Posted on 12/09/2004 5:58:50 AM PST by BobL
CAMERA-SHY It's time to implement videocam traffic enforcement Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle
Texans are generally gung-ho for law and order. They support the death penalty for capital crimes and tough prison sentences meted out to drug users and multiple offenders. That enthusiasm doesn't seem to extend to automated traffic enforcement systems that can videotape cars zooming through red lights and then mail tickets to the vehicle owner later.
It's the rare Houston motorist who hasn't narrowly escaped being struck by an impatient driver trying to beat a red light. Police officers joke that Houstonians believe a red light means only three more cars can go through the intersection.
Places of business as well as government buildings, Metro light rail cars, and county toll road booths are routinely scanned by video monitors. Given the obvious hazard, one would think the public's elected representatives would welcome additional measures to curb reckless driving.
Not so, as state Rep. Phil King, R-Weatherford, found when he introduced a bill two years ago to allow Texas cities to place cameras at intersections to document the license plates of violators. It went down to defeat, 103-34, with his colleagues cheering its demise. King had argued that 20,000 Texans are killed or maimed each year by drivers running red lights. The bill's opponents saw those cameras, in the words of Rep. David Swinford, R-Amarillo, as "government run amok," and an affront to individual rights. The political heat generated was so intense, the issue could have been socialized medicine or abortion rather than traffic enforcement.
Now Mayor Bill White's administration is taking up King's fallen banner and will ask City Council to approve a video crackdown on red light runners. As the Chronicle's Ron Nissimov reported last week, the move was made possible by a little noticed amendment on a transportation bill passed in 2003 that granted Texas cities the right to regulate transportation matters.
Supporters of camera enforcement point to decreases in red light violations and increases in ticket revenue following their installation. Officials of the first city to establish such a system in Texas, the Dallas suburb of Garland, report a 21 percent drop in red light infractions and $700,000 in ticket revenues after the first year of operation. Houston's new police chief, Phoenix import Harold Hurtt, is strongly backing the plan, which would be operated by a private vendor who would receive a percentage of the revenue generated by the system. It's hardly groundbreaking on the national level, since Chicago, New York City and Los Angeles all use such systems.
Although an official in the Houston chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union criticized the use of video cameras as a violation of privacy, Mayor White had a quick riposte: "I respect people's privacy, but nobody has the right to run a red light."
State Rep. Gary Elkins, R-Houston, warns that Houston would be wasting its money because he and others will move to outlaw camera enforcement in the next Legislature. It may be the first time Elkins and the ACLU, often criticized by conservatives as ultraliberal, have seen eye to eye on anything.
In the interest of public safety in Houston, opponents of all political stripes should hold their fire and let city officials call the shots that could make our drivers more careful and law-abiding, and lower traffic-related deaths and injuries on our streets.
In the first paragraph, us readers are looked at as basically bloodthirsty, as if our support for the death penalty has nothing to do with the incredible level of crime that prevailed only a few years ago. And since we all want bad guys in jail, we should not mind being tracked by cameras and fined for making little mistakes (go figure).
In the second paragraph they attack the way people drive, by fabricating a police joke. If these writers don't like the way Houstonians drive, they're free to move to other cities.
In the third paragraph they say that just because there are video cameras in government buildings, we should support what amounts to cash grab toll system (i.e., cameras for traffic enforcement). Not much different than saying that people for the death penalty should support abortion, since killing is so much fun to them anyway. Given the history of traffic cameras in this country, people have every right to be suspicious of them. Note how they use something unrelated to try to make their point.
The next paragraph implies a cause/effect. Basically, cameras will stop 20,000 people from being killed or maimed each year at red lights. Interesting, I have yet to hear of a camera that has prevented an accident, but I have heard of very effective accident reductions by re-timing of the traffic lights. I have also read stories about cameras that caused people to slam on their brakes to avoid being photographed and ticketed, thereby getting rear-ended, but I have yet to hear of a camera jumping into the middle of an intersection and preventing an accident.
I'll skip the paragraph on Mayor White, except to say how dangerous it is to our freedoms when we don't carefully watch what our wonderful elected officials are doing.
Now the next paragraph is very interesting, they use statistics that have nothing to do with safety, but try to goad you into thinking safety is improved. First they say that the city of Garland Texas reported a 21 percent drop in infractions. SO WHAT. Maybe that's because people learned where the cameras were. The infractions that cause accidents, as I understand it, are usually inadvertent cases where people just don't see the light and zoom right through it – the cameras are totally useless for these people. The vast majority of the people getting tickets are the ones passing through one or two seconds late. Then they look at the money end, as if that makes anyone safer.
Next they try to shoot down the ACLU, when the ACLU is actually being on the right side of this argument. Note that they quote something that no one has ever claimed, when they have the mayor saying "I respect people's privacy, but nobody has the right to run a red light". True, that's why we have traffic laws and police to enforce them. I guess the mayor would also support putting cameras in everyone's house, because no one has the right to beat up their kids either.
In the next paragraph, the line about Representative Gary Elkins is right on the mark - don't know why they included it. If we're about to close the loophole that allowed the cameras in the first place, then why have them.
The final paragraph simply is not supported by their above evidence or by the facts. They lose. Thanks all.
Wait a second...so if I ever decide to visit Houston, I have to know and just accept that the people of Houston drive like maniacs and my life will be in danger at all times? Is that what you're saying?
Can't remember where, but one city got caught being in cahoots with the manufacturer of a speed monitor/camera where they had jimmied the results of the monitors to read out a higher speed than what was the actual, boosting revenues.
It's all about revenue enhancement.
If you drive on Houstons streets and hiways beware, SHOW NO FEAR or you will be run over or eaten.
Spend $$$$$$$, to generate $$$$$$$$$$...
They'll spend 3 million for "non lethal" Tazers guns, yet do not spend, and fight those who need the equipment in Traffic Investigation, half of that to investigate fatal accidents...
BTW, I heard a nasty rumor that tazer guns have killed 75 or so people so far...Not a good track record...
The City of Houston is notorious for using and making a priority for its law enforcment to be a revenue generating arm of the city...But they'll deny it...And have done so, when we know better...
As for the Houston Comical...I don't even line the bottom of bird cages of my enemies with it...
nah no Steve...Tell us how you really feel...hehehe
The Houston City Counsel votes on this Red Light Camera deal on the 15th of December folks...Gets yer calls in early and often...
Later,
Esteban
Bingo...
You get a cookie...
Yes......I always count to 5 before moving on a green light. and when I stop at a red light I brace for a rear end by someone that thinks I should have kept going.
Hey wait a minute! I learned to drive in Houston. You think Houston is bad, move to Salt Lake...or Seattle!
People in Houston drive fast but not nearly as stupid/rude as in some other places...
I would rather drive cross town in Houston during rush hour the 50 miles it was from my house to my brother's house than the 7 or 10 miles from my house to Sam's Club in the Ogden area...almost any day.
Excellent advice in any city.....
The Houston Comical will always side with more & stronger laws...with two exceptions; abortion & death penalty.
Do not forget the NEw York Times. Not only do they hate their readers, the NYT does not respect them!! And by the way, Maureen Dowd's disgusting new column is out already and she assails Rumsfeld and uses our troops as her vehicle. Can someone post it?
And in the Hispanic American press, New York City's El Diario La Prensa takes us as no-brain reader with all that liberal jargon that they print in that rag.
Hey, I don't look at me, the writer of this post implied that. He said that if anyone doesn't like the way people in Houston Drive then they should move. I was just asking a question, that's all.
Houston wants to give people tickets for owning cars?
They take pictures of license plates. That doesn't mean the owner was driving the car at the time.
Got that right...I can't stand the HC. a local radio station has one of the HC reporters on trying to carry water for them. The funniest line I heard was, the host said that circulation must be really low, since they are giving papers away. He said oh that's just promotion. he laughed and said really then why do I find a free one on my lawn every morning.
Thoughts on this.....First of all, if this was really about safety, who cares about the revenue? Call it what it is, a moneymaker.
Second, did anyone bother to look at the overall number of accidents at the Camera intersections? The city of Greensboro,NC did and found out that 1) The number of red-light running incidents decreased. and 2) The number of traffic accidents - particularly rear-end collisions - increased. So, instead of running red lights, people slam on their brakes and cause accidents. Is this an improvement?
As an aside, Greensboro commissioned the study to look at the number of traffic accidents at intersections with red light cameras. When it turned up data counter to what they wanted, they ignored the study, commissioned a new one, and left all the cameras in place. The intelligence of government at work.
Yeah they have all recovered from their election shock. Now they are starting a 60's style propaganda campaign. They all make me sick to my stomach.
FR protocol calls for us to use the original title, then append our own in parentheses or brackets.
Dan
Actually, the Mayor has started a program to sychronize the lights on Westheimer. (Main road) It works really great. Ofcourse the speed of cars has increased by about 10 miles an hour.
Some towns in NC were actually shortening the yellow-light cycle to drive up revenues. They got called on it, by a man who paid traffic engineers out of his own pocket to double-check the system timing. Upshot was that the city needed to lengthen the yellow-light cycle at several intersections. Bingo - no more (or at least a lot fewer) red-light tickets at those places.
I drive by a number of red-light cameras on a regular basis. I've noticed that several of them have had the lenses spray-painted over. The right thing will be done, one way or another.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.