Chicago's Red Light Cameras Now a Point of Contention for Mayoral Candidates

The same system of red-light cameras in Chicago that was shown last year to have been generating bogus tickets is still around -- but now, reports Reuters, it's a political punching bag for opponents of Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel in an upcoming election. "[Emanuel], who supports the nation's largest automated camera system, is polling slightly under the 50 percent plus one vote he needs to avoid a run-off against the second-highest vote-getter. Three of the four challengers seeking to topple Emanuel say the cameras should go. Emanuel's closest rival, Cook County Commissioner Jesus "Chuy" Garcia, who is polling at about 20 percent, said he would only keep cameras that have been proven to reduce accidents. .... Chicago has red-light cameras at 174 intersections and 144 speed cameras near schools and parks around the city. They have brought in $500 million since 2003, according to media reports, a figure Chicago has neither confirmed nor disputed.

Comments

Political pressure can work

[Kohath]

This is how we got rid of red light cameras in San Diego. It became an issue in the mayoral race and soon after the election they were gone.

If Chicago had legitimate elections, they might be able to solve some of their government-related problems too.

Re:its all about the $$$

[Solandri]

Its been proven time and time again that red light cameras do more harm than good.

And the opposite has also been proven:

If you do nothing but add red light cameras, the intersection tends to become safer.

But inevitably, the government agency which authorized the cameras suddenly realizes it's getting more revenue from traffic violations. And it starts shortening the duration of the yellow lights at the intersections to artificially increase the number of violations, and thus increase its revenue even more. This makes the intersection more dangerous, moreso than the cameras initially made them safer.

I've thought about these types of situations a bit. The best idea I could come up with is that fines for breaking the law should not go to the government. They should go into an escrow account held by the government, which gets equally redistributed to taxpayers when they get their tax refund (or converted to a tax credit if the person owes taxes). The idea behind these fines is that the offender needs to be penalized for the bad behavior. As the public was the party which was harmed by the behavior, and ostensibly the government is acting on behalf of the public, the fine goes to the government. But that leads to a conflict of interest on the part of the government in situations like this. So the best solution is to remove the conflict of interest - if the government makes no money from traffic violations, then its only motive for enacting traffic control is to improve traffic flow and safety.