Quote:(08-08-2019, 05:52 PM)danbrotherston Wrote: If owners don’t like it, they can be careful about to whom they lend their vehicles.
I agree, and certainly many others do as well, but this is not what the law says right now.
Of course there are others who would vehemently oppose this, why, I don't know, they seem to have a very one-dimensional understanding of the concept of "freedom".
I’ve seen discussions in which what people said, taken to its logical conclusion, basically meant that no traffic enforcement is permissible; apparently it’s just a money grab.
To be fair, in some US jurisdictions, red light cameras really are primarily a money grab — they are timed to maximize revenue, not to mail out a ticket when somebody is observed running a red dangerously. And there are legitimate issues around police power, civil liberties, privacy, etc. But none of these give license to car drivers to drive however they want to, no matter how unsafe. The fix for all of these is appropriate policies and legislation so the legal apparatus primarily encourages safe driving.
An interesting example of this is the issue of signalling oncoming drivers that you’ve just passed a speed trap. I agree with others that it is not legitimate for the police to ticket people for signalling (by dipping headlights, as I understand it), but for a different reason. Some people say the police shouldn’t ticket because, by telling people about the speed trap, they cause them to slow down. But this is bogus, because the whole point of a speed trap is to spot-check something that can’t be enforced ubiquitously. However, I say that police shouldn’t ticket because ticketing for some nebulous offence of signalling something to other drivers is contrary to the whole concept of free speech and limiting police enforcement activities to actions that are well-defined and actually cause harm.