Red light cameras to face a vote!

[IronTiger]

Read in the newspaper recently that Houston's red light cameras were up for a vote. What do you think of them? Do you think they should disappear?

[barracuda]

That would be prop 3. I was on the fence but ended up voting for it. Statistically, they do save lives as well as generate money for trauma centers.

[WAZ]

I voted for the Red Light Cameras. They help keep us safe.

They could make us even safer, though. According to Controller Ronald Green, the Cameras earn $16 million a year for the City of Houston (in addition to the money that's supposed to go to the State for hospitals). That $16 million could be earmarked mobile cameras to help fight crime.

They're using mobile crime cameras down in the Braes Oaks Management district - and they're getting results. It'd turn a win-win into a win-win-win.

[kylejack]

Red light cameras increase accidents and are a huge boon to the companies that make the systems.

[HoustonMidtown]

Red light cameras increase accidents and are a huge boon to the companies that make the systems.

I can also quote articles that say red light cameras reduce accidents

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/may/11/yes-red-light-cameras-help/

Who knows what the real results are....

There are numerous red light cameras around the area I work (Greenspoint) where people used to blatantly run red lights -- they dont run them near as much anymore....

[Materene]

Any cameras in the public sector are an invasion of privacy. The answer to make us safer and fight crime is to drop the hammer on those who commit them. I do believe every violation caught by one of these cameras is already covered under the laws and statutes of the city and state. Why is it necessary to continue spending money for something you already pay for. Some one made a killing on selling these things and once they have the foot in the door it will never end. Won't be long one will hanging on your front door to make sure your going to work each day so you can pay for the upkeep and expansion. I'm sure the next thing will be robot meter maids, they already have those don't they. This Nation would indeed be a rich one if we just dump government by about 60 to 75 per cent.

[kylejack]

I think the general conclusions reached from the studies that show an increase are that drivers figure out where the red light cameras are (a big strobe flash goes off when somebody gets caught, etc.) and behave at those intersections, but increase their running of red lights at uncovered intersections. They're still just as likely to be caught by a cop or get in an accident at those intersections, so there is really no logical reason for them to do this at greater frequency, but who knows, maybe some kind of psychological thing.

I heard there was an accident on Main Street yesterday, and the truck actually hit the third car through the intersection. No idea how something like that happens besides someone who is just totally out of it.

I find it interesting that we are making $16 million. I guess we bargained for a good deal, because I know other cities have actually lost money on these cameras because they have to pay so much to the companies.

[sidegate]

Any cameras in the public sector are an invasion of privacy. The answer to make us safer and fight crime is to drop the hammer on those who commit them. I do believe every violation caught by one of these cameras is already covered under the laws and statutes of the city and state. Why is it necessary to continue spending money for something you already pay for. Some one made a killing on selling these things and once they have the foot in the door it will never end. Won't be long one will hanging on your front door to make sure your going to work each day so you can pay for the upkeep and expansion. I'm sure the next thing will be robot meter maids, they already have those don't they. This Nation would indeed be a rich one if we just dump government by about 60 to 75 per cent.

Driving is a privilege, not a right. Anything that makes safer PUBLIC roads paid for and maintained by PUBLIC money is to be applauded. Privacy has nothing to do with it. If you want to be private, stay at home.

[gto250us]

I am for the cameras.

Yes, the city make money off of them. But, So what.

Yes, the manufacture make money off of them, But, So what.

Studies show that they DO NOT increase the number of accidents.

The only ones they adversely affect are those who break the law and endanger everyone else by running red lights.

[kylejack]

I am for the cameras.

Yes, the city make money off of them. But, So what.

Yes, the manufacture make money off of them, But, So what.

Studies show that they DO NOT increase the number of accidents.

This DOT study indicates decreased right-angle accidents, increased rear-end accidents, and a spillover effect to unmonitored intersections.

The only ones they adversely affect are those who break the law and endanger everyone else by running red lights.

And those who are rear-ended as a result, or hurt in a spillover accident.

[sidegate]

And those who are rear-ended as a result, or hurt in a spillover accident.

Maybe so but that is also a function of people approaching intersections too quickly; the cameras don't change the behaviour of the lights, they merely monitor what happens in the intersection some considerable period of time after the lights go red.

[JJVilla]

I will be voting against it not because I am against the concept but because I am against them using mostly just to make money. I mean that they are NOT using it to stop accidents but to give citations that would normally not be given or justified if common sense were applied. Many people I know have gotten these type of tickets while very few have gotten citations for actually running a red light that would causes accidents. I would vote for if they actually used the system to prevent accidents not just to make money. I know they have to make some profit but they go beyond it a bit too much.

[LTAWACS]

I'm for them. I hope they install more.

[dbigtex56]

Red light cameras increase accidents and are a huge boon to the companies that make the systems.

Read between the lines.

The National Motorists Association is an organization sponsored by lawyers who make their livings by defending scofflaws' traffic tickets. Of course they're going to protest anything which makes their jobs more difficult. The claim that red light cameras increase the chances of rear-end collisions is patently absurd.

If you think wealthy motorists should be able to buy their way out of traffic tickets, fine - vote no.

I prefer that all motorists be held accountable. I'm voting yes, and hope the program is expanded.

[kylejack]

Read between the lines.

The National Motorists Association is an organization sponsored by lawyers who make their livings by defending scofflaws' traffic tickets. Of course they're going to protest anything which makes their jobs more difficult.

Who cares what they protest? I'm referring to the five studies they cited, which were all conducted by government organizations or on behalf of government organizations.

The claim that red light cameras increase the chances of rear-end collisions is patently absurd.

Why is it patently absurd? Are you aware of a study which contradicts those findings by the Federal Highways Administration study?

[LTAWACS]

The simple solution to the naysayers here is to NOT RUN ANY RED LIGHTS. It's that simple.

[ricco67]

Any cameras in the public sector are an invasion of privacy. The answer to make us safer and fight crime is to drop the hammer on those who commit them. I do believe every violation caught by one of these cameras is already covered under the laws and statutes of the city and state. Why is it necessary to continue spending money for something you already pay for. Some one made a killing on selling these things and once they have the foot in the door it will never end. Won't be long one will hanging on your front door to make sure your going to work each day so you can pay for the upkeep and expansion. I'm sure the next thing will be robot meter maids, they already have those don't they. This Nation would indeed be a rich one if we just dump government by about 60 to 75 per cent.

Then your privacy is being violated almost every moment you get out of your home. There was a study issued not too long ago that we are generally filmed or are on camera about 40-60% of the time we leave our home.

ATM's, Gas stations, convenience stores, workplace security, Grocery stores, UPS centers, Bars, etc. that doesn't even include the private security ones that are aimed at the various streets.

Intrusion of your privacy is only so, until you suddenly need it.

I voted for all 3 props.

[gto250us]

This DOT study indicates decreased right-angle accidents, increased rear-end accidents, and a spillover effect to unmonitored intersections.

And those who are rear-ended as a result, or hurt in a spillover accident.

Your chance of being real-ended is less that being T-Boned by a criminal.

[Materene]

Having a camera in a convenience store or private property is not the same as having big brother watching every move you make. The stores paid for the cameras not your tax money, big difference. The argument is un winnable anyway, I haven't had a ticket in over 35 years so to have someone watching me so they can steal my money is a bit too futuristic for me. If you want to put an end to automobile accidents or abuse then destroy about 2/3rds we now have and that should do it. Transportation right of ways are too small for the mass number of people living in our cities, all the cameras in the world aren't going to make someone slow down or heed the law, especially when they are late for work. It's another dead horse making someone else very rich... Besides most people receiving tickets for these infractions don't even realize they are being filmed, the population and driving numbers are changing each and every hour of the day, there is no end to new people not knowing about cameras and where they are. Give a human a job and call him a traffic cop!! and a judge with some b-lls.

[gto250us]

Having a camera in a convenience store or private property is not the same as having big brother watching every move you make. The stores paid for the cameras not your tax money, big difference. The argument is un winnable anyway, I haven't had a ticket in over 35 years so to have someone watching me so they can steal my money is a bit too futuristic for me. If you want to put an end to automobile accidents or abuse then destroy about 2/3rds we now have and that should do it. Transportation right of ways are too small for the mass number of people living in our cities, all the cameras in the world aren't going to make someone slow down or heed the law, especially when they are late for work. It's another dead horse making someone else very rich... Besides most people receiving tickets for these infractions don't even realize they are being filmed, the population and driving numbers are changing each and every hour of the day, there is no end to new people not knowing about cameras and where they are. Give a human a job and call him a traffic cop!! and a judge with some b-lls.

It only "watches" you when you break the law and only "steals" your money when you break the law. What the problem? No one is getting rich, get over it already.

[Materene]

It only "watches" you when you break the law and only "steals" your money when you break the law. What the problem? No one is getting rich, get over it already.

There's nothing to get over, you don't tell me what to believe or do. You see that's what the problem with society is now, a few think they speak for everyone, you do as you please power to you. This is pretty weak telling someone to get over it, a difference in opinions is how I see it. I have no problem with your beliefs and I would never tell you to get over it because I had opposing views. We differ. How bout them Rangers

[sidegate]

There's nothing to get over, you don't tell me what to believe or do. You see that's what the problem with society is now, a few think they speak for everyone, you do as you please power to you. This is pretty weak telling someone to get over it, a difference in opinions is how I see it. I have no problem with your beliefs and I would never tell you to get over it because I had opposing views. We differ. How bout them Rangers

If you think "big brother" (what a hackneyed figure of speech) has the slightest bit of interest in what you, me, or anyone else is doing at any moment in time, believe me, they don't need red light cameras to figure it out, to the nth detail. If "they" wanted to follow me around, they'd expire from the sheer boredom of the exercise.

[20thStDad]

I'm against them because I think all traffic violations should be subjective. If no one is coming, no one is around, and I turned right without completely stopping, then I didn't do anything wrong. I acted in a safe manner and made an adult decision. Same for stop signs and speeding. Just let me do what the hell I want, and if I drive like a jackass or cause an accident then give me a ticket.

[gmac]

Just let me do what the hell I want, and if I drive like a jackass or cause an accident then give me a ticket.

Great. Drive till you kill someone else. Good philosophy. Nice to think of others.

[sidegate]

I'm against them because I think all traffic violations should be subjective. If no one is coming, no one is around, and I turned right without completely stopping, then I didn't do anything wrong. I acted in a safe manner and made an adult decision. Same for stop signs and speeding. Just let me do what the hell I want, and if I drive like a jackass or cause an accident then give me a ticket.

There's a small difference between not completely stopping at an empty intersection at 2 in the morning and sailing through a busy intersection two seconds after the lights have turned red at rush hour. If you're only risking your own life, up to you I suppose, but anyone else's, that's a no-no. Cameras help a stretched police force do their job at a time when resources are stretched then. Expand the program.

[Materene]

There's a small difference between not completely stopping at an empty intersection at 2 in the morning and sailing through a busy intersection two seconds after the lights have turned red at rush hour. If you're only risking your own life, up to you I suppose, but anyone else's, that's a no-no. Cameras help a stretched police force do their job at a time when resources are stretched then. Expand the program.

You have a very good point there saying resources are stretched thin, and the reason resources are stretched so thin is the fact no money is spent or allocated to HPD to do their job. I've watched for over 40 years as Houston spread out annexing neighborhoods and municipalities and they did not have the capacity to provide services for the new prey. It's no different now than then and the first priority for any large city should be policing of the city, there was no incremental plan to do that in the past and I doubt one exist now. All you hear is we don't have the resources, but yet we have the money to buy cameras and pay to install and maintain them, not to mention pay employees to handle the input and do the administration, was that 16 million a figure before or after all these considerations. I believe any money spent should go to more Police officers and equipment, I would much rather have a Police officer on every street than a camera, it serves more than one purpose, the deterrence alone seeing a patrol car is worth the money. Everything in society has been criminalized for money, to serve and protect is no longer the norm for city hall. There was a time when an accident was just that! an accident, not planned or done to harm or cause trouble just an accident. I was born a free man and plan on staying that way for just a few more years, it's a shame the younger generation hasn't a clue to the meaning. You can still be a free man or woman and a law abiding citizen at the same time not be a robot. Well I don't have a vote since I'm no longer home but only an opinion, at least I have a voice. No secret I would vote no! Now some new cadets or vehicles that always get's a yes.

[20thStDad]

Great. Drive till you kill someone else. Good philosophy. Nice to think of others.

You're assuming I drive like that. I don't. That's the point, I do think of others. I just might not come to that complete stop, or I might decide that at 2am this left turn red light is idiotic when I am the only one on the road. No one is dying because of me, it's way more because of the incompetent people out there who don't keep good track of their surroundings. When some idiot does drive like an idiot or kill someone, then you prosecute or ticket them. Not just because of some BS load of rules that is designed to keep morons who can't think quickly or safely from killing us.

There's a small difference between not completely stopping at an empty intersection at 2 in the morning and sailing through a busy intersection two seconds after the lights have turned red at rush hour. If you're only risking your own life, up to you I suppose, but anyone else's, that's a no-no. Cameras help a stretched police force do their job at a time when resources are stretched then. Expand the program.

Exactly, but with cameras as-implemented, you get a ticket even if you are the only person in the city at the time. I don't see a point to the black and white of some things, I see that only as a mechanism for police to get $ and annoy the people they are supposedly protecting.

In the end I get it, most people really are morons, so you need all of the rules. But there should be levels of the driving test where some of us can qualify to make judgment calls that get past the BS.

[sidegate]

If new officers were drafted I'd like to think they'd be doing something more sophisticated than standing in 100 degree heat determining who's in an intersection two seconds after they should have stopped. That's a job a camera can do - cameras don't blink, they don't nod off, they don't chat on cell phones, they don't go for donuts. They can do the menial stuff while the cop is out using his or her brain solving and preventing more serious crimes, You bring up the argument of administrative burden which is fair enough, but every new officer that's hired brings their own administrative costs - their vehicle, their overtime, their pension, their benefits, all that costs money to administrate. These cameras have changed my behavior at intersections for the better, so they get my vote.

[sidegate]

You're assuming I drive like that. I don't. That's the point, I do think of others. I just might not come to that complete stop, or I might decide that at 2am this left turn red light is idiotic when I am the only one on the road. No one is dying because of me, it's way more because of the incompetent people out there who don't keep good track of their surroundings. When some idiot does drive like an idiot or kill someone, then you prosecute or ticket them. Not just because of some BS load of rules that is designed to keep morons who can't think quickly or safely from killing us.

Exactly, but with cameras as-implemented, you get a ticket even if you are the only person in the city at the time. I don't see a point to the black and white of some things, I see that only as a mechanism for police to get $ and annoy the people they are supposedly protecting.

In the end I get it, most people really are morons, so you need all of the rules. But there should be levels of the driving test where some of us can qualify to make judgment calls that get past the BS.

I agree this city has a curious approach to traffic management, I won't get started on four way stop signs and try to stay on topic. Context has a lot to do with it: If it's 2am and the intersection has a camera I'd hang a right at the red, do a U-turn and proceed through it legally. If it's rush hour, I'll behave and wait my turn. But either way, a camera is a more efficient approach than assigning an officer to an intersection, for the reasons I just mentioned. They may even pay for themselves - try getting a human being to do that!

[LTAWACS]

The more cameras the better. They should include optical recognition technology to be able to spot those with arrest warrants or those those that are fugitives or those involved in amber alerts.