traffic cameras as enforcement
Feb. 2nd, 2004 11:23 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
javasaurusNews 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.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Re:
Date: 2004-02-02 10:23 pm (UTC)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.รข