Red light cameras to face a vote!

[musicman]

The study commissioned by former Mayor Bill White (done by Rice U's Bob Stein) said red light cameras resulted in more accidents. City was more than happy to sweep it under the rug.

[Highway6]

Chronicle has called this one.... Prop 3 did not pass.. 52.8%-47.2%

[kylejack]

Goodbye, red light cameras!

[sidegate]

Phew! We sure as **** didn't need that revenue....

[LTAWACS]

Someone I know voted AGAINST this. Her reasoning was that they cost too much and they are nothing but a source of revenue for the city....

Her: They cost too much and they are nothing but a source of revenue for the city...

Me: Perhaps but all one needs to do is not run red lights.

Her: Yes but they are doing this to raise money...

Me: If you don't run red lights... you have nothing to worry about.

Her: They don't reduce the number of accidents anyway.

Me: As long as you don't run a red light, you should be ok.

Her: Yes but they cost too much to install!

Me: They can help pay for themselves. I dont think they cost millions.

Her: They are just doing this to raise money.

Me: Again I repeat. If you don't run red lights you have nothing to worry about. They won't "take" your money if you don't run red lights! Do you not think anything in place to help discourage people from running red lights is a good thing?

Her: It's just a fine. They are doing this for the money.

I was disgusted by her complete lack of understanding. She has a kid too. Disgusting.

[sidegate]

Q; City of Houston voters: Do you want something that will raise revenue for the City of Houston that can be used to repair roads, reduce flooding, add parks, etc? It will have no impact on the 99.9% of you who observe traffic laws, will pay for itself, and will have minimal impact on whatever privacy you have left.

A. No.

I mean, if cameras have to go before, why not take this to its logical extreme and put traffic violations themselves to a vote?

[ricco67]

Q; City of Houston voters: Do you want something that will raise revenue for the City of Houston that can be used to repair roads, reduce flooding, add parks, etc? It will have no impact on the 99.9% of you who observe traffic laws, will pay for itself, and will have minimal impact on whatever privacy you have left.

A. No.

I mean, if cameras have to go before, why not take this to its logical extreme and put traffic violations themselves to a vote?

I was very disappointed that it didn't pass. Having mentioned the previous reasons and arguments mentioned previously but it was just some people didn't really like the concept of "big brother" watching.

Do they WANT to pay for a cop to literally stand at every corner to issue out tickets?

[sidegate]

I was very disappointed that it didn't pass. Having mentioned the previous reasons and arguments mentioned previously but it was just some people didn't really like the concept of "big brother" watching.

Do they WANT to pay for a cop to literally stand at every corner to issue out tickets?

I'd be very interested to see how this broke down geographically. I have a tenner here that says the suburbs voted heavily against it.

[Highway6]

I didn't get to vote on either of the propositions. Despite living in city limits for the past 5 years, I'm still registered to vote at my folks place out in the county.

I'm actually a little surprised at the Proposition results. If the main complaint against the red light cameras was "its a tax" then how the heck did the renew Houston proposition pass? I would have figured it only 1 of the 2 passed, it would have been the red-light.

Also, I didn't pay attention to the details of this proposition since i knew i wouldn't get to vote on it. Was this a vote on expansion of the red-light program only or a halt to the entire program including removal of existing red-light cameras?

[Highway6]

I'd be very interested to see how this broke down geographically. I have a tenner here that says the suburbs voted heavily against it.

Suburbs outside the city limits didn't get to vote on it..

[ricco67]

Suburbs outside the city limits didn't get to vote on it..

But the question is: Did the people outside of the city's core vote against it?

I am also interested to know what the breakdown would have been. Is there a way to see this?

[kylejack]

Smash The Panopticon.

[sidegate]

I didn't get to vote on either of the propositions. Despite living in city limits for the past 5 years, I'm still registered to vote at my folks place out in the county.

I'm actually a little surprised at the Proposition results. If the main complaint against the red light cameras was "its a tax" then how the heck did the renew Houston proposition pass? I would have figured it only 1 of the 2 passed, it would have been the red-light.

Also, I didn't pay attention to the details of this proposition since i knew i wouldn't get to vote on it. Was this a vote on expansion of the red-light program only or a halt to the entire program including removal of existing red-light cameras?

I think it shelves the entire program

[IronTiger]

The red light cameras are placed by the company who runs the camera, not the city.

They place them on the busiest intersections, not the necessarily the most prone to red light running.

(at least, that's how it was back when we had them in BCS)

The red light cameras weren't offed by a huge margin.

[LTAWACS]

How can we keep them in place or get them back in service after they have been taken down?

[sidegate]

The red light cameras are placed by the company who runs the camera, not the city.

They place them on the busiest intersections, not the necessarily the most prone to red light running.

(at least, that's how it was back when we had them in BCS)

The red light cameras weren't offed by a huge margin.

Neither was Gore

[Scott08]

I curbed my tongue last week at the comments on this thread, but now that the cameras are going to be history, I'll be candid. As someone who actually likes to drive, considers a driver's license a privilege not a right, and has been to numerous driving schools over the years to improve my skills set, I'm very happy about this. The automotive press has called the advent of redlight and speed cameras as a money snatch since day one. The first words out of the City of Houston's spokesman today in the paper was "How are we going to make up for the revenue we've lost, furloughs and program cuts are going to become reality." Not one word about public safety, since it never was about that anyway. I don't run red lights, but many studies have shown that RLC's don't stop people from running the lights, and there's enough evidence that they can cause increases in accidents at those intersections. Further evidence that it's all about the money is the fact that the RLC operators have almost always filed suit to stop public referendums in places they have contracts. Here's an interesting article about yesterday's referendums around the country:

11/3/2010

Red Light Cameras Routed at Ballot Box

In fifteen public votes, automated ticketing machines have never survived.

Houston anti-camera protest The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

Outspent by a factor of ten to one, the group nonetheless won a majority of the 335,778 votes cast on the measure. According to campaign finance disclosure documents, ATS poured $1,746,000 into the race, in a desperate attempt to salvage one of the company's most important accounts.

"Despite the opposition having every conceivable advantage the people saw through the hype and the emotional blackmail and saw the cameras for what they are, a money making scheme that violates our constitutional rights and risks driver safety for money," Citizens Against Red Light Camera spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper.

Another ATS account was canceled by citizens in nearby Baytown, where 58 percent voted to terminate the red light camera program.

"Despite being far outspent, sued and harassed we ultimately prevailed because the truth was on our side," initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the legislature will take up a statewide camera ban this next session so citizens won't have to rip the cameras out city by city. We also urge the Baytown council to abide by the will of the people, no matter what the outcome of any future lawsuits by the camera company they partnered with... The people have spoken, bring the cameras down."

On the west coast, the vote in Mukilteo, Washington was 70 percent against the automated ticketing machines. Tax-cutting initiative guru Tim Eyman organized the effort which earned a state supreme court order denying the attempt of ATS to block the people from voting. In Anaheim, California there was no camera vendor defending the program because the mayor and city council decided on their own to add a charter amendment prohibiting the use of red light cameras. The measure passed handily with 73 percent of the 45,000 votes cast.

"I am pleased with the outcome of today's red light camera ballot issue," Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "Anaheim's voters recognized that red-light cameras are not a proven deterrent to traffic violations or traffic accidents, and I happen to agree with that assessment. Other cities have chosen to use red-light cameras as revenue producing tool, but the city council disagreed so we (city council) took the vote to the people, and they have spoken."

Garfield Heights became the fifth Ohio city to ban red light cameras and speed cameras, with a majority of the 9,194 votes cast insisting on the termination of all automated ticketing.

Earlier this year, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp

If you still think they're a good thing, I can't change your mind, but I'd say it's yet another lesson for our city government to learn...don't start programs that you have to "create funding" for later to support.

[sidegate]

I curbed my tongue last week at the comments on this thread, but now that the cameras are going to be history, I'll be candid. As someone who actually likes to drive, considers a driver's license a privilege not a right, and has been to numerous driving schools over the years to improve my skills set, I'm very happy about this. The automotive press has called the advent of redlight and speed cameras as a money snatch since day one. The first words out of the City of Houston's spokesman today in the paper was "How are we going to make up for the revenue we've lost, furloughs and program cuts are going to become reality." Not one word about public safety, since it never was about that anyway. I don't run red lights, but many studies have shown that RLC's don't stop people from running the lights, and there's enough evidence that they can cause increases in accidents at those intersections. Further evidence that it's all about the money is the fact that the RLC operators have almost always filed suit to stop public referendums in places they have contracts. Here's an interesting article about yesterday's referendums around the country:

11/3/2010

Red Light Cameras Routed at Ballot Box

In fifteen public votes, automated ticketing machines have never survived.

Houston anti-camera protest The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

Outspent by a factor of ten to one, the group nonetheless won a majority of the 335,778 votes cast on the measure. According to campaign finance disclosure documents, ATS poured $1,746,000 into the race, in a desperate attempt to salvage one of the company's most important accounts.

"Despite the opposition having every conceivable advantage the people saw through the hype and the emotional blackmail and saw the cameras for what they are, a money making scheme that violates our constitutional rights and risks driver safety for money," Citizens Against Red Light Camera spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper.

Another ATS account was canceled by citizens in nearby Baytown, where 58 percent voted to terminate the red light camera program.

"Despite being far outspent, sued and harassed we ultimately prevailed because the truth was on our side," initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the legislature will take up a statewide camera ban this next session so citizens won't have to rip the cameras out city by city. We also urge the Baytown council to abide by the will of the people, no matter what the outcome of any future lawsuits by the camera company they partnered with... The people have spoken, bring the cameras down."

On the west coast, the vote in Mukilteo, Washington was 70 percent against the automated ticketing machines. Tax-cutting initiative guru Tim Eyman organized the effort which earned a state supreme court order denying the attempt of ATS to block the people from voting. In Anaheim, California there was no camera vendor defending the program because the mayor and city council decided on their own to add a charter amendment prohibiting the use of red light cameras. The measure passed handily with 73 percent of the 45,000 votes cast.

"I am pleased with the outcome of today's red light camera ballot issue," Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "Anaheim's voters recognized that red-light cameras are not a proven deterrent to traffic violations or traffic accidents, and I happen to agree with that assessment. Other cities have chosen to use red-light cameras as revenue producing tool, but the city council disagreed so we (city council) took the vote to the people, and they have spoken."

Garfield Heights became the fifth Ohio city to ban red light cameras and speed cameras, with a majority of the 9,194 votes cast insisting on the termination of all automated ticketing.

Earlier this year, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. http://www.thenewspa...ews/33/3311.asp

If you still think they're a good thing, I can't change your mind, but I'd say it's yet another lesson for our city government to learn...don't start programs that you have to "create funding" for later to support.

Out of curiosity, if the city placed a cop at each of these intersections monitoring red light infringements, and somebody gathered signatures to put that before the ballot, how would you vote? Where does this end?

[kylejack]

Before voting, shouldn't we determine first whether officers on every street corner will increase different types of accidents or not?

[sidegate]

If an exit poll was conducted, and until the results of that poll are released, we won't know the reason - increase in accidents, resentment of increased efficiency in enforcing the law on the part of the city, or perceptions of infringement of privacy - why the measure was voted down.<br>

[Materene]

Before voting, shouldn't we determine first whether officers on every street corner will increase different types of accidents or not?

It is a proven fact the mere presence of a Police car causes people to drive safer, no one ever said put one on each street corner, there aren't enough Police to do the job in Houston and haven't been for decades. You now have that rent a cop mentality with less than qualified people riding around in cars they purchased themselves, everything was purchased themselves. I don't know but that don't sound like a very good police force yet just another way to not use tax money to provide a good force. The crime rates in Houston will continue to go up because of many different reasons, one being the forcible relocation of thugs moving from shall we say less favorable neighborhoods, to areas that in the past were basically more secure. All this blending of culture has cut a jugular, just look at Washington Ave with the new condos going up all around and then take a look at the mix on the street!.. All these things I suppose are growing pains of the new society, and that is exactly what it is, there's just not a whole lot of options out there because of the large population and everyone is competing for the same space. Unfortunately the thugs will always be around!

[kylejack]

It is a proven fact the mere presence of a Police car causes people to drive safer

When/where was the fact proven? Red light cameras have been shown to increase rear-end accidents. Does a police presence do this as well?

The crime rates in Houston will continue to go up because of many different reasons, one being the forcible relocation of thugs moving from shall we say less favorable neighborhoods, to areas that in the past were basically more secure.

Why would Houston crime rates go up because thugs, as you call them, move from one part of the city to another? Were they not committing crimes in their old neighborhood or something?

[KinkaidAlum]

I voted to keep the cameras for completely selfish reasons. I was T-Boned by a red light runner at the intersection of Woodway and Voss. Witnesses said the woman swerved around a car stopping for the light infront of her to run the red light in the empty lane to her left. She T-Boned me right on the driver's side door. Paramedics and firefighters on the scene had to use the jaws of life to get me out of the car. The car was trashed. She hit me so hard that the wheels on my car caved UNDER my vehicle. If my car didn't have a steel casing, I was told that I likely wouldn't have survived the crash. I ended up with broken ribs, a broken right hand, 3 broken fingers (caused by me grabbing the steering wheel in panic when I saw what was coming), and numerous cuts and bruises. I was in pain for 3 months and couldn't do any of my normal activities which included my day job.

So, here's my big F-U shoutout to all those opposed to this measure.

[Materene]

When/where was the fact proven? Red light cameras have been shown to increase rear-end accidents. Does a police presence do this as well?

Why would Houston crime rates go up because thugs, as you call them, move from one part of the city to another? Were they not committing crimes in their old neighborhood or something?

The crime rates go up in areas that had less crime, because the thugs are being forced to relocate. In the past high crime areas were in specific neighborhoods where average people would never venture into, the city is now wide open and those neighborhoods have been slowly absorbed, the thugs as I call them, have to move, so does the crime. I'm also sure in the past people that didn't live in those neighborhoods could have cared less whether crime was rampant there, as long as they were in their own hood! All this development going on in Houston comes with a price, and now you see all of it, traffic, crime, a few other things I would guess. You can't stop it or turn it off because you don't like it, you could move to the country like I did.

As for the rear ending, the person who did the rear end is the person responsible, not the one in front, that's the law! Get off his tail and you won't rear end him, period!

[ricco67]

I voted to keep the cameras for completely selfish reasons...

So, here's my big F-U shoutout to all those opposed to this measure.

I don't see it as a selfish reason, but rather you know what kind of damage a T-bone accident can do and you would hope that other purple would have a lower chance to experience one like you did.

Of which I can relate and understand. Some purple don't get it until they go through the same trauma.

[kylejack]

As for the rear ending, the person who did the rear end is the person responsible, not the one in front, that's the law! Get off his tail and you won't rear end him, period!

I am asking what will be the effect of posting these officers, not who will be responsible.

[Materene]

I am asking what will be the effect of posting these officers, not who will be responsible.

I think the presence of more Police patrols have a positive impact on how people conduct their driving, there isn't enough out there to handle the heavy traffic Houston now has. Somewhere I already posted that in 1970 or 71 Houston had about 8 cars patrolling the entire city!, that came from an officers mouth while he was investigating a nice wreck I was involved in going around the circle there at Montrose and Main. Some would argue the complete opposite, example is California, their State Police do not drive the interstates at peak hours because it slows traffic, go figure! You can drive a very long time in Houston North, South, East or West and you will be hard pressed to see a police car anywhere, lot's of idiots passing you at 100 mph on the freeways of course. I just don't like the idea of cameras watching every move we make, we're not robots and already responsible for what we do and were rewarded for it when they gave us the license, we don't need intrusion, it was an attempt to make money and for no other reason. They can twist it spin it or whatever it is they do with, it is an intrusion on your rights and if you continue conceding them a day will come when you have NONE! City workers are basically lazy, and the more they shift their responsibilities to cameras, or any other means the better or softer their jobs, and more money for raises.

The last sentence is tongue in cheek of course, not all of them are lazy

[RedScare]

I curbed my tongue last week at the comments on this thread, but now that the cameras are going to be history, I'll be candid. As someone who actually likes to drive, considers a driver's license a privilege not a right, and has been to numerous driving schools over the years to improve my skills set, I'm very happy about this. The automotive press has called the advent of redlight and speed cameras as a money snatch since day one. The first words out of the City of Houston's spokesman today in the paper was "How are we going to make up for the revenue we've lost, furloughs and program cuts are going to become reality." Not one word about public safety, since it never was about that anyway. I don't run red lights, but many studies have shown that RLC's don't stop people from running the lights, and there's enough evidence that they can cause increases in accidents at those intersections. Further evidence that it's all about the money is the fact that the RLC operators have almost always filed suit to stop public referendums in places they have contracts. Here's an interesting article about yesterday's referendums around the country:

11/3/2010

Red Light Cameras Routed at Ballot Box

In fifteen public votes, automated ticketing machines have never survived.

Houston anti-camera protest The public rejected the use of photo enforcement in five more municipal referendum elections Tuesday. America's fourth-largest city, Houston, Texas, was home to the most hotly contested vote. The group Citizens Against Red Light Cameras, run by brothers Paul and Randy Kubosh, gathered enough signatures to force the issue onto the ballot against the wishes of the city council and in spite of a legal attack from camera operator American Traffic Solutions (ATS).

Outspent by a factor of ten to one, the group nonetheless won a majority of the 335,778 votes cast on the measure. According to campaign finance disclosure documents, ATS poured $1,746,000 into the race, in a desperate attempt to salvage one of the company's most important accounts.

"Despite the opposition having every conceivable advantage the people saw through the hype and the emotional blackmail and saw the cameras for what they are, a money making scheme that violates our constitutional rights and risks driver safety for money," Citizens Against Red Light Camera spokesman Philip Owens told TheNewspaper.

Another ATS account was canceled by citizens in nearby Baytown, where 58 percent voted to terminate the red light camera program.

"Despite being far outspent, sued and harassed we ultimately prevailed because the truth was on our side," initiative sponsor Byron Schirmbeck said in a statement. "We are hopeful that the legislature will take up a statewide camera ban this next session so citizens won't have to rip the cameras out city by city. We also urge the Baytown council to abide by the will of the people, no matter what the outcome of any future lawsuits by the camera company they partnered with... The people have spoken, bring the cameras down."

On the west coast, the vote in Mukilteo, Washington was 70 percent against the automated ticketing machines. Tax-cutting initiative guru Tim Eyman organized the effort which earned a state supreme court order denying the attempt of ATS to block the people from voting. In Anaheim, California there was no camera vendor defending the program because the mayor and city council decided on their own to add a charter amendment prohibiting the use of red light cameras. The measure passed handily with 73 percent of the 45,000 votes cast.

"I am pleased with the outcome of today's red light camera ballot issue," Anaheim Mayor Curt Pringle said in a statement. "Anaheim's voters recognized that red-light cameras are not a proven deterrent to traffic violations or traffic accidents, and I happen to agree with that assessment. Other cities have chosen to use red-light cameras as revenue producing tool, but the city council disagreed so we (city council) took the vote to the people, and they have spoken."

Garfield Heights became the fifth Ohio city to ban red light cameras and speed cameras, with a majority of the 9,194 votes cast insisting on the termination of all automated ticketing.

Earlier this year, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras. The November elections included three votes: 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down "traffic management cameras" that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras. Photo enforcement has never survived a public vote. http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/33/3311.asp

If you still think they're a good thing, I can't change your mind, but I'd say it's yet another lesson for our city government to learn...don't start programs that you have to "create funding" for later to support.

I don't find the statements by the anti-camera crowd to be any more truthful that the statements by the camera corporations. Frankly, in Houston, one group who was losing money on the camera tickets, traffic ticket lawyer Paul Kubosh and his bail bondsman brother, collected signatures from their former clients to fight aanother group who was making money on the cameras. There is nothing unconstitutional with using cameras to photograph law breakers on public streets. Virtually every police department in the area (other than HPD) uses dashboard cams to video drunk drivers and other law breaking motorists, every public facility uses cameras for security, and guess what, every criminal who pleads guilty to a crime is assessed a fine and court costs as part of his sentence. Why SHOULDN'T law breakers help pay for the cost of enforcing the law?

However, despite the misleading statements on both sides of this issue, the voters have spoken. As a Houston resident, I will pay my share of the increased property taxes needed to replace the revenue lost from the cameras, and to hire more police to patrol the intersections formerly watched by the cameras. I will also pay extra attention at intersections, since despite the cameras, Houston and Harris County remain one of the deadliest driving cities in the country.

[sidegate]

Did anyone investigate the difference in the number of side-on collisions after the introduction of cameras? Rear-enders generally involve little more than squabbling insurance adjusters and suspect whiplash claims. Side on collisions are at best life-changing, at worst life-ending. I'd lose little sleep over a few more rear enders if the number of side-impact collisions was reduced.

[kylejack]

Why would a traffic lawyer be losing money on people being cited for red light running? Isn't that just more business opportunities?