Doesn't "when no one else is around and driving through empty streets at thirty miles per hour in twenty-five zones" mean that no one else was around [to get hurt/injured]?
I don't think he's trivializing traffic laws. They have a place and a purpose. If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement. If only we would use "common sense". Using cameras to get around no eye witnesses is about raising punishment and revenue above public safety unless you don't enforce the ticket unless another person or vehicle is visible on the picture. But then we are throwing due process out the window when we can't question our accusor (witness) and see into the source code etc. That's not something to trivialize.
(Don't get mean wrong, I wish there were more officers to write tickets to people who go 30 down the residential home lined streets where I live. 30 is to fast for conditions as a child could be unseen behind an object near the street or run out of a house or building into the street and 30 would be too fast to do a vehicle in time.)
Obviously, if no one is truly around, then speeding is less dangerous. However, it is the person or car you don't see that you are most in danger of hitting, so I don't think allowing people to ignore traffic laws when no one is around is a good public policy.
Accidents happen when people make mistakes. One of those mistakes is thinking no one is around when they actually are.
This is the same thinking behind "Well, is yeah I drove drunk, but I didn't hit anyone or cause an accident, so what is the problem?"
Yes, you didn't cause an accident this time. But you took a risk that society deems is too great, so we need to discourage the behavior even when nothing bad happens.
> If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement.
If a tree falls and no one is around, does it make a sound?
I find this to be short sighted. Someone might be around, and they could be the fatality of the accident. Or perhaps accidents could be avoided if reckless drivers are left without permits for offenses not involving casualties (preemptive measure).
I agree that camera ticketing removes a key constitutional protection, and I don't mean to detract from the issue raised in the article. The issue with "if no one is around they don't need enforcement" is that it implies that it's ok for drivers to use their judgement to determine if they can safely exceed the speed limit in a given context. How does the driver truly know that "no one is around"? We can't allow this to be a defense, "I was doing 45 because the streets were empty so it was perfectly safe..."
The purpose of a municipality displaying posted speed limits is that they have made a determination of what the safe speed is for that area, given road conditions, visibility, and proximity to pedestrians or bicyclists or road hazards. If this is too slow for you, then lobby to change the posted speed limit, but don't just speed because you think it's safe.
Unless you have a clear view with nothing that can obstruct your vision of a small child it's hard to be sure there's no kids. People make mistakes and I'd prefer if people just go 25 through neighborhoods.
Yes. Road conditions, visibility conditions, surroundings, road design, etc all come into play. I've yet to see a speed camera on a residential street. They are usually on highways. I would bet there would be out cry from the people who live on the street (most likely they don't or no longer have younger children) that want to go 30 to get to their homes.
I don't think he's trivializing traffic laws. They have a place and a purpose. If no one is around no one is around and their purpose (preventing the public from bodily injury) doesn't need enforcement. If only we would use "common sense". Using cameras to get around no eye witnesses is about raising punishment and revenue above public safety unless you don't enforce the ticket unless another person or vehicle is visible on the picture. But then we are throwing due process out the window when we can't question our accusor (witness) and see into the source code etc. That's not something to trivialize.
(Don't get mean wrong, I wish there were more officers to write tickets to people who go 30 down the residential home lined streets where I live. 30 is to fast for conditions as a child could be unseen behind an object near the street or run out of a house or building into the street and 30 would be too fast to do a vehicle in time.)