Spike Jones wrote:
>
> > MBAUMEISTR@aol.com wrote: Sounds like this one's a real nasty...
> >
> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/metro/A30253-2000May18.html
>
> Wait a minute MB, this is *exactly* what we were talking about: an
> example
> of a camera being set up and eventually resulting in a relaxation of a
> law
> that suddenly became much easier to prosecute.
>
> The article talks about a red light that was routinely being run, a
> Lockheed
> camera went into operation, $10k a day being generated by the city, the
> city acknowledging that the intersection is designed illogically, the
> city
> government deciding to stop fining the light runners. This is EXACTLY
> what I would have expected, or rather what I hoped would happen.
>
> Transparency may end up being the libertarian's best friend. spike
Thing was Spike, they didn't remove the red light, they removed the
camera. Its still an ambush light. Saying they aren't going to prosecute
people who run the red light at that particular interstection is
capricious enforcement, and only breeds disrespect for all laws in
general. They still haven't understood this point.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:11:27 MDT