TexasCHLforum.com

I think someone in this thread must own stock in one of the red light camera companies here in Texas.

Red Light camera systems have been shown time and time again, that even if they are installed for safety initially, will eventually turn into a revenue generating method. Properly timed lights are much better for safety then the cameras.

European big government nanny state solutions can stay over there, whats good for them almost surely isn't right for us. Next they'll want to institute the German speeding policy where they check your car's computer and cite you a ticket based on that.

cowhow wrote:Red light runners do present a danger, but red light cameras aren't the answer. Changing driver's attitude is. Green means go, red means stop...not speed up.

You reminded me of an old movie from the '80s:

I have mixed feelings on this. I tend to agree with the majority here for all the reasons stated. Lack of due process, outsourcing traffic enforcement to a private company, etc.

But I also am very worried about potential abuses that can result from traffic stops. Civil asset forfeiture being a prime example. On the flip side of that, I also have officer safety concerns, not only from chance encounters with violent criminals, but also from accidents while they are standing next to a vehicle on the side of a highway.

If we had a similar automated system for speed enforcement, and other things, then I could see the benefits outweighing the negatives....

Pawpaw wrote:

warnmar10 wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:

doncb wrote:It's called paying attention and being aware of what is going on around you. If the light has been red for 2 or 3 seconds and you blow through you have no excuse.

Horse hockey. I drive a 7,000 lb. diesel pickup. From 40 or 45 mph, safely stopping within 2 or 3 seconds might be possible on an absolutely perfect road surface. It ain't gonna happen on anything less that perfect conditions.

You need to slow down.

That's rich. I gave up speeding many years ago. I'm the guy everyone else gets irritated at because I drive the speed limit or less.

I've been that guy since I was about 25. Too many speeding tickets I couldn't afford, and an accident or two I couldn't prevent because of my driving habits. I used to be one of those guys that considered myself a great driver because I could swerve and avoid anything. Then I realized that great drivers don't just avoid accidents with their own vehicles, but also drive in a manner that avoids accidents for others.

Now, when you shorten the time of yellow lights (which has been documented and previously mentioned), not only are you increasing red-light camera revenue, you're also increasing the risk for drivers like me and Pawpaw. We WANT to be safe and respectful drivers. I also want to treat my car well by being able to slow down without slamming on the brakes. When you give us proper advanced notice of an immanent red light we (taking Pawpaw at his word here) slow down with a safe amount of time to spare. With a short yellow, we pose a risk not only to ourselves and cross-traffic if we can't slow down in time, but also to the drivers behind us (and again ourselves) if we are able to slam on our brakes and stop before the intersection. Sure, if they had a proper following distance it wouldn't be an issue, but if only 9 out of 10 drivers maintain proper following distance all ten are at risk. Everything's bigger in Texas, except snowmen and following distance.

Soccerdad1995 wrote:I have mixed feelings on this. I tend to agree with the majority here for all the reasons stated. Lack of due process, outsourcing traffic enforcement to a private company, etc.

But I also am very worried about potential abuses that can result from traffic stops. Civil asset forfeiture being a prime example. On the flip side of that, I also have officer safety concerns, not only from chance encounters with violent criminals, but also from accidents while they are standing next to a vehicle on the side of a highway.

If we had a similar automated system for speed enforcement, and other things, then I could see the benefits outweighing the negatives....

Luckily the legislature has already made automated speed cameras illegal in Texas.

TVGuy wrote: Luckily the legislature has already made automated speed cameras illegal in Texas.

doncb wrote:I hope it doesn't pass. In fact, I would like to see the fines made into a moving violation. I'd also like to see cameras at every intersection. It's one thing to have to squeak through the light. Something totally different to see 2, 3 or 4 cars go through the light.

Having been a LEO, written a number of tickets for the red light runners and studied the law on this, I TOTALLY disagree on this subject.

The main objection is that they do NOT meet the burden of proof of evidence presented to actually obtain a conviction if brought to court and they cannot be attributed to the driver. A person can commit a crime or offense. An INANIMATE object cannot perform ANY action without outside direction or operation.

ERGO, they are actions against the basic legal premises of this country.

OldCurlyWolf wrote: Having been a LEO, written a number of tickets for the red light runners and studied the law on this, I TOTALLY disagree on this subject.

The main objection is that they do NOT meet the burden of proof of evidence presented to actually obtain a conviction if brought to court and they cannot be attributed to the driver. A person can commit a crime or offense. An INANIMATE object cannot perform ANY action without outside direction or operation.

ERGO, they are actions against the basic legal premises of this country.

What about parking violations? Just curious.

OldCurlyWolf wrote: A person can commit a crime or offense. An INANIMATE object cannot perform ANY action without outside direction or operation.

But, I thought guns committed all of these acts of violence we hear about in the news.

Liberty wrote:

OldCurlyWolf wrote: Having been a LEO, written a number of tickets for the red light runners and studied the law on this, I TOTALLY disagree on this subject.

The main objection is that they do NOT meet the burden of proof of evidence presented to actually obtain a conviction if brought to court and they cannot be attributed to the driver. A person can commit a crime or offense. An INANIMATE object cannot perform ANY action without outside direction or operation.

ERGO, they are actions against the basic legal premises of this country.

What about parking violations? Just curious.

That's a great question. Is this because the cameras don't verify the driver? I was wondering the same thing about toll road violators, but I think that might also be part of the blurred lines between public vs. private road (which is also a great example of how dangerous the privatization of public resources can be).

doncb wrote:Generally, a LEO reviews the images / video to determine if a violation has occurred. I'll bet the marginal ones are not cited.
You do have due process in that you can contest the citation. The citation includes images. There is video which is where the images come from. The flash you see is for the camera taking a picture of the rear license plate.
The citation is sent to the registered owner of the car. If you loan your car to a friend and they run a red light, tell them they owe you the cost of the ticket and a $25 handling charge. Beyond that, don't loan your frickin car out.
By Texas law, a city can receive no more than 25% of the fine.
It's called paying attention and being aware of what is going on around you. If the light has been red for 2 or 3 seconds and you blow through you have no excuse.

Well, the highlighted statement made me laugh. So, you get one of those things in the mail. You call them to contest it. You get told that a supervisor will contact you. Doesn't happen. You call back, and they apologize and repeat that a supervisor will contact you. Again, that never happens. So, you write them a letter detailing why you are contesting it. You never get an answer back. There is a set amount of time to contest the red light fine, and when it goes past that, they send it to collections. There is NO court, just some company doling out fines based on their (IMHO) rigged machines. At this point, you can guess how I know.

K.Mooneyham wrote:
Well, the highlighted statement made me laugh. So, you get one of those things in the mail. You call them to contest it. You get told that a supervisor will contact you. Doesn't happen. You call back, and they apologize and repeat that a supervisor will contact you. Again, that never happens. So, you write them a letter detailing why you are contesting it. You never get an answer back. There is a set amount of time to contest the red light fine, and when it goes past that, they send it to collections. There is NO court, just some company doling out fines based on their (IMHO) rigged machines. At this point, you can guess how I know.

This is why they should be illegal. All they are is a way for government to abuse subjects - err I mean citizens.
Outsourcing law enforcement, at any level, to a private entity is a no no.

What about privately run prisons?

Would they be considered a type of outsourcing law enforcement or come under another type category?

Abraham wrote:What about privately run prisons?

Would they be considered a type of outsourcing law enforcement or come under another type category?

While this may get a lot of grief, I believe that the original order to stop using corporate prisons was phenomenal. Privatization of Justice has had a ridiculously detrimental impact on the legal system as a whole. When corporations profit from others' crimes, they pass the incentives on to legislators when it comes to keeping their noses in our business. They then pass the cost on to us as tax payers.

Abraham wrote:What about privately run prisons?

Would they be considered a type of outsourcing law enforcement or come under another type category?

Generally, I'm against privately run prisons as well.

apvonkanel wrote: While this may get a lot of grief, I believe that the original order to stop using corporate prisons was phenomenal. Privatization of Justice has had a ridiculously detrimental impact on the legal system as a whole. When corporations profit from others' crimes, they pass the incentives on to legislators when it comes to keeping their noses in our business. They then pass the cost on to us as tax payers.