It's not like there haven't been issues I've been interested in, it's just that most I've been thinking about lately I've already commented on. For example, I was watching a show on the Quest program in BC, about that teacher who was sleeping with his students, and it got me thinking about the whole "Mrs. Robinson" thing, about how society deals with those types of things, but I since I've already covered that, I didn't see much else I could add to my own debate. I did think that maybe I could add a feature to this blog, a simple yes or no post - just a one paragraph thing - titled "Is it sex" or something like that. Maybe I will. Might help me hit my target. Or maybe even just a "Is it ethical". I'll think about that. Today, I will discuss photo radar.
Photo Radar is just a cash grab: Photo radar is one of those things that cops use to raise money. They don't have to do any work - they just sit in a van (or truck, car, etc). The camera and computers do the rest. For a police force, the extra revenue is huge and the cost is minimal. Ask any cop, and they will tell you the same thing - it's a cash cow.
It also takes the humanity out of traffic law enforcement. The police don't have to talk to anyone, so even if you have a legitimate reason for speeding, you can't explain that to a ticket in the mail. Maybe an officer would let you off with a warning because you were having a bad day, but a judge won't. And the cost of a ticket is less that the cost of taking a day off work, going downtown, and fighting a fight you are probably going to lose. How are you going to remember what sped you were going on a road two weeks later when you get the ticket? And two months later when you go to court? Computers have made mistakes before, but you can't argue that in court.
It is also a form of taxation on vehicle ownership. Since the government can't tax vehicle ownership like they can home ownership, they generate revenue from photo radar tickets. That is why the photo radar is always set up in busy areas - because the cities need the revenue. Read their budgets - they plan for it. That makes it a tax.
It saves lives: The main point of photo radar is to make the roads safer. And they do. Any area that is known to have photo radar has a lower rate of traffic accidents, as do red light cameras. The revenue they generate is incidental and not the point of the tickets. But it does allow police to focus their time less on enforcing traffic laws and more on enforcing other laws, which is a positive.
Humanity was never really a factor in the enforcement of traffic laws. Police were always given quotas; this just makes it more efficient. People who miss the humanity only miss the humanity because they think they can talk their way out of tickets. If they actually were not speeding, then they should fight the tickets - that is always an option, and if people choose not to exercise that option, so be it. And computers don't make mistakes very often - that's the real reason why people don't fight the tickets.
The taxation argument is probably the weakest argument their is in the photo radar debate, now matter how often it is used. If it is a tax, it is a voluntary tax, or a tax on the stupid. Don't speed, don't pay the "tax". It is not comparable to property tax at all - the registration fee is more like a property than photo radar is. Just as homeowners can be fined for not clearing their sidewalks (breaking the law) so can vehicle owners be fined so speeding (breaking the law).
What I Think: It is a very fine line to walk, between public surveillance and privacy. While I do believe that photo radar - or at least the threat of it - does prevent accidents, I do not care to be monitored on every street I drive down. Perhaps that's where the happy medium exists for me; the system we have now allows for it to be set up anywhere, at any time, but it is not always there. I do think effectiveness is limited when photo radar goes in the same places all the time, because people become used to it being in those locations; and as soon as they pass, they speed up again. So I don't want to see more of it, but maybe just in different places.
How I relate: I have had one photo radar ticket, and yep, I was speeding there. Coincidentally, I don't speed on that stretch of road at all. I also know several of the spots that photo radar is set up on a regular basis on my regular routes; and I consciously am careful in those areas. Other areas - still conscious, but less so. But I really do believe that it is a voluntary tax - one that you never have to pay. And anyone using the tax argument should really look up what "tax" means.
That turned out about the way that I wanted it to. I think too often my bias shows in the arguing of both sides before I get to my conclusion, but whatever. What did I expect?
