Feed on
Posts
Comments

Thus says my Big Brother. Coming to my hometown of Rochester: traffic light cameras to “protect us” … what a joke. Here is what will be coming soon to protect us some more. Better yet, maybe this is coming soon? So technology giveth much to advance our freedom, technology also takes it away (well, thugs with technology I should say).

Check out some of the nonsense from our brilliant elected officials:

Lovely Warren agrees that … And its safety first in our community.”

Really? Because we can all be 100% safe at no cost. If it is truly safety first, would Ms. Warren propose to reduce school funding and dedicate more money toward policing? If it is truly safety first, would Ms. Warren propose to ban driving when the weather is not 100% perfect? What does “safety” first actually mean? And really, people do not actually behave as if “safety first” mattered. If that were the case, then you would see all of your neighbors unwilling to incur any risks to their health and well being. Yet, I see people drive cars regularly and go skiing and deep fry turkeys and light off fireworks … heck even our city lights off fireworks on our behalf.

Councilmember Dana Miller was on his side,and said, “I would really like to encourage us to choose Rochester based suppliers when we can.”

Yep – choose local suppliers when “we” can. That’s the road to prosperity.

Studies from cities that already have red light cameras show crashes are reduced by 20% to 65%. But other studies show the cameras can increase rear-end crashes. Markert says it’s a concern they’ve taken into account, and they’ll avoid putting the cameras at high speed intersections.

Oh, and remember this:

There is a bit of a catch with this legislation. Police can’t necessarily ticket the actual driver in certain cases. The ticket will be sent to the owner of the vehicle.

Or this:

Studies from cities that already have red light cameras show crashes are reduced by 20% to 65%.

At what cost? Maybe if the roads were privately owned and run, we would have a whole range of solutions to reduce traffic accidents, if in fact the current level of accidents is inefficient (and just stating that accidents happen does NOT mean that the current level is inappropriate).

Or how about this:

But other studies show the cameras can increase rear-end crashes. Markert says it’s a concern they’ve taken into account, and they’ll avoid putting the cameras at high speed intersections.

Whew, now I feel safe. They have “taken it into account.” Good thing they did all of those studies and run pilot programs here in Rochester to take it all into account. And now, they simply won’t put them into high speed intersections. But aren’t those intersections where the risks to human health and safety are the highest (at least someone could show us the data)? So, is it safety first? If so, then what are we doing about these high speed intersections? Maybe there are more rear-end crashes, but perhaps the safety gains in the fast intersections are bigger nonetheless.

But think a little bit like an economist just for a second. If it becomes common knowledge where these cameras are, ask what other things drivers might do to avoid the possibility of being caught? Maybe some of us might figure out alternative routes to where we are going? Perhaps more of us will take the highway (increasing congestion there), maybe more will take side streets without lights (increasing traffic and danger on formerly residential streets), maybe some of us will travel on faster, high speed intersections where the cameras are known NOT to be there? Did our brilliant planners think of this? I am sure they did – but the fact is none of them have the knowledge of how the thousands of different commuters would respond to this.

Furthermore, what if they cameras do in fact reduce accidents? Might they also increase travel times because everyone drives more cautiously? Did our omniscient city planners think about the value of people’s time? And yes it matters, just waving your hands and saying it doesn’t does not make it so. And maybe today the cameras only ticket red light dashers, but I guarantee they will track speeds soon too. And what happens if a traffic light malfunctions and gets stuck on red? Will drivers each and all be ticketed because they refuse to sit there for hours like lemmings waiting for the profit making, customer service oriented city planners get out there to fix it in a jiffy? I can’t wait for that to happen.

What a bunch of infantile, paternalistic, money grabbing garbage. I wonder what the fines will be for those of us who might be inclined to take out a few camers … by accident of course?

2 Responses to “If You’re Not Doing Anything Wrong, Then You Don’t Have to Worry About Anything”

  1. […] 20,000 homes of “the worst families” per a Daily Express article quoted below: (tip to TheUnbrokenWindow.com for finding the story) THOUSANDS of the worst families in England are to be put in “sin bins” […]

  2. Harry says:

    A tour de force, Wintercow.

    When I was growing up, I thought it was a free country, before I read any history.

    Note that the left gave up on, or at least deferred their enthusiasm for communism (partly), and have in recent times revered Germany as their economic model.

    Today, as I was driving the turnpike doing 74 to 76 (posted speed limit 65), I thought of four traffic tickets, two detected by radar (Dallas Fort Worth Turnpike and somewhere between Minneapolis and Milwalkee). The other two were in speed traps, manned by the local hauptfuher’s guard.

    Even though we know Wintercow is being watched, for now we know that Alan Blinder does not know it on Twitter.

    BTW, I heard fleetingly that the White House was asking for any contrary opinions to be sent to its website, regarding Harry Reed’s abortion.

Leave a Reply

overappreciative-anemotropism