I read the Feb. 8 letter from Robert Bischoff who commented on a Jan. 28 letter from Ron Hulka. Let me add my 2 cents to this discussion. Like Mr. Bischoff and Mr. Hulka, I also received a fine of $100 from Palatine at the Rand-Hicks intersection last December. I watched the video evidence, then photographed the intersection indicating no prohibition against turning right on red, and sent a letter to contest the ticket.
I received a reply indicating that my appeal was denied because it did not fall under the category of "acceptable" appeals -- including that the vehicle was an emergency vehicle, that the respondent is not the registered owner, that the vehicle was stolen.
If that isn't a Catch-22, I don't know what is! Why even bother presenting the option of contesting the ticket, when it's obvious that no one is going to meet the "acceptable" appeal criteria? Who established these criteria?
Furthermore, is the administrative hearing officer who found me liable a certified safety engineer? I'm sure any safety expert who reviewed the video would not have found a violation. The vehicle did stop before turning right.
Just like in the city of Chicago, where I was born and raised and where I lived a good portion of my adult life, the red-light cameras serve their purpose when drivers go through red lights and safety is a prime concern. However, in this case and the others previously mentioned, there were no safety issues involved and the cameras served no other purpose except to raise money.
I realize Palatine has lost tax money due to the high Cook County sales tax and the village's proximity to Lake County. As a conscientious driver, however, I resent being forced to pay a $100 fine to feed Palatine's coffers.
Sharri Bressler Gould