--- From: "Terry Ewing" <politech@private> To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan@private> References: <6.0.0.22.2.20040204235537.028ac3e8@private> Subject: Why red-light cameras level the playing field Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2004 02:25:34 -0500 Declan, I wanted to present how I changed my mind and came to approve of red light cameras over a short period of time. In January of 2000 I moved from Sacramento, California to Northern New Jersey. It was a radical change in culture and, as anyone would be, I was amazed at some of the differences between people living within the same country. One of the things I noticed shortly was how often police run red lights while casually driving from place to place in what appeared to be blatant disregard to the traffic rules that apply to normal citizens. Since it's mostly unreported it's hard to track how often this happens. I heard many anecdotal stories from people who were either police officers or firemen about how there is an "unspoken rule" between them not to cite each other for non-injury infractions. New York and New Jersey have a system where a police officer can give out laminated cards or "mini-badges" to family or friends which they present to the officer when pulled over. I've witnessed at least five occasions within two years where people presenting these cards were let go with a mild verbal warning instead of the citation I believe most average citizens would get. Yes, I think I have seen enough personal evidence to confirm there is a well-known pact between police and fire officers to be more easygoing on each other than Joe Average. No, I don't think this is something specific to the area of the country I am in, but I happened to be exposed to it more in my new area. I'm an opponent of surveillance of the masses as I think this breeds an atmosphere where people fear speaking out against authority. But I have come to respect the red-light camera if it works correctly (which is a different discussion). If it is working correctly it provides strong evidence of a person doing something which puts others in immediate risk of injury. With the pictures in hand and a blanket policy about prosecuting violators we can gain at least one win against this caste system where being related to a law enforcement officer implies leniency. We can track (yes, I'm suggesting cataloging) vehicles which frequently violate at least this one infraction. Now to the question of ensuring safety. No, this is not a means to ensure safety of motorists or pedestrians. No punitive action could ever be a safety device. At best it can be a strong deterrent. Over time, if people were to realize they could not violate this statute without probability of being fined I think the numbers would reflect a decrease in violators and hopefully a decrease in injury accidents. These cameras serve many purposes. For the municipality they increase income from citations they would not be writing as often. From the perspective of Joe Average I do believe these cameras will have a beneficial impact. The citations will apply equally to people without regard to race, sex, nationality or affiliation. I also believe it will provide a strong deterrent to anyone at the moment their brain and foot make the decision to go or stay. Opposition to this might call it an extra taxation. It is not. This is like calling lottery tickets a tax. You choose your actions. Let us be judged by our actions alone. Thank you, Terry Ewing _______________________________________________ Politech mailing list Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Feb 08 2004 - 23:21:08 PST