I’d like to address Tuesday’s letter, “Sad so many want to break the law” and Wednesday’s letter, “Those who oppose cameras pose risk.” I object to being characterized as a scofflaw simply because I disapprove the proliferation and use of red light cameras. I am not a scofflaw. I follow the rules of the road with care and diligence, regardless of who (or what) might be watching me.
What I do object to is the government riding shotgun on my every move under the guise of safety (there are studies that show red light cameras increase rear end collisions so I’m not convinced they actually contribute to our safety as much as they exist to generate revenue) and I object to the erosion of our rights that has led us to a point where young children are frisked in airport screening lines and unwanted intimacies are being inflicted on us on a daily basis in almost all other public venues.
I don’t think I am alone in fearing that our government treats our rights, which should be written in bedrock, as though they are instead etched in sand. Our legal system gets increasingly complex every day and it gives me an uneasy feeling that we’ll soon reach a point where everyone will be guilty of something and our freedoms could rely on the benevolence and tolerance of those in charge rather than as a right.
This is a deeper issue than just a few disgruntled scofflaws. Allowing the gathering of evidence without due process is just asking to be victimized. This is why I strenuously object to the use of red light cameras and I encourage others to do the same.
It seems to me that our money would be better spent by focusing on decreasing the number of cars on the road through better mass transportation and by employing more decently paid police officers to monitor traffic troublespots.
Crystal Knight
Marysville
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
