Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/31/2008 11:15:46 AM PST by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last
To: Ken H

Jeez, you can’t worry about a little collateral damage while in the process of collecting money from the public.


2 posted on 12/31/2008 11:17:42 AM PST by umgud (I'm really happy I wasn't aborted)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

More junk science.


3 posted on 12/31/2008 11:19:00 AM PST by SouthTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

Pick a number and make it fit.


4 posted on 12/31/2008 11:19:56 AM PST by MaxMax (I'll welcome death when God calls me. Until then, the fight is on)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H
Houston Mayor Bill White was furious when he saw the report's draft text in August. He banned the document from publication and ordered a re-writing of the text that would reflect a more positive result.

Time for a blizzard of FOIA requests and the emapanelment of a Grand Jury to investigage this 'mayor'.

L

5 posted on 12/31/2008 11:20:47 AM PST by Lurker ("America is at that awkward stage. " Claire Wolfe, call your office.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H
He banned the document from publication and ordered a re-writing of the text that would reflect a more positive result.

Typical bureaucratic-political fraud.

Starts as a scientific study, ends as a political statement.

6 posted on 12/31/2008 11:22:30 AM PST by Publius6961 (Change is not a plan; Hope is not a strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

I’m confident that if these studies indicate that the cameras make intersections more dangerous, the cameras will be promptly taken down.

After all, the cameras are there for safety - the politicians said so.

Has nothing to do with revenue generation. Nothing at all...

(above is sarcasm for those who haven’t already figured it out)


7 posted on 12/31/2008 11:31:24 AM PST by chrisser (The Two Americas: Those that want to be coddled, Those that want to be left the hell alone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

They sent these data to the Abu Ghraib for statistics to be tortured into submission.

The Houston pols publishing this report submitted it to the IPCC to see if they might get a crack at drafting the next big global warming report.


8 posted on 12/31/2008 11:33:09 AM PST by G L Tirebiter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H
...the average number of monthly collisions went from an average of 15.4 collisions per month in the two years prior to camera enforcement to 58.3 accidents per month in the post-installation period...

For those of you who haven't seen these things yet, there is a bright flash when the camera goes off. It's enough to distract everyone traveling through the intersection, not just the subject being photographed. Imagine yourself driving along minding your own business when suddenly a strobe goes off in your eyes. You start looking around wondering what the heck it was and end up colliding with someone else doing the same thing.

10 posted on 12/31/2008 11:34:45 AM PST by SeeSharp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H
Don't know about Houston in particular, but I know that here in Tampa the best way to be involved in an accident is to actually stop when the traffic light you are approaching turns to yellow! The three or more drivers behind you, who've been speeding up for the last 200 yards to catch the stale green, will just push you right into the intersection. If you're lucky your accident will be limited to the read-end collision, other times you're pushed into someone from the opposite direction who has taken control of the intersection and turned in front of you when that driver thought you were stopping.
12 posted on 12/31/2008 11:36:52 AM PST by jwparkerjr (God Bless America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

This has been pretty well known for a while now. After installing the cameras some cities have also cut in half the time the yellow light stays on. The only purpose of the cameras is to increase revenue, safety is just smokescreen.


13 posted on 12/31/2008 11:38:30 AM PST by Stevenc131
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H
I take it Texas is not a permissive-yellow1 state ... that's the real problem, the roughly 50-50 split in state law defining a red light violation. Methinks most of the intersections that tout high ticket rates are catching most violators during the signal change interval, nabbing permissive yellow trained drivers who don't clear the intersection before the red comes on.

1Simply put, permissive yellow means you can enter the intersection under the yellow light but do not have to be clear of the intersection before the red comes on. (that's how I learned in Massachusetts but that's hardly the model state for safe drivers!). In a non-permissive state, you must clear the intersection before the signal changes to red - even if you entered the intersection under green! A non-permissive photo intersection gorges on a diet of permissive yellow trained drivers. Note that the shortening of a yellow to allow a second or so of all red exacerbates the trap nature of the intersection.

I daresay that these technical violations of a red light are not accident inducing for the most part, assuming the cross traffic is starting from a start and not barreling up to a red light in anticipation of an imminent green. Those are not your t-bone generators. OTHO, panic stops the instant the light turns yellow to avoid a ticket will cause the spike in rear-enders that the study seemed to find.

Solve the permissive / non-permissive mix and the revenue plan for most red light camera schemes falls apart.

IMHO

14 posted on 12/31/2008 11:39:59 AM PST by NonValueAdded (once you get to really know people, there are always better reasons than [race] for despising them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

Screw the accidents. Let insurance pay for them. The city makes more money with the cameras. Let insurance pay for them.

Income vs. safety? Income wins.


15 posted on 12/31/2008 11:45:14 AM PST by Right Wing Assault (What's Obama's Secret?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

Texas red-light cameras have another problem to deal with...

A couple years back, the PI lobby convinced the Private Security Bureau—the PSB is the state agency that regulates private investigators, security guards, etc.—to push through a law declaring that all digital forensic practitioners had to be licensed as PIs. They did this via language that required anyone collecting any kind of evidence to be a PI.

A few weeks ago, a Dallas-area judge threw out a camera ticket based on the fact that the operators of the camera system were collecting evidence without holding a PI license. Now camera tickets are being challenged all over the state. Stoopid laws giveth, and stoopid laws taketh away. (Yes, SIC on purpose.)

MM


16 posted on 12/31/2008 11:46:04 AM PST by MississippiMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

Global warming and second hand smoke.


17 posted on 12/31/2008 11:53:15 AM PST by patton (+)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

“Houston Mayor Bill White was furious when he saw the report’s draft text in August. He banned the document from publication and ordered a re-writing of the text that would reflect a more positive result. To accomplish this task, White was able to turn to the study’s primary author, Rice University Urban Politics Professor Robert Stein. Stein’s wife, Marty, is employed by the city of Houston as a top aide to the mayor. Stein’s newly revised report now concludes that “red light cameras are mitigating a general, more severe increase in collisions.””

This guy must write for the AGW crowd.


18 posted on 12/31/2008 11:54:26 AM PST by Old Professer (The critic writes with rapier pen, dips it twice, then writes again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

White, Houston’s mayor, is just your typical big city rat politican. He is all about expanding government, expanding taxes, creating more dependency. Oh, he is arrogant as all can be - imagine that.

I made the bold prediction when the study was first announced, that the end result would be supportive of red light cameras. Afterall, White has plans to expand their use for revenue generation, I mean, safety reasons.

Unfortunately, Texas suffers the standard problem that most states have - big cities are rat controlled, the rest of state republican. Fortunately, the rest of Texas is big enough to counter the cities, so far.


20 posted on 12/31/2008 11:58:11 AM PST by rigelkentaurus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H
Houston Mayor Bill White was furious when he saw the report's draft text in August. He banned the document from publication...
There are plenty of other studies all in agreement ...But when it comes to gov't and greed, facts be damned.
24 posted on 12/31/2008 12:42:56 PM PST by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

what to do...

more tax money? more deaths?

I am betting they figure out a ‘solution’ that keeps the tax money, and fails to address the deaths... THAT’s how the govt works!


25 posted on 12/31/2008 12:47:48 PM PST by Mr. K (Some days even my lucky rocketship underpants don't help)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Ken H

What do you expect, Texas next US senator told us the critics just need to shut up. Like he did about so much else under his reign.


27 posted on 12/31/2008 12:56:01 PM PST by weegee ("Let Me Just Cut You Off, Because I Don't Want You To Waste Your Question" - B.Obama Dec 16, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: 1riot1ranger; Action-America; Aggie Mama; Alkhin; Allegra; American72; antivenom; Antoninus II; ...

Houston Revenue scheme PING


28 posted on 12/31/2008 1:01:26 PM PST by weegee ("Let Me Just Cut You Off, Because I Don't Want You To Waste Your Question" - B.Obama Dec 16, 2008)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-24 next last

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson