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:

[javasaurus.livejournal.com]

You could make the same claim regarding parking tickets. The justification (not my justification, but the one indicated, for example, by Montgomery County) is that the citation does not confer points or penalty to insurance premiums, only a fine, similar to a parking ticket, which is connected to the car's owner, not the driver. So they have a combination of precedence and proven effectiveness (Howard County reports a 70% drop in violations at intersections with red-light cameras).

[acroyear70.livejournal.com]

Unsafe driving should be penalized by points and eventual loss of license. the fact that unsafe driving practices are ONLY penalized by money when the cameras are used really proves that the intent of the governments placing the cameras is not public safety, but monetary income.