Traffic cams to appease insurance racket?

A new proposal in Chicago is like a corporatist's wet dream.

One of the major concerns Americans have had about red light cameras is the obvious potential for expansion. Apologists for traffic cams, however, have always tried to assure us that we have nothing to fear as long as we're innocent. The cameras are for our own good, you see.

Maybe it's true that those of us who aren't guilty of running red lights have little to fear - unless of course the camera misreads someone else's license plate so you get sent a citation (which happens often).

We may have little to fear, that is, until the cameras start tracking lesser offenses.

And now - to the surprise of nobody who paid heed to our warnings - a new proposal would do just that.

See why we were so concerned about traffic cams? I bet more people wish they'd listened to us now.

Chicago Alderman Edward Burke now wants red light scameras to also catch motorists who drive uninsured. His primary rationale is that it would generate money for the city through fines.

I don't doubt the city is cash-strapped, but come on! Using traffic cams to catch uninsured drivers to generate revenue is like if you go out and rob a bank because your boss won't pay you.

How would the cameras know who's uninsured? I was almost afraid to find out, because I knew the proposed method would be unconstitutional. And it is. The license plate of each car would be scanned, and then checked against a national database to see if the car's insurance is up to date.

Remember when law enforcement used to need something called probable cause to conduct a search like this?

If you don't know the real purpose of car insurance laws, you probably haven't been reading me for very long. It's not about safety. Mandatory insurance was enacted because insurance companies lobbied lawmakers for it to pad their profits.

Yet, even though states mandate insurance, they have repeatedly rejected bills to require insurers to lower the costs of their product. They say that limiting the cost of insurance violates the "free market", you see. Well, then what do you think the law requiring people to buy insurance does? I guess regulating the economy is A-OK as long as it pours more money into the deep coffers of big corporations like insurance companies.

It isn't just insurance companies anymore. Now it's also companies that run the databases that verify motorists' insurance information. Indeed, these companies are lobbying Chicago City Council to pass the insurance camera proposal.

ACLU spokesman Jay Stanley said, "If all the talk is about revenue, I think it's a good indication that there's something fishy about this." I'd say so. Someone needs to investigate to see if there's kickbacks involved between the city and insurance companies.

Incidentally, Burke in 2007 proposed a ban of devices that let travelers detect red light cameras. So, with his support of prohibition of everyday devices, Burke was already a little too far removed from our constitutional foundation.

(Source: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/red-light-cameras-at-traffic-intersections-to-spot-out-uninsured-vehicles_100172422.html)