Anyone post this up yet? Sorry if it's a repost. Did a brief search and didn't see anything.
From chicagobreakingnews dot com. (I don't have enough posts to link the article)
State eyes unmanned speed-trap cameras
March 25, 2009 5:35 PM | 37 Comments
If you're a driver who hates cameras that ticket you for running red lights, you also won't be revved up to support the next version of "cops in a box'' possibly coming to Illinois.
*Automated enforcement of speed limits would be allowed in the Chicago region and certain other areas, under a proposed state law.
*The move is part of a bill that would permit some counties and municipalities to mail speeding tickets of up to $100 for vehicles caught going too fast by unmanned radar cameras positioned alongside roadways.
"I cannot feel sorry for those people caught by camera, because they are breaking the law,'' said State Sen. Terry Link (D-Waukegan), a sponsor of the legislation, which could move to a vote by the Senate next week. If approved by the General Assembly and signed by the governor, the law would take effect Jan. 1.
"If people start to slow down, they wouldn't have to worry about the fines,'' Link said.
More than 500 speed-related traffic deaths occurred in 2007 in Illinois, according to state records. Nationally that same year, about 13,000 people died in accidents where speeding was the cause or a contributing factor, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Under the proposed Illinois law, speeding tickets issued by automated surveillance would be treated as non-moving offenses, like parking tickets and red-light violations, and convictions or guilty pleas would not go on driver records, officials said.
*Pictures of the offending license plate would be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. The driver and passengers inside vehicles would not be photographed.
The speed cameras would be permitted on roads in eight counties that have a history of speed-related accidents or where insufficient police manpower exists to enforce speed limits or at locations where on-site enforcement is "inherently difficult.''
The counties are Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, Madison, McHenry, St. Clair and Will.
In addition to permitting municipalities and counties to install automated speed enforcement cameras, the legislation would lift a ban on the use of recorded images for speed enforcement unless a police officer is present, officials said.
The measure is aimed strictly at reducing accidents and fatalities, and it is not an attempt to increase revenue, according to Link and State Rep. Joe Lyons (D-Chicago), the bill's sponsors.
The legislation is supported by the City of Chicago, Secretary of State Jesse White, law enforcement groups and other organizations.
"The reason people speed is because they can,'' said John Ulczycki, vice president for research at the National Safety Council. "When people perceive that a law is not being enforced, speeding increases. When you have a visible enforcement going on, speeding, crashes and deaths all go down.''
In Arizona, where stationary speed-enforcement cameras are being deployed on a broad scale, speeding on highways has been cut by 9 miles per hour on average, according to the state. Speed-related crashes along U.S. Highway 101 near Scottsdale have decreased 44 percent since the cameras were installed last year, officials said.
The speed cameras have also been used in Oregon and the District of Columbia.
Last year, then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich announced a plan to put speed cameras on interstates in Illinois. He said the plan could raise $50 million a year and allow the state to hire hundreds of more state troopers.
Ulczycki acknowledged that red light and speed cameras generate millions of dollars in ticket revenue, but he said the technology saves lives and allows police departments to assign officers to other work.
"We somehow have this view that some crimes are more important than other crimes and that our cops should be out chasing violent criminals,'' Ulczycki said. "But when someone is out speeding 20 miles per hour over the limit and toasts some individuals, isn't that a crime?''
I would challenge him that it is for revenue and if he is so sure it isn't, then he should be willing to turn over all fines to a charity.