> If everyone ran red lights there would be chaos and public safety would be at risk.
And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the public is safe.
Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is not a good way to make policy or law.
I'm just commenting based on my experience. I lived in Germany for 2 years and knowing traffic cameras were there made me a safer driver, taking less chances. Now being back at home in Canada, I noticed how my behaviour has changed knowing there was less probability I would be caught.
Have you ever driven in Italy? I have, and in my opinion that experience was bordering chaos. A small difference in how traffic laws are enforced makes a huge difference in how drivers behave.
Using as an example a simple tool which saves money and is effective in detering drivers from taking more risk to make a point about big issues of freedom and liberty is wasteful and not very effective.
After reading the article, it seems like cities could make the problem go away if they changed it from a hybrid criminal-civil matter to a purely civil case. Make it an infraction more like a parking ticket and I think it would be constitutional, wouldn't it?
And yet, the vast majority of road rules exist without any remote automated enforcement mechanism, and there isn't chaos, and for the most part, the public is safe.
Using absolute worst-case extreme examples which has no bearing on reality is not a good way to make policy or law.