(over used but effective image I think )
Oldie but goodie, indeed, but I'm not seeing how it applies to this matter.
You know me well enough to recognize how resistant I am to legal constraints, even if not at straight-jacket magnitude. I just don't see how the camera constrains. I'm oblivious to them because I recognize that they can't hurt me, unlike the frog's hot water, which can. The only thing the camera does is make me more likely to get caught doing something illegal. So unless I want the freedom to break the law, in this case to run red lights, the camera is not a constraint on my activities.
If your issue is with slippery slopes (frog metaphor), that this will lead to cameras to catch you in all sorts of other crimes, I still can't find an objection. Laws should either be enforced or taken off the books so I can only applaud more effective and efficient enforcement.
If your issue is that red light running shouldn't be illegal, that I could at least understand. But there the constraint is with the law, not the camera that enforces the law.
For example, speed cameras. While I may not run red lights, I do speed. I drive sometimes on the beltway and the beltway, when not jammed up, runs a good twenty mph over the speed limit. Recognizing that the safest speed for me to drive is the speed of the rest of traffic, I speed right along with the pack. If they installed cameras to catch me, my issue wouldn't be with the cameras, although they're the most available target, but with the law, the ridiculous speed limit.
So I still don't get it. If you could tell me how you think red-light cameras constrain me or otherwise hurt me, I'd appreciate the insight. |
