Breaking a law and enforcing a law are two very different things. The first is based on the rote application of a rule, the second includes human beings. The law says "thou shalt not drive over 65 MPH on this highway," and if you do 66 MPH you "break the law," even if no-one is there to see it happen. However, if you are "gunned" by the local law enforcement folks going 66, they can choose NOT to enforce. They may, in fact, choose not to enforce if you are going way over that limit. The point is that a human agency has to be involved in the enforcement.
Now, the problem with "spy in the cab" monitors is that they can "see" you (and keep a record of you) doing 66 MPH, and should someone get to see that, then the law can be enforced. It would be no good saying "but I was the only one on the road, at 3:00 in the morning, with a clear view ahead."
This ends up in a system with no leeway - the "zero tolerance" option. Think carefully: Has any one of you ever accelerated out of a tricky situation to avoid being hit by a cager? Be honest. Did you - maybe - go a touch over the speed limit? Well, if so, your "spy in the cab" would know it. So would you want someone to see your recorder? I think not.
It's fine to go for the "well, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime" position, but we all know full well that some laws are good, some are bad, some get bent, and some are so twisted they beggar belief.
EDRs have all the potential to turn the spotlight of law infringement on to us all the time. If I get caught speeding by some guy in a black-and-white with blue lights, that's fair: but a form letter in the mail saying "Dear Sir, at 3:05 am, 12/12/21, your EDS tracked you doing 66 MPH for 5 seconds in a 65 MPH zone..." feels very, very wrong.
Siggy
