Report a Comment

Several fallacies going on here: Assuming that cameras must either be "all about safety" or "all about revenue." They have dual purposes

And, this is fundamentally the problem with traffic cameras. They are dual purpose. Few people deny the need to increase safety and many people agree that cameras can potentially increase safety if implemented with safety in mind (and if this isn't a settled issue, as some suggest, it's not too hard to determine whether cameras improve safety by analyzing the data).

The entire problem with cameras is with their other purpose -- raising revenue. By singling out motorist law breakers, traffic cameras are a patently unfair way of raising revenue and lend themselves to "war on cars" accusations. So, the baby gets thrown out with the bathwater and people end up opposing cameras because they are at least partly about increasing revenue in an unfair way.

If you care about safety, you'll unbundle traffic camera policy and make them only about safety.

by Falls Church on Apr 2, 2012 4:53 pm • link • report

Does this comment violate Greater Greater Washington's comment policy? If so, you can report it using this form and an editor will take a look.

What is the major reason you believe the comment violates the policy?
Comment is spam.
Comment attacks other individuals personally.
Comment criticizes the level of knowledge of another commenter or contributor.
Comment discourages others from posting their ideas.
Commenter is impersonating someone else.
Comment uses profanity or abusive language.
Comment advocates violent acts or harm to another.
Comment was posted in multiple areas of the site.
Comment is arguing about the comment policy.
Other:

Your name:
Your email:

Administrator page • spam