This week’s question comes from Gregory Stock’s thought-provoking collection, The Book of Questions: Would you like the government to install extensive car and road sensors and automatically ticket anyone speeding, rolling through stop signs, or parking illegally?

The short answer? No. Absolutely not.

Let me be clear – I’m not advocating for lawlessness on our roads. Traffic laws serve an important purpose in maintaining order and safety. But there’s something deeply unsettling about the prospect of implementing a comprehensive automated surveillance system to monitor every single vehicle movement on our roads.

The Surface Appeal

On the surface, the argument for automated enforcement might seem compelling. After all, who wouldn’t want consistent enforcement of traffic laws? Proponents might argue that such a system would eliminate human bias in traffic enforcement, ensure that everyone follows the rules equally, and potentially make our roads safer.

Local governments might be particularly enticed by the promise of steady revenue streams from traffic violations. No more relying on officer availability or strategic placement of patrol cars – just a constant, unwavering stream of citations for every infraction, no matter how minor.

The Human Element

But this is where we need to pause and consider what we’d be losing. I’m reminded of my own experience with traffic enforcement – a speeding ticket I received while driving on the interstate. The circumstances were less than black-and-white: I was driving a car with a malfunctioning speedometer, and there were no other vehicles around to help me gauge my speed. Under an automated system, these nuances wouldn’t matter. The sensor would detect the violation, and the ticket would be issued – end of story.

This highlights one of the critical elements we’d be sacrificing: officer discretion. Currently, when you’re pulled over, you have the opportunity to explain your situation. Maybe your speedometer is broken. Maybe you’re rushing to the hospital. Maybe you’re a normally careful driver who made an honest mistake. Human officers can take these circumstances into account and sometimes opt for a warning rather than a ticket. An automated system wouldn’t – couldn’t – care about context.

The Slippery Slope

But my deeper concern isn’t just about traffic enforcement – it’s about the precedent this would set. When we start normalizing comprehensive government surveillance of our movements, where does it end? Today it’s our vehicles, tomorrow it might be cameras in our backyards. The slope from “public safety measure” to “police state” is steeper and more slippery than we might like to admit.

This isn’t paranoid speculation – it’s a pattern we’ve seen repeatedly throughout history. Government surveillance programs tend to expand rather than contract. What starts as a targeted solution to a specific problem often grows into something far more invasive and far-reaching than initially intended.

The Question of Effectiveness

We should also question the assumption that automated enforcement would necessarily make our roads safer. While it might catch more technical violations, would it actually prevent dangerous driving? Or would it simply create a population of drivers more focused on avoiding sensors than practicing genuinely safe driving habits?

Moreover, there’s something to be said for the deterrent effect of actual police presence on our roads. The possibility of encountering a patrol car tends to make drivers more consistently cautious, whereas fixed sensors might only lead to isolated changes in behavior at known enforcement points.

The Democracy Factor

Perhaps most importantly, this kind of proposal represents a fundamental shift in the relationship between citizens and government. In a democratic society, law enforcement should serve the public, not monitor their every move. The implementation of universal automated enforcement would tip this balance dramatically toward a surveillance state model.

That’s why my answer to this question is an unequivocal “no.” While I believe in the importance of traffic safety and law enforcement, I believe even more strongly in maintaining the democratic principles that protect our privacy and freedom of movement.

The Reality Check

Of course, some might argue that those who follow the law have nothing to fear from automated enforcement. But this misses the point entirely. A free society isn’t just about punishing wrongdoing – it’s about maintaining a balance between enforcement and liberty, between safety and privacy, between authority and autonomy.

The universal implementation of automated traffic enforcement would likely affect different segments of society differently. Those with means might simply factor occasional tickets into their budget, while others might face serious financial hardship from automated citations they can’t talk their way out of. This raises questions about equity and fairness that go beyond simple rule enforcement.

Final Thoughts

As we continue to grapple with advances in surveillance technology and automated systems, we need to carefully consider not just what we can do, but what we should do. Every step toward automated enforcement is also a step away from human judgment, discretion, and understanding.

So while I support reasonable traffic laws and their enforcement, I cannot support a system that would effectively place every citizen under constant surveillance. The price – in terms of privacy, liberty, and the fundamental nature of our society – is simply too high.

What do you think? Would you welcome automated traffic enforcement, or do you share my concerns about government overreach? Let me know in the comments below.