Red Light Cameras in Texas Are Now Banned

[Asithappens 974]

I don't like the rlc's, but I don't hate them, either. Take away the perceived for-profit aspect, and get rid of the bullshit shortening of yellow lights, and the rlc are not all bad.

They have improved traffic flow in some places by preventing intersection gridlock. 

[bernorange 8375]

15 hours ago, ztejas said:

Because law enforcement should be people enforcing the law against other people. I'd rather not live under Skynet. 

This.  Computers and automated systems can be manipulated (short cycling is already a thing, further abuses are possible).  Joe Sixpack isn't going to be auditing these things.  People shouldn't be so quick to throw away the onus of due process.

More importantly for me personally, the surveillance state has been experiencing tremendous growth in the last decade.  If RLCs were ubiquitos, they would be a tempting target for a nationwide traffic surveillance system.  I imagine it wouldn't take much to adapt the systems to track/log all traffic flow.  That's dangerous to a free society.

[bernorange 8375]

double post

Edited June 4, 2019 by bernorange
damnit

[Asithappens 974]

9 minutes ago, bernorange said:

This.  Computers and automated systems can be manipulated (short cycling is already a thing, further abuses are possible).  Joe Sixpack isn't going to be auditing these things.  People shouldn't be so quick to throw away the onus of due process.

More importantly for me personally, the surveillance state has been experiencing tremendous growth in the last decade.  If RLCs were ubiquitos, they would be a tempting target for a nationwide traffic surveillance system.  I imagine it wouldn't take much to adapt the systems to track/log all traffic flow.  That's dangerous to a free society.

Eh, I think in the case of (some) rlc's this is a bit overblown.

Some (most?) municipalities provide a like to a video which shows your "violation". 

[Asithappens 974]

And as bad as rlc's are, I find speed limit cameras, like in the UK, to be an abomination. 

[ztejas 43746]

4 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Some (most?) municipalities provide a like to a video which shows your "violation". 

Yes. That's the point. 

"We have a video of you doing it, even though we can't produce any witnesses and an officer wasn't at the scene."

That's a precedent that should scare everyone. 

[C-Man 27353]

Have gotten three of these — one in Addison, one in Farmers Branch and one at Mockingbird/75 in Dallas. Haven’t paid the third one yet as I just got it a couple months back. Tell them to pound sand on the last one and just let it go?

[Gene Parmesan 4023]

Heard on the radio that cities that have contracts are allowed to let those play out before removing.  I'm assuming they are still allowed to assess fines and such then, and still attempt to block registrations for unpaid tickets?

Edited June 4, 2019 by Gene Parmesan

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

7 minutes ago, C-Man said:

Have gotten three of these — one in Addison, one in Farmers Branch and one at Mockingbird/75 in Dallas. Haven’t paid the third one yet as I just got it a couple months back. Tell them to pound sand on the last one and just let it go?

You could always do that up to a point.  It’s just an unsecured debt really.  

But I think that ticket is just as “valid” as one from 3 years ago or so.  Fight it with the request for a copy of the required study they never did.  

Actually in a lot of cases you can just show up for your “hearing” and they will drop it because their marginal cost of dealing with it puts them in the red.  Especially if they think you have a decent argument   

 

[Zavala 1384]

Ask to face your accuser. It's a recording device, not a person..

[Dennis Taylor 19051]

1 hour ago, Asithappens said:

I don't like the rlc's, but I don't hate them, either. Take away the perceived for-profit aspect, and get rid of the bullshit shortening of yellow lights, and the rlc are not all bad.

They have improved traffic flow in some places by preventing intersection gridlock. 

fuck that noise...don't kid yourself, the for-profit aspect is the whole point. If they were concerned about safety they would have cops posted up at all those intersections

[Pasken 1309]

7 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

fuck that noise...don't kid yourself, the for-profit aspect is the whole point. If they were concerned about safety they would have cops posted up at all those intersections

What cops? Austin PD is way understaffed and the problem is going go get worse with the new tax caps. It would be nice to be able to use automation for something so black and white and decrease our dependence and money we spend on police.

I would rather have a cop patrolling a neighborhood and creating the sense of security than sitting at an intersection doing something that a simple camera can do. What a waste.

Edited June 4, 2019 by Pasken

[Dennis Taylor 19051]

1 minute ago, Pasken said:

What cops? Austin PD is way understaffed and the problem is going go get worse with the new tax caps. It would be nice to be able to use automation for something so black and white and decrease our dependence and money we spend on police.

Know how I know you've never gotten a red light camera ticket? 

[Pasken 1309]

2 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

Know how I know you've never gotten a red light camera ticket? 

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 

 

They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Pasken

[Gene Parmesan 4023]

12 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

fuck that noise...don't kid yourself, the for-profit aspect is the whole point. If they were concerned about safety they would have cops posted up at all those intersections

I'm with you for the first part, but your second sentence is idiotic.  That is a horrible waste of resources, and would be a terrible solution for what could be a legitimate concern about safety. 

[Pogo 284]

1 hour ago, ztejas said:

"We have a video of you doing it, even though we can't produce any witnesses and an officer wasn't at the scene."

That's a precedent that should scare everyone. 

That's exactly why the law that allowed these cameras deemed the offenses as "civil infractions" rather than an actual crime.  They can't treat it like a crime with things like points on your driving record, jail time, a trial in front of a judge, etc.  They can't even report your debt to a credit agency.

 

46 minutes ago, Liquor and Poker said:

Actually in a lot of cases you can just show up for your “hearing” and they will drop it because their marginal cost of dealing with it puts them in the red.  Especially if they think you have a decent argument  

Not exactly.  Your "hearing" consists of sitting in front of another cop who looks at the video/photo evidence with you and then says you still owe them $75 regardless of any defense you provide.  Their dealing with it as that point is a sunk cost.  They have no incentive to drop it even if they think you have a decent argument.  They're banking on your guilty conscience to make you pay.

[TexMex Horn 68]

Some very interesting replies. seems we have a few different reasons; The 'operational group" which thinks that they aren't doing it correctly or as advertised. The ACLU group that feels like they infringe upon their rights. & finally, the  R.L.Rs, red light runners, who don't want to be caught.

[Dennis Taylor 19051]

2 minutes ago, Pasken said:

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 

 

They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html

 

whatever jackass...a right on red without a 5 second stop when there is no one approaching within a half mile of the intersection is not dangerous to anyone. are you in favor of speeding tickets through technology too?    

[Jersey Man10 3663]

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 
 
They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html
 

Fuck off cunt.

[Spankytoes 1747]

2 hours ago, Pasken said:

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 

 

They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html

 

Walk me through my defense, since I am presumed innocent before being proven guilty. I get a red light camera ticket 2 months after the alleged incident. The ticket itself shows my car, my license plates and has a timestamp but does not conclusively prove that I ran any red light. How am I supposed to remember the details of the incident when I may not be aware that I've run a red light or did in fact not run a red light? But wait, red light tickets aren't actual tickets. If you don't pay, you don't go to jail, you get strongly worded letters from collection agencies. So I'm still out there, running red lights and shit, not paying your arbitrary fine that has not been passed into law and the roads are no better for it.

Makes sense. 

[Liquor and Poker 3659]

2 hours ago, Pogo said:

Not exactly.  Your "hearing" consists of sitting in front of another cop who looks at the video/photo evidence with you and then says you still owe them $75 regardless of any defense you provide.  Their dealing with it as that point is a sunk cost.  They have no incentive to drop it even if they think you have a decent argument.  They're banking on your guilty conscience to make you pay.

I think that's somewhat true, but the fact that they have to set the whole thing up is the kickover.  Once they're committed to that course, have the cop there, etc., I think you're right that they don't care anymore.  But if you can get them to not want to bother, then you can get out of it.

I've done it a few times in the Dallas area.  Three times (1 for me, 2 for my wife), the fact that we were willing to show with papers in hand led them to take us into an office where a guy in a suit said "we're dismissing it.  drive carefully."  That was it. 

That contrasts markedly to their demeanor prior to the hearings.  For mine, in Garland, I had proof I had sold the car several years prior.  One of my wife's was in Dallas and the video clearly showed was a legal stop and then right turn on red.  In both cases, we were trying to fix things the rational way - trying to talk to someone rational without a full-blown hearing, and they were having none of it.  Just giving us the full debt collector/prosecutor tough guy act.  But the hearings came and they just wrote them off.

So I would schedule a hearing to make them spend the money, and maybe they just won't.

[Pasken 1309]

26 minutes ago, Spankytoes said:

Walk me through my defense, since I am presumed innocent before being proven guilty. I get a red light camera ticket 2 months after the alleged incident. The ticket itself shows my car, my license plates and has a timestamp but does not conclusively prove that I ran any red light. How am I supposed to remember the details of the incident when I may not be aware that I've run a red light or did in fact not run a red light? But wait, red light tickets aren't actual tickets. If you don't pay, you don't go to jail, you get strongly worded letters from collection agencies. So I'm still out there, running red lights and shit, not paying your arbitrary fine that has not been passed into law and the roads are no better for it.

Makes sense. 

The roads are better off for it. Read the like I posted. Also, according to KEYE, the leftover portion of revenue after paying for maintaining the system from the cams went toward sidewalks near schools.

[Pasken 1309]

42 minutes ago, Jersey Man10 said:

2 hours ago, Pasken said:

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 
 
They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS
https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html
 

Read more  

Fuck off cunt.

How clever.

[ztejas 43746]

3 hours ago, Pasken said:

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 

 

They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html

 

It's funny how no one has pointed out how mind-numbingly stupid this article is. 

The IIHS said red-light-running crashes caused 709 deaths and 126,000 injuries in 2014. That represents 2 percent of the 32,675 people killed in traffic accidents in 2014, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

From the time they went into operation through 2014, red-light cameras across all 79 large U.S. cities included in the study saved nearly 1,300 lives, IIHS concluded.

If that number doesn't jump out to you as complete horseshit I'd recommend an intro to statistics course. 

[Pasken 1309]

17 minutes ago, ztejas said:

It's funny how no one has pointed out how mind-numbingly stupid this article is. 

The IIHS said red-light-running crashes caused 709 deaths and 126,000 injuries in 2014. That represents 2 percent of the 32,675 people killed in traffic accidents in 2014, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. 

From the time they went into operation through 2014, red-light cameras across all 79 large U.S. cities included in the study saved nearly 1,300 lives, IIHS concluded.

If that number doesn't jump out to you as complete horseshit I'd recommend an intro to statistics course. 

How is it horseshit? 1,300 lives starting in the mid 90s to 2014?

[conVINCEd 21474]

Do you work for the red light camera company?

[Pasken 1309]

1 minute ago, conVINCEd said:

Do you work for the red light camera company?

No. I've just never had a problem with them and I see the appeal of not putting resources into cops sitting on their asses pulling people over for traffic violations. It also makes intersections safer and saves lives. 

[Asithappens 974]

3 hours ago, Dennis Taylor said:

fuck that noise...don't kid yourself, the for-profit aspect is the whole point. If they were concerned about safety they would have cops posted up at all those intersections

Let's peel this onion back a few layers.

Would municipalities enact rlc's if there weren't a financial payoff for them? Probably not. But that does not mean it's the whole point, imo.

Whether you (or others) choose to admit it, there are some (or at times) positive aspects to the rlc's. Those positive aspects do play a part in this. 

Are the number of accidents reduced? Maybe, maybe not, but there are data to suggest that the type of accident is less dangerous (rear-end vs. t-bone). And, in my town, it has cured the problem of intersection gridlock. That alone is worth it, imo, at least at that particular intersection.

[Dennis Taylor 19051]

12 minutes ago, Asithappens said:

Let's peel this onion back a few layers.

Would municipalities enact rlc's if there weren't a financial payoff for them? Probably not. But that does not mean it's the whole point, imo.

Whether you (or others) choose to admit it, there are some (or at times) positive aspects to the rlc's. Those positive aspects do play a part in this. 

Are the number of accidents reduced? Maybe, maybe not, but there are data to suggest that the type of accident is less dangerous (rear-end vs. t-bone). And, in my town, it has cured the problem of intersection gridlock. That alone is worth it, imo, at least at that particular intersection.

 

 I believe that RLC are no better than this...

  

or this

or this

 

and they don't have to give the camera insurance, a pension, or paid time off. if the companies selling the cameras are not giving the cities the profits they promised because people don't pay the bullshit fines, tough shit.  studies about collisions etc don't prove shit, and can easily be skewed for the desired outcome.   

now they are outlawed in Texas, so even better.     

[Spankytoes 1747]

35 minutes ago, Pasken said:

How is it horseshit? 1,300 lives starting in the mid 90s to 2014?

How were the stats pre-Mid 90's? Do you have data to show these these work on a significant level to curb what you claim to be the benefit? By the logic presented, Uber has decreased the number of DWIs people get before it was available nationwide. Shouldn't the government provide a slush fund for citizens to use Uber instead of spending it on the imprisonment, prosecution and fines assessed for people driving drunk? I guarantee it would be much cheaper to do that and would significantly curb the issue, therefore potentially savings lives. The government doesn't make a profit on that though.

Stats are fun because you can misrepresent them any way you want.

 

Edited June 4, 2019 by Spankytoes

[Asithappens 974]

7 minutes ago, Dennis Taylor said:

 

 I believe that RLC are no better than this...

  

or this

or this

 

and they don't have to give the camera insurance, a pension, or paid time off. if the companies selling the cameras are not giving the cities the profits they promised because people don't pay the bullshit fines, tough shit.  studies about collisions etc don't prove shit, and can easily be skewed for the desired outcome.   

now they are outlawed in Texas, so even better.     

Like I say to the evangelicals who refuse to accept evolution and think Trump is Jesus 2.0: you can believe whatever the hell you want to believe.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4980]

21 hours ago, Asithappens said:

Let's peel this onion back a few layers.

Would municipalities enact rlc's if there weren't a financial payoff for them? Probably not. But that does not mean it's the whole point, imo.

Whether you (or others) choose to admit it, there are some (or at times) positive aspects to the rlc's. Those positive aspects do play a part in this. 

Are the number of accidents reduced? Maybe, maybe not, but there are data to suggest that the type of accident is less dangerous (rear-end vs. t-bone). And, in my town, it has cured the problem of intersection gridlock. That alone is worth it, imo, at least at that particular intersection.

While I agree that red light cameras do have the slight positive aspect of reducing gridlock in some instances, if it were truly about safety instead of revenue why have so few municipalities done the proper traffic engineering studies they are required to do by law before implementing them? 

[Uncle Nate 2097]

You all would fucking despise Switzerland, then.  They do all traffic enforcement with cameras, and if you go through a yellow, you are getting a ticket.  Speed is done by cameras, yellow/red lights done by cameras, everything.  And guess what?  There is no appeal.  You do the deed, you get fined.

I have to admit after two weeks over there I definitely prefer the traffic circle to the stoplight intersection...the only exception to that were a couple of traffic circles in Bern that were entirely too messed up:  traffic circle + stoplight + pedestrian crossing + tram crossing...all in the same damn circle.  That was absurd.  Otherwise, the traffic circles were extremely effective in traffic control.

[hobbes2702 13153]

On 6/4/2019 at 9:44 AM, Pasken said:

Yea, I don't run red lights because I'm not a dumb asshole. 

 

They may be annoying, but red-light cameras save lives: IIHS

https://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/27/they-may-be-annoying-but-red-light-cameras-save-lives-iihs.html

 

Actually they cause more accidents.

[hobbes2702 13153]

22 hours ago, Pasken said:

No. I've just never had a problem with them and I see the appeal of not putting resources into cops sitting on their asses pulling people over for traffic violations. It also makes intersections safer and saves lives. 

It doesn’t actually. It makes intersections more dangerous

[Gene Parmesan 4023]

Studies show that the cause more accidents, studies show that they cause less accidents, and studies show they have no effect. 

You want a study?  I can get you a study, believe me.  There are ways Dude.  You don't want to know about it, believe me.  Hell I can get you a study by 3 o'clock this afternoon.

[Uncle Nate 2097]

As my dad always said, "There are lies, there are damn lies, and then there are statistics."