TexasCHLforum.com

Purplehood wrote:

texanron wrote:It's my understanding that the cameras are provided by a private company for which the city of Houston has a contract with. This private company recieves a certain amount of money from the city of Houston which the city uses the revenue from the violations issued to make payment on that contract. While I do NOT agree with the cameras I do wish I would have thought of this way to make money! A private company is providing a service for which they're paid for. Sounds like capitalism to me. The ill will surfaces when a government entity profits from the service as well. Bottom line is this, if folks would obey the law the cameras would be nothing more than another waste of taxpayers money by the governemnt. For that I think we all agree. See the Nov 2nd election results.

Personally, I don't run red lights. I don't roll through red lights to turn right on red. I don't roll through stop signs. I obey the posted speed limits as much as I can as to not cause a traffic hazard. This goes back to my Creator's instructions to obey man's law.

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.

I do the same thing, and I've never received a ticket from a red light camera, even though I pass through no less than 4 intersections with them daily. I dont have an axe to grind with the cameras in that sense, I just dont agree with them being about safety, and the numbers dont lie. In Baytown, the number of accidents at monitored intersections increased after the cameras were installed. Most of the increase in accidents were rear end collisions.

Here is an article about the camera program in Baytown:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2827.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the chart attached to it citing red light camera violations in relation to time after red :
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/violationchart.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

how many accidents do you think occur during the first 1/2 second of a red light from someone rolling through it? Think of the acceleration and reaction time needed to take off from the line and hit someone in the intersection .5 seconds after their light turned red.

Here is an excerpt from a report on the lights in Cali:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/116.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In nearly 2 years in Baytown, the violations recorded by the cameras, and subsequent $75 fines, did not decrease. But it's not about revenue, right?

Purplehood wrote: Based only on what I have seen, and as opposed to what you have seen, I would dispute your assertion. I have seen entirely too many drivers simply blow through red lights in my lifetime. It has become a general habit of mine when I am the first car sitting at a light to hesitate before I go on a green light. I guarantee that it has saved my life more than once.

If someone is just blowing through a red light, whether you are the first car or the 5th car, and whether there is a camera or not, will make no difference. Again, it is only about revenue, nothing more, nothing less.

McKnife wrote:I'll support a state-wide ban of Red-Light cameras.

Here is one example why:

My Buddy's Father sold his youngest son's car to an individual in Baytown back in early October. He filed all paperwork, taxes and registration. Two weeks ago, he received a citation in the mail for running a red light -- problem is, it was the new Buyer behind the wheel.

FIrst and foremost, the vehicle was legally sold and registered to the new buyer. This is solved easily, but it's still a hassle to be accused of a criminal action when you were not involved at all. Second, the system punishes the vehicle owner rather than the actual driver. Obviously, a majority of Houston voters didn't enjoy this either.

Again... B. Franklin said it best... "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

Oh, but they took care of that for you on a state level. It's not a criminal action, it's a civil offense. So now, there are 2 different penalties for the same offense, depending on how you are caught.

My problem is that they are strictly about making money. Nothing more and nothing less. The people who run lights and cause accidents are still going to run them with or with out cameras. I'd be willing to bet if you were to look at video of every violation, 90% or more would be people rolling on a right on red, or people coming up to the intersection with it changing fractions of a second before they hit the line. Obviously rolling through the right on red is dangerous if people are coming, but again, with or without cameras, that still happens. If you were to take a toll of how many people just rolled through the light at an intersection when it was "safe" vs how many actually pulled out in front of someone and caused, or nearly caused, an accident, at intersections with or without cameras, I'd be willing to bet there would not be a big difference, and that people actually causing or nearly causing an accident would be few and far between compared to the rolling through a "safe" intersection. When you snap a picture of that and send a ticket, it is not about safety, because there was no unsafe condition. It is about revenue.