traffic cameras as enforcement

[javasaurus]

News item on WTOP today:

Apparently a lot of people are upset about red-light and speeding cameras. Personally, I don't see the problem -- don't run red lights, and don't speed, and you don't get fined. But people are making the claim that the cameras are overly invasive, somehow invading privacy. What privacy? You're on a public road, in a situation where if a cop was there, he wouldn't be invading your privacy by pulling you over, right? So why is the camera more invasive than a cop?

What really got me was the woman they interviewed who said (I paraphrase): There are some laws where if they don't catch you, it shouldn't be illegal.
Well, lady, you were caught.

Sigh...

I know there are issues regarding who gets the money from the fines, and some other issues regarding administration of the cameras. But I just don't get why people feel they have the right to break certain laws.

Comments

Re:

[xpioti.livejournal.com]

As for being cut off in traffic... one thing I do is "thwart". If you signal, I don't thwart. If you are driving in a manner that makes me think you will try to cut me off, I ensure that cutting me off will cause an obvious accident. And it will not be my fault. In my Saturn, I even had designated "accident quarters" -- specifically, the corners of the car that I would voluntarily put into harms way, since they had previously received damage that I had not fixed (typically because of price).

I've pretty much concluded that I absolutely love my car, but I know how it handles when struck, I know I wear my seatbelt and the only loose thing in the car that may cause a problem is the breakfast soda and my purse (if Curvy is inverted, laptop will go flying; likelihood: slim). Also, the big thing to remember is... many of the people who yank in and out of traffic are blithering idiots. The only thing they know is how small a space their car can fit in. If you can convince your subconscious to set that space as your "follow while doing less than 35mph on 270" (in my case) speed, you'll tend to not be cut off.

I absolutely loathe DC metro area drivers. It is far too easy to get a drivers license, and the road rage education is laughable. If you are actually a courteous driver (like you, Cyd -- or me, in general), you obviously are not a DC metro area driver.

*mutter*

(BTW, a thwart can be as simple as not being cowed when someone makes an intimidating move.)

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

playing a large game of chicken only goes so far. if you lose, so does a lot of other people around you when the accident happens, stopping traffic in a major way.

Re:

[blueeowyn.livejournal.com]

1) I agree with the comment that getting into a problem causes problems for everyone else with regard to traffic.
2) Even if the accident isn't your fault officially, you can still get hit with higher insurance (I know someone who is getting seriously jacked up rates because [he] was hit from behind while stopped on the ice ... the company says that he shouldn't have stopped on the shoulder ... he should have stayed in his lane (and hit the person there I guess) ).
3) The real problem is that even with the seat-belt on, the forces on the body can be pretty severe. When I was involved in a fairly minor crash (was rear-ended by someone going about 15 mph), I ended up with a severely sore neck and a concussion. If you get hit from the side, the spin can still do major things to your neck/back/etc. even with a seat-belt on. I am tall enough to hit the windshield even with a locking seat-belt.

I understand the thwart tendencies ... and have been known to do a bit of it myself, but the sacrificial corner worries me a lot.â