EXACTLY! I thought the same thing. She didn't say "oh, so many lives have been saved so far and now lives will be lost in the future." She talked about how this hurt her budget. Although I voted for the cameras I don't agree at all with what she's spewing.
How long do you stop? It better be at least 10 seconds or you're screwed if you legally turn right on red at Wilson/Townsen from 1960. How badly I took it? Did I say something to offend you? All I said was: No extra periods at the end, no rolleyes. Not sure what you mean by taking it badly. All I'm saying is that I doubt any of the people FOR red light cameras are perfect drivers. You just haven't been caught yet. I was FOR them not too long ago and I was making the same arguments some of you are making. Check some old threads. I changed my tune quickly when I had to pay $225 because my wife stopped for 4 seconds instead of 10 seconds before turning right on red at a deserted intersection on 3 consecutive nights. If you consider that unsafe driving, I seriously question your sanity. BTW, the people who are against these cameras aren't against them because we just LOVE running red lights. No one here is FOR running red lights.
Anyone...? Just seeing where people draw the line for enforcement of traffic laws, and their reasoning behind it.
No, we're not perfect. None of us are. We obey the traffic as most as we can, but don't blame technologically-advanced laws for our driving faults. There's no amount of time to stop. I think that the definition of "stop" just means a complete stop. Dude, no one stops for 15 seconds... or even keeps count... I know I don't. Explain one of these policies to which you are referring, then I'll answer your question. I'm not a drunk driver but am against them, too, just like you... but I don't know these policies. Look, I'm not against red light cameras or for them, but all I'm saying is that they're there already. So people voted... but was it specified when or how they would be taken down? The Mayor is saying Houston is under contract still, so... why the heck put them on the ballot? It's baffling.
Well, you better have your checkbook ready if you ever approach this intersection. <iframe width="300" height="300" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" src="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=FM+1960+Bypass+Rd+W+and+wilson,+Humble,+TX+77338&sll=30.004821,-95.252323&sspn=0.010146,0.027466&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Farm+to+Market+1960+%26+Wilson+Rd,+Humble,+Harris,+Texas+77338&ll=30.004598,-95.252151&spn=0.022298,0.025749&z=14&iwloc=A&output=embed"></iframe><br /><small><a href="http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=embed&hl=en&geocode=&q=FM+1960+Bypass+Rd+W+and+wilson,+Humble,+TX+77338&sll=30.004821,-95.252323&sspn=0.010146,0.027466&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Farm+to+Market+1960+%26+Wilson+Rd,+Humble,+Harris,+Texas+77338&ll=30.004598,-95.252151&spn=0.022298,0.025749&z=14&iwloc=A" style="color:#0000FF;text-align:left">View Larger Map</a></small>
What's baffling is people like you who are okay with their government doing something without the vote of the people. And then when the people finally get a chance to voice their opinion, you say... "Well, the government already did it. It's water under the bridge. Why did you have to bring it back up?" I don't care that it is still under contract. It should have never been under contract in the first place.
My main issue with the cameras are their inconsistency. Where I live the cameras are flashing without movement from vehicles. I'm for safety, I just don't dig anything leading to movement toward more big brother.
You became all offended (and obviously still are) at that thread, when it really seemed like most people were being rather reasonable. I certainly wasn't trying to 'preach' to you. But the way I took the thread is you were trying to get a ticket dismissed - it only seemed logical that the question might include whether there was grounds for it, hence the reason lots of people responded the way they did. Obviously that was not what you intended. And nobody is saying they are. Nobody is perfect. But if I really did commit the violation, then sometimes you have to pay for a mistake. It happens. If I run a red light and have to pay a fine for it, tough ****. I will take responsibility for it. Actually in that thread I thought you said there was no stop - which is why a lot of us were saying 'well, it might be hard to get it dismissed'. That's a pretty different thread, I would guess. This is what you posted in that OP: In any case, sure, it sucks, and sure, lots of people do it, and sure, I am sure I have done it before. But if I do something I know could get me a ticket, and especially if it's on camera, sure I'll be pissed, but well.... I hope not. But what are you 'AGAINST', exactly? Obviously it's not their existence, or the money, because you didn't mind that before. Really, I don't care how much money the city makes off people who ACTUALLY commit traffic violations. I drive all day long in this city and there are a LOT of ****ty, unsafe, aggressive drivers. The criticism in here that 'well it's just making money for the city' - well, no **** Sherlock. That's generally what happens. But if it helps get the bad drivers caught, I've got not problem with it. Oddly enough, before red light cameras I've never had much of a problem with tickets. And hey, what do you know, I haven't had a problem after either. Now, people wrongly ticketed is a different story. And certainly your 'stopped 5 seconds instead of 10' example is a case of that and I would agree with you. "I didn't come to a complete stop but no one does!" is not, even though I know it sucks I still don't see a problem with the camera there.
LOL. San Antonio... :grin: Back to the topic at hand... what are you asking, specifically? "How do you feel about" doesn't ask something specific... it's just asking for my feelings. Please ask me a question. Now I know the issue. I don't think it's baffling that I am okay with traffic stuff. It's TRAFFIC stuff and I try to obey the traffic laws to the best I can... it's not like these cameras are going to your home and doing something inside of it, about your privacy deciding if you're right or wrong... they're there for everyone EQUALLY, whether you're purple, green or white, male or female, and they ticket offenders. It's traffic stuff. Just because it's not like your typical STOP SIGN and needs an officer to check someone violating it, doesn't mean that people should be voting for it. So vote out the people who brought those things in, if you don't like them. Fair enough? I didn't say that. Who said that? It shouldn't be on the ballot if they have an obligation with the company. Vote whoever brought the cameras into town out of their office.
i love how it will take 4 years for them to shut down the cameras but the prop 1 drainage fund will go into effect in 7 months.
I support laws that remove unsafe drivers from the road and help reduce the risk that me or my family will be injured by someone else's driving behavior. I almost answered your original question last night but didn't want to go down the never-ending rabbit hole chase. I see a lot of what I consider to be mis-placed anger here. It's arguing over what are unnecessary common-sense laws, necessary because people don't exercise common-sense. Therefore, they are necessary. Circular is, as circular does. If the law generates revenue, either as a by-product or as a reason to exist, no problem. It serves a purpose. Have I driven erratically? Yes. If I am driving erratically, for any reason, I should be pulled over and removed from the road. Have I run a red light? Yes. If I run a red light, and get caught, I shouldn't complain about traffic laws when I get a ticket. Do I speed? Yes. If I speed, and get caught, I don't complain about traffic laws when I get a ticket. I thank the police officer whether he gives me a ticket or just a warning. Luckily, I have never hurt myself or others when my driving behavior was in violation of the law. Flame on...
Would you support a law that put a sensor in your car to monitor all the above things? It would work in conjunction with the red light sensors to know if you ran it. It would know when you speed. Perhaps based on certain algorithms it could even tell if you were driving erratic. Being that the sensor was in your car, you wouldn't have to worry about IF you get caught to thank the police.
Not safe enough. Brain controlling implants is the only way for 100% safety and unless you support "All families to die at red lights" you will support it too.
It's a fairly invasive/controversial form of traffic law enforcement. Granted, it isn't automated. But it seemed related/topical. How far are people willing to go to when it comes to enforcing laws?
Here is the never-ending rabbit hole I wished to avoid. But I will play a couple of rounds... I think you have a great idea and should patent it. I think a car that would not start if you were inebriated is a good thing. No ticket is necessary. Lexus already makes a car that senses when you are driving erratically. No ticket is necessary. The intent of these laws is to protect us. If this can be done in other ways, I'm all for it.
OK, I'll go back to it, since you asked nicely... I think I know what you're asking of me now, and am prepared to answer it, sir: If I'm ever drunk while I'm driving and an officer stops me, the officer should decide it there and then. I say "no" to refusal of breath-analyzing tests for sobriety purposes. Test me there. Prove me drunk right away so I don't get away and get sober while getting to the station. Dude, I'm all for safer driving conditions. Give the stop-light crossers something to think about, but fix the erroneous systems giving tickets when they shouldn't. ima_drummer2k, so how is the case coming along?
LOL, I think "offended" is a little too strong of a word here. Believe me, I've had much worse things said about me here than how my wife is a bad driver. Me too. Except that no red light was run in this case. See below You’re right, I did. Probably should have been more clear. When I asked her about it, she basically sad “well, I must have run it but I sure don’t remember doing it” After starting that thread, I went home and looked at the picture and saw that the first picture shows her STOPPED (even her break lights are on...and there's a car right in front of her...) with 55.7 seconds on the timestamp. Then at 57.7 seconds, it shows her turning right. How do you run a red light if your break lights are on and there's a car stopped in front of you? But why are we even talking about that last thread? I asked you if you stop for 15 seconds at every right turn and you said I was taking it badly, whatever that means. But well what? We're not allowed to b**** about it on a basketball bbs? I am against having to pay $75 for only stopping for 2 seconds before turning right on red. And I wasn't aware of the money before...or the fact that the cameras are enforced by an out-of-state FOR PROFIT company....which is why I changed my mind on the issue. Are we not allowed to change our minds on issues after learning more about them? No...the criticism is that I don't think it should cost $75 to stop for 2 seconds before turning right on red. That's great, man. Congrats. Neither did we until my wife starting taking this route home from work every night. And hey, what do you know, she hasn't had any more problems since she started taking a different way home. And I know for a fact that she hasn't changed her driving habits. LOL. My neighbor works at the Humble courthouse and says there have been numerous complaints about this particular intersection. Honestly, if you're not familiar with it, it's really pointless to continue arguing about it. Which is why I'm done.
