TexasCHLforum.com

BEFORE the election, millions were spent campaigning to keep the cameras. All the noble supporters (police, firemen, EMS, doctors) lined up to tell us that 'Red light cameras save lives'. Little or no money was spent campaigning to remove the cameras.

AFTER the election, the airwaves were filled with news about the city's budget problems and how the loss of the cameras would cause budget problems.

No one wrung their hands and mourned all the lives that would be lost. No one.

Teamless wrote:So while at those specific intersections she has learned not to do it, it hasn't changed her habits at any other intersections.

Oh well.... Maybe it's going to take a few more tickets before she get's the message? I'm too cheap that way. When I get a ticket... and the last moving violation I had was on Christmas eve of 1999... I change the behavior that got me the ticket. It just hurts my feelings to have to part with that money.

Purplehood wrote:I don't buy that and I don't buy the "Big Brother" concept. It is a public intersection and should be subject to public scrutiny. I don't really care what method is done to accomplish that. Police there 24/7, cameras, longer yellow lights, red lights all around...they are all sound ideas.

Then there's no need to post anything else on this subject. Police in Houston are still allowed to give tickets for running red lights. You have what you want.

Bart wrote:

Purplehood wrote:I don't buy that and I don't buy the "Big Brother" concept. It is a public intersection and should be subject to public scrutiny. I don't really care what method is done to accomplish that. Police there 24/7, cameras, longer yellow lights, red lights all around...they are all sound ideas.

Then there's no need to post anything else on this subject. Police in Houston are still allowed to give tickets for running red lights. You have what you want.

And the LEO can't be at the intersection 24/7. In my opinion the voters didn't vote them down because they didn't work, they voted them down because they worked too well.

Purplehood wrote:In my opinion the voters didn't vote them down because they didn't work, they voted them down because they worked too well.

You could be right with some voters, but me personally, I have never been stopped, let alone ticketed for running a stop sign or red light, and I voted against them, as it was simply a money grab (in my opinion)

Teamless wrote:

Purplehood wrote:In my opinion the voters didn't vote them down because they didn't work, they voted them down because they worked too well.

You could be right with some voters, but me personally, I have never been stopped, let alone ticketed for running a stop sign or red light, and I voted against them, as it was simply a money grab (in my opinion)

My problem with the above statement (and obviously a lot of folks agree with you) is, how is it any different from getting a ticket from an LEO and going through the motions and dollars that you do?
My belief is that it was too effective and really annoyed people that got tickets and had to pay them, when in reality they were probably a bargain money-wise.
[A bargain! ]

Purplehood wrote:[A bargain! ]

You are right about the bargain, my wife paid $75 when I think I had heard that a ticket from a police officer would easily be double that.

To me, the problem with red light cameras is that the US Constitution assures you the right to face your accuser. With an automated camera, where is your accuser?

Pawpaw wrote:To me, the problem with red light cameras is that the US Constitution assures you the right to face your accuser. With an automated camera, where is your accuser?

The Photo. Like I previously mentioned, I got a ticket that was for another car. I fought it without leaving my house and won.

Purplehood wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:To me, the problem with red light cameras is that the US Constitution assures you the right to face your accuser. With an automated camera, where is your accuser?

The Photo. Like I previously mentioned, I got a ticket that was for another car. I fought it without leaving my house and won.

This is where I have an issue with this process (at least as I understand it). If I loan my car to a friend, and he is photographed running a red light, I get the ticket...not him. If a LEO would have issued the ticket, THE DRIVER would receive it. Just because I own the vehicle, doesn't mean I'm guilty of the charged offense.

TxKimberMan wrote:

Purplehood wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:To me, the problem with red light cameras is that the US Constitution assures you the right to face your accuser. With an automated camera, where is your accuser?

The Photo. Like I previously mentioned, I got a ticket that was for another car. I fought it without leaving my house and won.

This is where I have an issue with this process (at least as I understand it). If I loan my car to a friend, and he is photographed running a red light, I get the ticket...not him. If a LEO would have issued the ticket, THE DRIVER would receive it. Just because I own the vehicle, doesn't mean I'm guilty of the charged offense.

My old Daddy, rest his soul, always told me that you never loan a car, a gun or a wife. The post above would seem to bear that philosphy out.

I have to agree with OldGringo.

A friend that is getting tickets in your car for any reason is not really a friend in my opinion.

Purplehood wrote:I have to agree with OldGringo.

A friend that is getting tickets in your car for any reason is not really a friend in my opinion.

I guess I'll have to tell my wife that Purplehood said she really isn't my friend anymore

I think you and Oldgringo missed my point entirely, rather than focus on the "friend", look at how the process works (or doesn't work). How could I be charged with an offense, if I was 50 miles away at the time? I have a right to face my accuser, and the photo will clearly show that I was not the driver, but it doesn't matter. How is THAT constitutional?

Purplehood wrote:

Pawpaw wrote:To me, the problem with red light cameras is that the US Constitution assures you the right to face your accuser. With an automated camera, where is your accuser?

The Photo. Like I previously mentioned, I got a ticket that was for another car. I fought it without leaving my house and won.

I disagree. A photo is evidence, not an accuser.

Automated law enforcement is about as bogus as anything can get.

Purplehood wrote:In my opinion the voters didn't vote them down because they didn't work, they voted them down because they worked too well.

It's too bad for you that citizens in America are still allowed to vote.