Red light camera firm paid for Chicago official’s car, condo | Hacker News Reader

Red light camera firm paid for Chicago official’s car, condo

arstechnica.com

72 pointssuprgeek22 comments

Traffic ticket cameras in general whether they be read light or speed cameras are a complete racket. In many if not most jurisdictions the government doesn't actually own the traffic cameras they just license the privilege of deploying them to a private company who gives the government a cut.

The problem is that they just mail out as many tickets as possible without regard for whether or not they are even correct and hope people don't dispute them. It also makes for great incentives for corruption as this story illustrates.

Here are just a few examples from Maryland I'm familiar with...

http://www.wtop.com/41/2802160/Md-court-of-appeals-to-hear-s...

http://www.mddriversalliance.org/2009/03/maryland-red-light-...

http://www.byrdandbyrd.com/speedcamera.php

The part that really irks me is the optimization for revenue that seems to occur with red light camera intersections. They are hoping that you will run the light.

For instance, a north-south road has the red. The intersecting east-west road has a left turn arrow. The north-south's right turn lanes should be able to turn, and before the cameras were installed, they simply had yield signs. But now that there's money to be made, there is no turn on red.

Another variation on the same idea: The north-south road's light is turning red. The east-west road will get a left turn arrow, and the north-south road will get a right turn arrow. Before the cameras were installed, the right turn arrows started at the same time as the yellow in the same direction, so right turners didn't have to stop. Now that there's $100 per violation to be made, there is a 3 second delay between red light and right turn arrow.

Chicago. Enough said.

I don't know Chicago that well. Flew through it once. Would - "America. Enough said." - be a reasonable way to look at this for those of us standing further away, or does it not work quite like that? Please advise.

Chicago has a storied history and marked reputation among American cities for its political corruption.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_Chicago

The USA also has a storied history and marked reputation among nations for its political corruption.

Admittedly this is coming from a Brit, but you lot have sort of taken the baton and run with it since the war.

Anyway, the point I was making, rather clumsily, is that putting the reason down to the place and leaving it at that is lazy and a bit snobbish. And it doesn't matter if the place is USA or Chicago, or some particular suburb in Chicago. Some people were corrupt and those people should pay, but making it geographical just invites prejudice.

We are known locally and everywhere else for our political corruption. I think it extends way past politics though. I have lots of local connections – the "I'll scratch your back you scratch mine" mentality is strong around here. I would be shocked if we were unique for it, but it seems to be a common feature of the land.

You didn't say, would that be the USA or Chicago?

edit - from an outsiders perspective, I thought somewhere like Washington or Vegas would be considered more way more corrupt than Chicago. I guess it is different types of corrupt, as Chicago managed the version where everybody left and they ran out of money. Perhaps the problem is they weren't corrupt enough.

whoops sorry – from Chicago... the city any real resident loves to hate.

Maybe you are thinking of Detroit... Chicago's doing pretty well economically and culturally.

Washington, D.C. and Las Vegas are not known for the same style of grafty, political-machine corruption as, say, Chicago or NYC Tammany Hall. The former two don't internally operate at the same scale as a Chicago and I doubt most of the rest of the US cares about their internal goings-on.

With the comment about running out of money, I had got Chicago confused with Detroit. Sorry to anyone that this may annoy.

Depends on which culture you're talking about. The southside is still a disaster.

> The USA also has a storied history and marked reputation among nations for its political corruption

Not so far as I can see. Political corruption is the norm in most of the world; the U.S. is perhaps not the best, but it's far, far, from the worse, even amongst roughly equivalent first-world nations. Historically I'd say the U.S. even seems to be rather well-thought of.

You could certainly trot out a list of countries many people around the world would probably consider "better" than the U.S. in terms of political corruption, but the U.S. is nowhere near the bottom of the heap.

Many people dislike the U.S., consider them a bully, etc, especially since Iraq, but "dislike" is very distinct from "consider corrupt."

It depends on how you measure.

Per capita and income adjusted there are far more corrupt countries.

But in terms of sheer amount of money spent on distorting politics at home, combined with countries invaded or otherwise screwed around with for economic reasons abroad, the USA is definitely hands down number one since the second world war.

This is not because the US is particularly nasty, it just has more resources to throw at this kind of stuff since becoming the dominant superpower. Though you do not become the dominant superpower by being all that nice either.

Four of the last seven Illinois governors served time in prison for corruption. For decades, Chicago was run by the "Daley Machine", first under mayor Richard J Daley and later by his son, Richard M Daley. It was common knowledge that Chicago politics were corrupt from the mayor on down, but nobody was ever able to make any charges stick.

Privatization. Enough said.

But the problem is still the "public" part of it. A private company can generally not put up red lights cameras and start forcing people to pay fines without direct cooperation with the government.

The problem is a part of the "public" part of it, not the public part itself. The problem is a weak government that could be corrupted by private interest. That doesn't mean you throw the baby out with the bathwater.

I'd be fine with red light cameras if they were owned by the government and it allowed police to worry about more pressing matters.

I think that a stronger government will only be more corruptible. The only reasons private interests try to influence government is that government has the ability to benefit then.

But the government doesn't optimize for profit, corporations do, and this is one of many cases (like with prisons) that optimizing for profit is bad for the world.

Government absolutely optimizes for profit.

Business as usual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com