 |
Re: Metrolink locomotive cameras lead to probes of 2 engineers
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 05-25-2010 - 17:34
>I'm not coming out for or against the cameras yet, but this is a terrible comparison.
Oh really? There are far more deaths on the highways annually than Metrolink and all the other commuter lines (Chicago, Boston, etc.) put together could ever hope to kill (annually). So we should do nothing to try to curtail the highway carnage??
>First of all, we work for the company that has decided that it is in their best interest for whatever reason to install these cameras.
Apparently you haven't heard of the current drive to install black boxes on /all/ motor vehicles, from 18 wheelers to your and my automobile.
>If we don't accept these cameras as part of our working conditions then we have the option to leave.
And when you can't find equivalent employment, lose your car, your house, your wife. Some choice.
>I pay for my car, my insurance, my gas and part of the roads I drive on through taxes. That is why I don't have a camera in my car.
The only reason you have no camera in your car is that some bureaucratic agency hasn't made you put it there (yet). Mark my words: black box soon, cameras later, all done with the excuse of saving lives, just like at Metrolink. How did the Fed Gov't institute the 55 mph speed limit in the 1970s? By using the Federal Highway Trust Fund as a lever: "You want this grant for a freeway, you have to institute the 55 mph speed limit". Black boxes next, cameras later. Just think how wonderful it'll be: just like "Der Zone" (East Germany) in the bad old days of the Cold War where 1/2 the population was spying on the other half.
The interstate highway system was funded with Federal dollars, whether our taxes or not. So were highways like Route 66 in the 1930s. When the Fed Gov't gives you the money, it gets to call the shots.
Suggested reading :[www.amazon.com] and [www.amazon.com]
Oh really? There are far more deaths on the highways annually than Metrolink and all the other commuter lines (Chicago, Boston, etc.) put together could ever hope to kill (annually). So we should do nothing to try to curtail the highway carnage??
>First of all, we work for the company that has decided that it is in their best interest for whatever reason to install these cameras.
Apparently you haven't heard of the current drive to install black boxes on /all/ motor vehicles, from 18 wheelers to your and my automobile.
>If we don't accept these cameras as part of our working conditions then we have the option to leave.
And when you can't find equivalent employment, lose your car, your house, your wife. Some choice.
>I pay for my car, my insurance, my gas and part of the roads I drive on through taxes. That is why I don't have a camera in my car.
The only reason you have no camera in your car is that some bureaucratic agency hasn't made you put it there (yet). Mark my words: black box soon, cameras later, all done with the excuse of saving lives, just like at Metrolink. How did the Fed Gov't institute the 55 mph speed limit in the 1970s? By using the Federal Highway Trust Fund as a lever: "You want this grant for a freeway, you have to institute the 55 mph speed limit". Black boxes next, cameras later. Just think how wonderful it'll be: just like "Der Zone" (East Germany) in the bad old days of the Cold War where 1/2 the population was spying on the other half.
The interstate highway system was funded with Federal dollars, whether our taxes or not. So were highways like Route 66 in the 1930s. When the Fed Gov't gives you the money, it gets to call the shots.
Suggested reading :[www.amazon.com] and [www.amazon.com]
