Hacker News Reader

Comment by jchw | Hacker News Reader

I both love and hate this story.

Unfairly handing out red light tickets is rotten, but fining the man who pointed it out is beyond rotten. It's corrupt. There's no question Oregon was defending its income with that move. Dirty money.

I don't feel like reversing the fine is nearly enough of a response. There was effectively no punishment for issuing that fine.

But, I'm still pleased with the outcomes Järlström keeps accomplishing. It may not completely offset the chilling effects caused by the initial transgressions, but hopefully it can inspire others.

All in all, it definitely reflects very poorly on the Oregon State government. I hope they're happy with the reputation damage done.

View on HN

I find the original red-light story that precipitated this fine to be more interesting than the fine/engineer word story.

His side of the story is here: http://www.jarlstrom.com/redflex/ . In short, the timings don't account for the time it takes for a car to _clear_ an intersection.

His lawsuit against the city's yellow light timings was dismissed because he failed to show standing. It is somewhat interesting that he took the tack of hypothetical damage as a pedestrian instead of a contested red-light ticket. Perhaps the ticket(s) that precipitated the research didn't satisfy the exact conditions of this challenge.

I suspect fining this guy was more retaliatory (i.e., personal grudge) than a real attempt to defend red light ticket income. But I am just speculating and am also pleased with the outcome.

The state has a monopoly on violence; they do not need to protect their reputation. They’re the only game in town.

Would you please stop taking HN threads on generic ideological tangents? They're tedious (because repetitive, because nothing new) and lead to flamewars.

I feel like we've had to ask you this kind of thing a lot and have cut you way more slack than we do for most. If you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and take the spirit of this site to heart, we'd appreciate it.

You might find these other links helpful for getting a clearer idea of the original spirit:

https://news.ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/hackernews.html

http://www.paulgraham.com/trolls.html

Certainly; I forgot and did not intend to derail the thread. I appreciate the links.

Happy new year.

Oregon may be the only game in town, but they are not the only game in the country. A bad reputation can lead to talent drain, less investment and fewer companies moving there.

The Oregon government doesn't seem to have any problem with Intel advertising "Software Engineer" positions on LinkedIn.

That's...ironically the distinction made in the case(s).

Why would you want more people to use violence? Mob rule is better?

OP does not appear to be advocating violence, but is stating a fact. All laws are enforced by violence. If you disagree, disobey the police at your next meeting with them. You'll find out quickly who is allowed to assault and who is not.

The US Flag code is a law but it is not enforced by violence. It is purely voluntary law.

Yes, but only because the Supreme Court ruled that there’s no way to enforce the Flag Code without violating the First Amendment, a part of the Constitution, the supreme law of the land. That’s not the usual case for laws that are on the books.

Thank you for agreeing with me that cabaalis' statement that "all laws are enforced by violence" is incorrect. I would agree with "most". I disagree with "all".

Here's a couple others:

38 CFR 38.630 - Headstones and markers. - "VA will furnish, when requested, a memorial headstone or marker to commemorate an eligible individual whose remains are unavailable." - https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/38/38.630

Who is threatened with violence for breaking that law? At most, a VA employee can be fired, yes?

36 U.S. Code § 106 - Constitution Day and Citizenship Day - https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/106

That's another completely voluntary law ("are urged"), and the Supreme Court didn't get involved.

The user is saying as an authority the state has nothing to fear in terms of ruining its reputation.

There is no implicit argument that additional forms of authority are necessary.

In other words, never assume someone is implying something else when making an entirely different argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com