A couple of weeks ago, I was discussing the idea of computer-controlled cars with a friend and suddenly realized what it would do for local funding and law enforcement. No traffic tickets. Very little excuse to pull anyone over, so no lucky drug busts, no "driving while black", and of course no DUIS.

It really made me wonder whether the authorities would support the idea, even if it was a massive benefit to society as a whole.

I think Farhad Manjoo has missed an important point in his essay ridiculing the proposed ban on devices that detect red light camera systems. Sure, Chicago likes its revenue and this device might affect it a bit. But my main concern is that knowing whether an intersection has red light camera emboldens a driver to run a red when (s)he knows there is none. As an area resident who frequently drives in Chicago, I'd rather have us all on an even playing field, at least hesitating to run red lights for fear of being caught, than have a few reckless drivers out there running reds with near impunity.

I have been livid for several years at the way local governments use traffic and parking violations as government fundraising.

In Brookline, MA, they have a ridiculous ordinance that prohibits parking on the street for more than an hour between 2am-6am. The stated reason is because it's "ugly" to have cars parked on the streets. The unstated reason, besides keeping poorer people who can't afford an off-street parking space out, is that it brings in great revenue. Before I moved away, they had recently raised the overnight parking fine to $40. That's right, $40 for leaving your car out for 4 hours in the middle of the night.

If there's a real purpose for these rules that relates to public safety or public benefit, that's fine (like preventing people from running red lights here). But if it's just to fill the city coffers with extra cash that they're too afraid to collect from taxpayers outright, it's just outrageous.

Whatever the stated rationale, ban the darn things. I don't want my loved ones killed by some idiot who feels free to run unguarded red lights. Why would anyone pay 450 bucks for such a gadget, unless they intended to use it to run red lights? I'm sure the Chicago alderman must have been taken out of context, and revenue was just a subsidiary reason for banning the devices.

He's the same guy who wants wrigleyville to be "mardi gras all year long". The guy's a craven opportunist, in the worst stereotype of the Chicago politician.

We won't tax SUV's, although they're a burden on the city's upkeep and parking system. We won't cut down on overexpensive road construction projects. But, sure, let's sacrifice safety for a little, very little, cash. Burke's an idiot. I'm glad I don't live in his ward.

Everyone down here ghettorigs that up. It works pretty well. The cops haven't figured out whether it's a violation or not. It probably is since everything else is. And when they do it'll just be another in mix of more than 2100 traffic tickets a DAY the fine men and women of the Raleigh PD (Raleigh pop. 350,000) write.

I think cities should simply mail out random invoices as a tax in lieu of the tickets they would have written otherwise. It would save on car insurance and cause fewer traffic accidents. Figure 3-5% of the people would get a bill twice a month. You write them a check for about $130 and they move your name to the bottom of the list.

That's ridiculous. The only purpose for a device like that is to allow people who are going too fast to read the big "camera-enforced" signs the freedom to run non-camera-enforced red lights with impunity. And if we can't fine you when you run red lights because nobody catches you, you'll never learn not to. Until, that is, you cause a crash.

Though I live in Chicago, I don't know anything about this particular alderman. But one alderman's mentioning that this is an expensive program that is expected to pay us back not just in safety but also in city revenue does not "put the lie to the safety-first agenda." It's just an additional consideration.

Here's another additional consideration: without the ban, poorer scofflaws will pay more red light fines than affluent scofflaws who can afford a warning device. I think all scofflaws should be fined equally.

Finally, the tone of your article was reminiscent of a sensationalist tabloid, so you should probably chill.

The argument some readers have made, that banning the device would keep drivers guessing whether a light was rigged with a camera, is based on the faulty premise that drivers wouldn't have this information without the device. In fact, as stated in the article, Chicago is already warning you with roadsigns that the light is rigged with a camera—proof that at least someone really was interested in the safety aspect. I'd heed the signs and save myself $439. (Better yet, don't run any red lights.)

Mayor Richard Daley -- like every other sane politician who advocates installing red-light cameras -- insists that the cameras' primary purpose is safety.

No, every politician who was sane would advocate other, better ways of reducing red light violations and accidents:

http://www.motorists.org/photoenforce/home/alternatives-to-red-light-cameras/

Perhaps he means "politically sane", but the supposedly sane are still being dishonest about motives.

OOh, yeah. I have a big, big problem with traffic cameras. Ask any Brit what they think of "Gatso"s (named for the inventor, the late Dutch rally champion Maurice Gatsonides), then step back while they vent. The problem is, the devices were created with the best of intentions, that is, to increase traffic safety, but they've been subverted/perverted from this to become instead, a means of increasing fines revenue.

Much like the stereotypical Deep South speed trap, the powers-that-be depend on the relative invisibility of these devices to catch people, and thus generate fines. If they were really serious about using them to increase safety, each camera would be housed in a bright fluorescent orange casing and marked with large, obvious warning signs. Instead, they tend to be white or grey, and what signage there is, tends to be subtle and placed a good block or two away from the intersection in question, at least that's what they've been doing here in Los Angeles, where many of these cameras have been installed in recent weeks.

Well, at least here in the States they're only using them on stoplight-controlled intersections... for now. In Britain, they largely use the cameras in conjunction with automatic radar speed sensors, which are triggered when you pass them over a certain speed, snap a photo, and automatically generate and mail to your home, a ticket for speeding, which can be near-impossible to contest, even if you weren't the one behind the wheel!

Sad to say, this is another fine (pardon the pun) example of good technology being used for EEEvil.