> 2) Repeat offenders who get ticked by police officers get to pay
> substantially more insurance.  This does not happen with either
> photo-radar or red light tickets because the registered owner of the
> vehicle is not necessarily the driver at the time of the offence.

I think that the owner is responsible, unless he names the driver -- then
the driver is responsible. A car is such a dangerous weapon that whoever
owns one needs to have the responsibility to know whom he lets drive it.

> 3) Repeat offenders who acquire too many offence points lose their
> driving license.  Same as (2) above - no such penalty with either
> photo-radar or red light cameras.

Rather than taking this argument as a given, why not do away with the
"camera benefit"? After all, getting pulled over because a cop doesn't like
how I drive is a lot less factual than an image taken with the
corresponding speed measurement or traffic light cycle.


> Finally: photo-radar and red-light cameras are perceived by the public at
> large as a "cash cow" or revenue source rather than educational.

I don't get this point. I mean, if you are under the speed limit and don't
run red lights, there is nothing a camera can do to you. If you were over
or did run it, you shouldn't have done it. If you think the speed limit is
ridiculous, work to get it changed. I wonder why raising speed limits
rarely is an election campaign issue, even though there seems to be a
majority that really doesn't like to obey speed limits, or that they are
being enforced.

Maybe because it's something people like to do "under the cover"?

Gerhard

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body