Speeding Cameras

[andyfox]

"So many people suffer losses in their lives/their families lives and rather than learning to get past it they want all these laws enacted to make themselves feel better. (mom killed by drunk driver so now person goes on a crucade to have the breatalizer thing for everyone). Rather than accept responsibility with managing their emotions about this tragedy they displace it onto society. Rinse and repeat with countless scenario's where accidents and other tragedies happen across the country."

How do you know they go on their "crucade" to make themselves feel better. I know two couples who have lost a child and they started foundations. Neither has done it to make themselves feel better, they are honestly trying to help other people avoid the problems their sons had. I suppose we all do everything to make ourselves feel better, so in that sense you're right. But you cheapen and demean people who have suffered losses.

If by freedom, you mean the freedom to drive drunk, that's not freeedom.

Anyway, I'm leaving this thread now, enjoyed the conversation.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
"Just leave me alone to live in peace"

But what if I'm one of the 15,000 who get killed by drunk drivers? By you, because you want to be left in peace?

[/ QUOTE ]

have we somehow been free of drunk driving deaths for the past 10 years due to our wonderful system and I have just not heard about it?

[Meech]

[ 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 ]

Brilliant!

[Poofler]

[ 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.

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a point.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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 ]

Slavery was previously lawful.

[/ QUOTE ]

Make a point.

[/ QUOTE ]

It should be fairly intuitive.

[John Kilduff]

[ 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.

[Poofler]

Agree. Obviously I think the intention should be to increase safety, not raise revenue. And ticketing people for going 5 over is clearly the latter. I wouldn't support any scheme: camera, police, whoever that targeted those drivers. But cameras can calibrated to snap photos for any speed, it doesn't have to be some giant revenue venus fly trap.