Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
My my my how interesting that Michael Kubosh and his brother are bail bonds men and traffic ticket attorneys.
They keep screaming it's not about safety it's about money! And my question is what is wrong with making money off of people who run red lights? It is better then imposing a state income tax don't you think?
Now I see the Kubosh's incentive...if they can get the red light cameras shut down it's all about more money in their own pockets! After all videos don't lie! I would rather see the money going to the Texas Medical Center, HPD and Fire Fighters then to the well fed Kubosh.
What a disgusting man...he has not one thing to dispute about the cameras other then it's all about the money that is not going into his own pocket! And you heard it yourself he likes out sourcing as well. Humm I wonder if baytownb is the car salesman he mentions.
And Houston voted for this? Amazing
While some would argue that red light cameras are inherently bad, I would say that it depends on the prosecution of red-light camera tickets that are most important.
3 things would make me less against red light cameras
1. red light cameras record not just the running of the red light, but what was happening during the yellow and that evidence is reviewable by the defendant.
2. red light offenses like all other moving violations have a trial by jury right.
3. lost evidence of the video of the offense is counted the same as an officer not showing up. there is no assumption of guilt without that evidence.
tvc15, most people against the cameras are not for red light runners. we're against the system that assumes guilt without evidence. Maybe what I've heard is wrong, but no one has demonstrated that this is not the case, so I've maintained my position.
From the FAQ on the houston red light camera enforcement program
Quote:
What if the light was yellow?
The Automated Safety System only becomes active once the red light is showing. It will not capture a vehicle if the vehicle enters the intersection prior to the light changing to red. If you entered the intersection on yellow, it is legal to clear the intersection if the light turned red while you were still in the intersection.
This assumes no fault in the system. There needs to be system that ensures this is the case
Quote:
Why did I receive this Notice of Violation?
Based upon images captured by the automated system, your vehicle was determined to have committed a red light violation. As the owner of the vehicle, the Notice of Violation is mailed to you.
note, images, not video. this makes me suspicious that the whole situation is not properly documented
Quote:
What happens if I ignore the Notice of Violation?
Failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability prior to the 45th day after receipt of the notice is an admission of liability, and failure to appear at an administrative adjudication hearing after having requested a hearing is an admission of liability and constitutes a waiver of the right to appeal. Failure to pay the civil penalty within 45 days after receipt of this Notice of Violation shall result in the imposition of a late-payment fee of $25. If the second notice remains unpaid, collections proceedings and entry of judgment against you may proceed.
In other words, this is equivalent to a non-moving violation proceeding. I guess the wording is probably the same for parking fines.
Quote:
Will I receive any points on my driving record for this violation?
No, this is a civil infraction that is not reported to the Texas Department of Public Safety.
Here's the money quote. In other words, an unsafe act as declared by many doesn't result in a point on your record. This is a huge red flag that the city just doesn't want to seriously impose this as a safety measure. I mean, if you get a ticket for 11 over on an empty freeway, you can end up with points, but not running a red light at a busy intersection. Uh huh.
Quote:
Is this only a revenue generating program?
No. This is a safety program. Red Light Camera Enforcement programs have been shown to reduce red light violations and intersection crashes. Numerous studies from the US and worldwide, as well as the experience of many other cities, indicate significant decreases in red light running violations and collisions after cameras were installed. Other intersections not monitored by automated enforcement may also experience a decrease in violations and accidents as a result of the presence of this automated enforcement in other areas of the community.
If that were the case, the penalties would be also non-monetary and enough of a reduction in red-light violations would bankrupt the program. Its non-sustainable, but designed to be sustainable (hence the third party continued involvement). Its a revenue scheme deisgned to look like a safety program.
A 2008 University of South Florida report found: "Comprehensive studies conclude cameras actually increase crashes and injuries, providing a safety argument not to install them.... public policy should avoid conflicts of interest that enhance revenues for government and private interests at the risk of public safety."
A 2007 Virginia Department of Transportation study found: "The cameras were associated with an increase in total crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested that this increase was 29%... The cameras were associated with an increase in the frequency of injury crashes... The aggregate EB results suggested an 18% increase, although the point estimates for individual jurisdictions were substantially higher (59%, 79%, or 89% increases) or lower (6% increase or a 5% decrease)."
A 2006 Winnipeg, Canada city audit found: "The graph shows an increase of 58% in the number of traffic collisions from 2003 to 2004.... Contrary to long-term expectations, the chart shows an increase in claims at each level of damage with the largest percentage increase appearing at the highest dollar value."
A 2005 Virginia DOT study found: "The cameras are correlated with an increase in total crashes of 8% to 17%."
In 2005, The Washington Post found: "The analysis shows that the number of crashes at locations with cameras more than doubled, from 365 collisions in 1998 to 755 last year. Injury and fatal crashes climbed 81 percent, from 144 such wrecks to 262. Broadside crashes, also known as right-angle or T-bone collisions, rose 30 percent, from 81 to 106 during that time frame."
2004 North Carolina A&T University study found: "Our findings are more pessimistic, finding no change in angle accidents and large increases in rear-end crashes and many other types of crashes relative to other intersections."
Accidents more than doubled at the Houston, Texas intersections where red light cameras are installed, according to a study released Monday by Rice University and the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI). This result posed a dilemma for TTI and the city of Houston which had requested the study. Houston Mayor Bill White was furious when he saw the report’s draft text in August. He banned the document from publication and ordered a re-writing of the text that would reflect a more positive result.
Houston;
Accidents more than double at red light camera locations
Voted out by the citizens November 2010. Accidents fall after cameras shut off. ATS sues to invalidate election.
Baytown;
Total Accidents up 40%, Red light related Tbone accidents up 37%, Injury accidents up 39%, Rear end accidents up 83%. 6 months after cameras voted out by the citizens in November 2010 accidents dropped 33% at the busiest camera locations. ATS Sues to invalidate election.
College Station;
Citizens petition for a vote on red light cameras. Camera vendor sets up an anonymous front group to fight the vote. Cameras voted out November 2009.
League City; Total Accidents up 20%, rear end accidents up 68%, city refunds over 1700 illegal tickets due to a short yellow light.
Lubbock; Rear end accidents double, total accidents up 50%. City council reverses itself based on increases in accidents and votes to remove the cameras in 2008.
Cleveland;
In just the first month of installation of cameras there were more accidents of several types than in the entire previous 18 months of pre installation.
(sources; TXDOT annual red light camera reports, Rice university camera study)
In the five months after Houston voters forced city officials to turn off a camera surveillance system that fined motorists for running red lights, traffic accidents at those 50 intersections with 70 cameras have decreased 16 percent, according to recently released data.
Red light cameras may disappear from the nation's second-largest city. The police commission in Los Angeles, California voted 5 to 0 yesterday to deny renewal of the city's photo enforcement contract with American Traffic Solutions (ATS). The decision is a stunning reversal for a program that has been in place for over a decade.
If you want me to bother with a point-by-point response, I wouldn't mind some assurance that you're actually interested in a discussion about the issue rather than a bickerfest; because your posting history in this thread sure doesn't give me that assurance. Neither does the patronizing tone of the post quoted above.
Your wasting your time, you can't reason with him/her. I'm starting to think the person is a troll who resorts to personal attacks once they start to lose the argument.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,443,487 times
Reputation: 8955
baytownb we all know your incentive...right along that of the well fed Kubosh.
None of your links are about the red light cameras used in Houston. Actually a few of your links are out of context and don't even apply to the type of cameras used in Houston. The technology used in Houston is not just a radar photo camera. It records the event and once it is recorded it is reviewed by HPD traffic officers to determine if indeed it is a clear cut case. Only then is the person notified. You posted links about AZ...read what you post. That article is against radar photo cameras and not video cameras.
Secondly the LA article about how the city is not profiting as much as they thought they would. Did it ever occur to you that LA has much higher costs for everything including police officers salaries? LA is using the funds generated from the fines to various state funds...keep in mind CA is a welfare mentality state...so it does not surprise me that they are not benefiting as much as Houston is from the revenue.
Accidents actually increased dramatically at the intersections by 137% right after the cameras were taken down. A year later another study finds the accidents have decreased...your good old Rice University professor who did is little study theorizes that it is due the recession and more people out of work and not driving. He also adds that now the roads are dry. Read this article carefully: Data show Houston auto accidents are down 13% | Houston & Texas News | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle
It is not rocket science to logically understand that red light cameras reduce the number of people running red lights at major intersections. It is not rocket science to logically understand that it helps to shape bad driving behaviors.
One of the busiest intersections has been the Southwest Freeway at Beechnut. In January of 2010, that camera snapped pictures of more than2,770 potential red-light runners.
They were “potential” because not all of those pictures resulted in citations upon further review, HPD said.
But compare that to January 2011 -- the first full month with the cameras – and the number of pictures snapped jumped to 3,811. That’s a 38 percent rise.
After watching the crooked traffic ticket lawyer it is so clear where those voters came from and how he brainwashed them with the type of articles that you are trying to brainwash us with.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,443,487 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lost_In_Translation
While some would argue that red light cameras are inherently bad, I would say that it depends on the prosecution of red-light camera tickets that are most important.
3 things would make me less against red light cameras
1. red light cameras record not just the running of the red light, but what was happening during the yellow and that evidence is reviewable by the defendant.
2. red light offenses like all other moving violations have a trial by jury right.
3. lost evidence of the video of the offense is counted the same as an officer not showing up. there is no assumption of guilt without that evidence.
tvc15, most people against the cameras are not for red light runners. we're against the system that assumes guilt without evidence. Maybe what I've heard is wrong, but no one has demonstrated that this is not the case, so I've maintained my position.
Thanks for taking the time for a civil response
I would like to respond to 1-3
After watching the crooked traffic ticket lawyer it is so clear where those voters came from and how he brainwashed them with the type of articles that you are trying to brainwash us with.
I would like to respond to 1-3
1.I don't think the HPD website is correct when it describes that the cameras are only activated once the light turns red. I recall right after these cameras were being installed around Houston...a good friend of mine received a violation. The violation had a violation # on it.
It provided a web link where he could type in his violation # and actually watch the video recording. It clearly showed his light was green then as he is approaching the intersection it turns yellow and he entered the intersection a spit second after the light turned red. It was very clear it showed the entire signal light cycle. I will see if he can still view that video and if so I will post the link and the violation # so everyone can get a very clear understanding of how it works. This was back in 1997 so if the system is the same then it shows the yellow light for sure...it even showed his green light.
2. I think one would expect the bar to be higher for an officer writing a ticket to a person who is speeding or caught running a red light. The bar should be higher when it comes to granting a person a trial by jury or to be able to effect your insurance premiums. Red light cameras don't hold that high of a bar due to no officer present. I actually think the cameras are better then having an officer to battle with in court if you feel wrongly accused...why because the technology that I observed with my friends case was clear as a whistle. Officers don't video record people running red lights so in court it is his word against yours. The only problem here is for the traffic attorney since he can't fight those cases and profit from them.
3. I think it is only fair if there is no video then the person should not be held accountable. It's the video not the photos that determines if the person is truly guilty. It only seems fair to me.
This is a serious topic and I am open to seeing the facts and I researched as much as I could and what I am finding is that this lawyer and opponents to the red light cameras have some sort of conspiracy theory. It's all about the money... in there minds. But in actuality all traffic violations are partly about the money and partly about safety. People say well if they really do cut down on running red lights why are people still running red lights? People are people and they will always break the law regardless of what rules and regulations are in place. Traffic ticket attorneys' would not have jobs if people did not violate traffic laws. Just because officers are out there writing tickets you still have speeders, DWI's, school zone offenders...people don't stop committing those offenses just because they know a cop might be out there somewhere.
Of coarse red light cameras are about money but at the same time they are about safety and penalizing people for running red lights (I agree it is not at the same high bar as when an officer stops you...but I don't think it should be). Why? Because the offense is clear cut with no grey area and the evidence is irrefutable on the video. Most people being caught and watching their video will probably not do it again. People who know that cameras are out there will be less likely to speed up to that stale yellow light...of course there are always exceptions to the rule but overall it reduces major red light accidents when people know that the cameras are on.
Not only this but the money collected goes towards very good causes in Houston.
I don't let the nay Sayers convince me that it is a scam and all about the money...it is about reducing red light accidents and it also about generating revenue for the city of Houston.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,443,487 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by 14Bricks
Your wasting your time, you can't reason with him/her. I'm starting to think the person is a troll who resorts to personal attacks once they start to lose the argument.
Wow aren't you the pot calling the kettle black. What argument have I lost? This is a discussion forum. The only people arguing are the ones that can't back up their facts with good data. I have backed up my discussion with good reason and solid factual data.
Take it with a grain of salt .... this is a topic that people LOVE to argue about and let you know how uneducated you are ... particularly if you don't share their opinion -- no matter which side you choose. Quite frankly other than a post or two to share your "opinion" - after that it becomes a waste of productive energy.
Location: Central Bay Area, CA as of Jan 2010...but still a proud Texan from Houston!
7,484 posts, read 10,443,487 times
Reputation: 8955
Quote:
Originally Posted by texas7
Take it with a grain of salt .... this is a topic that people LOVE to argue about and let you know how uneducated you are ... particularly if you don't share their opinion -- no matter which side you choose. Quite frankly other than a post or two to share your "opinion" - after that it becomes a waste of productive energy.
Thanks!
I wish it could be a more informative discussion. Just watching that video made me sick...that bloated traffic attorney missing that money!
This really is a serous topic that will impact Houston one way or the other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What argument have I lost? This is a discussion forum. The only people arguing are the ones that can't back up their facts with good data. I have backed up my discussion with good reason and solid factual data.
