The city is basing their pro-camera campaign on 1) safety, and a distant 2) revenue. Opponents think the real motivation is the other way around, and are skeptical of the safety benefits of the lights. The city states that red light related crashes have gone down since the cameras were installed. This is true compared to 2006, but not compared to 2007. In reality, we're talking about a range of 0 to 13 crashes at all camera intersections combined, so I don't know if the sample size is large enough to provide statistically significant data.
I plan to vote against the cameras. That means I have to vote "yes," though, because voting for the ordinance = voting against the cameras. I'm not sure if the city had much say in crafting a confusing ballot question, but I wouldn't put it past them.
I don't like the idea of law enforcement by camera. The idea of a red light camera isn't too objectionable to me, but this puts us on the road towards speed cameras, which are starting to catch on. I do fear that the adoption of these cameras is based on monetary considerations. In addition, the placement of these cameras might be based on something other than traffic data, like, say, political considerations. For example, students use these street a lot, let's nail them while we leave this intersection in a senior citizen neighborhood alone. While I'm sympathetic to the "if you don't want a ticket, don't break the law" argument, I still think I will vote against the cameras.
P.S. I like this idea as a form of civil disobedience against these cameras.
If I had the chance to vote against those things, I would. For one thing, why should I be liable for an act that someone else committed in my car. For another, the strobe light is very distracting at night. If you are not expecting a sudden brilliant flash, it is easy to swerve out of instinct. I think it is just a way to get people to pay more taxes.
ReplyDeleteMy concern is that so many other offenses (drug possession, seat belts) are caught after someone is pulled over. By taking out the human element, we loss the ability to catch even more serious crimes. Also, just like with teens and speeding tickets, paying a fine is not that big of a deterrent. The inconvenience of being pulled over might make a bigger impression.
ReplyDeleteI didn't think of the element of other crimes, Rudy, but I suspect camera fans will say that it's not a question of pullover vs. camera ticket, but that it's camera ticket vs. nothing at all.
ReplyDeleteArizona has cameras along the freeways. There is one spot where they reduce the speed to 55mph for about 2 miles, and in that spot there is a camera. After the camera, the speed goes back up to 65mph. It makes me wonder...
ReplyDeleteI just don't like cameras in public places checking on people. I can understand at ATMs and in private parking lots I guess, and it appears they have caught people kidnapping people, etc. But cameras all over our roadways to catch minor traffic violations just reminds me too much of when I would go to East Berlin before the Wall came down and they had cameras at every street corner to keep an eye on their citizens (subjects!) ala Big Brother and 1984. Not trying to be paranoid, but where does it stop?
ReplyDeleteHey there!! just thought i'd say hey! it's me, you know the flower girl from you and Mackenzie's wedding!! how ya doin??!!
ReplyDelete