It's not about safety. It's about reminding people that if they step out of line for any reason they will get whacked because the government is always watching.
It's possible a camera and its installation will cost up to $500,000 (it's a government contract, after all). That would mean a camera needs to last 6 years to make it naively cheaper than an additional officer.
So ... I think the cost argument is more or less a wash. Cameras might last longer than that. Or be a bit cheaper than that. They're probably able to detect more offenses than a human, given their positioning.
I think there are more effective arguments to be made about the reversal of the onus of proof, about security of the video imagery, etc.
[1]: https://www.police.nsw.gov.au/recruitment/the_career/general...
To be fair, I've also assumed that 'it's not about safety' is a literal tabloid letter to the editor style comment, and I almost have a knee jerk assumption that anyone who uses that line hasn't actually done any math (and isn't inclined to).
It is about saving lives. Anyone who’s worked close to car crash first responders knows that mobile phones have become a big contributor.
How is this different to speed cameras, from a “surveillance state” stand point?
Speeding kills your pocketbook 2 explores this in depth, fact checking accident statistics in BC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzmVCSfRR38
> It is about saving lives.
this is always the justification given for surveillance, and as always, it is unsatisfying. the bar for pointing cameras at the general public, most of whom have not yet done anything wrong, should be a lot higher. if it's truly a public safety crisis, we should be able to justify hiring some more traffic cops.
It comes down to whether you believe driving is a right or a privilege. If you believe it's a right then this does seem like an invasion of privacy. If you believe it's a privilege then there's nothing more objectionable about this than having a CCTV camera in your workplace.
can't argue with that, point taken.
> It comes down to whether you believe driving is a right or a privilege. If you believe it's a right then this does seem like an invasion of privacy. If you believe it's a privilege then there's nothing more objectionable about this than having a CCTV camera in your workplace.
this part I do disagree with. cctv at work can only record what I do at work. I grudgingly accept that my employer gets to ensure that I don't steal company property or do other bad stuff at work. I'm also fortunate enough that I can choose to work for a company that doesn't have cctv in the office.
on the other hand, putting cameras all over the road gives the government the technical ability to track pretty much everywhere I go. they might not be allowed to do this legally, but it's funny how "mistakes" tend to happen in these situations.
if I lived in a part of the world where public transportation was truly good enough that I didn't need a car, I might have a different opinion on road surveillance. what I'm really getting at is this: unless I have done something specific to attract this attention, I should be able to go about my day-to-day life without the government surveilling me. for what it's worth, I see an awful lot of cameras in public transit when I visit NYC and london. is public transit also a privilege?
Not a cop, but worked security back in my uni days (and our company was contracted out to provide a couple of mobile speed cameras) and I have to say I found those kind of shifts (where you're paid to do a repeated menial task in public and there's no way to slack off) were the WORST. I'd want that automated ASAP.
Total revenue for the NSW government in that year was $81 billion, with a budget surplus of $800 million: https://www.budget.nsw.gov.au/sites/default/files/budget-201...
Traffic cameras generate some revenue of course, but let’s be realistic – you could scrap them entirely and not even get 10% of the way towards a budget deficit.
Drivers love pulling out this stuff for every fine, whether speeding, DUI or this. It is ridiculous. We get it, you don't feel you need to follow the rules.
As long as it is a fine for dangerous activity, then it could even be paid personally to some well known individuals instead of the government! That might be an even better incentive to drive safely if you feel a strong personal sense of unfairness at being fined.
There's no excuse for driving through red lights, speeding, or using a phone while driving. Anybody who can't help themselves doing these things is incompetent at driving and can protect themselves from fines by abstaining. People who occasionally make a mistake are still dangerous, but they won't pay many fines either so it's not a big problem for them to be fined once or twice in their life.
because it creates inappropriate incentives for the state. it incentivizes authorities to knowingly create unreasonable laws for the purpose of increasing revenue. a fine can be a good deterrent against breaking the law, and I'm certainly not saying they should just burn the money, but it's something you should be wary of as a citizen.
the rest of your post indicates a very trusting attitude towards government, so I doubt we are going to see eye-to-eye here in general. I really think you should reconsider the yellow light timings though; it is quite an egregious abuse.
a yellow light needs to have some minimum duration to be useful. you can't have a 1 second yellow on a 50mph road; there's no way anyone can stop that fast. yellow light timings are usually set so that drivers who are too close to the light to safely stop can pass through before it turns red and the cross traffic gets the green. shortening the yellow for one direction usually advances the green timing for the cross traffic. it's not just a "gotcha" fine; it actually increases the chance of collisions in the intersection.