fact that longer yellow signals reduce violations so much that RLCs
>> become unprofitable. If your thesis were correct you shouldn't care
>> about adding say a second to the yellow signal on every intersection
>> that gets a RLC.

>Adding a second rewards those who speed, increase speed for stale
>green signals, and accelerate for yellow signals when they should
>brake.

>The idea of RLCs is to discourage red light running by encouraging
>approaching signals with caution... and of course nabbing the many
>that do run lights intentionally.
> -----

Personally, I think every intersection that gets a red light camera should
get a crosswalk timer so I can see exactly how many seconds I have till the
light will change. Once I find a red light camera light I tend to adjust
my route to avoid it else I always have to coast to it just in case.

If others change their routes too and accidents still go up, that means
accidents are more than doubling.

We'd need a count of cars before and after the installation to see if traffic
volume dropped but rear end accidents doubled...

Now, when I requested the data for these 2 intersections, I thought they were
part of the original RLC's from 2004, but I was wrong.

http://groups.google.com/group/chi.general/browse_thread/thread/11e674889c5f9e2/9e9ca9996a6926?q=halsted+group:chi.general+author:jwn%40ripco.com#009e9ca9996a6926

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2005-09-27/news/0509270185_1_red-light-cameras-errant-drivers-motorists

The above trib article shows both cameras were installed after September 2005
at 99th and halsted and 111th and halsted. Accidents surged in some categories
and stayed the same in others.

Halsted and 99th

Year Rear Turn Angle sideswipe Fixed ped headon Parked
2001 9 8 8
2002 10 14 10 3-s
2003 10 5 13 3-s 1
2004 6 8 3 8-s 1
2005 5 2 10 3-s 2
2006 12 10 10 3-s 1

Halsted and 111th

Year Rear Turn Angle sidesw Fixed ped headon parked unknown cyclist
2001 7 7 3 1-s 2
2002 4 10 4 1-s
2003 4 14 3 1 1
2004 4 13 1 5-s 2 5 1
2005 5 7 2 2-s 1
2006 9 12 5 2-s 3 2 1

I've been to "viewings" at Gaitlings before and 99th and Halsted isn't that
bad of an intersection (sort of like Division and the Kennedy) yet it is the
number 1 intersection for fines.

[Mark Anderson]

In article j...@ripco.com says...

> >Today I saw an entire beer truck blow a stale red light on Armitage and
> >Western. Had that intersection been RLCed I'm sure that driver would be
> >up on the boards whining like a fucking pussy about these cameras.
> >That's about all you read on Reddit over this subject as well. Try and
> >dissent and you'll get downvoted into oblivion. The ignorant rabble
> >form the hive there.
>
> Why would he? He'd just have to pay a $$ fine and move on. It doesn't count
> against license or insurance... it just raises revenue.

Maybe after the fines pile up he'll consider entering intersections in a
safe manner.

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

Or, he'll be just like a CTA driver and have his employer pay for it...

http://www.bettergov.org/red-light_cameras_ticket_cta_bus_drivers_but_taxpayers_charged/

"CHICAGO-Many Chicago drivers have been issued tickets after being caught by
red-light cameras.

With a click of the electronic eye, it's a fast $100 out of your wallet. But
even if you've never been nailed by a red-light camera, chances are you're
paying for somebody else's fine.

Taxpayers are picking up the tab for thousands of tickets given to CTA bus
drivers.
.
.
.
But not at the CTA, which is the biggest red-light camera offender with more
than 4,800 tickets.

CTA President Richard Rodriguez said the organization routinely pays the
fines for the hundreds of red light camera tickets issued to bus drivers
each year, adding up to $227,000 since 2006 so far.

"We're the organization that's responsible for the tickets. It is our
responsibility to pay them. We own the vehicles."

FOX Chicago watched downtown as buses gunned through intersections as the
light turned red over and over again.

Bus drivers used to pay the tickets, until their union sued the CTA. ..."


Hopefully you enjoy paying the red light fines of CTA drivers since we are
all paying for them.

[gpsman]

On May 24, 9:29 am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
> Hopefully you enjoy paying the red light fines of CTA drivers since we are
> all paying for them.

The link to the source of the article is 404:
http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/investigative/taxpayers-pay-for-cta-red-light-camera-bus-driver-tickets-20110324

and: "Your search - Red-Light Cameras: Taxpayers Pay for CTA Bus
Drivers' Tickets - did not match any news results."

"FOX Chicago watched downtown as buses gunned through intersections as
the light turned red over and over again."

It's not a violation to "gun" through an intersection -as- the light
turns red.

You need a better bullshit detector. The use of emotionally charged
terms such as "gunned" should suggest the source is not credible.
-----

- gpsman

[Chicago Paddling-Fishing]

gpsman <gps...@driversmail.com> wrote:

>On May 24, 9:29?am, Chicago Paddling-Fishing <j...@ripco.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hopefully you enjoy paying the red light fines of CTA drivers since we are
>> all paying for them.

>The link to the source of the article is 404:
>http://www.myfoxchicago.com/dpp/news/investigative/taxpayers-pay-for-cta-red-light-camera-bus-driver-tickets-20110324

>and: "Your search - Red-Light Cameras: Taxpayers Pay for CTA Bus
>Drivers' Tickets - did not match any news results."

That's interesting, maybe you should connect to the internet first before you
search? Just going to myfoxchicago.com and searching it got this;

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/story/17798644/red-light-cameras-taxpayers-pay-for-cta-bus-drivers-tickets
(same story)

http://www.myfoxchicago.com/video?clipId=7055347&autostart=true
is a all video, no text version I found there.

Unless you were foolish enough to leave "Your search" in the quotes with it
I get 23,600 results at google.com

>"FOX Chicago watched downtown as buses gunned through intersections as
>the light turned red over and over again."

>It's not a violation to "gun" through an intersection -as- the light
>turns red.

>You need a better bullshit detector. The use of emotionally charged
>terms such as "gunned" should suggest the source is not credible.

I think you need to understand the media better. Emotionally charged is
how they bring more viewers;

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/10/cta-has-paid-more-than-300k-for-bus-drivers-who-blow-through-red-lights/
"CTA Has Paid More Than $300K For Bus Drivers Who Blow Through Red Lights"

How about "...Blow Through Red Lights..."? Is that too emotional for you?

Are you really incapable of googling a story?

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2011/03/10/cta-has-paid-more-than-300k-for-bus-drivers-who-blow-through-red-lights/
"CTA Has Paid More Than $300K For Bus Drivers Who Blow Through Red Lights"

Here it is from an Alaska source (yep, it made it all over the country);
http://www.ktuu.com/videogallery/62564513/News/Taxpayers-paying-for-CTA-bus-drivers-red-light-violations

Here is the LA Times;
http://www.latimes.com/videogallery/62564513/News/Taxpayers-paying-for-CTA-bus-drivers-red-light-violations

Here it is in Wichita Kansas;
http://www.kwch.com/videogallery/62564513/News/Taxpayers-paying-for-CTA-bus-drivers%27-red-light-violations

Here's the Chicago Tribune;
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2009-01-26/news/0901250693_1_red-light-tickets-red-light-cameras-bus-drivers
"When CTA driver runs light, you pay
Under new policy, taxpayers are on the hook for fines at photo-enforced
intersections, Jon Hilkevitch writes ..."

How about Chicago Breaking News (I think that's tribune too though)
http://articles.chicagobreakingnews.com/2009-01-25/news/28521900_1_red-light-citations-red-light-tickets-red-light-cameras

Then I got to thinking, maybe you used yahoo.com, but they have over 10 pages
of results too including this;

http://www.bettergov.org/red-light_cameras_ticket_cta_bus_drivers_but_taxpayers_charged/
"ed-Light Cameras Ticket CTA Bus Drivers, But Taxpayers Charged
With Fox Chicago News, we examined more than 9,000 Chicago red-light camera
tickets issued to vehicles with municipal plates since 2006.

By BGA and Dane Placko/FOX Chicago News ..."

PLease cite how you got no replies at all?

Spurious characters in your search string perhaps?

Your dog typed in the search string for you?

You didn't want to find results so you didn't?