javasaurus (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
javasaurus) wrote2004-02-02 11:23 am
javasaurus) wrote2004-02-02 11:23 am
traffic cameras as enforcement
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.
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.
no subject