Traffic Photo Enforcement a Good Idea? 2.

¶ … traffic photo enforcement a good idea? 2.

Traffic Camera Enforcement

The fact that many states have installed traffic enforcement cameras as a means of regulating traffic has been the subject of many debates in the recent years. Although this is considered to be generally beneficial for individuals engaged in traffic, there are still many people who believe that their privacy is violated by these devices. Also, there is a great deal of individuals who are victims to errors generated by this technology. It is certainly difficult to determine whether the system brings more advantages than it does detriments.

Taking into account the "Big Brother" theory, it is only safe to assume that a system of identifying traffic violators (one that would be error-free) would be more effective and less stressing for motorists if it were to target criminals only and if the persons in charge of operating it were qualified to see that these cameras would not violate the intimate lives of people.

The times when drivers were cautious and slowed down when encountering police vehicles carrying radars are apparently history. The modern society embraces more efficient methods of apprehending people who perform illegalities in traffic. Machines are normally recognized for the fact that they rarely have errors and because they put across a truthful account regarding what happens in traffic.

Policemen having the duty of scanning motorways in search of motorists breaking traffic laws have often been reported to commit grave errors, as it is only human to mistake. Judging from this, effectiveness is essential in controlling traffic - thus meaning that policemen should be replaced with technologies that are better in catching criminals. This would also allow police officers to get involved in critical conditions, where thinking is essential and where the capability to respond rapidly and by respecting moral values is required.

In addition to violating intimacy, traffic cameras can actually influence people in committing mistakes while driving, as some might find it difficult to drive knowing that there are cameras taping everything they do. Installing cameras on every street would virtually mean that people cannot move an inch without being caught on camera. The fact that the government is normally not the institution in charge of operating traffic cameras makes matters even more severe. The companies selling traffic cameras are the ones monitoring traffic and deciding who gets a ticket and who doesn't. The state apparently pays these companies on account of the number of tickets that are being issued (Klein).

Cameras are widespread in areas like Hawaii and London, making it virtually impossible for people living there to have a feeling of privacy, given that their every step is being monitored. Whereas this might be interpreted as a positive breakthrough in society, it can also be considered as being particularly damaging and stressful for the general public. It seems that the main purpose of video cameras installed in public places is no longer that of catching criminals, as it is practically a tool to monitor the public. The authorities have apparently also used traffic cameras as a means to verify if certain people performed suspect activities (Blumberg & Keeler & Shelat). This is surely a violation of privacy, considering that it is immoral to follow people around just because their behavior is abnormal.

Traffic cameras are presently primarily used with the purpose of catching individuals who run red lights. Ethical and legal controversies have prevented numerous traffic camera violation reports to be considered worthy of being considered to be evidence in courts. The main question to be asked is related to the fact that certain people are confused about whether they should give up their privacy in order to be able to benefit from safe traffic conditions. "With regard to legality existing literature shows that legal experts generally agree that a vehicle operator, when driving along a public roadway, knowingly exposes himself/herself to the view of others and cannot expect his/her privacy to be protected under either the First of Fourth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution (Chaterjee 7).

Privacy is no longer what it once was, considering that the contemporary society follows people everywhere, on the streets and on the alleys. Authorities keep saying that the masses should accept that this is for their best interest and that people's privacy is safe, especially given that cameras are only installed in areas where individuals are already on public view.

The concept standing behind traffic monitoring should certainly be praised, as it is responsible for providing authorities with information regarding problems that might arise on certain streets and because traffic violations can rapidly be registered. People fail to observe that present-day technology is more than capable of creating devices that recognize and track down individuals who committed crimes while driving.

Considering the benefits and disadvantages of traffic cameras, one can easily reach the conclusion that there is presently no alternative to this technology. Traffic enforcement cameras are responsible for catching much more traffic violators than policemen did at the time when they were in charge of monitoring traffic. It is very important that authorities assist people in gaining a better understanding of what they are dealing with and in recognizing that traffic cameras do not interfere with their private lives.

It is essential for traffic to be controlled constantly, as numerous lives are saved as a result of the fact that people are less willing to violate traffic rules because of traffic-monitoring systems. The technique used in monitoring traffic is however less beneficial, especially considering that the costs involved in supporting traffic cameras can be directed toward other monitoring techniques that would not invade people's intimacy.