The point isn’t about speeding; we’ve all done it, accidentally or not. It’s about principle.
Whatever happened to confronting your accuser and due process? I know they are stupid and antiquated ideas traced to that crazy document called the Constitution, but you may want to remind people of them if they support this asinine, technological way of making people pay up. But, before you do, expect them to say, “But the cameras are making the roads safer,” and, “If you don’t want to get a ticket, don’t speed.” Are these people really ready to give up their fundamental rights and freedoms for false promises of safety? Safety that isn’t really forthcoming?
Let’s first cover the safety issue. Numerous studies suggest that accidents are not decreasing and, in fact, because people slam on their brakes in reaction to the prospect of a snapshot, in many areas more collisions are occurring. The 2002 San Diego Red Light Camera Audit Report, for instance, showed a 62 percent increase in rear-end collisions due to the cameras. Meanwhile, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) conducted investigations into traffic accidents between July 2005 and January 1, 2008, and found that “traveling too fast for conditions” amounted to less than 5 percent of all accidents. The study of more than 5,471 injury crashes was the largest of its kind in three decades.
Even Britain, a country in love with laws and cameras, proved that speeding is not the main cause of crashes and fatalities. The UK Department for Transport reported, “Exceeding the speed limit was attributed to 3 percent of cars involved in accidents.”
Because the speed cameras in Arizona are so new, there are no solid statistics on whether they have affected the safety of our roads. But based on what we’ve seen in other cities and countries, the notion that speed cameras make the roads safer is just wrong – a fabrication for public and private enterprises to make lots of money.
Some speed/red-light camera companies keep 65 percent of the cost of the ticket. If I offered you up to 65 percent of the income from a business venture, wouldn’t you do all you could to bring in as much “business” as possible? Perhaps this explains why yellow lights are shorter than they used to be and why speed limits suddenly drop by 10 to 20 mph just before drivers pass one of the foreboding cameras.
The other argument some people make  is: “Just don’t speed.” As easy as it is for them to say that, it is still something most of us do. But now, if we allow technology to try and convict us, are we not losing  a piece of our humanity? Just tattoo us with a number (forehead or palm would be preferable), and our fearless leaders can track everything we say and do.
I shouldn’t speed, right? The traffic law is called “reasonable and prudent.” What this actually means is that I should not operate my vehicle in a way that could cause me or you harm. So, if a stretch of road has a posted limit of 50, and I’m going 45 in a sleet storm, then I may receive a ticket. But if that road is clear, the day is bright and there are no other cars, why shouldn’t I be allowed to drive 60 mph?
“Because it’s the law, Darrell!”
Fine, but who makes that judgment call? I want a human police officer to do it – not a camera whose details can be interpreted by pencil-pushers and politicians who are under the gun to balance a budget. Every time we take the human element out of the process, we dehumanize us all. If we don’t consider the fallibility of humanity when we make rules and regulations, we could eventually destroy everything we’ve ever believed in as free people. Sure, a traffic citation is a minor issue, but most freedoms are taken away in small increments.