Houston Red Lght Cameras....

Here is some more humor ..

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...07.htm#707.008

and

http://www.dot.state.tx.us/safety/camera_faqs.htm

Rather than "hammer" the cameras and run the risk of a felony (destruction of government property) and tossing good tea in the harbor, I suggest ...

everyone who gets a notification of a violation .. and I mean everyone ...

... file a challenge and appeal the decision of the administrative judge, if unfavorable of course, to the City of Houston (or any other municipal court of any other city who installs cameras) and demand a jury trial on the violation...

.. in that process demand the documentation from the City that substantiates the decision making for the installation of the particular camera for the particular intersection, which the City is obligated to provide in a discovery request, because it is the basis of a defense to the violation if the City did not install the camera in response to study that was reviewed and approved in the appropriate administrative process, which includes a "citizen panel," whose names should be disclosed as well to substantiate that they actually met for the determination and made the findings that authorized the isntallation of the cameras.

Note: In fact that ought to be a part of the current litigation that is pending to require the production of all the documentation to substantiate the installation so assure that it complies with state law.

I have reviewed some of the "comments" at early council meetings during White's administration that supported and opposed the cameras, and there was a lot of loose talk about stats and effectiveness based on media reports.

Although the legislature has tried to candy coat the "penalty" provisions in the statute there is sufficient "state action" (which includes "cities") that can be imposed for failing to pay the so called "civil" penalty to justify, at least in Texas, a violation of due process and equal protection on the basis of depriving citizens of the privilege of operating motor vehicles in the state, not to mention subjecting them to an extensive administrative and judiical process ... which includes in the case of the City of Houston, apparently, a provision that requires the payment of the civil penalty as a condition to the "right of appeal" that is not authorized in the state legislation authorizing the city to implement the program.

About 30 to 40 years ago the San Antonio city council went bonkers on "plea bargains" on traffic violations and the vast majority of the defendants demanded jury trials ... gumming up the works for years into the future .. and the city council "rethought" the mandates regarding pleas and rescinded them.

About that same period of time (unrelated of course) thousands of possession indictments were obtained in the Aspen, Colorado area for marijuana, and the defendants demanded jury trials (defense counsel met in Denver at an auditorium to discuss strategy). When the first 4 to 5 jury trials in Aspen ended with "not guilties" the DA dismissed the remainder and did not pursue them further. Needless to say it was somewhat difficult to find a juror in Aspen at that time (a resident and qualified to sit on a jury) that had not "tooted" at least some point in the Aspen existence.

It takes a concerted effort and some thinking outside of "the box." It can be done... within "their system"~!

Of course, I still believe in allowing "the market forces" to take their course, and "dry up" the "revenues" by everyone stopping at all red lights, whether monitored by a cam or not. No violations, no "revenue."

Here is some more humor ..

Of course, I still believe in allowing "the market forces" to take their course, and "dry up" the "revenues" by everyone stopping at all red lights, whether monitored by a cam or not. Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your proposal doesn't make sense within the current operational mode of traffic lights. See, for as long as passing through intersection on "yellow" is a-OK, punishing those that pass through intersection at the fraction of "red" doesn't make sense at all. For your proposal to make sense, three things have to happen:

1. Introduction of "flashing green" sign, which'd have a function of the current "yellow"

2. "Yellow" becomes the "soft red", i.e. it's illegal to pass through intersection on yellow, but you won't get ticketed by camera. You may get ticketed by officer, though.

3. "red" is "hard red", and you may get ticketed both by camera and by officer.

This system is what they currently have in quite a few european countries. Flashing green and yellow give motorists ample time to safely stop at intersection. Issuing photo tickets for red only also lets off the hook folks who run the intersection during the first few seconds after the lights change - which is far less dangerous than if you ran it 5 seconds after the change. Why is it safer? Because there's always a delay of few seconds between the light turning red, and the light turn green at the street perpendicular to it. So in effect you have a few seconds at the intersection when all lights are red.

Your proposal doesn't make sense ... Originally Posted by obiwansalami

I said nothing about adjusting the length of yellow/amber light settings. Although assuring that the timing of yellow/amber light settings is consistent with generally accepted national standards approved by the NHTSA is worthwhile and even extending them a few more seconds between the green and red is not a problem, as far as I am concerned.

Extending the yellow only addresses those drivers who have the intent to stop while the light is still yellow without entering the intersection and being "caught" in the intersection when it is red, but has zero impact on those who do not intend to stop on the yellow to avoid being in the intersection when the light turns red, because those drivers will still try to "beat" the cross traffic through the intersection by increasing their speed and/or changing lanes at the last minute to avoid rear-ending those who intend to stop while the light is yellow to avoid being caught in the intersection when red.

The "European" or "Latin American" systems are fine for them .. who is going to "re-educate" millions of drivers to a new flashing light system when millions of drivers still don't know what "red" means ... or even the words "STOP" printed on a red sign.

Extending the yellow/amber might ease some of the camera problems, but that doesn't address the objection to the idea of "big brother watching me" while I am driving through 15 or 20 intersections in the City of Houston.

Oh, since there is a map of the camera locations available on line, if one does not want to have "big brother" watching .. then take an alternative route. But look at the bright side: when "big brother" spending so much time keeping track of when you are passing through 15 to 20 intersections in Houston, "big brother" has less time to keep an eye on who you are entertaining in the privacy of your residence or hotel room.

LL u act lik u sum sorta cop or sumthin.

You are not the only one thinking that.

yah cuz he do.

LL u act lik u sum sorta cop or sumthin. Originally Posted by notanewbie

Because .... I believe that people should stop at red lights?

If you can, you might want to explore the concept of the ...

... "or sumthin." If you can.

You are not the only one thinking that. Originally Posted by Jackie S

Yes, I know. Sad isn't it? I mean the "thinking" part.

Hey I was just pointing out that you have not been exposed lately. Where is your girl?

It does seem like you are reading all of this right out of the "more Revenue for Cops" media guide.

You will not even admitt that it is nothing more than a money grab by the City. They proved that very point when all they talked about was lost revenue after the Voters, (forgotten Lot), voted the Law down.

This whole episode is not one of the Cities finer moments.

It does seem like you are reading all of this right out of the "more Revenue for Cops" media guide.

You will not even admitt that it is nothing more than a money grab by the City. Originally Posted by Jackie S

#1: I have not seen the so-called "the "more Revenue for Cops" media guide" ... I wish you would point it out to me. You want to pesonalize the issue in an effort to dampen or suppress voices that do not agree with you, apparently, because I frankly do not even know or care what you think about the issue ... and given your propensity to jump to unfounded conclusions .. that lack of concern on my part as to what you "think" is supported by your groundless and factually incorrect assumptions ... e.g. I am a cop! .. and ... The city just wants the cameras to generate income.

#2: I will not admit that "it is nothing more than a money grab by the City" because I do not believe it is based on a cost/benefit analysis. I would consider as a reasonable and plausible justification for the camera system that it "automates" a function that humans can do less efficiently and with less "down time" for the individual officer or two who ... as John puts it ... can eye-ball the violator when issuing a ticket. Additionally, an argument can be made that using a camera is safer than using a person.

Of course, if it were only a money grag, would not failing to cut red lghts dry up the source that was sought by the grab and make the "program" non-revenue generating? Isn't that a by-product of this Board .... poor reviews reduce business for some providers and may well drive them out the business where some posters believe they do not belong?

When I see that the Chief of Police is required to reduce his budget by $40 million in one year (this one) while the cameras only allegedly generated revenue of $50 million in five years ... without even deducting the amoritization of the equipment, the cost of up keep and maintenance, the cost of personnel to "process" the photographs, the cost of the administrative process of assessing the "civil penalty," the expense of notices to alleged violators, and the costs of the appeals to dispute the administrative decisions ... it hardly looks like a "cash cow"!

70 cams covering 15 to 20 intersectiions in the City of Houston cannot reasonably be looked upon as a "solution" to sinking tax revenues or reduced Federal subsidies, because of a prolonged recession.

The problem is I perceive just the opposite: The cams should go because they are not cost effective and do not generate sufficient net resources to justify all of the whining and complaining on going ... not to mention the costs of litigation suffered by the city, which is in a squeeze play between the company from which they acquired the system and the taxpayers of Houston who are pissed about being "spied upon" when they run red lights.

If you think manning 15 to 20 intersections with officers 24/7 to enforce the traffic laws is "cost effective" then perhaps you do need to do a little research into the costs of putting an officer on the street with a patrol unit that is maintained and equipped to handle multiple traffic stops, which means that more than one officer will have to be on duty all of the time at each intersection. The fines those officers would generate would not cover the expense of having them present and working.

Finally, the suggestions I made are not those that would come from someone with a "perspective" in favor of "more Revenue for Cops" .... or did you read that part?

Now, I suggest, if I may, that you use your imagination for moment and consider what other occupation besides law enforcement would someone pursue that would potentially have a working knowledge of government and law enforcement agencies, and that working knowledge be beneficial and helpful in the pursuit of that occupation?

Just asking. And that is a rhetorical question, by the way.

I am getting a little sick and tired of posters insisting on outing folks!

Even though our opinions are polar opposite when it comes to the red light cameras, I don't think LL is a 'wanna be' cop.

He feels strongly about his opinion, and I feel strongly about mine.

Forgetting the physical cameras for a minute, I'm probably angrier about the 'vote'. Both sides of the election had many lawyers looking at the laws and what the end result should be. It should have been simple, the majority wins, but things went off kilter someplace. We had an election and the end results are that the votes were just basically thrown away. The city says the cameras will be back in action, and then they add that more cameras will be installed. I can't believe the arrogance of the city doing this. They know people voted against the cameras, yet they add more.

As I've stated I work on the road on a daily basis. I see crappy driving all around, not just running red lights. People seem to forget that they have turn signals, or they just don't give a damn. I will again state the dangers of cell phones and texting while driving which IMHO is far more dangerous than running red lights.

Today I'm #2 car in a left hand turn lane. The left turn signal turns green and I honk at #1 car three times and he doesn't move. He is too busy texting. Looking behind me, there are about 8 cars waiting to turn. As I stated there is idiocy all around.

Even though our opinions are polar opposite when it comes to the red light cameras, I don't think LL is a 'wanna be' cop.

He feels strongly about his opinion, and I feel strongly about mine. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

I am not only not a "wanna be" cop, I am also not a cop. Period.

Now, putting the huffing and puffing aside, I said clearly that I think the cams were, and are a mistake, but for different reasons, obviously.

And to support the statements above that I made about the "revenues":

http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=news/local&id=8242675

“The program has grossed more than $52 million. After expenses, it's about $35 million. Officials say $19 million has stayed here in Houston with almost $16 million going to the state of Texas.”

That is over a 5-year period of time or about $4 million a year.

http://www.houstontx.gov/budget/11budadopt/index.html

The City of Houston for that period of time has had gross revenues of over $ 2 Billion … that is with a “B” … and an operating budget for “public safety” on the average of $1.1 Billion … that is with a “B” …

$4 Million …. that is with an “M” is pissing in a hurricane, if not spitting into one. Roughly 2/1000’s of the total revenue and roughly 4/1000’s of the public safety budget standing alone.

JS .. I don’t make this shit up … the media hype does…. with headlines!

Too many people are too busy skimming headlines to read the “fine print” ……… because they are driving through red lights while texting? Or sitting at them.

…. And what they don’t get in headlines they must make it up because it sounds good and trendy to trash a particular person or organization to vilify them in order to create support for the personal agenda.

John, I spend, and have spent, my share of time drivng "about the country" .. this one and others ... and have roughly a little over 50 years "behind the wheel" .. Houston was the first U.S. city in which I drove that I actually took a 5-count when the light turned green to enter the intersection. A couple of weeks ago that kept me out of the hospital ... no doubt about it.


Driving crazy, aggressively, illegally, and over posted speed limits and warning signs excessively is a trade mark of driving "in Houston." Our insurance rates reflect that, which means they are not doing those activities "safely" and with the necessary skills to respond appropriately to the emergency situation they created.


Watching folks drive in this city confirms a belief of mine:
Ignorance is curable; stupidity is not.

I thinck the red light horse has been rode into the fucking ground.

I said nothing about adjusting the length of yellow/amber light settings. Although assuring that the timing of yellow/amber light settings is consistent with generally accepted national standards approved by the NHTSA is worthwhile and even extending them a few more seconds between the green and red is not a problem, as far as I am concerned. Originally Posted by LexusLover

But, that won't solve the problem. The problem is not if yellow has few seconds more or few seconds less, the problem is the existence of a hard transition between the violation that is enforced by camera and violation that is not enforced by camera. To wit: a lot of complaints were made 5 years ago about the "hair trigger" of the cameras. They have been fine tuned since, but no "fine tuning" would be necessary if another step (i.e. flashing green) is inserted in traffic light procedure.

The "European" or "Latin American" systems are fine for them .. who is going to "re-educate" millions of drivers to a new flashing light system Originally Posted by LexusLover

People tend to get educated really fast when a fairer, more logical system is introduced - which is exactly what they have in Europe. Concidently, that "European" system would penalize only folks who, under today's standards, run red light 2-3 seconds after it turns red. Which, by the way, is the most dangerous red light running. If the safety (and not revenue) is what we're all about... why not go after the most dangerous offenses?