No logic for camera at I-290, Biesterfield

Elk Grove Village released on their Web site a special edition of our village newsletter which explains the entire Red-Light Camera program.

The box at the bottom of the Red-Light Camera newsletter discusses the reasoning behind placing a camera at I-290 and Biesterfield. It states that the camera was placed there because there were several pedestrian incidents at the intersection, and the Red-Light Camera Report from the board meeting states that there were 29 accidents at that intersection in 2008.

I have two problems with that data:

First off, the camera is used on the side of the bridge where there is no sidewalk present (there is a sidewalk on the north side of the bridge, but that side is not camera controlled, and there is no pedestrian crossing that goes from one side of the bridge to the other). How can the village claim that the camera is meant to protect pedestrians at a location where there should be no pedestrians to begin with?

Second, according to IDOT reports, there were zero angle-based collisions at that intersection in the years 2004-2008. The NHTSA and Federal Highway Administration both state that the cameras are most effective at intersections with high numbers of angle-based collisions (those accidents not to the rear of the vehicle).

So what, exactly, was the village's justification for a camera at this intersection?

I see none, except that the light handles a large amount of traffic headed toward the city, and is the easiest location to pick up plenty of right-on-red citations.

Dustin Sneath

Elk Grove Village