Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Houston
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-31-2010, 08:39 AM
 
Location: Spring, TX
460 posts, read 2,427,997 times
Reputation: 386

Advertisements

Poor tax or not, the cameras are placed where people "run" red lights. Whether the intent is to raise revenue or reduce red light running doesn't matter. That's where the violations occur. Cameras are not placed where there are no violations Why would any idiot, government or private industry, do that? So spin your conspiracy theories all you want, but if there are more cameras near HUD homes or low income areas, it's because the people who drive in that area (whether they live there or commute thru) are "running" red lights.

Duh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Houston, Tx
3,644 posts, read 6,307,757 times
Reputation: 1633
Hey, this is red-light related so I thought I'd ask here. Is it considered legal to continue through the intersection when the light turns red as long as part of your car was in the intersection when the light was still yellow? That's the law in Florida and I just wanted to make sure it was the same here. Otherwise I'm going to be getting a stack of tickets in the mail at the end of the month.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:21 AM
 
Location: #
9,598 posts, read 16,571,410 times
Reputation: 6324
Quote:
Originally Posted by tdhg566 View Post
Poor tax or not, the cameras are placed where people "run" red lights. Whether the intent is to raise revenue or reduce red light running doesn't matter. That's where the violations occur. Cameras are not placed where there are no violations Why would any idiot, government or private industry, do that? So spin your conspiracy theories all you want, but if there are more cameras near HUD homes or low income areas, it's because the people who drive in that area (whether they live there or commute thru) are "running" red lights.

Duh!
I'll give you a hint. It begins with "m" and ends in "oney".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2010, 09:22 AM
 
Location: Houston/Brenham
5,819 posts, read 7,237,559 times
Reputation: 12317
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogerbacon View Post
Hey, this is red-light related so I thought I'd ask here. Is it considered legal to continue through the intersection when the light turns red as long as part of your car was in the intersection when the light was still yellow? That's the law in Florida and I just wanted to make sure it was the same here. Otherwise I'm going to be getting a stack of tickets in the mail at the end of the month.
As long as any part of your vehicle has entered the intersection before the light is red, you are safe.*

About the only exception is entering an intersection when you know you can't clear it (IOW, blocking an intersection). You can get ticketed for that.

*This is what enables a driver to pull forward into the intersection when attempting a non-protected left turn. You often can only finish the turn (AKA clear the intersection) AFTER the light turns red. 100% legal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2010, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Baytown
448 posts, read 702,755 times
Reputation: 207
People run red lights at nearly all locations so that is a little bit of a weak argument. Often the camera company identifies intersections that have problems that artificially increase violations like short yellow lights knowing they will get more tickets and more revenue. And since, in many cases the company puts up the cameras they are put up not where there are a lot of the most serious red light runners and fatalities but where they think they can make the most money those aren't always the same. The intersections that might benefit the most from cameras (if you really think they work) often don't get a camera because the lower traffic volume won't pay for the cameras. I can give you a specific example, in Baytown there was only one of the proposed intersections for the initial installation that had a traffic fatality in the last 3-5 years. Wouldn't that be the first place you put a camera if it was really about safety? It wasn' until almost 2 years later that the put up a camera there. Also, if you look at where the highest % of officer written red light tickets were before the cameras went up it was on North Main street, but not one single camera was put up there, instead it was at the intersection near the krogers and where the main road hits I-10 where all of the out of town traffic stops for gas and something to eat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tdhg566 View Post
Poor tax or not, the cameras are placed where people "run" red lights. Whether the intent is to raise revenue or reduce red light running doesn't matter. That's where the violations occur. Cameras are not placed where there are no violations Why would any idiot, government or private industry, do that? So spin your conspiracy theories all you want, but if there are more cameras near HUD homes or low income areas, it's because the people who drive in that area (whether they live there or commute thru) are "running" red lights.

Duh!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2010, 03:32 PM
 
1,164 posts, read 2,060,020 times
Reputation: 819
Quote:
Originally Posted by baytownb View Post
These videos rarely end up in any courts and even if the camera catches someone on the street killing someone they can't use the video to prosecute.
Why not? They should be releasable both under the Texas Open Records Act and discovery. Didn't a TV station get tapes released a few years back and do an expose on police cars running red lights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-31-2010, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Baytown
448 posts, read 702,755 times
Reputation: 207
Because it is against the law; (you can also read the entire law to see if your city is following the law)

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u...pdf/TN.707.pdf

Sec. 707.006 General Surveillance prohibited; OFFENSE
a) a local authority shall operate a photographic traffic signal control enforcement system only for the purpose of detecting a violation or suspected violation of a traffic control signal.
b) a person commits an offense if the person uses a photographic traffic signal control enforcement system to produce a recorded image other than in the manner and for the purpose specified by this chapter.
c) an offense under this section is a class A misdemeanor.


I know that you and I can request the videos and they release them, but I don't know how that is legal, but I know for a fact that there have been crimes committed that the cameras caught crucial footage related to it and the police can't use it. I think mainly if it is a criminal charge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmyev View Post
Why not? They should be releasable both under the Texas Open Records Act and discovery. Didn't a TV station get tapes released a few years back and do an expose on police cars running red lights?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 09:29 AM
 
Location: Baytown
448 posts, read 702,755 times
Reputation: 207
What happens when profits for the camera companies are down as much as 92% because of considerable public opposition to their dangerous systems? Photo parking tickets! Coming soon to a street sweeper near you! Anything to make a buck California Legislature to Authorize Photo Parking Tickets
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 01:30 PM
 
Location: Houston/Brenham
5,819 posts, read 7,237,559 times
Reputation: 12317
Quote:
Originally Posted by baytownb View Post
What happens when profits for the camera companies are down as much as 92% because of considerable public opposition to their dangerous systems? Photo parking tickets! Coming soon to a street sweeper near you! Anything to make a buck California Legislature to Authorize Photo Parking Tickets
I read the article, but I'm confused. Is it aimed at people who park when there should be no parking (eg, 4-6pm), or people whose time has expired? If it's aimed at expired time parkers, how on earth would that work? I have a small slip of paper on my dash that is my parking receipt. No way they could photo that.

If it's the illegal parkers, go ahead. Better that then being towed, which is the usual solution. Why shouldn't someone illegally parked get a ticket?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-02-2010, 05:53 PM
 
Location: Baytown
448 posts, read 702,755 times
Reputation: 207
I think it might be for certain time periods when sweepers come by. If you remember from the article they would have to have a picture of the vehicle and the signage in the same photo. How often is that going to happen? More than likely they will do like they do with all the other camera systems and just throw out a wide net, guilty, not guilty or otherwise not hold themselves to the rules and just hope that enough people blindly send in a check. Why should someone who isn't illegally parked get a ticket? Why shouldn't there be an actual live enforcement person there that can exercise judgement before they get to deprive someone of their money? What will be a person's recourse if they received an improper ticket? Are they going to take off work to fight it or just give in and send in a check?

Quote:
Originally Posted by astrohip View Post
I read the article, but I'm confused. Is it aimed at people who park when there should be no parking (eg, 4-6pm), or people whose time has expired? If it's aimed at expired time parkers, how on earth would that work? I have a small slip of paper on my dash that is my parking receipt. No way they could photo that.

If it's the illegal parkers, go ahead. Better that then being towed, which is the usual solution. Why shouldn't someone illegally parked get a ticket?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Texas > Houston
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top