Houston Red Lght Cameras....

You don't want "big brother" controlling intersections?

What's one in a million?

Idiots accelerating to run red lights?

I hate to break it to you, but the cameras were not set up to spy on you, nor were the ones on the toll roads. They were set up because people either are too ignorant of the laws regulating traffic or they simply are so self-centered that they believe that "the laws" apply to everyone else but them. And that is just the folks who are driving sober.

Never have seen more people advocating or excusing running red lights....in writing no less. Some funny stuff.


Here's #2 "in a million"...



In that one the pedestrian was not as fortunate. Remember? Originally Posted by LexusLover

So your saying the cameras have helped us be better drivers ? We must have been crazy drivers before the cameras and now everything is fixed !!!! I hate light runners ,but the camera dont stop them running a light , its all about the money!!!

They were racing to a fire right ? Thats who i want to resond when my house is on fire !

Well...the city is the one that sued...and then they are very disappointed at a ruling that went in their favor? give me a break...you would think if they were worried about the red light company, then the red light company would sue, but no, they were worried about losing the 80million they expect to collect from it every year, so what the city is saying is that if we do not protest a law within 30 days, it can never be overturned? what kind of rule is that? so if an ordinance is illegal, and is in place longer than 30 days, we cannot change it? that is the crappiest law i ever heard of. So if we assume that, it means that our democracy in Houston only lasts for 30 days after a law has been made and after that the peoples right to speak through the ballot is gone? my oh my, we need to recall this judge and show him who is in charge, and while we are at it, someone tell me why we elected a mayor who is in league with the business people and not the people who elected her...

I hate light runners ,but the camera dont stop them running a light , its all about the money!!! Originally Posted by adi

I agree that the cameras do not stop folks from running lights.

Fines, court costs, higher insurance premiums, and jail do.

So the city has a choice: a 24/7 camera or 24/7 officers.

That is not true. If the law had violated any of our constitutional rights then regardless of how long that law is in effect it would have been over ruled in a court of law.

Well...the city is the one that sued...and then they are very disappointed at a ruling that went in their favor? give me a break...you would think if they were worried about the red light company, then the red light company would sue, but no, they were worried about losing the 80million they expect to collect from it every year, so what the city is saying is that if we do not protest a law within 30 days, it can never be overturned? what kind of rule is that? so if an ordinance is illegal, and is in place longer than 30 days, we cannot change it? that is the crappiest law i ever heard of. So if we assume that, it means that our democracy in Houston only lasts for 30 days after a law has been made and after that the peoples right to speak through the ballot is gone? my oh my, we need to recall this judge and show him who is in charge, and while we are at it, someone tell me why we elected a mayor who is in league with the business people and not the people who elected her... Originally Posted by chess9718

That is not true. Originally Posted by Playthefield

http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2011/tx-houstonats.pdf

“5. Conclusion.
The proposition repealed an ordinance. Although the petitioners and city call it a charter amendment, it is a referendum. Its whole process was years outside the time that the rules of the city allow under these circumstances.”

and also from the opinion

“Abraham Lincoln once asked:

If Congress said that a goat's tail was a leg, how many legs would a goat have? Four. Calling a tail a leg does not make it so.”

One thing about "legal technicalities" that most folks forget is that today it allows someone to "walk" who the folks believe ought not to have "walked," but tomorrow it allows those same folks to "walk" when they believe they should. The application and interpretation of laws ought not to be based upon political preferences and/or affiliations, and if you read the Judge's opinion as a whole that is the Judge's basis for the opinion.

BTW: Good luck with "recalling" a Federal Judge.

I'm referring to chess9718 stating "so if an ordinance is illegal, and is in place longer than 30 days, we cannot change it?"

I'm referring to chess9718 stating "so if an ordinance is illegal, and is in place longer than 30 days, we cannot change it?" Originally Posted by Playthefield

And I was not taking issue with your assessment in the least. In fact a fair reading of the Federal Judge's opinion is consistent with your opinion.

I am pointing out to others who wish to get their "information" from news-media hype ... that reading the actual opinion(s) of the Judge sheds light on the issue .. if you will pardon the pun.

For instance ... the City was apparently supporting the citizens' vote...and agreeing with the citizens who opposed the lights ... because of their vote.

Ahh my apologies.

This is insane. The people don't want the red light cameras, and have spoken with their votes. The City is siding with the voters, but the judge says we have to have them because of a, "technicality". I say BULLSHIT.

LS

..... but the judge says we have to have them because of a, "technicality". Originally Posted by LittleSpike

There are some who view the 4th Amendment as a "technicality" ...

Constitutional requirements are not technicality and

.... neither are statutory requirements.

"The charter, like a constitution, structures the government; ordinances, like statutes, make policy choices for their operation. Charters create officers, specify election or appointment, prohibit types and levels of taxation, and similar elemental things. Ordinances set speed limits, reorganize departments, appropriate, and similar managerial things. Although this distinction may blur at the edge, charters and ordinances are different and must be distinguishable. The rules of Texas and Houston call for them to be treated differently."

What the Judge said.

The opponents of the cameras ought to have complained 6 or 7 years ago, before the city entered into a contract and committed itself to pay money for the cameras. Having failed to act timely, like most other things in life, they are not able to do so today. They only have themselves to blame ... not the City, not the cameras, not the Judge. Just themselves.

Is it just me or does the ruling seem to have a sympathetic tone to it?

Is it just me or does the ruling seem to have a sympathetic tone to it? Originally Posted by Playthefield

"This decision is not about wisdom or preferences." In the opinion.

I would say no.

It's about following the rules.

And the same group of people who want to ignore the "rules of the City" want to ignore the "rules of the road"! Because if one follows both then there would be no cameras OR there would be no reason to be concerned about them in the first place OR even a need for them.

You all are doing this all wrong. Get Satin to drive you where you want to go and he gets the ticket. Or get a hire car.....CAR SERVICE!!!

That is why I drive in countries whre I can pay my way straight away no ticket or anything. Or import a car with crazy plates, they don't pick on them as much. They can't read the plates!!!

There are some who view the 4th Amendment as a "technicality" ...

Constitutional requirements are not technicality and

.... neither are statutory requirements.

"The charter, like a constitution, structures the government; ordinances, like statutes, make policy choices for their operation. Charters create officers, specify election or appointment, prohibit types and levels of taxation, and similar elemental things. Ordinances set speed limits, reorganize departments, appropriate, and similar managerial things. Although this distinction may blur at the edge, charters and ordinances are different and must be distinguishable. The rules of Texas and Houston call for them to be treated differently."

What the Judge said.

The opponents of the cameras ought to have complained 6 or 7 years ago, before the city entered into a contract and committed itself to pay money for the cameras. Having failed to act timely, like most other things in life, they are not able to do so today. They only have themselves to blame ... not the City, not the cameras, not the Judge. Just themselves.
Originally Posted by LexusLover

When does the contract end ? Will it be renewed without citizen input ?

Will we re-elect the dummies who put this in place ?

LS