I disagree with Ed Burke's premise -- that red-light running should be morphed into the city budget as desirable income -- but not with his opposition to warning signs. People should honor red lights because it's the law, not because they know they'll be caught if they don't. What about the countless other intersections in Chicago where there are no signs or cameras? Irresponsible drivers will simply view them as the "OK to run" ones.

The real problem this reveals is that local and city governments are often so desperate and beleaguered when it comes to their ability to collect taxes that they resort to "off the radar" forms of taxation, often at the expense of the poor and powerless. If these governments did their job, and taxed those with the means to pay, quotas wouldn't be necessary, red-light detectors could be about actually stopping people from running reds, and we could outlaw these devices for the right reason: they give owners a license to run reds.

Because people are lazy and stupid and ignore the lights. Now I understand those who are not familiar to Burke's politics and history giving him the benefit of the doubt, but in this case it is not deserved. The man is just simply arguing for budgetary reasons and in no way actually trying to prevent accidents. A previous poster was right, if they wanted to increase safety they would put it combined with a giant notice so everywone would slow. Burke deserves no ones benefit of the doubt, especially when the man argues for more money and seems to not worry that that more money migth come at the expense of lives

Someone above writes:

"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."

Why would drivers who already have the information need the device???

When I read about this article on boingboing.net, I was expecting it to be a wilful misinterpretation of the (probably correct) argument that fear of cameras increases obedience to red lights. No surprise if it had been, a fair amount of "X wants you to Y!" articles on the internet are based on that type of (rather irritating) premise. But lo and behold, it's actually true! He does want people to keep running red lights! Quelle surprise!

It's Burke saying this. Honestly, unlike one of the other posters, I wish he was my alderman, so I could help get rid of him. He's the one behind all sorts of silly city council actions.

Unfortunately, he's not in a district full of resident turnover, which I think was responsible for the alderman in my district, the also infamous Burt Natarus, getting voted out after all these years. Thus we're probably stuck with him until he dies, because he'll probably keep on running and winning just like Stone does.

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.

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.

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.)

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.