TexasCHLforum.com

bigred90gt wrote:

Purplehood wrote: Based only on what I have seen, and as opposed to what you have seen, I would dispute your assertion. I have seen entirely too many drivers simply blow through red lights in my lifetime. It has become a general habit of mine when I am the first car sitting at a light to hesitate before I go on a green light. I guarantee that it has saved my life more than once.

If someone is just blowing through a red light, whether you are the first car or the 5th car, and whether there is a camera or not, will make no difference. Again, it is only about revenue, nothing more, nothing less.

Getting T-boned is about revenue?

Purplehood wrote:Getting T-boned is about revenue?

A camera wont stop a t-bone, it will only witness it.
My mom was T-boned, at a red light camera intersection (Bay Area Blvd and El Camino) about 2 1/2 years ago.
Is my mom the .00001% that slipped through, or can we assume that she is not the only one ever T-boned at a red light camera intersection
The camera did not stop it, as it never will. It will only punish those people (financially) that run the red light.

Teamless wrote:

Purplehood wrote:Getting T-boned is about revenue?

A camera wont stop a t-bone, it will only witness it.
My mom was T-boned, at a red light camera intersection (Bay Area Blvd and El Camino) about 2 1/2 years ago.
Is my mom the .00001% that slipped through, or can we assume that she is not the only one ever T-boned at a red light camera intersection
The camera did not stop it, as it never will. It will only punish those people (financially) that run the red light.

And that is where the revenue enhancement may or may not make a difference. It contributes to deterrence. That is why I could care less what methodology is used, as long as something is done.

Interestingly, about a year ago, my wife got a red light ticket at the same intersection, for doing a barely rolling stop on a right turn.
While I agree that she did the crime, she should pay for it, it was such a slight infraction, probably a 1 mile per hour turn, and there was no cross traffic waiting.
She knew 100% that it was a red light camera intersection and knew thats where my mom was Tboned... so while it may deter some, I do not agree that it makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, other than a money grab..

Wasn't it Anise Parker just after the election complaining that without these funds, she would have to make cut-backs?
If that doesn't tell us its a money grab, nothing will.
What did they do before red light cameras, if they did not have the funds to pay for something?

Teamless wrote:Interestingly, about a year ago, my wife got a red light ticket at the same intersection, for doing a barely rolling stop on a right turn.
While I agree that she did the crime, she should pay for it, it was such a slight infraction, probably a 1 mile per hour turn, and there was no cross traffic waiting.
She knew 100% that it was a red light camera intersection and knew thats where my mom was Tboned... so while it may deter some, I do not agree that it makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, other than a money grab..

Wasn't it Anise Parker just after the election complaining that without these funds, she would have to make cut-backs?
If that doesn't tell us its a money grab, nothing will.
What did they do before red light cameras, if they did not have the funds to pay for something?

Try to raise my property taxes, again?

Purplehood wrote:
Based only on what I have seen, and as opposed to what you have seen, I would dispute your assertion. I have seen entirely too many drivers simply blow through red lights in my lifetime. It has become a general habit of mine when I am the first car sitting at a light to hesitate before I go on a green light. I guarantee that it has saved my life more than once.

This is my habit too. Light turns green(for me) look both directions..pause a second..look again..all clear..proceed. Of course it won't stop the 100% of the accidents, but I would venture to guess that most lights that get run, get run within the first second or two of them turning red.

-Cain

CainA wrote:

Purplehood wrote:
Based only on what I have seen, and as opposed to what you have seen, I would dispute your assertion. I have seen entirely too many drivers simply blow through red lights in my lifetime. It has become a general habit of mine when I am the first car sitting at a light to hesitate before I go on a green light. I guarantee that it has saved my life more than once.

This is my habit too. Light turns green(for me) look both directions..pause a second..look again..all clear..proceed. Of course it won't stop the 100% of the accidents, but I would venture to guess that most lights that get run, get run within the first second or two of them turning red.

-Cain

This is indeed a good plan. Cemeteries all across the country are populated with folk who had the right-of-way.

It's my understanding that the cameras are provided by a private company for which the city of Houston has a contract with. This private company recieves a certain amount of money from the city of Houston which the city uses the revenue from the violations issued to make payment on that contract. While I do NOT agree with the cameras I do wish I would have thought of this way to make money! A private company is providing a service for which they're paid for. Sounds like capitalism to me. The ill will surfaces when a government entity profits from the service as well. Bottom line is this, if folks would obey the law the cameras would be nothing more than another waste of taxpayers money by the governemnt. For that I think we all agree. See the Nov 2nd election results.

Personally, I don't run red lights. I don't roll through red lights to turn right on red. I don't roll through stop signs. I obey the posted speed limits as much as I can as to not cause a traffic hazard. This goes back to my Creator's instructions to obey man's law.

texanron wrote:It's my understanding that the cameras are provided by a private company for which the city of Houston has a contract with. This private company recieves a certain amount of money from the city of Houston which the city uses the revenue from the violations issued to make payment on that contract. While I do NOT agree with the cameras I do wish I would have thought of this way to make money! A private company is providing a service for which they're paid for. Sounds like capitalism to me. The ill will surfaces when a government entity profits from the service as well. Bottom line is this, if folks would obey the law the cameras would be nothing more than another waste of taxpayers money by the governemnt. For that I think we all agree. See the Nov 2nd election results.

Personally, I don't run red lights. I don't roll through red lights to turn right on red. I don't roll through stop signs. I obey the posted speed limits as much as I can as to not cause a traffic hazard. This goes back to my Creator's instructions to obey man's law.

I imagine I am a wienie when it comes to rules. At 0300 hours in the wee hours of the night I stop at a stop-sign even if I don't see anything for miles.

Purplehood wrote:I imagine I am a wienie when it comes to rules. At 0300 hours in the wee hours of the night I stop at a stop-sign even if I don't see anything for miles.

That does make 2 of us then.

Make that three, I actually come to a complete stop and look both ways before moving. Maybe it's an age thing, it seems the older I get, the more careful I am.

Purplehood wrote:

texanron wrote:It's my understanding that the cameras are provided by a private company for which the city of Houston has a contract with. This private company recieves a certain amount of money from the city of Houston which the city uses the revenue from the violations issued to make payment on that contract. While I do NOT agree with the cameras I do wish I would have thought of this way to make money! A private company is providing a service for which they're paid for. Sounds like capitalism to me. The ill will surfaces when a government entity profits from the service as well. Bottom line is this, if folks would obey the law the cameras would be nothing more than another waste of taxpayers money by the governemnt. For that I think we all agree. See the Nov 2nd election results.

Personally, I don't run red lights. I don't roll through red lights to turn right on red. I don't roll through stop signs. I obey the posted speed limits as much as I can as to not cause a traffic hazard. This goes back to my Creator's instructions to obey man's law.

I imagine I am a wienie when it comes to rules. At 0300 hours in the wee hours of the night I stop at a stop-sign even if I don't see anything for miles.

I do the same thing, and I've never received a ticket from a red light camera, even though I pass through no less than 4 intersections with them daily. I dont have an axe to grind with the cameras in that sense, I just dont agree with them being about safety, and the numbers dont lie. In Baytown, the number of accidents at monitored intersections increased after the cameras were installed. Most of the increase in accidents were rear end collisions.

Here is an article about the camera program in Baytown:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/28/2827.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is the chart attached to it citing red light camera violations in relation to time after red :
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/pix/violationchart.gif" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

how many accidents do you think occur during the first 1/2 second of a red light from someone rolling through it? Think of the acceleration and reaction time needed to take off from the line and hit someone in the intersection .5 seconds after their light turned red.

Here is an excerpt from a report on the lights in Cali:
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/01/116.asp" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In nearly 2 years in Baytown, the violations recorded by the cameras, and subsequent $75 fines, did not decrease. But it's not about revenue, right?

bigred90gt, you may be totally on the mark about revenues. But in my simple little mind anything that may or may not contribute to making one crazed-driver not barrel through a red-light is a good thing. So I don't object to it.
As it stands, the people of Houston did indeed vote for this program to be abolished. I now wait to see what the likes of our Mayor come up with as a new means of generating the missing revenue. Unfortunately I think that they don't look at the Camera-program as I do, and simply see it as the Cash-Cow that got axed.

Teamless wrote:Interestingly, about a year ago, my wife got a red light ticket at the same intersection, for doing a barely rolling stop on a right turn.
While I agree that she did the crime, she should pay for it, it was such a slight infraction, probably a 1 mile per hour turn, and there was no cross traffic waiting.
She knew 100% that it was a red light camera intersection and knew thats where my mom was Tboned... so while it may deter some, I do not agree that it makes much of a difference in the grand scheme of things, other than a money grab..

Wasn't it Anise Parker just after the election complaining that without these funds, she would have to make cut-backs?
If that doesn't tell us its a money grab, nothing will.
What did they do before red light cameras, if they did not have the funds to pay for something?

I think you missed Purplehood's point; and that is that the fine did not prevent your wife from rolling through that intersection, maybe the next time she is there, she will remember that it cost her $XX or $XXX for doing so, and she'll be careful not to do it again. I don't know about you, but when my parents punished me for unacceptable behavior, I tended not to repeat that behavior. It didn't prevent me from doing whatever it was the first time, but it made it quite likely that I would not do it another time.

I don't want your wife to roll through a light - both for her own protection and for the protection of other motorists. I'm sure that, if you're honest about it, you would prefer she not do it, and for exactly the same reasons. Paying a fine is annoying, and it may or may not provide a revenue stream for the city, but I maintain that revenue is not its primary purpose. Correcting unacceptable driving behavior is its purpose. It won't stop someone from doing it the first time, but if it is financially painful enough, it will hopefully stop someone from doing it a second and third time. And that's the real point of it.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't want your wife to roll through a light

I understand your point, and I do not want her to roll the stops either, and as you, not for the financial impact, but more so for the safety impact (pun intended).

However, she still does "California rolls" at the 1mph pace at non-camera intersections and stop signs, not all the time, but enough, and each time i am with her, I give her "the look"...
So while at those specific intersections she has learned not to do it, it hasn't changed her habits at any other intersections.