Thursday, March 13, 2008
Keep the comments coming on the polls
I posted the poll question on speed cameras last week. When the results started pouring in, it became apparent that a slim but definite majority of those participating in the poll disliked the use of such cameras.
I decided to find out why. So the second "What's Your Opinion?" question was on the issue. The answers ran the gamut from they just don't work after people get used to them to they infringe upon personal liberties.
"We have enough cameras," writes Wayne. "We are photographed in malls, stores, banks, (even at the drive-in window) also "Red Light" cameras. There is not a day that goes by, that we aren't in a photo somewhere. Enough of this "1984 BIG BROTHER" is watching! Citizens are entitled to privacy!"
The punctuation is Wayne's.
Andy questions liability. "Care to loan your car to someone and receive a ticket for it? And who gets the ticket in a rental car?"
Adam observed: "Speed cameras do not work once their location becomes known. I also have problems with this becoming a revenue-generating tool as some lawmakers believe it will become."
All are valid concerns. But there were some comments favoring their use.
Thomas writes: "I initially was against speed cameras in the hamlets mentioned in the news because I saw no accidents or speeding in these areas when I have been going through.
"However, I am in favor of speed cameras on U.S. 50 from the yellow blinkers near MSP Barrack and through to Chapel Road. Westbound, they don't slow down until they are actually at a red light at Dover or Goldsborough. Eastbound, Easton is just a little town to get through quickly and never mind the speed limit as they approach Dutchman's Lane because it's 55 past the light."
Thomas adds, possibly in response to Adam's comment: "The town/county could share the speeding revenue and reduce our property taxes."
Adriana also chimed in: "Speed cameras yes. It would probably teach drivers a lesson about speeding."
I agree with the notion that what people do in private is their own responsibility and should not be monitored by the state. Driving is another matter. You are about as public as you can be when you are out on the road. Your conduct also has a direct bearing on your safety and the safety of those around you. Now, maybe your own safety isn't that important. There are those who feel they should be able to ride motorcycles without helmets. But when your conduct affects others, that cocoon of privacy privilege breaks down.
If speed cameras infringe upon your right to speed, you have no right. Tell me where in the Constitution that breaking the law is condoned? And, no, speeding isn't an act of free speech or civil disobedience. Speed on your own property. Government should try to enforce the law in the public space or else there is no law.
As a matter of full disclosure, I have received a couple of warnings for not slowing soon enough in several jurisdictions during my nearly 40 years of driving. In each case they would have been ideal spots for speed camera use. So the police officers could have put their efforts elsewhere. I concede that it is especially important that speeds be suppressed in residential areas.
In a world where you have to take off your shoes to get on a commercial airliner and states are being required to turn their driver's licenses into what amounts to a national identity card, complaining about speed cameras seems to be a minor concern.
The loss of privacy is rapidly becoming a dead issue. Wayne is right. We are photographed everywhere. It is a road we are already racing down. We need to monitor its progress. But we should make our stands where there is more at stake than a speeding ticket.
Your thoughts? As always, you can reach me at rpolk@chespub.com.
I decided to find out why. So the second "What's Your Opinion?" question was on the issue. The answers ran the gamut from they just don't work after people get used to them to they infringe upon personal liberties.
"We have enough cameras," writes Wayne. "We are photographed in malls, stores, banks, (even at the drive-in window) also "Red Light" cameras. There is not a day that goes by, that we aren't in a photo somewhere. Enough of this "1984 BIG BROTHER" is watching! Citizens are entitled to privacy!"
The punctuation is Wayne's.
Andy questions liability. "Care to loan your car to someone and receive a ticket for it? And who gets the ticket in a rental car?"
Adam observed: "Speed cameras do not work once their location becomes known. I also have problems with this becoming a revenue-generating tool as some lawmakers believe it will become."
All are valid concerns. But there were some comments favoring their use.
Thomas writes: "I initially was against speed cameras in the hamlets mentioned in the news because I saw no accidents or speeding in these areas when I have been going through.
"However, I am in favor of speed cameras on U.S. 50 from the yellow blinkers near MSP Barrack and through to Chapel Road. Westbound, they don't slow down until they are actually at a red light at Dover or Goldsborough. Eastbound, Easton is just a little town to get through quickly and never mind the speed limit as they approach Dutchman's Lane because it's 55 past the light."
Thomas adds, possibly in response to Adam's comment: "The town/county could share the speeding revenue and reduce our property taxes."
Adriana also chimed in: "Speed cameras yes. It would probably teach drivers a lesson about speeding."
I agree with the notion that what people do in private is their own responsibility and should not be monitored by the state. Driving is another matter. You are about as public as you can be when you are out on the road. Your conduct also has a direct bearing on your safety and the safety of those around you. Now, maybe your own safety isn't that important. There are those who feel they should be able to ride motorcycles without helmets. But when your conduct affects others, that cocoon of privacy privilege breaks down.
If speed cameras infringe upon your right to speed, you have no right. Tell me where in the Constitution that breaking the law is condoned? And, no, speeding isn't an act of free speech or civil disobedience. Speed on your own property. Government should try to enforce the law in the public space or else there is no law.
As a matter of full disclosure, I have received a couple of warnings for not slowing soon enough in several jurisdictions during my nearly 40 years of driving. In each case they would have been ideal spots for speed camera use. So the police officers could have put their efforts elsewhere. I concede that it is especially important that speeds be suppressed in residential areas.
In a world where you have to take off your shoes to get on a commercial airliner and states are being required to turn their driver's licenses into what amounts to a national identity card, complaining about speed cameras seems to be a minor concern.
The loss of privacy is rapidly becoming a dead issue. Wayne is right. We are photographed everywhere. It is a road we are already racing down. We need to monitor its progress. But we should make our stands where there is more at stake than a speeding ticket.
Your thoughts? As always, you can reach me at rpolk@chespub.com.
# posted by Richard Polk @ 10:39 AM 
