Caught Speeding?
May 15th, 2005School zones and residential areas in our county may soon be provided with speed cameras. I could get a ticket without ever getting stopped—a real time saver!
The most common argument against these cameras seems to be the privacy argument. A camera installed at a public intersection for the purpose of catching those who are violating speeding laws is “intrusive.”
It seems to me that a discussion of a driver’s privacy at a public intersection is about as valid as a discussion of a pitcher’s privacy in front of 50,000 fans. Privacy should not be an issue in this discussion.
Using cameras to catch speeders seems to me an efficient way to free up members of the police force for other work. If I speed, I deserve to get caught. If I get caught, I will willingly pay my fine—and hope I don’t get in too much trouble with CJ!
the gray area here, though: the yellow light.
some interpret yellow as ’slow down’; others believe it means ‘clear the intersection’…
and then there’s mercy: the warning ticket.
no camera is going to give me a warning because they can see i’m having a hard day!
besides, it’s so disconcerting to receive the ticket…creepy in an orwellian kind of way.
Proper interpretations are done in context. In the context of a state such as NY, where there are no red light cameras, one clears the intersection. In MD, we slow down!
Getting the ticket several weeks later is like punishing the dog several weeks after he makes the mess…
Are you saying that a person in a car at an intersection has no expectation of privacy? What if the cameras were used to take pictures of people picking their noses and then posted on a web site with names and addresses?
The best argument against red light cameras and their ilk is the slippery slope argument. Once the cameras are installed, they can be used for other purposes. As the kikster said, it be can Orwellian.
How dare you sully our website with talk of nose-picking?
Do you think the slippery slope argument is necessarily a good one? Any piece of technology can be used for evil.
We are already moving down the slope. (See this.) The question that has to be asked is whether the loss of privacy (whatever that is) and the potential for abuse is worth any gain in security or drop in crime that is realized (realised for the Brits out there).
I heard a funny story concerning a person getting a speeding ticket mailed to him. He got the ticket with a picture of his car and the offending speed, but he was downright upset about a camera catching him, so in the payment envelope he sent in a picture of a fifty dollar bill with his ticket…!