In Edmonton on business this weekend, I found myself driving west on Stony Plain Road when I entered, lawfully, a busy intersection. A large diesel pickup traveling east cut into the intersection to turn left. I hit my brakes. Had there been a collision, there would have been significant damage. But that was not even my first thought: by the time I moved again, the light had turned red.
Was this an intersection with a camera?
We are told that cameras are a deterrent to running amber and red lights, and in spite of their expense they are excellent investments in road safety. But I had to wonder, as I drove away, where is the discretion in this new approach to policing traffic? Any human being could have confirmed that I was not speeding, that the light was green when I entered the intersection, and yet a camera aimed west might single out my car for a ticket.
We talk a lot about human error and assume that mechanization improves consistency. Even when we cannot find a machine to do our work, we encourage people to behave mindlessly. How often do we hear of someone following the letter rather than the spirit of regulations? How often does that inflexibility cause problems?
One of the things I try to do in my dealings with students is to encourage them to use their discretion. I wonder if the world into which they will emerge will even value it?
And I wonder, of course, if I will soon get a nasty surprise from the province in my mailbox.
Comments