MidtownCoog Posted February 13, 2006 Author Share Posted February 13, 2006 It almost seems like there is a freeway going through that neighborhood.Exactly. These should been "Super Bus" routes and we'd have never needed Light Rail on Main to begin with. Also Fannin from north downtown to the musuem district is another example of a drag strip. At least Fannin lights are timed correctly. So Velvet, if you or MidtownCoog happen to kill someone's family member in the process, just blame it on them. Yawn. Running it from a tee-minute red I'd be more likely to get hurt.But you are missing the point. Red light cameras and non coordinated and traffic lights is the prefect cash cow for Houston. And that's not very Texan if you ask me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Hey, this logic seems to work for Metro. I've yet to hear of one of their bus drivers who've run a red light and kill a pedestrian get charged with manslaughter.Naw, the busdrivers just quit the job before any charges are brought against them. Besides, can't these people look both ways and see a friggin BUS coming ! That one guy was guilty as sin though, and he was very uncooperative with the PO-PO, from the reports I've heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 As I understand it, once a violator is photographed, a civil citation would be mailed to the owner of the vehicle. I am sure that the penalty will be payable to the Municipal Court. Parking ticket appeals go to an administrative hearing. If you are dissatisfied with the outcome, you can appeal to Municipal Court.I suspect that these citations will go straight to Municipal Court if you want to fight it. You would fight it the same way you do any ticket, except instead of proving it wasn't you, you must prove that it wasn't your CAR, or that you do not own the car. You might also proceed under the "Midtown Coog Defense", by showing that the light sequence is so short that you could not safely stop.Since it is a civil offense, instead of criminal, the city does not have to prove the case "beyond a reasonable doubt", but the easier civil standard of "preponderance of the evidence". This means it is easier for you to lose.Belated thanks Red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travelguy_73 Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Since we are on the subject of cameras, I would like to add that there are some genuinely positive applications for these types of cameras. As always, adequate training and enforcement of that training is necessary.http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/09/955.aspSchool buses in Liberty, Missouri have have turned into automated ticketing machines. Recently installed, digital "stop arm" cameras allow bus drivers to issue photographic citations to any vehicle that passes while the bus is flashing its red lights. The ticketing capability is also made possible by an obscure legislative provision that went into effect in August. According to "Jessica's Law," if a bus driver claims a vehicle passed him, the registered owner of that vehicle will be presumed guilty of a class A misdemeanor. The offense carries maximum penalties including a $1000 fine, ninety day license suspension, one-year imprisonment and two driver's license demerit points for the first offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Besides, can't these people look both ways and see a friggin BUS coming !Exactly. They're hard to conceal.In Metro's defense, they're driving very long vehicles which take longer to get through an intersection. More importantly, buses do not have seatbelts provided, and sometimes people have to ride standing up. A panic stop for a red light could seriously injure passengers. By running the light, at least there's a chance they won't get hit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
infinite_jim Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 A few months ago there was an article in the Chronicle about a mail order company that sells something in an aerosol can that people can spray on their car license plates that will make it impossible for the camera to take a photo of them. It sells for $19.95. Anyone out there prone to running a red light might think about investing in a can or two of it. $19.95 beats a $75 ticket. it's just hi-gloss, i believe it's called the "photoblocker" and i got mine from the spy store off westheimer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashikaga Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 it's just hi-gloss, i believe it's called the "photoblocker" and i got mine from the spy store off westheimerWell, to find out if it works or not, you would have to run a red light that has one of those cameras. If you don't receive a ticket in your mail, then it must have worked. Have you found out yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travelguy_73 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Well, to find out if it works or not, you would have to run a red light that has one of those cameras. If you don't receive a ticket in your mail, then it must have worked. Have you found out yet?Seems like I read that the spray isn't legal to use, or at least that they were trying to keep it out of the state. However, unlike radar jammers which can be detected, I don't think there is a way they can tell if you use it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashikaga Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Seems like I read that the spray isn't legal to use, or at least that they were trying to keep it out of the state. However, unlike radar jammers which can be detected, I don't think there is a way they can tell if you use itIf one of those cameras takes a picture of a car running a red light, and if the car is clearly visible but not the license plate, then law enforcement would probably conclude that it was sprayed with that stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Okay, so how are they going to find the car with only a photo? It wouldn't be worth the effort. They'll just chalk it up to poor lighting and move on.Speaking of which, I wonder how well those cameras work in the rain? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashikaga Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 Okay, so how are they going to find the car with only a photo? It wouldn't be worth the effort. They'll just chalk it up to poor lighting and move on.Speaking of which, I wonder how well those cameras work in the rain?I didn't say that law enforcement would be able to locate the vehicle. But if that spray isn't illegal now, then if many photos like that came out, police would complain to the lawmakers in Austin, who would probably then in turn, pass a law making it illegal in Texas.If that spray really works, then you can't say that the lighting is poor. It would make the plate number invisible no matter how bright the lights are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 So how do you enforce it? Have police officers carry light meters that they would hold next to the plate as they shine their light on the plate? If the plate goes reflective at a certain reading, its illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
travelguy_73 Posted February 14, 2006 Share Posted February 14, 2006 So how do you enforce it? Have police officers carry light meters that they would hold next to the plate as they shine their light on the plate? If the plate goes reflective at a certain reading, its illegal?I don't think they can enforce it, just try to ban the sale. The spray doesn't obscure the plate from any angle, just keeps a photo from turning out properly. Not sure you can do anything about that. The plastic covers, OTOH, could easily be banned since they are highly visible.The camera manufacturers say the spray is ineffective, but I have read articles quoting police officials saying the opposite.This one from the Washington Post, copied onto the PhotoBlocker website, is perhaps the most interesting:http://www.phantomplate.com/print_washingtonpost.htmlThe Denver Police Department, at the behest of Fox News, conducted a road test two years ago and found that PhotoBlocker was effective, plate covers less so. Similar results were found by TV news programs in Great Britain, Australia and Sweden. This is interesting, though:The bounce-back-the-flash concept does work sometimes, he says, but only on positive images traffic cameras produce. "If we reverse the image, go to a negative image, we can read every letter on a license plate," he says.Fors says the firms that make and operate radar camera systems for municipalities routinely check negatives of photos where license plates look unreadable. "Going to the negative image is no big deal," he says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tnar Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I've been reading the posts and there are a lot of emotions out there regarding the red light cameras (RLCs). Money makers? Public safety? Well, I used to not really have an opinion about them. I mean I don't go through red lights and cops can't be at every intersection so this is good for the city. Well...I did some research and I'm a changed woman.1. RLCs are money makers. In San Diego, the cameras were not placed in places where most t-bone accidents occured but where yellow lights were the shortest. The company that installed the cameras, Lockheed-Martin, made a percentage of EVERY ticket that was given out. Citizens sued the city and Lockheed-Martin and the cameras were taken out.2. Most red light violators that result in serious injury accidents occur more than 5 seconds the light have turned red. 60% of the tickets given from RLCs are for people who were in the intersections as the lights are turning red. This means if you enter the intersection when the light is yellow and you do not make it to the other side before the light turns red, you are given a ticket and there were never a chance of you causing or be involved in an accident.3. RLCs DO NOT DECREASE INJURY ACCIDENTS. Studies have shown that the number of accidents increases at intersections with RLC. Why? Because everybody slams on the brakes to avoid getting a ticket and is rear-ended by oncoming traffic. The number of of injury accidents also increases.4. Studies have shown that increasing the length of the yellow light significantly decreases the amount of accidents at an intersection. (my comment: the city will not take this route because it will not generate any revenue. See point 1)5. Bill White is using a loophole in the Texas law to institute RLCs when really, it is illegal according to our state law. Red light camerasTexas State LawSo why do I care about RLCs if I don't red lights? Because it is a slipppery slope to our government controlling even more of our lives. Don't believe me? Find the Houston Chief of Police comment from a week or two ago where he said cameras should be installed in high-crime apartment complexes and, in certain cases, private homes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 Find the Houston Chief of Police comment from a week or two ago where he said cameras should be installed in high-crime apartment complexes and, in certain cases, private homes.Yes. This story acutally made it around the world. I saw it in Asia-Pacifica and Northern European news outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 So why do I care about RLCs if I don't red lights? Because it is a slipppery slope to our government controlling even more of our lives. Don't believe me? Find the Houston Chief of Police comment from a week or two ago where he said cameras should be installed in high-crime apartment complexes and, in certain cases, private homes.Sounds like a damn good idea to me - the high-crime apartment complex idea.EDIT: The news did a report last night about sex offenders who only have to wear passive ankle bracelets. I'd be for video surveilance of convicted sex offenders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashikaga Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hey, this logic seems to work for Metro. I've yet to hear of one of their bus drivers who've run a red light and kill a pedestrian get charged with manslaughter.One time my uncle went fishing. When he was getting ready to leave, he noticed that the license plate on his boat trailer had expired. So he smeared some mud on it. Instead of buying that spray, people should smear some mud on their plates. But one time I did see a cop pull someone over for having a dirty license plate where the number and letters couldn't be seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zaphod Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 This means if you enter the intersection when the light is yellow and you do not make it to the other side before the light turns red, you are given a ticket and there were never a chance of you causing or be involved in an accident.thats BS.also, i agree with putting cameras up in the commons areas of high crime apartments. of course, putting cameras up in or around private areas near homes would be going to far. of course privacy nuts would kill and probably did kill any plans to put any up anywhere. Of course, there is a better solution to houston's crime problems, especially ones with gangs. simply give the officers assault rifles and machine guns and mow down any thugs on the streets. then we'd be safer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 This is great: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/n...est/4785686.stm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonDFW Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 This means if you enter the intersection when the light is yellow and you do not make it to the other side before the light turns red, you are given a ticket and there were never a chance of you causing or be involved in an accident.In the state I came from, you can get a ticket for running a red light if you enter on a yellow and the light NEVER turns red while you're in the intersection, so the above doesn't bother me. In other words, its illegal to run a yellow light when you could have safely stopped. Yellow doesn't mean speed up, its means stop unless you can't safely stop. That's a bit more fair anyway, because using a "it turned red while you're in the intersection" rule rewards people for speeding up at the yellow light.I can see how you'd complain about that setup in Texas though, because it seems foreign to most drivers here. In practice, yellow not only doesn't mean stop, it means you AND several people behind you can go through as well. So, is it too late to drive correctly here so we should just live with and accomodate that fact? I'm not sure, but I do know that will create a bit of a mess when Texas drivers go somewhere where this isn't the norm.Jason Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 What comes across in some of the above posts is how desperately people try to avoid responsibilty for their misbehavior.The solution is to take multiple photos of the intersection. By doing so, the velocity of the vehicle can be determined, and red light runners can be identified without ambiguity. Certainly, this is an improvement over the subjective and error-prone method currently used; the testimony of human eyewitnesses (police officers.) Also, RLCs will free up police officers to attend to more pressing matters. Certainly this should be a source of revenue for the city. It costs a lot of money to enforce laws, and to clean up the mess caused by inconsiderate drivers. Why should other taxpayers bear the burden? If the monies collected more than pay for the cost of installing RLCs and collecting fines, so much the better. Fines can be raised at such a time RLCs no longer pay for themselves under the current rates. (BTW, prefacing an idiotic remark with the words "Studies have shown..." does not give it credibilty. It's still an idiotic remark.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 In other words, its illegal to run a yellow light when you could have safely stopped.how do you define that? especially on a camera?this is going to cause even more problems, cause you're going to have people slamming on the brakes when a light turns yellow, and the person behind them will not be able to stop in time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 how do you define that? especially on a camera?this is going to cause even more problems, cause you're going to have people slamming on the brakes when a light turns yellow, and the person behind them will not be able to stop in time.You mean, the person who's tailgating and trying to run a red light? The cameras will absolve the law-abiding driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 Take this away from Law Enforcment and give it to Metro. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 You mean, the person who's tailgating and trying to run a red light? The cameras will absolve the law-abiding driver.no, i mean someone who stops for a yellow way to close to the intersection. it happens, and it's only going to get worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 no, i mean someone who stops for a yellow way to close to the intersection. it happens, and it's only going to get worse.Exactly. All those fools with less than 20/20 vision. You wonder why they stop short/early? They can't freaking see! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashikaga Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 You mean, the person who's tailgating and trying to run a red light? The cameras will absolve the law-abiding driver.DPS says that you're supposed to travel one car length behind the vehicle in front of you for every 10 mph that you're travelling. If you are, then you shouldn't have a problem stopping in time for that person who is stopping at the red light, unless your car needs a brake job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 i do agree that we have a problem in Houston with people running red lights, don't get me wrong. i just see a lot of other problems coming out of these cameras. hopefully they'll be worthwhile. my mom has a civic and i have an RSX. both pretty new, neither needs a brake job, but the civic has twice as much stopping power. there are times when someone driving at 40mph will be able to stop in under 100' and the person behind them driving 4 car lengths back will not be able to stop in time. accidents aren't only caused by people who drive too fast or run red lights, they're also caused by people going too slow and stopping unnecessarily. the key is consistency, and now we're going to have people all over the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted March 8, 2006 Share Posted March 8, 2006 Exactly. All those fools with less than 20/20 vision. You wonder why they stop short/early? They can't freaking see!No, they stop early because they don't enter an intersection that they cannot exit. Otherwise, gridlock ensues. They're called good drivers. Learn from them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MidtownCoog Posted March 8, 2006 Author Share Posted March 8, 2006 They're called good drivers. Learn from them.Thanks for proving my point.Red Light Cameras will not make bad drivers drive better. The bad drivers will still be out there in full force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.