Re: Speeding Cameras
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"Would you be offended if the government forced auto manufactures to put breathalizers in every car?"
15,000 people are killed every year by drunk drivers. Maybe it's not a bad idea. "Only" 3,000 were killed on 9/11.
[/ QUOTE ]
If the government did everything it could to save 15,000 lives a year every time an idea came up for a way to do it (ban transfats, put breathalyzers in cars, ration cigarettes to 2 packs a week, ration alcohol to 7 drinks per week, police write tickets if you don't use snow tires in the North, and every other little thing that might save 15,000 lives per year): we might save 1.5 million lives per year, or even more, with all those measures; but it wouldn't be worth it.
It's worth taking a bit more risk in order to be free from being constantly: watched over, guarded over, hounded, hassled, inconvenienced, busybodied, henpecked, nitpicked, bothered and bewildered by what are growing to be soon a billion regulations and rules by which we must all live our lives - or else. Aren't you starting to get sick of it, too?
Frankly, I'm getting to where I don't give a damn if 15,000 more people die or not. Just leave me alone to live in peace; and I'm sure many other Americans feel exactly the same way if they stop and think about it.
[/ QUOTE ]
This was directed at the breathalyzer thing, so I can't tell your stance on speeding cameras. But the obvious difference between this and transfats/etc is that the government is taking away your ability to do previously lawful things. Speeding was never previously lawful.
[/ QUOTE ]
Ok...my stance on speeding cameras is that they are not able to take into account things like traffic flow or safety maneuvers and I just don't like the idea of them. If they're going to be used to issue citations for going only a bit above the limit (like normal traffic flow is) then I think that would be especially bad. If they're going to be used to issue citations for going much much faster than the limit then that is not so bad.
I think cops issue tickets somewhat capriciously and as a means to raise revenue and I think both of those are bad. Unfortunately there is no way to have a truly strict speed limit because traffic flow will always go a bit above it,and to drive safely, you must drive with the flow. So I see no fair way to issue tickets except leniently.
As for the civil rights issues: I don't suppose that these cameras are actually a civil rights violation but I do think that nitpicky law enforcement is bad and that law enforcement should be saved for serious offenses. Going a little bit fast on a highway is in no way a serious offense nor does it add much to hazard. And if nearly everyone is doing it then it becomes the safest speed at which to drive.
In sum: I doubt that the cameras are a breach of civil rights, but I don't like them or the idea, and have little doubt that they will be misused to raise revenue. I also
just don't see the proper role of government as being to micromanage our lives or to keep finding new ways to raise revenue for its bloated corpulescence at our expense. Government should serve, not be served. And I'm also a bit leery of the use of government cameras in public places and the slow trend towards a possibly Orwellian future.
|