Dear Editor,
It is evident that Deborah Cooper [Patrol with dash cams, Langley Advance Times, March 22] has been deeply influenced by the negative impacts that unsafe driving can have, as her friend killed someone while travelling 20 km/h above the speed limit, and dealt with life-changing consequences as a result.
I agree with her that “[We] have a choice” to decide to drive safely.
I also understand her frustration that it seems people are not “voluntarily” willing to take responsibility to “drive properly.”
However, the solution Ms. Cooper proposes contains some concerning factors.
Ms. Cooper suggests that “the police set up a group of volunteers with front and back dash cameras installed in their vehicles to record other drivers on our streets.”
She compares this to the “police [who use] bait cars as a tool to catch those who steal vehicles.”
This assumes that volunteering civilians will be able to do the work of a police force.
It could cause potential harm to the volunteers, as it makes them vulnerable to others on the road. For instance, if others noticed that thev had cameras, they could be at risk of road rage or worse.
It might also inhibit their own driving abilities, as they may be tempted to be on the search for poor drivers.
Ms. Cooper also says, “You can’t dispute a video recording’s content.”
I wonder if this statement is entirety true. Video footage could be a viable source at “catching” people’s poor driving, but there may be situations where the context could be necessary to understand if it warrants a ticket.
Further, it will still require money.
Ms. Cooper says the City/Township “can’t afford to hire full-time traffic officers to monitor every major arterial road.”
Volunteers would need to be trained, and set up with two dash cams each, which will cost money.
Further, Ms. Cooper suggests, “Another volunteer/officer team could review [the] videos and issue appropriate tickets for driving violations.”
That will not only delay the distribution of the tickets, but it might also cost additional money to pay those who oversee the process.
The most serious problem is the issue of privacy.
It seems that Ms. Cooper desires that “every major arterial road” be under as much surveillance as possible, so that videos of poor driving could be submitted to the police.
I wonder if she or the volunteers would like this kind of monitoring of their own driving. Would they be willing to submit every minute of their driving and run the risk of being ticketed themselves for whatever poor driving they have done?
I am not convinced that increased monitoring of each other is a positive direction for the protection of our privacy. Is it truly beneficial for people to be monitored 100 per cent of the time?
Ms. Cooper’s main conclusion is that “dash cam videos and volunteer drivers would certainly put a huge dent in the loss of life, personal injury, and vehicle repairs.”
This conclusion in itself seems vague; the meaning of “a huge dent” seems unclear, although from the rest of her argument, one could assume she means that the “loss of life, personal injury, and vehicle repairs” would be reduced by the volunteer use of dash cams.
It is also possible that increased civilian monitoring will not reduce this problem, since the process involves a time delay between the incident and the ticket. There is no guarantee that these negligent drivers have not already killed people, injured people, or damaged vehicles prior to being reprimanded.
There are problems with Ms. Cooper’s solution to the issue of road safety.
It would not be a wise use of financial resources, and could cause risk to volunteers.
It has significant potential to both violate the privacy of civilians and weaken the efficiency of the current process of road monitoring.
Anika Jacobsen, Brookswood