Posted: 2/17/2005 1:48:28 PM EDT
|
Looks like there is an effort in the Texas House to derail the incipient red-light camera plan brought to us by your friendly Houston Mayor White and HPD Chief Hurtt. Another babystep towards socialist utopia may be averted if we all get in touch with our reps and encourage them to kill the idea at the state level. Believe me, the rest of the state will soon be blanketed with the things if Houston gets them and then crows about all the revenue-- um, I mean safety enhancement the cameras provide. Hey, even found a link to a story on the subject. Let 'em know how you feel.  Alpine |
They're there to monitor traffic flow. See the Houston Realtime Traffic Map for an example of the traffic cams. |
Garland has had them active for about 2 years now. I think there are only 3 cameras, I635 and Centerville-this one does seem to have reduced the number of accidents. Beltline at Plano Rd and Beltline at Jupiter. The city says the cameras have reduced the number of accidents at all the locations, but I've only seen a reduction at one. The fine is $20, it has been challenged in court once that I know of and the driver won. I don't believe it's considered a moving violation. mm |
If the cameras are set up to capture the interior of the vehicle, the occupants can be (barely) identified. This is required in some places where the robo-tickets are moving violations just as if a real officer had witnessed the infraction and issued the citation, so the identity of the perp is essential. In other jurisdictions they are running these like parking violations: they are a civil matter, and the owner of the car is responsible no matter what. This is how Houston plans to go. Of course the fvcking insurance companies don't like to miss a revenue opportunity, either, so they want the violations to be of the moving variety like a "real" ticket. Because the photo tickets are "off the books" the insurers would have to scour the civil records and even then the actual driver would not be identified. No identifiable driver - no nice rate-jacking. Poor insurance companies.  So, anyway, the short answer to your question is: they don't have to.  Alpine Edited for clarity. |
|
They dont do much. They added one...get this at Centerville and Rowlett rd. Give me a break, you are coming from Rowlett over a bridge, its only a two way.. These retards should have put it at the next intersection pleasant vally and rowlett rd.. They spent a fortune and it took them 6 months to install.. As for the fine, it doesnt matter who was driving your car. You get the ticket being the one its registered to. I do not run red lights and am very defensive when that light does turn green. I saw a big wreck today in rowlett at 66 and Dalrock..dumass didnt even try to stop and it was in slow motion and you can beat I provided a statement so that honest people dont get screwed by some lying, no insurance having, think its their right to be able to drive with out it fool. Soap box closed now. |
|
if you will recall several years ago they tried this with white vans that had cameras and radar detectors. it was defeated because the defendant could not confront his accuser. i can see the red light cameras falling into the same pit. just more wasted money and time by our benevolent legislature. |
Since they have no clue who the driver was, they ticket the car (owner), and thus it is not a moving violation. |
This is funny, I just noticed the one at Centerville and Rowlett Rd. this past weekend. Actually, we Garlanders call the intersection Centerville and NE Pkwy. The camera seems to only look onto NE Pkwy(it took me a couple of minutes and a sympathetic wife to realize which intersection it was). That intersection has had some bad wrecks, usually at night. Centerville and 66 used to be bad too, but for some reason it's cleared up. Dalrock and 66....lemme guess...guy that ran the light was going eastbound? Renegade, I think you got it right. I do remember reading something about the ticket being issued to the car and not the driver. The camera does take pretty good pictures of the car and the driver though. mm |
I'm talking about cameras mounted on traffic light booms throughout the city, not freeway traffic monitoring cameras. There are typically four cameras per intersection, one pointed at each of the intersection's inbound traffic lanes. Camera positions suggest traffic light enforcement. |
Paintball gun might preclude the "destruction of city property" charge....... ya reckon? (paint splatter while disabling the lens view don't hurt nuthin does it, other than their revenue) Mike |
|
The boxes are theoretically bulletproof. I say theoretically because I don't know what level it would be equivalent to. I don't know if the lens is bare or protected by lexan. Here's what the Brits do to some of their speed cameras: www.speedcam.co.uk/index2.htm Click on the "Gatso" button to see pics of destroyed cameras. FWIW I know the red-light cameras to have a good effect reducing red-light crashes at intersections (except perhaps for rear-end crashes), but the revenue possibilities make it very suspicious. Speed cameras are pathetic and should be terminated with extremem prejudice. The small cameras you see on signal mast arms are indeed for general traffic condition monitoring, or for video detection of vehicles at the signal (instead of putting a detector loop in the pavement). The red-light enforcement cameras are large boxes on separate poles back aways from the intersection, pointed to take a pic of the rear plate as you enter the intersection on red. |
|
Nope. running a red light is a huge problem here in downtown Houston. Running Red lights and stop signs are a real pet peeve of mine. That said, I do not want to encourage or accept red light cameras and Radar photo gun systems for traffic enforcement. The problem is that we are removing the right on confrontation for criminal accusations for traffic citations. This will eventually result in this practice being expanded to other driminal accusations and I do not like it. We all know that cops NEVER make mistakes. I guess cmaeras are the same way so the government should not have a burden of proof & the accused tshould not have a right of confrontation. The fact is that traffic enforcement, 90% of the time isn't safety related. It is a vast cash cow for local and state government and it is a method of taxing people that use the roadways. There is that 10% of the time that traffic enforcement is safety related and I like seeing that. That's my gripe with them and that is my opinion, however wrong you may think it is. |
You are corect. I bet it would still be charged as destruction unless the paint would wipe off. |
What liberty? Just stupid stuff, like presumption of innocence and the right to face one's accuser. We don't need all that crap, right? A tiny little sacrifice of liberty on the altar of safety. It won't go any further, we promise.  Alpine |
You have the right to fight those tickets. 
|
|
WEEEEEELL not exactly if they get their way. They are trying to make it so you do not have a right of confrontation, right to a jury trial or the right to simply ask the stqate to prove whom it was that was driving the car. Again, this is like gun control. This is hte beginning of the slippery slope on these issues. |
Exactly. SC-Texas, when that bus full of lawyers with one empty seat goes over the cliff, I hope it's your seat that's empty. 
|
|
You realize that these things are not adminstered by the county. They are taken care of by a private company. Somebody like boeing, or Lockheed. They have it set up so that they get a cut of the revenue. In other cities there have been instances of the company changing the light cycle to get a short yellow light, thus getting more revenue coming in. It would be extremely hard to fight a ticket due to this. Especially hard to prove that they did it in the first place. Would this happen here? It happened in AZ. Instead of using this as a revenue generator, why don't they keep track of the number of red lights that you run, and when you reach a certain number, they suspend your license until you take a class similar to the motorcycle safety class. A class that is not only classroom but actual driving. If you want to play the safety card. Here it is. Other than doing something like this, the only thing I see is another randomly applied tax. |
Other cities would be San Diego. The City lost that lawsuit, if you want to do some research on it. |
|
AUSTIN, Texas -- The Texas House on Thursday overwhelmingly approved a bill prohibiting cities from using cameras to issue citations for red light runners. Rep. Gary Elkins, R-Houston, the bill's sponsor, said the practice increases rear-end collisions and serves as a moneymaking mechanism for cities. Proponents argued that using the cameras decreases red light running and side-impact accidents. "No one is for anybody running a red light, and no one is for anyone getting hurt or killed by a red light runner," Elkins said. A bill passed in 2003 allowed cities to issue both civil and criminal tickets for traffic violations. The city of Garland issues civil tickets to red light runners caught on camera. In December, the Houston City Council voted to put cameras in up to 50 intersections to catch red light violators. Republican Rep. Joe Driver of Garland said use of the cameras in his hometown has reduced red light running by 20 percent and injury accidents in the city by 80 percent. He also said using cameras to catch violators frees up polices officers to catch criminals. The ban passed by a vote of 109-30. The bill must be approved a second time by the House, pass the Senate and be signed by the governor before it becomes law. The red light bill is HB259. |
|
The Texas House defends liberty today: "The House on Thursday gave overwhelming preliminary approval to a bill prohibiting cities from using cameras to issue citations for red-light runners." Now let's see if it will carry through another House vote and the Texas Senate... Alpine |
