Process Servers for Tickets: What You Need to Know

Most drivers know the sinking feeling of seeing flashing lights in the rearview mirror or receiving a ticket in the mail. But what happens when a process server delivers a ticket directly to your door? While most traffic tickets are mailed or handed out roadside, in certain cases—especially when escalated into court proceedings—process servers for tickets become involved.

This article explains who process servers are, why they may deliver a ticket or summons, and what steps you should take if you are served.

What Is a Process Server?

50 New Speed Cameras Near Chicago Schools & Parks (2025)

Chicago is rolling out 50 additional automated speed cameras around schools and parks in 2025 as part of a safety-and-budget package adopted for the year. The plan launched with 16 sites in early spring, followed by multiple waves through early summer, with more locations slated before year’s end. Warnings precede ticketing to give drivers time to adjust to posted limits and signage.  Here is a Map of Chicago Red Light Camera & Speed Camera Locations. 

Chicago Speed Camera Locations: Where Are They?

If you're driving in Chicago, you're bound to come across speed cameras. As part of the city’s automated traffic enforcement program, these cameras are designed to reduce speeding near parks and schools — and they've become a growing concern for both residents and commuters. Whether you're trying to avoid a ticket or just want to know where enforcement is most active, understanding the locations of Chicago speed cameras can help you stay informed and safe on the road.  

Why Chicago Uses Speed Cameras

Chicago first implemented speed cameras in 2013 under the rationale of increasing pedestrian safety. Cameras are typically placed near parks and schools, but enforcement has expanded significantly across the city. According to the Chicago Department of Transportation (CDOT), the goal is to encourage drivers to slow down — especially in areas with high foot traffic.

These cameras operate 24/7, and a single violation can result in fines ranging from $35 to $100, depending on the speed. The fine system is structured to penalize those driving 6 mph or more over the posted limit.

Interactive Map & Full Camera List

To view an interactive map of all current speed and red-light camera locations in Chicago, visit Chicago Speed Cameras Map, where our database is continuously updated.

Complete List of Chicago Speed Camera Locations

We’ve compiled a comprehensive and current list of over 250 speed camera locations throughout the city. These cameras monitor both directions unless otherwise noted. Here are just a few key areas:

• Fullerton Ave – Multiple cameras at 5446, 5509, 6247, and 6250 W Fullerton monitoring EB/WB traffic

• Western Ave – Coverage stretches from 4433 N to 7739 S Western

• Pulaski Rd – Active monitoring at 5030, 4929, 5433, and 7826 S Pulaski

• Ashland Ave – Cameras along both the North and South sides, including 3111 N and 8345 S

• Irving Park Rd – Includes monitoring near 2705, 2712, 2501, and 5454 W Irving Park

To see the full, detailed list with exact addresses and directions (e.g., Northbound, Southbound, Eastbound, Westbound), check out our Chicago Speed Camera List.

Common Questions About Speed Cameras in Chicago

Are speed camera tickets enforceable?

Yes. They are considered civil violations and are enforceable by law. Unpaid tickets may lead to license suspensions or additional fines.

Can you fight a Chicago speed camera ticket?

Yes, but it requires submitting evidence or demonstrating an error (e.g., incorrect plate reading, vehicle stolen, etc.). Instructions are usually printed on the ticket.

How can I avoid speed camera tickets?

Use real-time traffic apps, stay updated with our camera map, and of course — follow the speed limits, especially in school zones and park areas.

Final Thoughts

Whether you're a city driver or an out-of-town visitor, being aware of Chicago’s speed camera locations can save you from unnecessary fines and encourage safer driving. As more cameras are added or relocated, staying informed is key.

Bookmark this page or check PhotoEnforced.com regularly for updates — and drive smart, Chicago.

U.S. Cities Using Speed Cameras to Improve Road Safety

In the United States, many cities and counties have adopted speed cameras to reduce traffic violations, enhance public safety, and deter reckless driving. These cameras are strategically placed in areas prone to speeding, including school zones, highway work zones, and residential neighborhoods. In this article, we will explore the various U.S. cities and counties that have implemented speed cameras as part of their efforts to create safer driving environments.

Illinois Lawmakers Have Considered Statewide Bans on Red Light Cameras

Lawmakers in Springfield, Illinois are set to debate a new bill this week that could lead to a statewide ban on automated red light cameras—a move that may dramatically change how traffic enforcement is handled across the state.

Proposed Bill Could Eliminate Red Light Cameras in Illinois

The legislation, which has garnered bipartisan support from both leading Republicans and Democrats, seeks to eliminate the authority of counties and municipalities to use automated red light cameras. These systems, which automatically issue tickets to drivers who enter intersections after the light turns red, have been widely deployed throughout Chicago and its suburbs.

What remains unclear is whether the proposed ban would apply only to new camera installations or if existing red light cameras would be removed as well. Historically, similar efforts in other states have allowed existing contracts with camera vendors—such as Redflex and American Traffic Solutions (ATS)—to run their course before requiring removal.

Illinois Among the Top States for Red Light Cameras

According to PhotoEnforced.com, Illinois is one of the fastest-growing states for red light camera usage. The site tracks the growth of traffic enforcement cameras nationwide, and its open database reports over 700 monitored intersections across Illinois. More than two-thirds of those are located in Chicago, making it one of the most heavily monitored cities in the country.

The Ongoing Debate: Safety vs. Revenue

Supporters of red light cameras argue that they help reduce traffic collisions, especially at high-risk intersections. They claim the threat of a ticket encourages safer driving behavior and saves lives.

However, opponents argue that the cameras are more about generating revenue than improving road safety. Many critics cite short yellow light times and lack of due process as reasons to discontinue their use. Others point to data suggesting that while T-bone accidents may decline, rear-end collisions often increase due to sudden braking at camera-equipped intersections.

What's Next?

The outcome of Tuesday’s legislative session could determine the future of automated traffic enforcement in Illinois. If the bill passes, it may set a precedent for other states considering similar bans.

Drivers, local governments, and traffic safety advocates across Illinois will be closely watching to see whether lawmakers prioritize public safety or choose to pull the plug on a controversial enforcement tool.

Photo Enforcement Ballot Measures: Why They Always Fail

As cities across the United States grapple with issues of traffic safety and enforcement, photo enforcement measures—such as red-light and speed cameras—have emerged as potential solutions. However, attempts to implement these measures through public ballot initiatives have consistently failed to gain voter approval. This article explores the reasons behind the public's resistance to photo enforcement ballot measures, notable examples of failed initiatives, the implications for traffic safety, and what it means for the future of automated enforcement.

Understanding Photo Enforcement

Photo enforcement refers to the use of automated systems to capture images of vehicles that violate traffic laws, such as running red lights or speeding. While proponents argue that these systems enhance safety and reduce traffic violations, public sentiment has often leaned against their implementation through ballot measures.

Historical Context: Failed Ballot Measures

1. Voter Concerns About Privacy: One of the primary reasons photo enforcement ballot measures have struggled to survive public votes is widespread concern about privacy. Many voters fear that the increased use of surveillance cameras could lead to an infringement on personal freedoms and privacy rights. This sentiment often outweighs arguments about the potential safety benefits.

2. Perception of Revenue Generation: Voters frequently view photo enforcement as a revenue-generating scheme rather than a genuine safety initiative. When the public perceives that a measure is primarily designed to generate income for the city rather than improve safety, they are less likely to support it. The fear of "money traps," where municipalities profit from traffic violations, can lead to strong opposition.

3. Distrust of Government Motives: Distrust in government agencies can play a significant role in public sentiment against photo enforcement measures. Voters may question the transparency and accountability of how funds generated from fines would be used, leading to skepticism about the overall intent behind the ballot measures.

4. Concerns About Effectiveness: Critics of photo enforcement often argue that these systems do not effectively reduce accidents or improve traffic safety. Instead, they claim that such measures merely displace accidents rather than prevent them. This belief can significantly impact voter support when considering the implementation of these systems.

5. Successful Campaigns Against Initiatives: In various jurisdictions, organized campaigns have successfully mobilized public opposition against photo enforcement ballot measures. These campaigns often highlight the drawbacks and potential negative consequences of automated enforcement, swaying public opinion against the proposals.

Notable Examples of Failed Ballot Measures

1. San Francisco Proposition G (2010): This measure aimed to authorize the city to use speed cameras in specific locations to combat speeding and improve road safety. Despite support from some city officials and traffic safety advocates, it was met with strong opposition from civil liberties groups and ultimately failed in the ballot, reflecting the public's concerns about surveillance and privacy.

2. Red Light Camera Measures in Los Angeles (Various Years): Over the years, several proposals to expand the use of red-light cameras in Los Angeles have faced rejection at the polls. Voters expressed concerns about the perceived focus on revenue generation over public safety and the effectiveness of such measures in reducing traffic violations.

3. Arizona Red-Light Camera Initiative (2010): Arizona residents voted on a ballot measure that sought to expand red-light camera use throughout the state. However, the initiative was met with opposition due to fears about privacy, government surveillance, and the financial motivations behind the program, leading to its failure.

Implications for Traffic Safety

The failure of photo enforcement ballot measures to gain public support has significant implications for traffic safety efforts. Without these systems, cities may struggle to find effective alternatives to address speeding and reckless driving, leading to continued accidents and fatalities on the roads.

In the absence of photo enforcement, law enforcement agencies may need to allocate more resources to traditional policing methods, which can strain budgets and manpower. Moreover, without automated enforcement systems, the opportunity for consistent and fair traffic law enforcement may diminish, creating inequities in how traffic violations are addressed.

The Future of Photo Enforcement Initiatives

Given the history of failed public votes, cities considering photo enforcement must find new ways to engage with the community and build trust. Here are some strategies that could improve public perception and potentially lead to successful ballot measures in the future:

1. Public Education Campaigns: Effective communication about the benefits of photo enforcement and how it can enhance safety is essential. Engaging community members through educational campaigns can help alleviate fears and address concerns.

2. Transparent Use of Funds: Clearly outlining how revenue from photo enforcement will be allocated can help build trust with the public. Demonstrating a commitment to reinvesting funds into community safety initiatives may increase voter support.

3. Pilot Programs: Implementing pilot programs that demonstrate the effectiveness of photo enforcement in reducing accidents and improving safety can provide valuable data and build public trust. Success stories from other jurisdictions can also bolster community confidence in these measures.

Other Public vote outcomes

• In Mukilteo, Washington 70% of the voters banned the cameras and in Anaheim, California 73% voted against them. 
• Earlier in 2010, 61% of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, 86% of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. 
• The November 2009 elections included three votes: 72% said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio, and College Station, 
• Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. 66% of Steubenville
• Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the 1990s, speed cameras lost by 66% of the vote in Peoria, Arizona, and Batavia, Illinois. 
• In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64% of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.

Conclusion

While photo enforcement ballot measures have yet to gain traction in public votes, understanding the underlying concerns can help cities refine their approaches to traffic safety. By addressing privacy concerns, ensuring transparency, and engaging communities effectively, cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and San Jose may find a path toward successful implementation of photo enforcement initiatives in the future. As public safety remains a top priority, the conversation around photo enforcement will undoubtedly continue, shaping the landscape of traffic enforcement across the country.

Public Records Resistance in Iowa

Access to public records is a fundamental right in many parts of the world, essential for transparency and accountability. In Iowa, however, there are increasing concerns about resistance to releasing certain types of public data, especially regarding traffic enforcement records, such as those from speed cameras and red-light cameras. Understanding the challenges surrounding public records in Iowa can help residents, journalists, and advocates push for more transparent practices. This article explores the barriers to public records access in Iowa, why these records are crucial, and how the state compares with others on this issue.

Why Public Records Matter in Iowa

Public records are essential for government transparency, giving the public insight into how taxpayer money is used and providing accountability for government actions. In Iowa, traffic enforcement records—such as data from red-light and speed cameras—can help the public understand enforcement patterns, assess traffic safety programs, and hold institutions accountable for the use of automated traffic cameras.

Access to these records allows Iowans to:

• Verify enforcement accuracy: Errors in traffic citations can be challenged when records are accessible.
• Hold public agencies accountable: Review agencies’ spending on traffic enforcement, especially in areas where automated cameras are in use.
• Evaluate public safety effectiveness: Determine if red-light or speed cameras actually improve road safety or if they disproportionately generate revenue without substantial safety benefits.

Challenges to Public Records Access in Iowa

Despite these benefits, Iowa has seen resistance from some government agencies in releasing public records. Here are some key challenges to accessing this information:

1. Privacy Concerns

   • Iowa agencies cite privacy as a primary reason for restricting access to traffic enforcement data. While privacy protection is essential, Iowa’s laws sometimes overly restrict information, leaving residents unable to assess how public resources are used.

2. Cost of Access

   • In many cases, obtaining public records can incur high fees, often justified by the need to cover the time and labor required to produce the information. These costs can deter ordinary citizens from accessing data and reduce public scrutiny.

3. Lack of Transparency in Record-Keeping

   • Record-keeping practices can sometimes be inconsistent or lack transparency, making it difficult to track down specific information. When agencies aren’t required to provide detailed reports, it leads to inconsistencies in data accessibility.

4. Limited Resources for Records Requests

   • Agencies often claim limited resources to handle records requests in a timely manner. This results in delays that can take weeks, months, or even years, effectively rendering some data unusable for time-sensitive investigations or reports.

How Iowa’s Public Records Resistance Compares with Other States

Public records laws vary widely across the United States. Some states have robust systems in place to ensure data accessibility, while others, like Iowa, place significant hurdles before citizens. Here’s how Iowa compares with other states:

• Stricter Regulations: While states like California have relatively accessible public records laws, Iowa has stricter regulations that can hinder transparency, particularly around automated traffic enforcement data.
• Higher Fees for Access: States like Texas offer many public records at minimal costs, making it easy for residents to access data. In Iowa, however, fees can sometimes be prohibitively high.
• Lengthy Processing Times: States with better funding and streamlined procedures, like Washington, allow for quicker processing of public records requests. Iowa's process, however, can take significantly longer, adding frustration for those seeking timely data.

Potential Solutions for Improving Public Records Access in Iowa

1. Revisiting Privacy Laws: Updating laws to maintain a balance between privacy and transparency can ensure that the public gets access to essential information without compromising individual privacy rights.

2. Standardizing Record-Keeping Practices: By implementing standardized record-keeping practices across all agencies, Iowa can reduce discrepancies and improve data consistency, making it easier for residents to locate information.

3. Streamlining the Request Process: Simplifying the request process through online portals and efficient systems can speed up response times and reduce bureaucratic red tape.

4. Reducing Access Fees: Lowering or eliminating fees for public records requests, especially for journalists and researchers, would encourage transparency and public oversight.

5. Implementing a Digital Database: Iowa could establish a centralized digital repository where non-sensitive public records are available on demand, without needing to request them individually.

Why Public Records Matter to Iowa Residents

Ultimately, public records serve the public’s interest by promoting government accountability and transparency. For Iowans, having access to enforcement data can shed light on traffic safety initiatives, guide public opinion on automated enforcement, and influence local and state-level policy decisions.

Conclusion

While Iowa faces challenges in providing transparent access to public records, particularly in traffic enforcement, progress can be made with targeted reforms. Balancing privacy with transparency, reducing fees, and improving response times are all achievable goals that would bring Iowa closer to an open-access model. By addressing these issues, Iowa can ensure its citizens have the information they need to make informed decisions and hold government agencies accountable.

Red-Light Cameras Collected $1.8B from Illinois Drivers

Recent analysis reveals that red-light cameras in Illinois have accumulated more than $1.8 billion in fines from drivers since 2008, underscoring ongoing concerns regarding the impact and effectiveness of these enforcement measures on motorists.

Cities That Have Refunded Red Light Camera Tickets In The Past

Some cities have implemented programs that offer refunds or have refunded red light camera tickets under certain circumstances.  

Ticket Proceeds Go To Local Schools

The allocation of red light camera ticket proceeds varies depending on the jurisdiction and local laws. While it is possible that some jurisdictions allocate a portion of the revenue generated from red light camera tickets to local schools or education-related programs, this is not a universal practice.

Is Chicago The Only City To Enforce A 6 MPH Over The Speed Limit?

Speed camera violation limits by state: 

California Has a New Loud Sound Camera Ticket Program

One of the most pressing quality-of-life issues in our ward is noise pollution caused by motorcycles 

Illinois Proposal: Trial by Phone Marks Court Shift

In an effort to modernize the judicial system and enhance accessibility, Illinois legislators have introduced a groundbreaking proposal to allow trials to be conducted via phone. This innovative approach aims to streamline court processes, reduce backlogs, and improve the overall efficiency of the legal system. As courts adapt to the challenges posed by the COVID-19 pandemic and embrace technological advancements, this legislation could set a precedent for other states. Here’s what you need to know about the proposed trial by phone legislation in Illinois.

The Need for Change in the Judicial System

The traditional court system has faced numerous challenges in recent years, including:

1. Backlogs and Delays: Courts across Illinois have struggled with significant backlogs, leading to lengthy delays in legal proceedings. This has affected the timely resolution of cases and has often left defendants waiting months or even years for their day in court.

2. Accessibility Issues: Many individuals, particularly those in rural areas or with mobility challenges, find it difficult to attend court hearings. Travel time, transportation costs, and other barriers can prevent people from accessing justice.

3. Technological Advancements: The pandemic accelerated the adoption of technology in various sectors, including the legal field. Virtual court proceedings became a necessity, demonstrating that remote participation could be effective in many situations.

Key Features of the Proposed Legislation

The Illinois legislation proposing trial by phone includes several key features:

1. Remote Participation: Defendants, attorneys, and witnesses would have the option to participate in court proceedings via phone. This would allow for greater flexibility and accessibility, particularly for those unable to attend in person.

2. Limited to Certain Cases: The proposal is likely to focus on specific types of cases, such as minor traffic violations or low-level misdemeanors, where a phone trial could be appropriate without compromising the integrity of the judicial process.

3. Procedural Safeguards: The legislation would include procedural safeguards to ensure that the rights of all parties are protected. This may involve recording the proceedings, ensuring secure communication channels, and providing options for in-person hearings if necessary.

4. Cost-Effectiveness: By reducing the need for in-person appearances, the legislation aims to cut down on court costs, transportation expenses, and lost work time for participants.

Potential Benefits of Trial by Phone

The proposed legislation offers several potential benefits:

1. Increased Accessibility: By allowing trials to be conducted via phone, individuals who may have difficulty attending court in person can participate more easily, promoting fairness and inclusivity in the legal process.

2. Reduced Backlogs: Remote trials could help alleviate court backlogs, enabling cases to be resolved more swiftly and efficiently. This would benefit not only defendants but also the judicial system as a whole.

3. Flexibility for Legal Professionals: Attorneys and legal representatives would have greater flexibility in managing their schedules, allowing them to handle more cases effectively.

4. Adaptability to Future Challenges: As society continues to adapt to technological advancements, implementing phone trials positions the Illinois judicial system to respond to future challenges, whether they be health-related or logistical.

Challenges and Considerations

While the proposal presents many advantages, there are also challenges to consider:

1. Ensuring Fairness: Critics may raise concerns about ensuring fair trials and the ability to adequately present evidence over the phone. Safeguards will be necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial process.

2. Technical Issues: Reliance on technology means that courts must be prepared to address potential technical issues that could disrupt proceedings or affect communication.

3. Public Perception: The perception of phone trials as a less formal or serious approach to justice may lead to resistance from some legal professionals or the public.

Conclusion

The proposed legislation in Illinois to allow trials by phone marks a significant step towards modernizing the judicial system and increasing accessibility. By leveraging technology, the state aims to address long-standing challenges in the legal process while ensuring that justice remains accessible to all. As the legislation progresses, it will be crucial for lawmakers, legal professionals, and the public to engage in discussions about its implications and to work together to create a system that serves the needs of all citizens effectively.

More Chicago Suburb City Officials Busted for Corruption

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. (WLS) -- Plastic bags covered what were among the most controversial red light cameras in the state.

Brothers Indicted In Widening Illinois Red Light Camera Corruption Probe

The lights are at Route 83 and 22nd Street, just across from the Oakbrook Mall. They are no longer in service, which means drivers will no longer be getting tickets from them in the mail.

James Colucci and Joseph Colucci are accused of giving valuable items, including cash, to Tony Ragucci, then the mayor of Oakbrook Terrace.

Two men have been charged over their alleged roles in a kickback scheme that provided thousands of dollars in cash payments to the then-mayor of Oakbrook Terrace after the western suburb renewed a contract with the red-light camera company SafeSpeed.

James Colucci and Joseph Colucci are accused of serving as the conduit to deliver valuable items, including cash, to Tony Ragucci, when he was mayor of Oakbrook Terrace. In return, Ragucci, among other favors, signed a one-year renewal agreement with SafeSpeed, according to the 10-page federal indictment.

The fraud scheme began sometime in 2016 and ended in the fall of 2019, according to the indictment. James Colucci and Joseph Colucci both began making cash payments to Ragucci beginning in 2018 based on revenue generated from SafeSpeed’s red-light cameras in Oakbrook Terrace.

None of the payments to Ragucci from the Coluccis were reported by Ragucci to the DuPage County Clerk’s Office, in order to evade detection of the scheme, according to the indictment.

A spokesperson for the city of Oakbrook Terrace didn’t respond to questions regarding this recent indictment but said the Illinois Department of Transportation has revoked its highway permit for the red-light camera at Illinois Route 83 and 22nd Street.

The Coluccis’ arraignments had not been scheduled as of Friday night, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney said.

The two men are the latest charged in connection with red-light cameras in the Chicago area.

Ragucci was charged last month and is accused of taking thousands of dollars in secret payments. Agents had previously seized $60,000 in cash from Ragucci’s west suburban home in 2019.

Omar Maani, a onetime SafeSpeed partner, was charged in 2020 with a bribery conspiracy but agreed to work with the feds under a deferred-prosecution agreement.

Crestwood Mayor Louis Presta resigned last year over his dealings with SafeSpeed. He had served as mayor of the southwestern suburb for nearly a decade. He pleaded guilty in November to the red-light bribery scheme. Former state Sen. Martin Sandoval also pleaded guilty to taking a “protector fee” from someone with an interest in the company.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

RED LIGHT CAMERAS

'A little justice': Oakbrook Terrace red light camera permit for busy intersection revoked by IDOT

By John Garcia and ABC7 Chicago Digital Team

Friday, May 13, 2022 3:01PM

EMBED <>MORE VIDEOS 

Oakbrook Terrace has had its permit for red light cameras at Route 83 and 22nd Street revoked by IDOT.

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. (WLS) -- Plastic bags covered what were among the most controversial red light cameras in the state.

The lights are at Route 83 and 22nd Street, just across from the Oakbrook Mall. They are no longer in service, which means drivers will no longer be getting tickets from them in the mail.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

OAKBROOK TERRACE, Ill. (WLS) -- Plastic bags covered what were among the most controversial red light cameras in the state.

The lights are at Route 83 and 22nd Street, just across from the Oakbrook Mall. They are no longer in service, which means drivers will no longer be getting tickets from them in the mail.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

One ticket shows photos of a car allegedly going through the red light, along with the $100 fee. Kyla Ohst got it two weeks ago, just before IDOT shut the cameras down.

"It's fair to get a ticket, but $100 is a lot for something like that," Ohst said.

IDOT revoked the operating permit for the cameras, claiming the Village of Oakbrook Terrace failed to submit mandatory reports documenting safety at the intersection. The agency made no mention, however, of federal charges against the former mayor of Oakbrook Terrace for allegedly accepting bribes from the company that installed the cameras. Activists maintain the cameras should never have been there in the first place.

"Statistics show before they put the cameras here, it was relatively safe and there has not been any change in terms of safety after they placed the cameras here. This was put here so they could generate a lot of money," said Mark Wallace of Citizens to Abolish Red Light Cameras.

Blake Jacobs got a $100 red light camera ticket there last summer even though he said he's pretty certain he broke no laws.

"I thought I caught the light and I got a ticket in the mail three weeks later," Jacobs said.

Activists said Friday is a good day.

"A little justice for motorists and for the people of Oakbrook," Wallace said.

Former Oakbrook Terrace Mayor Tony Ragucci was indicted last month on charges of wire fraud and filing false tax returns. If convicted, he could face up to 20 years in prison. A trial date has not yet been set.

ABC7 has reached out to Oakbrook Terrace officials for comment.

IDOT issued a statement saying, "The Illinois Department of Transportation is committed to improving safety and continually works with our local government partners toward this shared goal. After review, the IDOT permit issued to Oakbrook Terrace to operate a red-light camera at Illinois 83 and 22nd Street is revoked due to failure to comply. Despite repeated requests, the city did not submit the post-installation analysis on the effectiveness of the camera system to improve safety at the intersection, as required by IDOT policy.

"The city has been instructed to deactivate the cameras immediately and apply within 15 days for the necessary permit to remove them.

"The existing IDOT policy was developed to assist local agencies to obtain a permit to install red-light cameras on roads under state jurisdiction. The policy also allows IDOT to remove such cameras if it is in the best interest of the motoring public."

River Forest, Illinois Red-light cameras Turned Back On

Map of Chicago Red Light Cameras

After a delay of nearly two years, red-light cameras are returning to River Forest. Jeff Loster, director of public works and development services, said the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) gave the officials the green light on April 9 to reinstall three red-light cameras, one at Harlem and North avenues and the other two at Lake Street and Harlem Avenue.

River Forest approved a contract in June 2020 with Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions doing business as Verra Mobility, replacing SafeSpeed as the village’s red light camera operator.

In February 2020, local officials announced their intent to decline to renew River Forest’s contract with SafeSpeed and issue a request for proposals from other vendors amid a federal corruption probe involving state and suburban politicians and a former SafeSpeed official, allowing the contract to expire July 1, 2020. The village originally contracted with SafeSpeed in 2011.

Loster said officials have been working with IDOT “over the last several months” regarding the change in vendor for River Forest’s red light cameras. Staff members will be working with the engineering consultant Hampton, Lenzini and Renwick Inc. and Verra Mobility to make the necessary modifications at both camera locations as approved by IDOT, he added. Loster said when the cameras will be operational is still to be determined.

He said officials are unable to explain the length of time it’s taken to implement the change, which was estimated in 2020 at 30 to 45 days, but the village was not responsible for the delay.

“I don’t know how long it took to get the original cameras up, so I don’t have much context,” Loster said. “I know IDOT is working on creating a new policy relative to red-light cameras and even though it is not something that was applied to our ‘vendor transfer,’ it may have been a factor.

Red Light Cameras About Tax or Safety First?

The primary purpose of red-light cameras is generally focused on safety rather than generating tax revenue. Red-light cameras are typically installed at intersections with a history of red-light violations and a higher risk of accidents. The intention behind their use is to discourage drivers from running red lights, which is a dangerous behavior that can lead to severe accidents and injuries.

The safety benefits associated with red-light cameras include reducing the number of T-bone collisions, improving intersection safety, and deterring red-light violations. Studies have shown that red-light cameras can contribute to a decrease in red-light running incidents and related crashes.

While red-light camera programs may generate revenue from the fines imposed on violators, the emphasis is typically placed on safety rather than using them as a revenue-generating tool. However, it is essential for communities and authorities to implement and maintain red-light camera programs transparently and with clear guidelines to ensure that the primary focus remains on improving road safety.

It's worth noting that the motivation behind red-light camera programs may vary depending on the jurisdiction, and there can be debates and discussions about their effectiveness and fairness. Public opinion and local policies can influence the implementation and operation of red-light camera programs in different regions.

Chicago Red Light Camera Revenue & Locations Summary

Red light cameras in Chicago are operating in at 84 communities across the city in Illinois. In some towns, traffic fines are now making up a large portion of revenue.  Data compiled by the Illinois Policy Institute reveals the top 10 towns raking it in when you roll through the red.

1. Chicago: $719,709,862.61 since 2008. 309 cameras currently operational
2. Berywn: $19,295,681.12 since 2009. 2 cameras currently operational
3. Lakemoor: $19,265,169.70 since 2012. 3 cameras currently operational
4. Country Club Hills: $16,530,455.18 since 2009. 7 cameras currently operational
5. North Riverside: $16,003,864.38 since 2014. 3 cameras currently operational
6. Aurora: $13,139,200.68 since 2010. 9 cameras currently operational.
7. Crestwood: $13,085,742.32 since 2016. 8 cameras currently operational.
8. Hillside: $12,138,530.97 since 2010. 5 cameras currently operational.
9. Burbank: $10,958,681.32 since 2014. 5 cameras currently operational.
10. Gurnee: $10,823,643.36 since 2009. 15 cameras currently operational.

Where does this money go and how is it used?  Comments appreciated below. 

Washington DC Wins the Photo Enforcement 2014 Award Surpassing Chicago

Washington DC - Speed Cameras, Red Light Cameras, Crosswalk Cameras, Stop Sign Cameras & Toll Road Cameras

Washington DC has surpassed Chicago this year as the most densely populated photo enforced city.  They no have by far the most speed cameras, stop sign cameras and red light cameras per capita.   Chicago can definitely thank Rahm Emanuel for the huge increase in camera activity.  Who does Washington DC have to thank for the increase in cameras?    Which states allow speed cameras?

DMV Driving Points & Fines

State Map	Red Light Camera Fine $	Red Light Camera Points	Speed Camera Fine $	Speed Camera Points
Alabama	$50
Arizona	$180	no Points	$250-$250	2-3 Points
Arkansas	$50
California	$446	1 Point
Colorado	$90	4 Points	$40-80	4 Points
Delaware	$75-$230
District of Columbia	$75	2 Points	$75	2 Points
Florida	$75-$125
Georgia	$70	3 Points
Hawaii	$77
Illinois	$100	20 Points	$250 or 25	20 points
Indiana	$100
Iowa	$45-$150		$45-$150
Kansas	$100
Louisiana	$100-$140	No Points
Maryland	$100	2 Points	$40 - $1,000	No Points
Michigan	$100
Minnesota	$130
Mississippi	$100
Missouri	$100
Nevada	$600-$1,000	4 Points
New Jersey	$75	No Points
New Mexico	$70-$250		$70-$250
New York	$50-$100	3 Points
North Carolina	$75-$100	3 Points
Ohio	$100-$200		$100-$200
Oklahoma	$100
Oregon	$355		$355
Pennsylvania	$100	3 Points
Rhode Island	$85
South Dakota	$89	No Points
Tennessee	$50-$100		$50-$100
Texas	$75-$200	No Points	$75-$200
Virginia	$100 - $200	4 Points
Washington	$124		$124
West Virginia
Wisconsin	$75

Please make suggested updates of information in the comments section below.

Speed Camera Vans In Operation

Here is a great video that describes the operation of a mobile speed photo enforced van in Chicago. There are five photo enforcement vans across the state of Illinois. The speed enforcement vans proved more effective than placing electronic radar signs on the highway shoulder to show drivers their real-time speed, or even deploying police cars to sit on the side of the road, the research found.

The Illinois State Police photo vans are capable of identifying scores of speeding scofflaws across multiple lanes of traffic in only a few minutes, ringing up minimum of $375 speeding tickets that are sent in the mail for the work-zone violations. It's a process law-enforcement officials say is much more efficient—and safer for police officers—than pulling over individual speeders as traffic rushes past.

In addition, it's a mystery to drivers how much leeway is given above the 45 m.p.h. construction zone speed limit. Does going 50 m.p.h. trigger a ticket, or do you have to be speeding at 10 m.p.h. above the work zone speed limit? The answer changes from one jurisdiction to another.