On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:57 AM, Dorian A. Monroe, II
<dorian.monroe@cox.net> wrote:
Maybe I'm too idealistic, but I don't believe that they were put in
place only for the money. The company that built the cameras is not
getting a cut of the profits. They are getting paid according to a
contract that they've signed with the government. If no revenue was
generated from tickets as a result of the cameras, they would still get
their money according to the contract.
There is no dollar amount that can be set for the value of a life.
Accidents and injuries on the highways are now lower than they were
before the cameras were put in place. The most likely variable that
influenced the reduction in injuries is the presence of the cameras.
It's my opinion that the people that are against cameras have a
disregard for the lives of others.
In the past, I thought that it may even be a good idea to create an
additional class of driver's license for people that could prove that
they are capable of driving safer at higher speeds. Having more
extensive driving exams and frequent and strict car inspections for
these people would allow them to drive maybe an extra 10mph over the
posted limit with designated plates or something. My views on this
changed after I had my daughter. :)
The problem is that no matter how well you can drive, you still have to
be concerned about everyone else on the road. There have been times
when I'm driving down the road at the speed limit and paying attention
to the road (in front of me, primarily) to have someone pass in the
adjacent lane some 20+mph faster than me. They came up so quickly that
perhaps in the timing of my rearward glances I missed them and then all
of a sudden they're beside me and gone. Maybe they're a really "good"
driver, but it shocks the beejeezus out of me. Now what if I had
decided to change lanes, or if anything unexpected were to happen?
Debris on the road? What if I were someone that didn't have good
reflexes? I would be really mad if that person caused me to have an
accident. I would be heartbroken and destroyed if anything were to
happen to my daughter as a result of someone else's disregard for
safety.
There are many arguments for and against the speed cameras, like the
right to face your accuser in court. If you've had your picture taken
by one of these cameras, you were breaking a law. If you were to get
pulled over by an officer, you would most likely get a fine and points
on your license. Your insurance may go up. If you've had a couple
accidents in the past and already have enough points you may lose your
license. If you get your picture taken, you only have a fine. It's a
trade-off that I think is acceptable.
On Thu, Apr 2, 2009 at 11:20 AM , Charles Jones wrote:
> Personally to me the fact whether or not speed cameras save lives is
> irrelevant. The #1 reason the speed cameras were installed was due
> to the money they would bring in, not for our safety. Yet when people
> complain about them, they try to play the safety card instead of just
> admitting they are loving their new cash cow (and so is the company
> that installed the cameras that is getting a cut of the profits).
> ---------------------------------------------------