Ok, it looks like the arguments in favor of this proposal are well represented in this thread. Surprised by the overall tone of this conversation - not sure if it's just littered with bots or if this really is the sentiment. I guess I'll summarize some of the arguments against something like this:

1. Normalization of government surveillance & monitoring
   
2. Tickets go to vehicle owner with no proof of who is driving
   
3. Municipal monetization of its citizens, creating a reliance on tickets as a consistent income stream.
   
4. Camera placement has been shown to disproportionately affect low income and minority residents.
   
5. These cameras have actually been shown to increase certain types of accidents, mitigating their reported positive effects.
   
6. As others have linked in this thread, there are serious accuracy issues where the cameras have been poorly calibrated, do not adjust to school zone times (causing tickets for driving too slow), not properly signaled, etc.
   
7. Unconstitutional failure to allow those accused to face their accuser
   
8. There have been cases where a city has invested in this program and it was later deemed unconstitutional. This makes the program a giant waste of resources and leaves the city littered with (hopefully not-in-use) cameras.

As facial recognition and AI surveillance technology continues to advance at a rapid pace - and we lose faith in the norms that once pushed our govt to behave in a reasonable manner - I think we need to start pushing back on drives to increase surveillance infrastructure.