Since you still can\’t confront a camera in a courtroom, if the technology makes it over here, it will only be another no-point revenue enhancer for overgrown municipalities.
Honest people shouldn\’t subsidize these motorists. They should be billed by the state UM fund with a reasonable interest rate. If it works with employer\’s w/o workers\’ comp insurance, it can work w/ drivers w/o liability coverage. And then there\’s the other logical question… what if they\’re rich? Why should rich people be required to buy insurance?
What company makes this technology? Is it, or will it be used in the United States?
And if the computer is in error; what then? Ooops?
There are checks in place to make sure that that errors in the databases used by the cameras do not lead to innocent mororists being prosecuted.
The aim is to catch the criminal and to remove the financial burden of those criminals from the premiums of the law abiding motorists.
There is also evidence that suggests there a re strong links between uninsured driving and other criminal activity.
Since you still can\’t confront a camera in a courtroom, if the technology makes it over here, it will only be another no-point revenue enhancer for overgrown municipalities.
The camera only identifies the possibility that a vehcile is being used without mandatary motor insurance.
If the driver has insurance – no problem, if he does not he pays the penalty. Why should honest motorists susidise these people?
Honest people shouldn\’t subsidize these motorists. They should be billed by the state UM fund with a reasonable interest rate. If it works with employer\’s w/o workers\’ comp insurance, it can work w/ drivers w/o liability coverage. And then there\’s the other logical question… what if they\’re rich? Why should rich people be required to buy insurance?