Isn't this the same argument that was used against seat belt laws?

This is how just about every traffic law works. Take speeding as an example. Cop gets you with a speed measuring device like LIDAR or RADAR. He writes down the measured speed, clears out his device. How do you know that's what the gun actually registered? They totally have the power to make up a speed, pull you over and ticket you. Good luck in court. It almost always comes down to your word vs the officer's.

I've fought one of these tickets, and it is very difficult as you say. I won, but in a way I consider sleazy. I plead non-guilty, and used an attorney(this is so, so, so important) who had the radar device brought into court. Once the device was present, the attorney entered a litany of requests:

1) Proof of the officers initial training with the device

2) Proof of the officers required continued training with the device

3) Proof of device's regular scheduled maintenance

4) Proof of training(initial and continued) of the person(s) who performed said maintenance

They got as far as item #2, couldn't provide it, and folded. I paid my attorney roughly the same cost I would have paid the court. Any "savings" would be the increase in my insurance costs that never happened.

If you can't afford an attorney, you are screwed. The "system" is about generating municipal income, not keeping anyone safe on the roads.

> The "system" is about generating municipal income, not keeping anyone safe on the roads.

But presumably you were actually speeding?

Yes, and many other laws, including rolling through stop signs or failing to use your turn signal.

It's not just an argument though -- it's a real struggle that impacts people (often minorities) daily.

No, the argument against seat belt laws is similar to the argument against helmet laws, "If I want to fling myself through the windshield, I should be able to."

Yeah selective enforcement could make this a pretty powerful tool for harassing anyone you don't like.

Make the cops prove it with video evidence?

Doesn't help against it being selectively enforced, only against it being used for false accusations.

Oh great, nonstop video surveillance of pedestrians. I don't like that either.

Isn't that a bridge that's already been crossed?

It's one thing to have street cameras that are used to investigate serious crimes, or to help direct first responders.

It's another to regularly use that camera footage for petty crimes like j-walking or cell-phone-walking.

But we don't really just have "street cameras that are used to investigate serious crimes." We have police driving around taking photos of everyone's license plates, allowing them to keep track of where everybody goes; sophisticated facial recognitions; etc.

If cops are charging people that didn't even commit a crime then selective enforcement isn't really your biggest problem.