I decided for my first blog to do what I do best, which is to annoy the people I know and photo radar seems to be a good way to go. In general I do not particularly like the idea of government monitoring its' citizens or the use of technology to possibly infringe upon our rights. I would prefer a world where we did need speed cameras. I really don't like that the flash can be a PTSD trigger for our courageous veterans. Having that said, I'm not ready to join those screaming for it's removal. The arguments I've heard, which I admit may not be all, are that it's revenue gimmick not really meant to creating safety and that it infringes on our right to privacy.
Privacy, really in that thing surrounded by a bunch of windows, where you crank the music way up, put stupid stickers/vanity plates on, buy expensive useless accessories for in order to look cool for the girl in the car next to you that could care less if your alive. Privacy, we upload uncountable numbers of photos to facebook and flicker, put videos on YouTube and have God only know how many people filming themselves sexually (not that I have ever seen that stuff). Almost every store you walk into is recording you, but I don't hear the outcry over that. Our civil rights don't seem to matter when we want an Affliction T-shirt, The Hills DVD or David Hasselhoffs newest CD, but hey that is corporate brother and not Big brother.
The Internet things I mentioned are our choice, which is what this is really about. I don't want someone to tell me what I can and can't do, I have the right to choose. Even when I'm wrong, which is very often though I will not admit it, you don't have not right to call me on it and tell me what to do. Thankfully I'm wrong and you can call me on it because our civil rights or not absolute or unlimited. Your rights end when they harm or take away from others. My right to speech allows me to write this blog and for you to respond, but it does not allow us to lie or slander. The same rule applies when driving. Your right to speed and get somewhere 90 seconds faster does not override every other drivers right to be safe. Furthermore, we do have a choice in this matter. We can choose to obey the laws intended to keep us safe. These cameras only take our picture when we do something dangerous that could harm others. I find it funny that in the age of technology when we talk about how interconnected we are that we so easily forget how our actions and choices effect others.
Despite stereotypes, this democrat does not favor more laws and regulations. I prefer to use them only when necessary, because out of all the ways to change behavior punishment is the least effective. In this instance though I believe we have definitely shown that we do not make good decisions in this area and something needs to happen. Besides speeding and red light running, we also drive under the influence, talk on cell phones, eat, apply make up along with many other reckless things while driving. Despite the multiple studies pointing out the danger and the thousands of lives and millions of dollars lost a year, we know what we are doing. Do the cameras create safety, I don't know. DPS and other agencies say they have seen a reduction in accidents in these areas, but I understand individuals skepticism due to the sources vested interest. Maybe I am naive, but I choose to believe that someone somewhere in this process really cared about safety when they came up with idea. So if you want my support stop complaining about the cameras and start coming up with alternatives to keep people safe. You do that and I am with you. For those of you who want to Quote Franklin to me or liken this to Bush's' wire tapping, save it. If we showed any responsibility, I included, we would not have photo radar or waste officers time patrolling the road ways.
Finally, what if it is a revenue scheme? We have no problem taxing smokers for their bad habit, which is not illegal. Our need for speed costs and kills just as many, so what is the difference. The difference is this bad thing is done by the majority, while the other is done by a minority. And we are okay picking on them despite that pesky thing we call a Constitution that protects minority rights. I'm not worried though, our fine legislature with its' backbone of steel will not give in to the masses. They may be cut happy, but even they are not stupid enough to cut a source of revenue in these economic times, just to keep themselves in office. Damn that would require them to lead and that is just not in their job description. Now that I think about it we do not need that revenue anyways, it's probably only amounts to a few teachers, classes at ASU, beds for veterans, the elderly, victims of abuse or mentally ill. I may not be able to admit when I'm wrong but I can admit when I'm beaten. So what the hell, where my torch? I'll join the mob and destroy those damn monstrosities.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Shawn, what a great post! I love how you logically and passionately deconstruct the various arguments against speed cameras. And, I generally agree with most everything you have said! So often people get outraged without really thinking things through. Thanks for taking a breath for the collective. Well, until the end there anyway!
ReplyDeleteBy the way, does the flash really trigger PTSD?
It can trigger it. It was mentioned a couple times I believe when the wonderful Mrs. Rossi was doing interviews with vets and professionals for our needs assesment in Pegs class. Many things can trigger traumatic memories a big bright flash included.
ReplyDeleteOk, this may surprise you, but you make good arguments and I agree to a point.
ReplyDeleteBut before I get to agreeing, let me disagree, since that's the nature of our friendship. I might be wrong but here in the US, freedom of speech also covers lies and slander. Only in the UK is lies and slender not permissible under free speech rights. But, I might be wrong on that one...
Btw, "we" don't want Hasseholf's newest CD, that must be your fetish, not ours. Also, when you go into a store and are recorded, you are not punished for breaking a store rule such as turning on the music too loud in a sample stereo but only for grave occurrences like shoplifting.
Which gets to my point of my whole opposition to speed cameras in general. I would be more willing to accept them if they were reserved for the serious offenses rather than the trivial. Going 41 mph on Rural and University at 5AM, with no one one on the roads, should not be a cause for a $150 ticket. The cameras are used in this capacity as money making devices for the state. If someone is traveling 60 or 70 mphs, then the ticket is valid and worthwhile. The machines take away human involvement and reasoning. It does not allow for exceptions and changes in circumstances or context of incidents that a cop would recognize and understand.
My other biggest opposition to their use is the fact that it will be only a matter of time before the US follow's the UK's lead in using cameras not only as a method of catching infractions, but rather, will start using it as crime prevention. In the UK, the state actively monitors its citizens for potential crimes that might yet be committed or for pure surveillance. If that doesn't get your civil liberties spine tingling, then nothing will.
Lastly, I don't know if your analogy of big brother vs big corporate brother fits. The state has the capacity to imprison, fine, create criminal/civil records, tax and etc. Big corporate brother does record our coming and going and even track our purchases, which I'm not ok with either, but at least they cannot take away our freedom or infringe on our movements and we always have the opportunity not to do business with those companies anyway. You can't ignore the state in the same way.
Well, aside from that, good points, some of which I had not heard before. I'm willing to compromise and accept some form of photo cameras, such as red lights or excessive speeding, but I believe their use should be limited rather than expanded.
Good start Shawn. Keep it up. What's next topic? The aggressiveness of young Jewish males as representatives of the Zionist state?
Oh, also didn't Mr. Barnett teach us that the laws of the state of AZ say something to the effect that speed limits are subject to the environment? Which obviously means that if its raining heavy, you have to go slower, but if my memory serves me right, didn't he say that if conditions are clear and safe, you can go faster? I might be wrong on that one but I thought he taught us that...
ReplyDeleteI concede that you may be right on the lie and slander argument. I believe you can be held liable civilly but not criminally, if it can be shown that the comments led directly to a loss or damage. But then again what can't you be sued for. Also I agree that a flat fine that covers all levels of offense is harsh. I would prefer to see at least a tiered system, but the freeway cameras do allow for 11mph over the limit now. I could disagree more, but I'll leave it there.
ReplyDelete