"Cop in a Box" Coming to RR Crossings

[Anonymous]

More cop cameras to guard railways in Illinois
(The following article by Virginia Groark was posted on the Chicago Tribune website on May 17.)

CHICAGO -- Starting next year, motorists who drive around lowered gates at railroad crossings or stop on the tracks could have photos taken of their license plates, generating a ticket for $250 or 25 hours of community service, under a law signed Tuesday by Gov. Rod Blagojevich.

Supporters of the law hope it will prevent incidents like one in Elmwood Park on Thanksgiving eve last year. That night, a Metra train crashed into several cars trapped at a Grand Avenue crossing during rush hour. Sixteen people were injured, but no one was killed.

"It's not a final solution but it goes a long way in making our crossings safer," said Elmwood Park Village President Peter Silvestri, who hopes to have the photo enforcement system installed at the Grand Avenue crossing and one at Harlem Avenue. "It enhances enforcement but it also serves as a deterrent to many who will be aware that there is a camera watching them."

Under the law, the cameras would take pictures of the vehicle, license plate and driver. Tickets would be mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle within 30 days. Repeat offenders could face a $500 fine and a six-month suspension of their vehicle registration.

The law expands a state-sponsored pilot program in DuPage County that set up so-called cop-in-a-box programs in Naperville and Wood Dale that have significantly reduced crossing violations, according to Steve Laffey, a rail safety specialist with the Illinois Commerce Commission. In Naperville, the number of monthly violations at the River Road crossing dropped to about 40 a month from 315 during the first year the system was operating, Laffey said. In Wood Dale, monthly violations at the Irving Park Road crossing dropped to 81 from 243, he added.

While the systems are effective, they also are expensive.

In Naperville, the system cost $296,200 to install and maintain for the first two years. In Wood Dale, it cost $302,000 to build and maintain the system for the first two years, Laffey said.

The law does not commit state funds to pay for the systems. Illinois Department of Transportation spokesman Mike Claffey said revenue generated by the tickets should eventually cover the costs.

From BLE Site

[wallyworld]

I immediately though of Jacques In The Box. Can I take yor license? Sounds effective in practice. Should be funded better.

[youngengineer]

man I think I need to get the contract for setting up and maintaining these contraptions. 300.000 to build and setup you have to be kidding No wonder why taxes are outrageous

[fuzzybroken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Supporters of the law hope it will prevent incidents like one in Elmwood Park on Thanksgiving eve last year. That night, a Metra train crashed into several cars trapped at a Grand Avenue crossing during rush hour. Sixteen people were injured, but no one was killed.

Ummm... what??? IIRC, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but those people were there before the gates went down! How would the "cop in a box" have made any difference? (Other than add insult to injury...) That was a matter of a lack of education... might be a good idea to borrow that Australian ad that all but shows a train hitting a car "queued" on the tracks!

On the other hand, it should help deter other knobs from driving around gates that are already down...

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fuzzybroken

QUOTE: Originally posted by Limitedclear

Supporters of the law hope it will prevent incidents like one in Elmwood Park on Thanksgiving eve last year. That night, a Metra train crashed into several cars trapped at a Grand Avenue crossing during rush hour. Sixteen people were injured, but no one was killed.

Ummm... what??? IIRC, and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, but those people were there before the gates went down! How would the "cop in a box" have made any difference? (Other than add insult to injury...) That was a matter of a lack of education... might be a good idea to borrow that Australian ad that all but shows a train hitting a car "queued" on the tracks!

On the other hand, it should help deter other knobs from driving around gates that are already down...

It would be just like blocking any other intersection. If the traffic is backed up on the other side of the crossing, you don't go out and sit on the tracks waiting for it to clear.

[CSXrules4eva]

Humm this seems like a good idea, with respect to enforcement of safety at grade crossings. I do have a couple of questions though.

1. What would happen if you loned your car to a friend of family member, this person in your car runs through the grade crossing, and then you get a ticket in the mail. Now, personally this person shouldn't have to pay it since it was, someone (not the registerd owner driving the vehicle). Is the "cop in a box" going to do do a "face match to all the listed licenced drivers in the state, or country for that matter??

2. What would happen in the case of the Grand Ave Incedent over in Chicago were several cars stoped on the tracks, while a train was bearing down on them? Is the "cop n a box" going to be able to take everyone's picture while the cars are lined up piled next to each other? Is this nessacaryilly (sp) a just cause for a ticket? - It could get pretty contraversial here.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

Humm this seems like a good idea, with respect to enforcement of safety at grade crossings. I do have a couple of questions though.

1. What would happen if you loned your car to a friend of family member, this person in your car runs through the grade crossing, and then you get a ticket in the mail. Now, personally this person shouldn't have to pay it since it was, someone (not the registerd owner driving the vehicle). Is the "cop in a box" going to do do a "face match to all the listed licenced drivers in the state, or country for that matter??

2. What would happen in the case of the Grand Ave Incedent over in Chicago were several cars stoped on the tracks, while a train was bearing down on them? Is the "cop n a box" going to be able to take everyone's picture while the cars are lined up piled next to each other? Is this nessacaryilly (sp) a just cause for a ticket? - It could get pretty contraversial here.

How often, and to how many people, do you loan your car? At least for me, other drivers using my vehicle are infrequent enough it wouldn't be difficult to determine who was at fault. If someone borrowed my car and I got the ticket, they wouldn't use it again until they paid up. If you have multiple driving-age children in the house and no one would confess, then no one would drive until someone confessed (teenagers will sing like opera stars if they weren't guilty and the punishment affects them).

[blhanel]

In the case of #1, as far as the law is concerned, too bad so sad. Your car, your fault. I have gotten out of parking tickets, though, that were written on a vehicle that I sold to another party by giving that party's name to the judge.

In the case of #2, the camera is unnecessary- it'll be obvious who to ticket, as they won't be driving away from the scene. And I believe that site is well-marked with signs telling drivers not to stop on the tracks. The camera is to catch those that break the rules when there are no trains around, and provide additional incentive for drivers to not break those rules.

[tree68]

According to the article, the photo includes the driver - no problem identifying which of your angels was behind the wheel (except in the case of identical twins [:D]). And you can believe I'd be taking it out of the hide of anyone who drove my vehicle and pulled a stunt like that (not that I make a habit of loaning it out).

It would be interesting to find out how many tickets have actually been written at the test sites - one might wonder if putting 'the fear' in a relatively few repetetive scofflaws might have made that much difference.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by youngengineer

man I think I need to get the contract for setting up and maintaining these contraptions. 300.000 to build and setup you have to be kidding No wonder why taxes are outrageous

If you think that is EXPENSIVE, check out the costs on an automated crossing guard instalation and operation.. Most people are blown away by the costs on those, which is why government is slow to pay to have the railroads install them....

Sam

[CSXrules4eva]

JOdom, Thank goodness I don't have any kids yet, I'm WAAAAAY too young. Persoally I don't lone my truck out to anyone with the excption for my mom, and grandma - in which they don't know how to drive my truck given the fact that it's very high off the ground, big, and it's a stick so in reality I don't have anyone else driving it. I personally wouldn't lend my truck out to anyone, with the exception for my husband (if I had one) so. When I posted earlier I was talking about other people that may lend their car out to others. Actually, my truck isn't resigestered in my name, it's in my mother's.

But, IF and ONLY IF I were someone who lent my car out and the person diving received a ticket in my car, nope, WORNG ANSWER, I wouldn't be paying it THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

[narig01]

Good Idea. In the news an empty city bus in Durham,NC got the back end knocked off.
Rail/Highway crossings do not get a lot of respect from motorists. If issueing fines is the most cost effective way of stopping vehicle accidents, so be it.
Just be carefule of the contractor. One contractor did a scam some years back & got caught. Contractor was being paid a percentage of ticket revenue. Contractor changed the settings on the traffic lites. In the process there were a whole string of accidents. When all was said & done the lawyers took the contractor to the cleaners.
Rgds IGN

[fuzzybroken]

FYI, something like this is illegal in Wisconsin. Red light cameras too. Probably has something to do with Sarah's #1 question.

(BTW, Sarah, it's "necessarily"... [;)])

[edblysard]

For the most part, the legal system assumes that if you "lend" your car to someone, you, as the cars owner, are responsible for certain things, not the least which are:
Is the driver licensed?
The car has insurance on it.
The person the car is lent to is responsible (yeah, I know, how do you make someone responsible) and obeys the traffic laws of that state.
By lending your car to another, you are assuming the responsibility...
You can be ticketed for lending your car to a driver who has no license, or has a suspended license, or a minor/underage driver.

On the flip side, it also predisposes that if your are driving a car, no matter who owns the car, you are responsible for the safe use of the car....
And you as the driver, or person in possession of the car, are responsible for the contents of the car.
The excuse that the open bottle or beer or the crack rock were there when you borrowed the car doesn’t work.

But most states laws make it quite clear that you, as the owner of the car, are responsible for the safe operation of the car, no matter who is driving.

Ed

[TomDiehl]

In other words, if you KNOW someone is guilty of DWS (driving while stupid), don't loan them your car.

[zardoz]

Jack-in-a-box resturant: "Do you want fries with that?"
Cop-in-a-box enforcement: "Do you want a donut with that?"

[Anonymous]

I've read that the red light cams installed in the Chicago loop have really cut down on people running stoplights and causing gridlock. It seems that once people know they're being watched they stop. To reduce the cost once this program gets going, maybe they should consider putting up the signs and a fake box at some of the less dangerous crossings. Maybe rotate the location of the real cams.

I really don't like the cop-in-a-box speed-trap revenue-generators, but in addition to rail crossingts, the worst accidents involving serious injuries and deaths in my area where speeds are typically 35-50 mph happen at intersections, so enforcement at these locations whether by camera or traditional law enforcement makes a lot more sense than handing out speeding tickets for 5 over.

[Mookie]

Zardoz: Moo....

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

It's not just at grade crossings. The Illinois State Police is setting up several of these devices throughout the Dan Ryan construction zone to control speed. Construction zone speed limit is 45 MPH and the fine for a first speeding offense in a construction zone is $375, it goes up from there. Safety of the construction workers is the goal in this case, there have been several high-profile incidents in which flaggers and other workers have been killed or injured by speeders.

[wallyworld]

Back home in Charlotte NC-they have speed calculators mounted to cameras-no radar required.Big notices mounted on road signs. We debated if it was a bluff. Wrong.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

JOdom, Thank goodness I don't have any kids yet, I'm WAAAAAY too young. Persoally I don't lone my truck out to anyone with the excption for my mom, and grandma - in which they don't know how to drive my truck given the fact that it's very high off the ground, big, and it's a stick so in reality I don't have anyone else driving it. I personally wouldn't lend my truck out to anyone, with the exception for my husband (if I had one) so. When I posted earlier I was talking about other people that may lend their car out to others. Actually, my truck isn't resigestered in my name, it's in my mother's.

But, IF and ONLY IF I were someone who lent my car out and the person diving received a ticket in my car, nope, WORNG ANSWER, I wouldn't be paying it THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Please understand, I wasn't trying to get on your case. It's just that whenever the subject of red-light cameras come up, someone raises the question of a borrowed car. I just don't believe it happens that much. My attitude toward anyone wanting to borrow my vehicle is, I worked and did without other things to buy and pay for a vehicle, if you want to drive then you work and pay for your own. If you want to borrow my vehicle frequently, then you pay me for a percentage of ownership in it. I don't borrow other people's vehicles and I don't lend mine, except in unusual circumstances. And, if someone lends their vehicle frequently enough and to enough people that identifying the culprit is a problem, then that person is being taken advantage of.

[Anonymous]

Actually I think $250 is too low for the first offense. You can bet your bottom dollar that if they receive a ticket for a "first offense" it probally is NOT their first offense. It is just the first time they got caught.

Make the "first offense" a $500 ticket. Make the second ticket $1,000.

It is time the public wised up about railroad crossing and stopped treating them (with the court and laywers help) as lifelong income.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva


1. What would happen if you loned your car to a friend of family member, this person in your car runs through the grade crossing, and then you get a ticket in the mail. Now, personally this person shouldn't have to pay it since it was, someone (not the registerd owner driving the vehicle). Is the "cop in a box" going to do do a "face match to all the listed licenced drivers in the state, or country for that matter??

Our city has one of these (red light) cameras set up at a troublesome intersection in town. The ticket is sent to the registered car owner. Included is a clear photo of the driver of the vehicle. They figure once you get the bill for $88, you will go find the person who was driving your car. I know a man who was fired from his job. A week later, he got a phone call when his former employer got a ticket in the mail. The ticket included the fired employee's picture, behind the wheel of the company car, cruising through the red light.

[Anonymous]

All those legal questions were raised and answered when Paradise Valley, Arizona, fielded automated speed traps back in the late 80's.

What surprised the folks in PV was not the machine, it was the people. The revenue from tickets issued by the machine paid for the machine within a year. PV was not ready for the huge quantity of photos taken.

This is the major difference between a cop running a trap (or visual deterrent post, to be politically correct) and a box. The box doesn't have the discretion a cop does, and will happily take pictures of everyone. You can't give a weak excuse to a camera. They just don't listen. Of course, cops don't really pay any attention to excuses, either, but at least they are interactive.

(I have yet to hear of an automated system responding to a cute young thang quite the way a hardened deputy sheriff with a traffic ticket book will.)

Erik

[Anonymous]

Sounds like a good idea, I like this idea. People Crossing when a Train is a big problem around my area in IL.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

Humm this seems like a good idea, with respect to enforcement of safety at grade crossings. I do have a couple of questions though.

1. What would happen if you loned your car to a friend of family member, this person in your car runs through the grade crossing, and then you get a ticket in the mail. Now, personally this person shouldn't have to pay it since it was, someone (not the registerd owner driving the vehicle). Is the "cop in a box" going to do do a "face match to all the listed licenced drivers in the state, or country for that matter??

2. What would happen in the case of the Grand Ave Incedent over in Chicago were several cars stoped on the tracks, while a train was bearing down on them? Is the "cop n a box" going to be able to take everyone's picture while the cars are lined up piled next to each other? Is this nessacaryilly (sp) a just cause for a ticket? - It could get pretty contraversial here.

No one drives my vehicles except the wife and myself. If there is a need from someone for a good reason we might find a way to help but that person will be driven to and from the store or whatever until it is done.

If I got a ticket because someone else drove my car thru a crossing gate, I will find that person and have him served with a small claims suit to recover the lost funds. But again, No one drives our vehicles except the wife and me so there is not going to be this kind of problem.


Regarding the stopped traffic filling the intersection, I suspect mass impatience as everyone tries to get to work while shoving the fellow driver out of the way with elbowing and rib jabbing as commuters do in rush hour.

The final solution?

Elevate ALL Rail-Road Crossings. All of them 20 feet. Up above the road or elevate the road over the track, I dont care how they do it but get it done.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by erikthered

All those legal questions were raised and answered when Paradise Valley, Arizona, fielded automated speed traps back in the late 80's.

What surprised the folks in PV was not the machine, it was the people. The revenue from tickets issued by the machine paid for the machine within a year. PV was not ready for the huge quantity of photos taken.

This is the major difference between a cop running a trap (or visual deterrent post, to be politically correct) and a box. The box doesn't have the discretion a cop does, and will happily take pictures of everyone. You can't give a weak excuse to a camera. They just don't listen. Of course, cops don't really pay any attention to excuses, either, but at least they are interactive.

(I have yet to hear of an automated system responding to a cute young thang quite the way a hardened deputy sheriff with a traffic ticket book will.)

Erik

This may be the law in Arizona and there are similar laws in several states, but the laws on automated law enforcement are far from settled. Speed enforcement by camera in California has been thrown out (early 90s). They do permit cameras to be used for intersections and grade crossings, however...

LC

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

It's not just at grade crossings. The Illinois State Police is setting up several of these devices throughout the Dan Ryan construction zone to control speed. Construction zone speed limit is 45 MPH and the fine for a first speeding offense in a construction zone is $375, it goes up from there. Safety of the construction workers is the goal in this case, there have been several high-profile incidents in which flaggers and other workers have been killed or injured by speeders.

Beware of that scam. Last year on I-88 and 2 years ago on I-355 the speed traps were more often set up on the side NOT under construction. The only impediment to traffic flow was the half a dozen cars pulled over at a time. The state police were using white pickup trucks and wearing hard-hats. The robo cops were sometimes active 24/7, even when no workers are present. Of course Illinois' policy of shutting down 15 miles of Interstate to actually work on a single bridge doesn't help matters.[:)]

[Anonymous]

There is something about railroad crossings that seems to pose an almost magnetic attraction to collisions with motor vehicles. There is an obvious explanation that never seems to get factored into the official response to the problem of grade crossing safety.

The obvious explanation is that trains often produce a relatively long delay to road vehicles compared to the usual delays produced by other vehicles. When traveling at 40 or 50 miles per hour, a typical train does not delay road traffic much longer than a large, signaled intersection with conflicting road traffic, so it seems puzzling that there would be such great risk taking to avoid waiting 30-60 seconds for a train to pass.

However, trains occasionally travel for miles at the speed river barge commerce. Sometimes they stop while blocking crossings, and stand still for several minutes for reasons incomprehensible to the blocked motorists. The worst part for drivers who have been blocked by a train for say ten minutes is not knowing how much longer the delay will last. If it is going to be an hour, the driver may be better off to turn around and look for an alternate route. Since nearly every driver has had this dreadful experience, the possibility of a serious delay is on the mind of nearly every driver who encounters a railroad grade crossing where a train is approaching.

Railroad officials and law enforcement display a rather condescending attitude toward motorists who are apparently so impatient that they would take a risk trying to beat a train. However, their viewpoint never seems to factor in the absurdly long delays that trains regularly hand out with impunity to the motoring public at grade crossings. This does not excuse drivers who take the risk of trying to beat a train, but it does explain it. The sad irony is that risk of trying to beat a train in order to avoid a delay is the highest when the train is going so fast that it is unlikely to produce a delay.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSXrules4eva

JOdom, Thank goodness I don't have any kids yet, I'm WAAAAAY too young. Persoally I don't lone my truck out to anyone with the excption for my mom, and grandma - in which they don't know how to drive my truck given the fact that it's very high off the ground, big, and it's a stick so in reality I don't have anyone else driving it. I personally wouldn't lend my truck out to anyone, with the exception for my husband (if I had one) so. When I posted earlier I was talking about other people that may lend their car out to others. Actually, my truck isn't resigestered in my name, it's in my mother's.

But, IF and ONLY IF I were someone who lent my car out and the person diving received a ticket in my car, nope, WORNG ANSWER, I wouldn't be paying it THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE.

Aren't you borrowing your mother's car then? You're right, you're not paying, your mother is.

For those inclined to loan out their vehicles, maybe you should ask for a deposit.