TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:[A bargain! ]

You are right about the bargain, my wife paid $75 when I think I had heard that a ticket from a police officer would easily be double that.

Purplehood wrote:In my opinion the voters didn't vote them down because they didn't work, they voted them down because they worked too well.

You could be right with some voters, but me personally, I have never been stopped, let alone ticketed for running a stop sign or red light, and I voted against them, as it was simply a money grab (in my opinion)

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't want your wife to roll through a light

I understand your point, and I do not want her to roll the stops either, and as you, not for the financial impact, but more so for the safety impact (pun intended).

However, she still does "California rolls" at the 1mph pace at non-camera intersections and stop signs, not all the time, but enough, and each time i am with her, I give her "the look"...
So while at those specific intersections she has learned not to do it, it hasn't changed her habits at any other intersections.

Purplehood wrote:I imagine I am a wienie when it comes to rules. At 0300 hours in the wee hours of the night I stop at a stop-sign even if I don't see anything for miles.

That does make 2 of us then.

Interestingly, about a year ago, my wife got a red light ticket at the same intersection, for doing a barely rolling stop on a right turn.
While I agree that she did the crime, she should pay for it, it was such a slight infraction, probably a 1 mile per hour turn, and there was no cross traffic waiting.
She knew 100% that it was a red light camera intersection and knew thats where my mom was Tboned... so while it may deter some, I do not agree that it makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, other than a money grab..

Wasn't it Anise Parker just after the election complaining that without these funds, she would have to make cut-backs?
If that doesn't tell us its a money grab, nothing will.
What did they do before red light cameras, if they did not have the funds to pay for something?

Purplehood wrote:Getting T-boned is about revenue?

A camera wont stop a t-bone, it will only witness it.
My mom was T-boned, at a red light camera intersection (Bay Area Blvd and El Camino) about 2 1/2 years ago.
Is my mom the .00001% that slipped through, or can we assume that she is not the only one ever T-boned at a red light camera intersection
The camera did not stop it, as it never will. It will only punish those people (financially) that run the red light.

my mom was t-boned in a camera intersection.
yes, the camera was running, but having a camera doesn't make people not run red lights.
If people ran red lights, on purpose, t-boned people "on purpose", caused accidents "on purpose" then the red light camera may stop those who did those on purpose, but as they are called accidents, not "purposefol-idents" (sounded good right?LOL), those that would run a red light, on accident will still do it.

So what good is the red light camera? its a money grab for the cities and those companies that run the cameras.


tell me, what about cameras that issue speeding violations, they are already being used in UK, do we want them here? I think not, but i am just one person.. what say you all?
And if you are not for speed cameras, (that issue tickets, also check your registration, inspection, insurance - yes they do all of those, if used in full version), why would you be for red light cameras?