One leg of that plan is to rigorously enforce speed limits, both as a means to reduce fuel consumption and to raise revenue.
Risk contagion
The City of Detroit installed traffic cameras in the early 20-teens to catch people running red lights.
I had a conversation with an electrician in 2015 and he informed me that many of the cameras were inoperative because people who intended to commit armed robbery would shoot the wires on the lights in both of the closest intersections BEFORE committing the crime.
I suggested to my new electrician friend that it would have been wise to run redundant wires and the electrician informed me that they HAD installed redundant wire-sets but they were running out of un-clipped pairs at most locations.
If the fine residents of Detroit could figure this out then it seems likely that other people can do the same.
Beyond that, if/when freedom-loving people feel totally paralyzed by the intrusive, survelliance state then it will occur to some of them that the octopus's tentacles all rely on a foundation of reliable electric power and cellular communication. Rather than shoot a wire here, shoot a wire there in piecemeal fashion, they might think of more efficient ways to hobble the beast.
This is an observation. Carpet bombing cities and suburbs (and cellphones) with electronic survelience capability may seem totally risk-free to the people who like the idea. It gives them enormous leverage with very little, personal risk. But the risk to the system does not go away. It shifts to systems where the collateral damages will be more expensive.
England had the same bright idea. Vandalism and repairs exceeded 5x what the cameras were generating in revenue before they finally gave up.
ReplyDelete1 Kid with 5 minutes and a 2 dollar can of spraypaint would cost tens of thousands to fix.
Maybe changing the little personal risk to a lot of personal risk might help.
ReplyDeleteYou can't set a speed limit to 'reduce fuel consumption' and properly set speed limits will do little for revenue as there will be few violators.
ReplyDeleteMany states have limited or banned cameras. Are the feds going to try to override state laws and force them to use cameras?
ReplyDeleteBy the way, newer cars are most efficient at higher speeds than older cars, so reducing speeding isn't as green as they say it will be.
Of course, nothing is as green as they claim...
That is a minor problem. The Transportation Department froze dispersal of Federal money until the states raised the drinking age up to 21. Same deal with mandatory seatbelt laws.
DeleteYeah, that same money that they ripped out of your paycheck they then use as a weapon to make the state bow to Federal power.
That was explicitly spelled out in legislation Congress passed; this hasn't been (so far).
DeleteThat was also a number of years ago - I think if the government tried it now, there would be MUCH more pushback than there was then.
Texas has banned them
ReplyDeleteThe algorithms used by these cameras that determine when to photograph a "violation" are faulty by design. They are designed to maximize fines, not truly enforce the traffic laws. It is fraud on an official and pervasive scale.
ReplyDeleteMost communities that allow these are in a Devil's contract with the camera suppliers, to maximize revenue, not encourage safe driving. In fact, the presence of the cameras actually increases some types of unsafe behavior.
Gawd made subsonic 22's for just such a time as this .
ReplyDelete"Fixed fortifications are monuments to man's stupidity." -Patton
ReplyDeleteIn Europe Gatso (brand) speed cameras are highly despised. There are whole websites devoted to the destruction of these cameras. "Necklacing" with a burning tire is popular!
ReplyDelete