The ultimate civil disobedience against speed cameras is to actually obey the law and keep to the speed limit. Radical concept, I know.
What is it about drivers' (especially male) attitude that it is OK to break the law by just a little bit? I don't buy it. It doesn't apply to theft or assault or any number of other crimes, so why should it apply to driving potentially lethal weapons?
In my experience, most drivers are not that conscious of what they are actually doing when driving a car, especially at speed. Hence the almost universal tendency to tail-gate and drive at speeds without an escape plan, should the car in front suddenly stop - your classic 3 car head-on, for example.
Speed if you insist, it's your 'right', but quit complaining if you get fined by a speed camera. A no-brainer, really.
There are multiple issues here. One, it is the state at is most impersonal and cynical. This isn't about public order, public good or even safety, it is cynical revenue raising. Second, everyone speeds. It is like central planning vs market economy. The state puts down blanket speed limits that often bear no relation to the actual road. They also put down a myriad of speed zones such that no-one really knows what the speed limit is when they are confronted by a speed camera. Self-organization and spontaneous organization is always more efficient than central planning and traffic is a massive organism of self-organization. It is why the police don't pull anyone over in rush hour, they just cause traffic jams. Speed cameras also destroy the flow of traffic as people throw out the anchors and do up to ten mph below the speed limit to avoid getting a ticket.
'Sworn to no party, and of no sect am I.' Frederick Vosper's republican motto.
Comments