Thursday, March 5, 2009
Opposition from some lawmakers on the Transportation Committee yesterday to a bill that would allow towns and cities to set up traffic-surveillance cameras, makes the Blogster wonder how THEIR driving is. This has been one of those bills that has been annually killed off for years, amid claims that it’s a potential invasion of privacy.
The Blogster argues that when motorists violate the law, like speeding, driving recklessly, or running a red light, their privacy should be surrendered.
Rep. John Harkins, in arguing with a representative of state police chiefs who favor the law as a public-safety measure at a time when motorists are crazier than ever, set forth a hypothetical of teenagers making a copy of another’s license plate, then taping it over the plate of their vehicle before driving out and committing traffic violations. The ticket would come to the unwitting car owner.
Well, t’s AGAINST THE LAW to misuse a plate.
It’ll be interesting to see how this bill, which is also being sold as a revenue enhancer in this grim budget year, may get killed this year.
Um, Blogster it’ll be easier for me to take you more seriously if you ease up on the CAPS and when you don’t misuse “they’re” for “their”.
Comment by Anonymous — March 5th, 2009 @ 12:49 pm
Many representatives–and Senators–also are supporting the bill.
As Blogster points out though, some of the representatives spun outlandish scenarios, & were down-right rude.
A member of the public testified and was grilled on a variety of situations:
“What if I’m on my phone, not paying attention, & it’s bad weather. I see a yellow light. Are you telling me I’d get points on my license for speeding up to avoid the red? I can’t be bothered with that!”
A. It’s illegal to speed up at a yellow. It means, “Stop if safe.”
B. Try “I was distracted by my phone” next time an officer gives you a ticket for speeding. Really!
C. Don’t expect members of the public who are not professional lobbyists who took a full day off of work to come up & testify before you to be able to answer highly technical answers. We aren’t paid to be present. We’re here because of public safety, and our testimonies made that clear.
D. Next time, read the bill before you ask questions it clearly answers. The bill states–as you were told–that you would not get points on your license and that it is not treated as a moving vehicle violation.
E. The camera is only triggered if the driver ran through a clear-red: not an “orange” light, as the impatient & hasty drivers of CT seem to think yellow lights are, but “approached on red ran on red” red. AGAIN, this is written in the bill.
(even after this was pointed out, the public was quizzed three times on “points on your license”)
If this is the best our legislators can do, it’s very dissapointing.
Harkins’ hypothetical problem has an obvious–easy–in the bill–solution. The tickets are only issued after a confirmation by DMV. A police officer (required to check the photos) is HOPEFULLY capable of distinguishing between cardboard and metal. How many teenagers are going to buy a car that matches the make/model/color of another car in order to pull of a stupid prank?
Comment by Streever — March 5th, 2009 @ 2:28 pm
Dixon,I have to agree with Andrew Schneider.
When you put plate tracking cameras throughout our post-9/11, patriot act world you open a whole new way for Big Brother to watch you. I’m not a criminal, but I don’t want to help the government monitor me, heaven knows that one day their motives won’t be pure. We should all be concerned by the spread of CCTV.
Comment by rick — March 8th, 2010 @ 4:34 pm