Good news for people driving to Houston

[Ameer]

So what exactly is the difference between a camera recording a violation and a police officer, other than the fact that the police officer probably isn't watching 24/7?

Legality. The city charter of Houston prohibits traffic enforcement cameras operated by a for-profit company.

[Charles L. Cotton]

Here is an idea that I heard from someone else. Make the delay longer, in other words, lights from all directions remain red for a few more seconds. There will always be some that still run the red, but if the other side ain't moving yet, less likelyhood of a major accident. This is the way they had them set up in Germany when I was there, but they also have cameras everywhere. In the Philippines, at night, it is normal to go on red if it is clear on all sides. Don't know if it's legal, but everyone does it.

When Houston was "considering" installation of red light cameras, there was a news report on KHOU Ch. 11 on the issue. The reporter met with a female Houston Police Dept. Lt. who was over traffic enforcement and presented her with a study from Texas A&M ( I think it was A&M). The study showed that lengthening the yellow light by something on the order of 1 to 1 1/2 seconds achieved better results in accident prevention than did red light cameras. She stammered around a bit, then finally said, "well, we're going with the cameras."

It's about money and nothing else. After the cameras were rejected by the voters, Mayor Parker voiced her anger pointing out that voters were foolish because now the City has to come up with millions of dollars to replace the revenue. So much for it being about safety and not money.

The City should use the information in the A&M study and lengthen the yellow lights. Other promising efforts include utilizing countdown yellow lights that show the remaining time before the light turns red. These seem to be working well in other parts of the country. (This too was from a TV news report, but I can't recall the cities.) As redlin67 pointed out, the change from to red and to green should not happen simultaneously; there should be about a 1 to 2 second delay before traffic gets a green light. Combine a longer yellow light, countdown yellow lights and 4-way red lights for a second or two and you will see accident rates plummet. Sadly, Mayor Parker and the City leaders will still have to come up with another way to get into our pockets -- all in the name of safety of course. (I'm very pleased to live in Friendswood, but my law office is in downtown Houston.)

Chas.

[Charles L. Cotton]

We are going to have a State budget shortfall on the order if $18 billion, plus school funding will always be an issue. We should pass a bill that requires 100 % of all traffic fines to go to the State general fund. I know, I know, cities and counties will scream about the loss of revenue, but remember, they say they're not in the traffic enforcement business to generate money, but to save lives. So let them save lives while the State covers some of its shortfall.

Chas.

[Oldgringo]

So what exactly is the difference between a camera recording a violation and a police officer, other than the fact that the police officer probably isn't watching 24/7?

Legality. The city charter of Houston prohibits traffic enforcement cameras operated by a for-profit company.

Well! If that's correct, they shouldn't be doing it. Afterall, "illegal is illegal"...just like "concealed is concealed".

Even so, running a red light is not an accident. Running a red light is an intentional act for which the runner should be held fully accountable; however IANAL, that's JMO.

[Ameer]

Sadly, Mayor Parker and the City leaders will still have to come up with another way to get into our pockets -- all in the name of safety of course.

One source of additional money is the "Rain Tax" that Houston voters approved in Prop 1.

[Oldgringo]

We are going to have a State budget shortfall on the order if $18 billion, plus school funding will always be an issue. We should pass a bill that requires 100 % of all traffic fines to go to the State general fund. I know, I know, cities and counties will scream about the loss of revenue, but remember, they say they're not in the traffic enforcement business to generate money, but to save lives. So let them save lives while the State covers some of its shortfall.

Chas.

Sadly, money is the lowest common denominator for most all issues. There is a very interesting article in the recent October issue of Texas Monthly magazine on how to eliminate the $18MM budget shortfall.

Ya'll reckon any of our governmental peole are interested in any of those suggestions or coming up with some of their own? Here's one for starters: how much does it cost the state to require front license plates?

[WildBill]

We are going to have a State budget shortfall on the order if $18 billion, plus school funding will always be an issue. We should pass a bill that requires 100 % of all traffic fines to go to the State general fund. I know, I know, cities and counties will scream about the loss of revenue, but remember, they say they're not in the traffic enforcement business to generate money, but to save lives. So let them save lives while the State covers some of its shortfall.

Chas.

Excellent Idea.
I wonder what excuse they would dream up to fight this bill.

[C-dub]

I'm very sorry about your mom, Teamless, but you are right. Red light cameras will not stop all red light runners. Nothing will, but they will persuade many to be more cautious.

My city uses the countdown yellow lights in many of the intersections. Those are great! Having all four lights be red for 2 seconds would also be good.

[BigAl1410]

But, an intrusion of our privacy is still an intrusion.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a right. There is no constitutional right to drive a car so there is no privacy issue any more than other people can see in your car, including the police.

It is the same concept as full body scanning at airports. There is no constitutional right to fly. Air lines are private companies.

If you chose to fly, you consent to the rules governing flying the same as when you get a driver's license and drive, you are bound by the rules of safety, including not running red lights.

I do not want anyone running red lights or carrying bombs on planes.

OBTW, I am a lawyer.

[FL450]

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?

I believe it's this same company that has speed cameras in Phoenix.

[Purplehood]

So what exactly is the difference between a camera recording a violation and a police officer, other than the fact that the police officer probably isn't watching 24/7?

Legality. The city charter of Houston prohibits traffic enforcement cameras operated by a for-profit company.

I don't buy that and I don't buy the "Big Brother" concept. It is a public intersection and should be subject to public scrutiny. I don't really care what method is done to accomplish that. Police there 24/7, cameras, longer yellow lights, red lights all around...they are all sound ideas.
This is not any invasion of my privacy. What privacy do I expect driving through a public intersection?
On the subject of the almighty dollar. Hey, anything and everything is about dollars. Even safety is not for free.

[Oldgringo]

So what exactly is the difference between a camera recording a violation and a police officer, other than the fact that the police officer probably isn't watching 24/7?

Legality. The city charter of Houston prohibits traffic enforcement cameras operated by a for-profit company.

I don't buy that and I don't buy the "Big Brother" concept. It is a public intersection and should be subject to public scrutiny. I don't really care what method is done to accomplish that. Police there 24/7, cameras, longer yellow lights, red lights all around...they are all sound ideas.
This is not any invasion of my privacy. What privacy do I expect driving through a public intersection?
On the subject of the almighty dollar. Hey, anything and everything is about dollars. Even safety is not for free.

It appears that there are those who think they are entitled to run red lights instead of plan a more timely departure to that big and important event ocurring at their intended destination.

[bigred90gt]

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.

[Purplehood]

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.

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.

[bigred90gt]

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.