How about cutting all the ridiculous pensions that Lee Brown gave city employees? FYI, a third party for profit company runs these cameras. The cameras have been proven to cause more accidents than at intersections without them.
slippery slope much? But i see your point. The problem is, it's already too late as cameras are already everywhere. There are much better fights to pick, imo
....................fine. No, but why did the referendum to get rid of the cameras succeed? I think it sounds like a good idea, though I guess something went wrong with the execution and I don't know how it's actually impacted things.
A concerted campaign by two or three citizens. Major rationale was: 1) Lack of judicial oversight. 2) Public uncomfortable with surveillance. 3) Dubious results.
I know the money is already spent since the cameras are already in place, but I'd prefer they spent that money on fixing the timing/sensors/cycles in some parts of town. Especially at intersections around the light rail. I can't tell you how many times I've sat at lights for 3+ minutes, seemingly because the lights get out of sync and it skips a cycle when the train goes by. A line of cars will form back to the previous intersection, while I watch maybe half a dozen cars go across during the entire time. Then it turns green and I drive 50 yards to yet another red light. This usually happens on Binz/Bissonet and San Jacinto, or on Wheeler and Main. I occasionally sneak through when a light turns red if I've been sitting there and no cars are lined up at the cross streets.
Really? So who bids on these contracts and how "close" are they to Houston interests. Don't be nieve.
IF they were really concerned about safety, prolong the yellow light OR delay the green light of the intersecting street for a full 2 seconds after a red light.
It's a public sector issue, not exactly an example of the free market getting its way. What the bidders/buyers interests are has nothing to do with this being a public vs. private enterprise issue. The vote was ruled invalid because of public sector rules (albeit dumb ones), not because of private influence. (although that is no doubt present, it's just not the cause here) Don't be cynical.
You're talking about a clearly visible camera with signs posted at the intersection, taking pictures of you when you break the law. Why shouldn't the government use technology so as to make enforcing the law easier? And if it turns revenue in the process, good for the city, cause they desperately need it. There are plenty of other cases of Big Brother watching us that are far more encroaching on your right to privacy. It's not like people already allow the whole world to track their every movements already...with the advent of smartphone technology, gps and social networking. City still collects revenue from it, and the fines are less than if a patrol officer stopped you. The whole accident argument I thought I read was pretty negligible, in that accidents increased marginally at some intersections and decreased at others. Besides, if the trailing car was paying attention (as I guess the majority of these accidents were bumper to bumper) an accident wouldn't occur. Yellow means slow down. Again I get the voters will should be upheld argument. Although I think the referendum was stupid to begin with (or that it should have been voted on initially). But again, city needs revenue. Red light cameras provide that. Don't run red light if you don't want to pay city (and third party company). How uncomfortable can a camera taking a picture of you in a car for a single moment in time as you pass through an intersection make you feel? Plus, if you happen to be searching for the lost city of gold, and found a missing plank from the Resolute Desk, and need to take a picture of that plank before some renegade mercenaries steal it from you as you're speeding through the city, that red light camera system would come in handy.
Studies show an increase in fender benders at these intersections but they also show a significant decrease in t-bone accidents. Being the victim of one where another driver ran his red light, I am a big advocate of red light cameras and cameras in general. They are objective evidence that reveals the truth. That said, I think the city should have honored the people's vote. I wonder, though, if the cameras were tweaked better to not be as sensitive (ie for people in the intersection during a yellow) and were more specific for those who run a real red light, would people still have a problem with them? What if the third party was just the contractor to set up the cameras but the city controlled the cameras afterwards?
Buncha load of crap! "it had been improperly placed on the ballot, rendering the results invalid." Good for the mayor though trying to uphold the voters decision with the appeal.
Good thinking! In fact, since the cameras and technology are so cheap, we can put one at every stop sign! ...In fact, we could follow in the footsteps of Phoenix AZ and have cameras hooked up with radar pointing at the freeways. The moment you're over 60 mph, you get a ticket. ... and if you're not parked close enough to the curb, well, let's have the cameras monitor that, too.
I think the company is in Phoenix . . .isn't it? How does turning our police into psuedo enforcers for a Phoenix company help the debts? [If you don't pay the company . . the cops will give you a pay or they will break your kneecaps. . .er . . .arrest u. . .] Rocket River
In the state of Texas, yellow actually means stop if you can safely do so. see paqge 28: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/DriverLicense/documents/DL-7.pdf
Happy to see the cameras back. I'm sure all the High School and College kids hate the red light cameras.
Well yeah even more my point. You start to stop on yellow, no way you get a ticket from a red light camera.
