Speed Cameras
Posted on | April 19, 2010 | 6 Comments
Another issue I’ve been meaning to write about: speed cameras. A recent post by John Stossel on the subject, as well as the general understanding that Gov. Brewer does not intend to renew the contract here in Arizona, has given me a kick in the pants.
I am angry about Big Government. I’m angry about high and complicated taxes, big debt, government’s stranglehold on schools. If states ban car cell phone use, I’ll be pissed. But speed cameras? No big deal.
I agree. What’s more, I don’t understand the problem.
The most most common complaint I hear is that speed cameras are “just a revenue stream”. I don’t agree that that is all they are, but so what? Do you think the police department operates without revenue? They have to get their funds somewhere, and if people want to volunteer to contribute (by breaking traffic laws), that means less that the rest of us have to pay to maintain those services. We long ago decided, as a society, to levy fines for certain violations – like speeding. If it is simply a revenue stream, it is one we have accepted thus far.
Considering that the usual statement after receiving a traffic ticket seems to be, “Shouldn’t they be out there solving rapes & murders or something?”, you’d think a system that allows our police to waste less time on speeders to be very popular.
I’ve heard people complain that it isn’t “fair”. Fair? There is a law, you shouldn’t break it. If you break it, you run the risk of being caught. If someone breaks into your house and is caught on your surveillance camera, do you think he shouldn’t be charged because you didn’t see his face in person?
Basically, you want to have better odds when you choose to to disobey the law. I personally want you to be caught, because I am on the road, too. I want you to stop speeding, I want you to stop for red lights.
Speed cameras are only on public roads, roads that you have signed a contract to use – you might call it a driver’s license. Unlike a police officer on a bike or in a cruiser, the cameras don’t move. They are not only stationary, they are marked; “speed cameras ahead” and “speed limit” signs note their existence and what you need to do to comply. It is not rocket science.
People like to break traffic laws, even those people who would never think of dabbling in any ‘serious’ criminal activity. If not, there wouldn’t be such a market for radar detectors and license plate covers. Heck there is even a Facebook group called “Yes Officer…I did see the Speed Limit sign…I just didn’t see YOU” The fact that speeding is popular, or that you usually get away with it, doesn’t mean it isn’t illegal.
Just because a camera is more efficient doesn’t mean it isn’t “fair” – or that it’s unconstitutional.
Like Stossel says, “speed cameras? No big deal.”
Share:
Comments
6 Responses to “Speed Cameras”
Leave a Reply
They Said It:
Wear a smile and have friends; wear a scowl and have wrinkles.
Search Archives
Latest
Categories
Arizona
- Arizona Watch
- Brainster
- Cowboy Blob
- Coyote Blog
- Desert Cat Musings
- eNews AZ
- Exurban League
- Great Satan Inc
- Infinite Monkeys
- Intellectual Conservative
- Macker's World
- Misanthropic Me
- MoonBattery
- Papa Todd
- Phoenix 411
- Sandcastle Scrolls
- Smallest Minority
- Sonoran Alliance
- The View From My Chair
- The Western Free Press
April 20th, 2010 @ 6:30 am
You may think so until someone gets a ticket in your car and tears them up not telling you you have them. Then one day you need to file a police report and when you go to the police station to file the report you are arrested. Not a what if, it happened to a friend, except that he was talking to the officer on the phone and he was warned what would happen if he came to the station to file the report. His missing fiance’s teenage son had torn up tickets.
If there isn’t a court authorized officer there to charge you the fine then I don’t honestly believe they should charge you. In event of emergency you can reasonable explain to an officer, a speed camera never. Besides officers get caught by those same cameras and never pay a fine, that isn’t equal treatment under the law. It’s developing into two societies one in which the government workers are treated better than the rest of us and all I ask is equal treatment for all.
Many parts of the government do need to be outsourced but this is one I can’t abide by it, policing power by the state should be handled in person or not at all (preferably the later)
April 20th, 2010 @ 9:23 am
In the first instance, the issue wasn’t the speed cameras, it was an irresponsible friend. Why was the fiance’s son driving the car so much, anyway? And, how would he have access to tear up the tickets? They come in the mail to the vehicle owners address. He could tear up, say, parking tickets, which are left on the car with no direct contact. Another way we have long accepted being given a citation.
The cameras are the court authorized ‘officer’ and if you have a good explanation (like….I’m really late?) you have the opportunity to explain it in court. Or, you can be one of the idiots that speeds until they see the VERY obvious signs, at which point they slow down going past the camera, then gun it like a bat out of hell again when they are past.
You think a police officer who gets snapped by a speed camera is less likely to pay a fine than an officer who gets stopped *by another officer*? The only difference is that in the second scenario, it is unlikely a citation gets written – no matter how fast he was bookin’. Again, that isn’t an argument against the camera, just against the integrity of the police force. Which would seem to make a robot/camera preferable.
If we’ve decided that speed limits are dispensable, work against that law. I just don’t see the point in dismissing a more efficient way to enforce it.
April 20th, 2010 @ 8:37 pm
It isn’t about odds to me. I’m really not concerned about tickets at all. I just don’t want to live in a 24/7 surveillance society.
The visible presence of LEOs does much more to gain compliance with laws than cameras. England has proven that cameras are ineffective for law enforcement, but we’re still going forward with them anyway.
Out of curiosity, can my lawyer cross-examine the ‘witness’ in court? 😉
April 22nd, 2010 @ 3:23 pm
Although I am not sure on the UK statistics, and can’t imagine what it is like to know “the cameras are always on”, I have heard many stories of crimes that were solved due to images found on those cameras. It didn’t stop the guy from throwing acid in his ex-girlfriend’s face – but it stopped him from doing it again (pretty much the way any justice system works)
And, that is a bogus argument since it has no relation to the speed cameras other than that they are both cameras. Besides, you also already consent to surveillance in almost every store, bank, office building you enter. You could as easily use your distrust of a 24/7 surveillance society to ban security systems….and camera phones.
And, yes, you can challenge your accuser in court. The camera says, “This is the picture I took on 1/1/2010 of a car going 15 miles over the speed limit. This is the license plate, this is the driver.” You can challenge any of those assertions. The pictures should be pretty easy to determine yes or no (is it you? is it your car?) The speed is just as challengable whether a stationary camera or hand-held radar gun (when was it last calibrated? blah blah)
April 22nd, 2010 @ 5:24 pm
They are both “always on” camera systems, with the speed cameras providing “moment-by-moment situational awareness of problem traffic areas,” according to Redflex.
That’s just silly, cameras can’t speak.
April 22nd, 2010 @ 7:03 pm
“That’s just silly, cameras can’t speak.”
Neither can radar guns, and if you challenge a ticket given you by a LEO, that is what you are questioning, not the officer who wrote the ticket.