Should cameras be used to catch speeding motorists?

  • I support using cameras to catch speeding motorists, because it will prevent any potential accidents

    By having cameras ready to catch any potential speeding motorist, this will dramatically decrease car accidents. Most motorists will be scared of getting caught, so they will slow down and follow the speed limit. This would especially be useful in school zones. Just the idea of being able to get caught for speeding will make the streets safer for all motorists and pedestrians.

    Posted by: JoyousDennis
  • I think cameras should be used, because it discourages people from speeding.

    Although nobody enjoys getting a speeding ticket after the fact, cameras are fair to all speeders. While you might be able to talk your way out of a speeding ticket if you are stopped by a patrolman, the camera does not take sides. If you are going above the speed limit, then you pay. Knowing speeding will cost you extra will discourage most people from speeding.

    Posted by: TrainLock
  • Cameras should be used to catch speeders, because speeding affects all drivers.

    Although it might seem that this is an invasion of privacy, speeding does not only impact the person in the speeding car, it also can pose a danger to every other person on the road, whether they are in a car, or a pedestrian crossing the street. It is not fair for one driver to put the lives of these people in danger.

    Posted by: MannP4rk
  • Yes, because they do affect the rate of traffic accidents.

    If you are speeding, you are breaking the law. It doesn't matter if you were seen by a police officer or a camera. These cameras have been proven to reduce traffic accidents where they are installed, and most are in high-traffic intersections where many accidents occur. It's a matter of safety.

    Posted by: M4rwInferno
  • Cameras should be used to catch speeders, because they are no more intrusive than any other "security camera" in a store that is being used to "catch" thieves.

    Cameras can be used to catch speeders. Cameras are used to catch people running red lights. Cameras are used in many businesses to catch thieves. In each of the these situations, the object is deterrence. We would rather that drivers did not speed, because speed can kill the driver and others on the street. We would rather drivers did not run red lights for the same reason: it cuts down on accidents. We would rather thieves did not rob merchants. There is nothing wrong with a society taking steps to keep people from doing things that are dangerous or detrimental to themselves, and to those around them. That being said, we must be very careful not to take this "obligation" on the part of society to "protect us from ourselves" too far. There is a blurry line between protecting us from our own potentially self-destructive actions, and infringing on the American tradition of our individual rights. We can not say that law enforcement can place a camera to monitor us in any public place. This would give them the right to place a camera on the corner of your street, or mine. But yes, do try to stop speeders from killing with their cars.

    Posted by: CI3Iike
  • As long as the definition of "speeding" is made clear, and the driver is identified properly, I have no problem with cameras being used for speeding.

    People going 10-20 mph over the speed limit are a danger to everyone on the road. We all know that when there's no threat of being caught the speeding increases. Using a camera just adds more virtual officers to the road, and maybe just the idea will cause people to stay near the speed limit. The only hitch I see is if the camera just gets the tag it may not be the owner driving, so there'd have to be a driver's photo that's used if the owner claims they weren't the one driving. And the camera would need to be set to only take pictures of speeding cars, not every car!

    Posted by: Ch4unLaxr
  • Cameras should be used to catch speeding motorists, as speeding is against the law and violators should be punished.

    Cameras should be used to catch speeding motorists. Speeding is against the law, and violators should be punished. The time of law enforcement officers is valuable and should be better used, rather than trying to catch speeders. Fines for speeding are often used to support public services, and should be obtained using the most cost effective means. The reliable technology exists and it should be used.

    Posted by: Cen2I0rd
  • We need cameras!!!!!

    Are people just voting a 'no' because they don't want to be caught speeding? Well if you are, your breaking the laws. Imagine if you were a pedestrian crossing the road. And a motorbike comes 'whooshing' past by in front of your face, out of the blue. Wouldn't you want to report about that close accident and have the proof? That is exactly what these speed cameras are for. It is a danger to a children and our people. Now here is another thing, it might freeze you but it is the truth. If you hit someone with your motorbike because you were speeding, you'd feel guilty for your whole life. Wouldn't you?
    Any small changes of speed can be effective. If you crashed with another vehicle, you might lose your life or be a thin ice lying in bed. Who would EVER want that?!

  • Confidence of the Lawful Motorist Should Outweigh Distracting Fear

    The most useful argument against the use of speed cameras is the number of times a motorist checks their speedometer when passing a camera increases the risk of an accident. However, someone who is confidently following the law should be neither discouraged nor distracted by the presence of a camera in their immediate area.

  • Yes they should.

    Cameras should be put in place to catch anyone who does not obey the law including speeding. Speeding is really dangerous too because they could crash and hurt themselves, run into a pedestrian, or hit another car. It causes a lot of problems if people who speed are allowed to keep doing it.

  • Speed-ometers (odometers) should be disconnected

    Speed cameras are a punishment and encourages debate, the pros and the cons. There are those that intentionally flaunt the law and those that meticulously obey the law and those that have momentary lapse of reason. My point goes back to how we receive our licence insofar that there is no basis for consequence; we are punished for poor performance (demerit points) as opposed to rewarded for good performance (start with 0 points, then accumulate) . I'll go on a limb to say, all cars should not have a speedometer, then we should all drive within our capabilities, our competencies, and to the conditions of the road on the day. If you didn't have to have one eye on the speedo, then I am sure you would be more attentive to the road; tell me I am wrong, I would love to hear this debate escalate to view the speed camera debate viewed in a different perspective ... I believe there would be no need for speed cameras and road accidents would decrease (you can't combat fatigue with this or the speed camera debate) but it would require a general public mind shift that has been based on punishment as opposed to reward.

  • They just punish

    Speed cameras and mobile ones just punish a speeder not prevent them from speeding. Most of the time someone speeding through a camera won't even notice till they get the fine. While that might make them speed less after it did nothing for that moment, same for red light cameras. Its just a way to make money.

  • - Speed Camera's

    Though speed camera's catch many people everyday. You have to remember that it just creates further problems. We have to also consider how it emotionally and physically affects people from the loss of their money and how they react when they see speed camera's.

    Almost all people who constantly travel through a certain area all the time, memorize where every speed camera's location is. It can cause congestion or even more accidents when some people are constantly slowing down or speeding up. It has been proven that it doesn't really change much on how people drive, considering that they receive the letter usually a few weeks later.

  • Cameras used to catch speeders don't stop the speeding, and in some cases they can be dangerous.

    I have personally witnessed accidents occurring because of cameras used to catch people breaking traffic laws. This case involved a red light camera, but it is also a possibility that someone would dramatically reduce their speed if they saw a speed camera, and end up causing an accident. If they don't see the camera, this is just as bad because they don't know they are being caught and they don't slow down and drive more safely. In the end the only value that these cameras provide is income for the municipalities in which they operate generated from an increase in speeding tickets.

    Posted by: MariaR
  • Can you say "Big Brother," anyone?

    Cameras are absolutely not the way to catch speeding motorists. In England, I read a recent report where, at the same intersection, there were more accidents and deaths with a speed camera present than without. This could possibly be due to the fact that drivers are nervous knowing a speed camera is coming and are spending more time looking at the speedometer than the road.

    Posted by: laceydoesit

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.