Houston Red Lght Cameras....

Naw Satino it's all about our safety. I am sure the company that put up the cameras and monitors them is a non-profit organization. Heck I'll even bet that the judge that ordered them to be truned back on donates her time for free.

Ok boys and girls, the initial report numbers are in and the first 2 weeks have netted almost 3400 citations , which is going to collect $335,000...

There are almost 1100 more being reviewed right now.
But we can always take LL advice and not run any red lights and we'll have nothing to worry about, right? Originally Posted by Satin

You think 3400 will bring $335,000?

It just seem like an excellent plan to protest the red-light cams ...

... everyone quit running red lights!

I know it's tough to stop at red lights, and awfully inconvenient, but it is for the good of freedom from having one's privacy infringed upon while driving down a public street! So protest the cams. Stop at red lights.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...n/7695490.html

Hey ll, here's a chance for you to go to a city council meeting, stand on your little pedestal, play your little alpha male game, and insinuate to the city council members how stupid they are. Just like you do us here.

Like us, they probably won't pay any attention to you.

.... and insinuate ..... how stupid they are. Just like you do us here.

Like us, they probably won't pay any attention to you. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Don't have to "insinuate" for those who advocate cutting red lights, because if one doesn't cut red lights one doesn't know if there is a cam or not and doesn't have to contribute to the "money machine" that "us" is worried about.

As for the decision making process, it is refreshing that you, along with the other advocates of safe streets in Houston, will be showing up at the meeting to voice your opposition to the cameras and support the Mayor's efforts to get rid of them and I am sure that you will offer your solution of hiring additional LE personnel with additional patrol units and equipment to "man" those intersections that have been identified as being most likely to result in collisions due to the running of red lights at high speeds, while at the same time "settling" the breach of contract litigation with the money from those citizens who actually have a business located within the Houston taxing jurisdiction and spend money in the City of Houston.....

... as opposed to advocating a third or second degree felony as a solution .. (see Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEf .... and look for the penalty range for destruction of government property and the value ranges) ... .

The only one I would call stupid in this decision making process are the ones that "play" to the media hype to gain some "political" advantage (or continue their masquerade as "bad asses" against LE) while ignoring the recommendations of the lawyers for the city as to how to accomplish the task of getting rid of the cameras without violating the Federal court order, breaching a contract with substantial consequential damages, or violating the City's charter, state law, and/or existing city resolutions.

Your one liners trying to marginalize by demonizing and ridiculing makes about as much sense as suggesting "hammers" as though this were some Boston-Harbor moment in "our" lives and expose people to a felony conviction.

Don't have to "insinuate" for those who advocate cutting red lights, because if one doesn't cut red lights one doesn't know if there is a cam or not and doesn't have to contribute to the "money machine" that "us" is worried about.

As for the decision making process, it is refreshing that you, along with the other advocates of safe streets in Houston, will be showing up at the meeting to voice your opposition to the cameras and support the Mayor's efforts to get rid of them and I am sure that you will offer your solution of hiring additional LE personnel with additional patrol units and equipment to "man" those intersections that have been identified as being most likely to result in collisions due to the running of red lights at high speeds, while at the same time "settling" the breach of contract litigation with the money from those citizens who actually have a business located within the Houston taxing jurisdiction and spend money in the City of Houston.....

... as opposed to advocating a third or second degree felony as a solution .. (see Sec. 28.03. CRIMINAL MISCHIEf .... and look for the penalty range for destruction of government property and the value ranges) ... .

The only one I would call stupid in this decision making process are the ones that "play" to the media hype to gain some "political" advantage (or continue their masquerade as "bad asses" against LE) while ignoring the recommendations of the lawyers for the city as to how to accomplish the task of getting rid of the cameras without violating the Federal court order, breaching a contract with substantial consequential damages, or violating the City's charter, state law, and/or existing city resolutions.

Your one liners trying to marginalize by demonizing and ridiculing makes about as much sense as suggesting "hammers" as though this were some Boston-Harbor moment in "our" lives and expose people to a felony conviction. Originally Posted by LexusLover

blah.........blah.........blah ........blah........blah

It's sad that you don't seem to understand the simple concept of 'principle'.

blah.........blah.........blah ........blah........blah

... you don't seem to understand the simple concept of 'principle'. Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

It is sad that you fail to comprehend the simple concept of "principal."

It is sad that you fail to comprehend the simple concept of "principal." Originally Posted by LexusLover

Since you don't seem to know the difference between principal and principle, I don't know why I'm wasting my time with you. You talk a lot of crap, all style, no substance.


http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principle
Basically law or standards.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/principal
Basically like a principal in a school.

D_J , you the man bro.
Article today says it looks like the Pussy Licker might buckle and shut them back off again..lmao!!

Since you don't seem to know the difference between principal and principle, .... Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

Does your brand of personal attacks work with the ladies? Just asking.

It is apparent that you are focused on "schooling," which is a good thing.

I was focused on the money .... taxpayers' money, in fact, which means those persons who pay city taxes on a regular basis and are bank rolling the "principle" (whatever yours is) that directly and/or indirectly supports the cutting of red lights.

Satin, the Mayor desired to "cut off" the cameras from the beginning, but rather than take hammers to the cameras she apparently took a more civilized approach of seeking judicial relief, and is still doing so.

So, John, when you lack substance, do you engage in personal attacks?

LL I appreciate what you said bro, but you don't have to try to clarify every single thing I say. I know and understand all the facts...its my threAD remember? I do try to interject a little humor with some of my postings so don't take everything so serious man. You should come with me to a strip club tonight so you can loosen up a bit.

Don't bother wasting your time, DJ. The guy is a fail troll.

Back on topic, I've read that they have been sending out notices again. What are we to do if we get one now? I've heard they may enforce the ticket by withholding registration, but I've seen some chron.com comments that say otherwise.

You should come with me to a strip club tonight so you can loosen up a bit. Originally Posted by Satin

How do you know I wasn't there? Thanks for the invite, though.

Don't bother wasting your time, DJ. The guy is a fail troll.

Back on topic, I've read that they have been sending out notices again. What are we to do if we get one now? I've heard they may enforce the ticket by withholding registration, but I've seen some chron.com comments that say otherwise. Originally Posted by Chrisrock

When they first went on I got tagged... fine was 75 bucks and if it goes unpaid they can withhold registration and license renewal.

I am on the fence on these things. Yes it is a way to collect money from me.. but only if I run the red light. And what they do not tell you is that there is a good number of "violations' that are discarded because a cop looks at it and makes the call.. often times the camera snaps you when you are in the intersection when it goes red.

the ticket goes against the car... like liability, it follows the car. Your friend borrows your car, and is in an accident, your liability, not theirs is in effect.

Are the cameras illegal? Its a public street, you have no expectation of privacy, anyone can photograph you on the street. (any legal eagles want to chime please do)

Where I am on the fence is here: its a voluntary tax for the city.. they generate 10 million a year so should we allow them and add more? if it will mean better city services sure.

Are the cameras illegal? Its a public street, you have no expectation of privacy, anyone can photograph you on the street. Originally Posted by Spirit13

If the "red-light" cameras violate anyone's "expectation of privacy" (which they don't) then all of the DOT cams are violating that "expectation" as well.

http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/cctv/transtar


The only "right" it is violating is someone's fabricated right to cut a red light, not to mention their "inalienable right" to "T-bone" another vehicle passing through the intersection under a green light.

http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/l....aspx?cam=True

@ LL, I agree....