SuperMachoMan Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 On one hand, speed cameras violate one's rights for privacy and also limit one's freedom to choose the speed of their vehicle. So, cameras are against what libertarians stand for. On the other hand, cameras have proved to be quite effective in lowering the number of car accidents (up to 50% in some cases). So, my question is — are you against or for speed cameras? Could you please explain your answer.
Torero Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 On one hand, speed cameras violate one's rights for privacy and also limit one's freedom to choose the speed of their vehicle. So, cameras are against what libertarians stand for. On the other hand, cameras have proved to be quite effective in lowering the number of car accidents (up to 50% in some cases). So, my question is — are you against or for speed cameras? Could you please explain your answer. How do you know that "speed cameras have proven to be 'quite' effective (up to 50% in 'some' cases) in lowering the number of car accidents"? Is there a causal relation between the two? Are there no other factors? How reliable are numbers presented by a government who is also the one putting the cameras there? What about speed cameras causing more accidents (because people suddenly brake and others fail to react)? I'd say if the responsibility for car accidents is put upon the driver, people are more cautious when needed. Also the German Autobahn in many places doesn't have speed limits. Surprisingly few accidents are reported (and yes, the same question about reliability of that data stands here), but if it were so dangerous, wouldn't you think the smart German governments would have installed cameras and introduce speed limits everywhere?
Jer Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Is it a private road where the penalty for speeding is non coercive such as exclusion? That could be voluntary, but I guess in general I'd support most things that reduce my interactions with armed people who have unresolved childhood trauma.
Guest Gee Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Against. http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf 1
shirgall Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Except that the speed cameras take everyone's picture and speed and there's no guarantee that they don't give the information to others wholesale. Will a criminal know someday that you are not home because a speed camera saw you somewhere else? Waze let's you mark speed cameras and choose alternate routes, btw.
nickhk Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 On one hand, speed cameras violate one's rights for privacy and also limit one's freedom to choose the speed of their vehicle. So, cameras are against what libertarians stand for. More than that. Assuming we're talking in the present, statist world. Basically, a speed camera, or a red light camera, is another device that may lead to my untimely demise at the hands of the state. I break whatever rule, and get sent a ticket, or a summons. If maybe it goes to the wrong address, or takes months to show up, I'm still on the hook with a warrant out because I didn't respond in time, or pay the fine. Then, escalation of force from the state, and I may end up handcuffed on the ground with broken bones because I supposedly resisted arrest. And maybe, just maybe, I get shot in the street. All because I was seen doing something on some camera. What gets caught on those cameras doesn't amount to lethal force. This is an example of: against me.
SuperMachoMan Posted August 20, 2015 Author Posted August 20, 2015 How do you know that "speed cameras have proven to be 'quite' effective (up to 50% in 'some' cases) in lowering the number of car accidents"? Is there a causal relation between the two? Are there no other factors? How reliable are numbers presented by a government who is also the one putting the cameras there? What about speed cameras causing more accidents (because people suddenly brake and others fail to react)? I'd say if the responsibility for car accidents is put upon the driver, people are more cautious when needed. Also the German Autobahn in many places doesn't have speed limits. Surprisingly few accidents are reported (and yes, the same question about reliability of that data stands here), but if it were so dangerous, wouldn't you think the smart German governments would have installed cameras and introduce speed limits everywhere? Here's an abstract from some studies published by U.S. National Library of Medicine http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20927736 MAIN RESULTS: Thirty five studies met the inclusion criteria. Compared with controls, the relative reduction in average speed ranged from 1% to 15% and the reduction in proportion of vehicles speeding ranged from 14% to 65%. In the vicinity of camera sites, the pre/post reductions ranged from 8% to 49% for all crashes and 11% to 44% for fatal and serious injury crashes. Compared with controls, the relative improvement in pre/post injury crash proportions ranged from 8% to 50%. I'm not very good at interpreting study results, but in this case it's obvious that speed cameras help save lives. The source seems to be trusted also. For what it's worth, the German government is one of the best out there, but as any other government it doesn't care much about well-being of its citizens. Maybe, that's why they don't put cameras everywhere. And because people generally don't like speed cameras, nobody pushes for their deployment all over the roads.
SuperMachoMan Posted August 20, 2015 Author Posted August 20, 2015 Except that the speed cameras take everyone's picture and speed and there's no guarantee that they don't give the information to others wholesale. Will a criminal know someday that you are not home because a speed camera saw you somewhere else? Waze let's you mark speed cameras and choose alternate routes, btw. That's a very good point! Governments are usually very bad at keeping information secure.
Romulox Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 I am against state-owned speed cameras, as I am against state-owned roads and state-owned anything. I would not be against speed cameras on a private road any more than I would be against security cameras in a private store. They aren't being used in a manner that makes me feel as if my privacy is at risk and generally reduce losses due to theft, resulting in lower prices for me. I imagine speed cameras would have a similar fate; monitor the roads just enough to reduce accidents and the associated costs while ensuring the privacy of the customer. If they in fact do not reduce accidents or drive customers away because they are too intrusive, then those road companies that use them will start to lose money and possibly go out of business if they continue to use them. Problem solved! Feel free to replace "speed cameras" with "speed limits" or "mandated car insurance" in the above argument; basically the things that everyone will assume you are completely against in any form when they learn you're a libertarian. 1
Alan C. Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Speed cameras are just for revenue generation. They're used to rake in millions of dollars under the pretext of public safety. A more pertinent question is whether or not there should be any government roads, and there shouldn't be. If roads were profit-seeking ventures (like a private business), and people had to pay out of their own pocket to use them, then there would be far less traffic, far less bad drivers, and the roads would be far safer.
LandoRamone30 Posted August 20, 2015 Posted August 20, 2015 Short answer. I am against it I would like to live in a free society for sure. Now, if it is the law/rule in your area, obey the rule or change it.
fractional slacker Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Speed is not bad. Repeat: Speed is not bad.The roads have been so poorly managed and continue to rob people of their most valuable asset: time, that the idea of penalizing folks for attempting to protect that asset is nothing short of unmitigated evil.Physics are the only laws worth noting in transportation. 1 1
percentient Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Against. http://www.slower-speeds.org.uk/files/10myths031220.pdf You are against speed reductions and link to "the Slower Speeds Initiative"? If their summary is fair, the cameras reduce my #1 likeliest cause of death by half. This is a no-brainer.
Guest Gee Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 You are against speed reductions and link to "the Slower Speeds Initiative"? If their summary is fair, the cameras reduce my #1 likeliest cause of death by half. This is a no-brainer. My mistake, I linked the wrong article.
MagnumPI Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 For. They should be installed in all government vehicles and subject to random audit. The only people these rules should apply to are those who support them. Since we can't track voters so easily. Just throw one in the car of anyone with a badge.
Alan C. Posted August 26, 2015 Posted August 26, 2015 Report: Southern California Red Light Cameras Fail To Reduce Accidents Reducing accidents was never their intended purpose.
percentient Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 For. They should be installed in all government vehicles and subject to random audit. The only people these rules should apply to are those who support them. Since we can't track voters so easily. Just throw one in the car of anyone with a badge. Same goes for drunk driving?
MagnumPI Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Same goes for drunk driving? Which part? But yes. An arbitrary number representing the amount of a chemical in one's blood should not in itself be a crime.
fractional slacker Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Same goes for drunk driving? Yes. Just like velocity, there is nothing inherently wrong with consuming alcohol, in and of itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with driving, in and of itself. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong combining the two. 1 1
percentient Posted August 29, 2015 Posted August 29, 2015 Turns out I never prepared a speech in support of the prohibition of drunk driving. 2
JamesP Posted August 30, 2015 Posted August 30, 2015 Yes. Just like velocity, there is nothing inherently wrong with consuming alcohol, in and of itself. There is nothing inherently wrong with driving, in and of itself. Therefore, there is nothing inherently wrong combining the two. I think I found another candidate for the annoying poll... 1
Recommended Posts