How about a hard no to that....

>That makes enforcement better

No it does not, it has problems with constitutional issues (being able to face your accuser) and owner of the vehicle is not always the driver, and under an innocent until proven guilty system it is on the state of PROVE you were the driver, many automated systems flip this and assume the owner is the driver and if you were not you are liable until you inform the state who was the driver.

None of that should be allowed in a free society,and I am not willing to give up essential liberty for traffic safety

That is all with out going into the innumerable ways traffic systems are already abused for other purposes than just traffic enforcement

You legally can’t have cameras that give speeding tickets in California.

It’s quite annoying as they’d save so many lives because speeding is the primary factor in most accidents (and makes any accidents worse).

So we can be tracked more than we already are?

A lot of people probably don't give a damn about surveillance, but think about all the future politicians who are having their entire lives recorded.

"I know where you were on August 6th. You might want to vote X unless you want everyone else to know."

The more we build, the easier it is to press further with it.

If your car is on public roads in a dense city like SF it is so easy to track already with existing infrastructure this is a moot point.

Put license plate scanners everywhere and it'll be game over.

Deploy it in one city, and soon everywhere else will follow.

I don't trust those in power not to abuse this.

It already exists.

Better enforcement gets abused for revenue. Limits get slower than the consensus speed causing lane changes. Yellow lights get shortened causing panic stops.