Houston Red Lght Cameras....

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LittleSpike

When does the contract end ? Will it be renewed without citizen input ?

Will we re-elect the dummies who put this in place ?

LS

Do not know.... apparently from what I read: 2014.*
Probably not.**
Probably.
*The contract was apparently extended in 2009 for another 5 year term.

** Based on the uproar that has been caused and the current city administration's desire to fight the issue to get rid of the contract, I suspect that the city would prefer that the cameras disappear rather than renew the contract.
http://www.click2houston.com/downloa...0/28296008.pdf

[Guest050715-1]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Today I was proceeding down a major "speedofare" approaching a rather large intersection while watching the amber light as I approached, so I slowed to stop for the anticipated redlight and one of those "patriots" (no doubt) accelerated up behind me and then swerved into the next lane by which time the light was bright red and he continued to accelerate through the red light, which had been red since before he got to the intersection ....

... that is why there are "red light cameras" ... and

it is knuckleheads like that who "no doubt" whine about their constitutional right to ...

..... endanger everyone else on the road with impunity.

The reason I don't get all "patriotic" about "red light cameras" is because ....

.... I stop at red lights and I begin the process when it is amber.

Prove who was driving the car; me or the person I loaned my car to! Beyond that, it’s just plain Orwellian. Big Brother has no business watching us with cameras. If you think that the Man doesn’t use these cameras to track people that they feel justified in tracking, you’re dead wrong.

[LexusLover]

Yea, those red light cameras are really intrusive ... all 70 of them.

http://traffic.houstontranstar.org/cctv/transtar/

http://www.click2houston.com/automot...60/detail.html

"Houston TranStar has 730 traffic cameras around the region."

http://www.khou.com/home/related/How...125828408.html

And then there are those that "Big Brother" uses to intrude into the privacy of murderers? I suppose he will complain about his "right of privacy" to violate the law.

If you don't cut the red light, your picture is not taken, and "your privacy" is not violated. As for the knucklehead who borrows my car and runs red lights with it, I want to know that he or she is doing so, so I can make sure to "just say no" next time when I am asked.

Simple.

[Satin]

Well ladies & gentlemen, it looks like the free grace period is over. Starting this Sunday, they will start back issuing tickets again.

They are also going to be adding more cameras to more intersections for your driving enjoyment. So to all you red light runners, be sure to check your mail daily for a nice little gift from the city. Thanks Ms Parker!!

[DEAR_JOHN]

Originally Posted by Satin

They are also going to be adding more cameras to more intersections for your driving enjoyment.

Talk about a big 'fuck you' to the voters. It's bad enough they kept all the original cameras, but adding more is the icing on the cake.

[bbkid]

Yep. Just as well stand out in front of City Hall and shoot the finger at the news cameras and say "fuck you, voters".

[kerwil62]

Thie city claims that it's broke so it's trying to "collect". smmfh........

Just be careful out there!

[Satin]

Yep boys I understand all the issues assciated with this one. It's pretty complicated. But something else sort of related to this is that so far there are NO worthy challengers to the Pussy Licker, so she will easily win re-election.

Now if that bitch starts fucking with the strip clubs, then we're gonna have a real problem. This red light camera bullshit pisses me off but I can unhappily live with it. LL has the best solution. Just don't run any red lights....

[DEAR_JOHN]

One law that I wanted passed was no texting while driving, but that dumb ass up in Austin let that one go.

It'll be a cold day in hell before I vote for rick perry.

[LittleSpike]

Rick Perry Was Al Gore's Texas Campaign Chairman in 1988. They're both major a##holes.

LS

[LexusLover]

Occasionally it is of value to examine facts, not hype ....

1. As for the so-called "red-light-camera-money-machine" ... find out "the facts" on how much "income" (as opposed to revenue) is actually generated ANNUALLY BY FINES and COURT COSTS ... and when I say "actually generated" I do not mean "tickets issued" or "fines and costs assessed" ... I mean MONEY into the City's treasurary ANNUALLY and when I say "INCOME" I mean the NET DOLLARS after the COSTS of operating the program are DEDUCTED ..

I think that you will DISCOVER that the ACTUAL NUMBERS (as opposed to "reported" hype) is LESS THAN the BUDGET CUTS for THIS YEAR for JUST THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. [Not "shouting" just emphasizing.]

2. One can blame Parker all they want, but the "Red Light Camera" program was initiated under the prior city administration and once the contract was in place the following administration has essentially 3 choices: seek judicial relief from the contract (which the city IS DOING); default on the contractual obligation and create substantial liability for the taxpayers of Houston (even though much of the "revenues" may well be generated by NON-Houstonites); or enforce the existing law and contract until it expires in 2014 and then not RENEW IT.

The City of Houston is attempting to appeal the Federal Judge's ruling. That is called "due process" which apparently has been followed by the City of Houston throughout this process even BEFORE Parker became Mayor.

Had the Red light program been started with an ILLEGAL ELECTION during Mayor White's reign, the opponents would be screaming bloody murder about the "validity" of the election and how it was illegal and the program out to be tossed.

So, now that an illegal election tried to toss the program those who advocate running red lights as an option seek to retaliate against the City officials for UPHOLDING legally passed laws, legally executed contracts, and a legally obtained Judge's decision so they can continue cutting red lights with impunity.

As for "adding" cameras, the Chief of Police can't do squat.

[DEAR_JOHN]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Occasionally it is of value to examine facts, not hype ....

1. As for the so-called "red-light-camera-money-machine" ... find out "the facts" on how much "income" (as opposed to revenue) is actually generated ANNUALLY BY FINES and COURT COSTS ... and when I say "actually generated" I do not mean "tickets issued" or "fines and costs assessed" ... I mean MONEY into the City's treasurary ANNUALLY and when I say "INCOME" I mean the NET DOLLARS after the COSTS of operating the program are DEDUCTED ..

I think that you will DISCOVER that the ACTUAL NUMBERS (as opposed to "reported" hype) is LESS THAN the BUDGET CUTS for THIS YEAR for JUST THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. [Not "shouting" just emphasizing.]

2. One can blame Parker all they want, but the "Red Light Camera" program was initiated under the prior city administration and once the contract was in place the following administration has essentially 3 choices: seek judicial relief from the contract (which the city IS DOING); default on the contractual obligation and create substantial liability for the taxpayers of Houston (even though much of the "revenues" may well be generated by NON-Houstonites); or enforce the existing law and contract until it expires in 2014 and then not RENEW IT.

The City of Houston is attempting to appeal the Federal Judge's ruling. That is called "due process" which apparently has been followed by the City of Houston throughout this process even BEFORE Parker became Mayor.

Had the Red light program been started with an ILLEGAL ELECTION during Mayor White's reign, the opponents would be screaming bloody murder about the "validity" of the election and how it was illegal and the program out to be tossed.

So, now that an illegal election tried to toss the program those who advocate running red lights as an option seek to retaliate against the City officials for UPHOLDING legally passed laws, legally executed contracts, and a legally obtained Judge's decision so they can continue cutting red lights with impunity.

As for "adding" cameras, the Chief of Police can't do squat.

Just so you know, all you're underlining, typing in caps, typing in bold doesn't mean jack shit to me. It means you're talking down to us in this thread, so get off your high horse. I'm not impressed.

How about this for a bottom line.

I and others in this thread have the ability to think and have opinions and I'm not trying to force my opinion on others. I guess I have respect for the opinions of others where you don't seem to.

I just out and out don't like the red light cameras. It's a personal opinion. Simple enough? ll, you will not change my opinion.

I don't like the fact an election concerning them was held and the red light law failed, yet the election didn't matter, and the cameras, plus others are back on. The turning on of the original cameras was a 'up yours' to the voters, and the additional cameras were a double 'up yours' to the voters.

Something bigger than all of the voters is happening, someone, somewhere should have recognized this before the election was held. If there were problems that were foreseen, no election should have been held. There were lawyers all around on both sides during this election.

As I mentioned before I'm on the road on a daily basis. If people want safe driving then cell phones and texting should be outlawed. Lack of attention of drivers is far worse than running a red light.

Furthermore, If I get a red light ticket, I want a police officer to issue it. At least I can face my accuser in court.

The city of Houston can spin this BS anyway they want to spin it, but at the end of the day, it's all about the money. People, their opinions, and their elections be damned.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by DEAR_JOHN

I'm not impressed.

How about this for a bottom line.

I and others in this thread have the ability to think and have opinions and I'm not trying to force my opinion on others. I guess I have respect for the opinions of others where you don't seem to.

Don't personalize the matter. I didn't express any opinion as to others' opinions....but you know the saying about "opinions" ...

which includes this statement:

...... "Lack of attention of drivers is far worse than running a red light."

Generally speaking there are two reasons why someone "runs" a red light:

#1: Failed to notice the light had changed (Lack of attention); or
#2: Noticed the light had changed and didn't want to stop.

I suppose #2 is excusable then, in your book, although I have noticed the general tendency to accelerate when approaching the intersection to "clear the intersection" before cross traffic enters, and to change lanes rapdily as they approach the intersection to "clear" the vehicles in front of them which are slowing to stop for the red light.

So, the #2 scenario increases the danger at the intersection by rapid lane changes, which can obscure vision, and increased speeds, which can increase damage on impact.

Quote from LL:
" Today I was proceeding down a major "speedofare" approaching a rather large intersection while watching the amber light as I approached, so I slowed to stop for the anticipated redlight and one of those "patriots" (no doubt) accelerated up behind me and then swerved into the next lane by which time the light was bright red and he continued to accelerate through the red light, which had been red since before he got to the intersection .... "

The reason I don't get all "patriotic" about "red light cameras" is because ....

.... I stop at red lights and I begin the process when it is amber." End of quote from Post #18, this thread.

Texting and talking on cells, eating and drinking (non-alcoholic beverages), combing hair, putting on make up, and changing channels on radio or disk players are all "dangerous" if the driver is not paying "attention" ... but they are not "against the law" ...

.... running red lights is.

Answering reality with what "ought to be" is not intellectually credible, and does not address the distortion of reality by the media hype regarding the motivation of the City of Houston personnel.

And I was merely capping, bolding, and underlining for those who are driving around town reading these threads on their cell phones, so they will be able to "pay attention" more and not have to concentrate on their cell phones.

[Satin]

LL, as my brother DJ has so eloquently stated, I think you are taking this way too serious bro. We can see you are well informed on the issue but we are as well. I'm just trying to get out info to people who don't know, as well as have a little fun.

First, I know it's not totally the Pussy Licker's fault. I understand what's going on...I'm just having a little fun at her expense...

Second, there is an article on chron.com by James Pinkerton ( July 22) that states " McClelland also said an existing contract with the red-light camera vendor allows the city to expand the system and HE plans to add more cameras in the future" Check it out if you don't don't believe me.:doh

FYI...the Pussy Licker also says they will not renew the contract with ATS....

Now I'm off to the Colombian Festival to do something good for
society....
DJ, will I see you there bro?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Satin

I think you are taking this way too serious bro.

Satin, I suppose there is some therapuetic value in ventillating without being faithful to facts and reality ... after all everything posted on this board is just the figment of someone's imagination and wishful thinking.

I'll include in that the image of the Chief of Police standing in a "cherry-picker" installing red-light cameras to a system that is monitored and maintained by a private company under a contract with the City of Houston that the Mayor has announced the City will not renew in about 3 years, because the City cannot afford to continue the expense associated with the damages and litigation costs that will be suffered by the taxpayers of Houston, who have opposed the program in the last referendum on the subject, which was illegal, but informative.

I read the same "quote" from the Chief. I will repeat. The Chief ain't doin' squat, but wouldn't you rather have him, the union, and the rest of the Houston Police Department focused on red light cameras rather than "real crime"?

In the meantime, here is a novel idea:

Everyone quit runnign red lights and there will be no "revenue" generated by the program, which will result in the company and the City not making any "revenue" from the camera contract. And more importantly there will be no excuse for the Chief to add more "spy cameras" around the City.

Beware: Apparently some of the suburban cities are talking cameras.