Tag Archives: red-light cameras

Red-light cameras to stay in operation

Let’s put the effort to ban cities from deploying red-light cameras on ice for another two years.

And then let us hope the Texas Legislature fails again to impose its will on cities who are seeking ways to prevent motorists from running through stop lights and endangering other motorists and pedestrians.

http://www.texastribune.org/2015/05/01/amid-investigation-activists-critical-red-light-ca/

The 2015 Legislature won’t enact a statewide ban on the cameras. It fell short of efforts to take that authority away from cities, where officials — including in Amarillo — have deployed the cameras.

I happen to be glad that Amarillo will be able to maintain the cameras.

What’s more, I am hopeful the next Legislature will decide in the state’s best interest to let cities control their own traffic destiny.

Of all the arguments I keep hearing in opposition to the cameras, the one that angers and amuses me the most is that the cameras “violate the rights” of motorists. What rights? Privacy? The right to “face an accuser”? The right of “due process”?

If we’re going to accept the rights violation argument, then let’s just tell cities to disband their police departments. Let’s take down speed limit signs. While we’re at it, let’s take security cameras out of stores that protect businesses against theft; those cameras, after all, violate our “rights,” too, by watching our every move while we’re shopping.

Amarillo should be hailed for its insistence that the red-light cameras are helping deter motorists from endangering others, not to mention themselves, when they run through stoplights. Other cities haven’t demonstrated that kind of backbone.

So, for now, thanks also belong to the Texas Legislature for leaving cities alone and letting them determine what’s best for the motor vehicle-driving public.

Red-light cameras 'unconstitutional'? Guess again

James Watson has filed a lawsuit against cities in Texas that deploy red-light cameras to catch those who run through intersections against signals that tell them they should stop.

Amarillo is one of them.

He got popped by a red-light camera in Southlake. So, to make his point, he’s going after other cities that use the devices as well.

This lawsuit needs to be thrown out on the plaintiff’s ear.

Watson contends that the cities’ ordinance violates the Texas Constitution and state law by depriving motorists of the “presumption of innocence, the right to trial by an impartial jury, the right to cross-examine witnesses and the right against self-incrimination.”

Oh, my.

What, then, do we do about police officers who catch motorists running through red lights? Do the cops who write the tickets also deny motorists the presumption of innocence and all those other rights that Watson lays out in his suit?

Amarillo City Attorney Marcus Norris said he believes the court will reduce the issues once it reviews the lawsuit. My own hunch is that the court might reduce them to zero, as in tossing the case out.

The lawsuit is as specious as they come.

If he hadn’t run the red light in the first place in Southlake, he wouldn’t be in a jam.

Count me as one who still strongly supports the red-light cameras in Amarillo. I do not want the Legislature to eliminate the law that allows cities to use them. Nor do I want the city to back down on its use because of complaints coming from a vocal minority of residents.

Which is it? Do red-light cameras work?

Those who believe red-light cameras at dangerous intersections do little or nothing to improve traffic safety ought to read the blog attached to this post.

http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/can-texas-house-handle-the-truth-on-benefits-of-red-light-cameras.html/

Dallas Morning News blogger/editorial writer Rodger Jones tries to remind those doubters that the cameras actually do some good and that he’s found some research that backs that notion up.

The Texas Legislature appears ready to forbid cities from deploying the cameras. Amarillo has done so and it has used the money generated by the fines collected to improve traffic safety in the city; state law requires cities to dedicate the money to that cause.

State Sen. Bob Hall, R-Edgewood, says the cameras don’t do any good. Jones disputed Hall’s contention and found some research by an institute affiliated with Texas A&M University that says the opposite of what Hall contends. Jones quotes the findings: “New research suggests that red light cameras help to reduce the number of crashes at intersections where they are installed. The study, although limited to Texas, is one of the most extensive thus far in the nation, and researchers say the findings demonstrate that the automated enforcement method offers an effective means of preventing crash-related deaths and injuries.”

There’s more. Take a look at it.

The point is that legislators have been accusing cities of implementing the cameras as money-makers. Never mind the restrictions placed on how cities can spend the revenue derived from enforcing laws against those who run red lights. The state sets strict limits on how cities can spend the money.

It’s also interesting that some legislators have become overnight civil libertarians, saying that motorists are denied the right to “face their accuser.” Hogwash! Motorists can appeal the fines and in some cases, such as in Amarillo, they’ve been able to persuade authorities to dismiss the charge.

Whatever. Jones’s blog makes the case that lawmakers such as Sen. Hall aren’t telling the whole story as they seek to strip cities of a tool some of them are using to make their streets safer.

'Home rule' on red-light cameras? Apparently not

You live in a Texas city and your elected officials — the folks who represent you and your neighbors — have decided to install cameras at dangerous intersections to deter motorists from running red lights.

Your city has the authority to do such a thing under Texas law. Not as it relates to red-light cameras.

The Texas Senate has sent to the House a bill that would ban cities from deploying the cameras, as Amarillo and dozens of other cities have done.

Well, there goes home rule.

Sen. Bob Hall has declared the cameras to be a failure across the state.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/state/texas/article19246596.html

The bill would allow the cameras on toll roads. Therefore, given that there isn’t a toll road within hundreds of miles of the Panhandle, we won’t have the cameras.

I believe it is a mistake for the Legislature to seek to read the minds of mayors, council members, city managers and traffic engineers on this issue.

Are the cameras popular among Amarillo motorists? No. It’s because they catch them doing something they aren’t supposed to do, which is try to sneak past street signals that have turned red or, in some drastic cases, race through the lights from a dead stop.

Then again, I remain unconvinced that most motorists detest the cameras enough to merit their removal. Some of them do and they have protested loudly.

Their voices have been heard — way down yonder in Austin.

Red-light cams under the gun in Senate

Did I dream this or is it for real?

Wasn’t there a time when Republicans sang the virtues of local control and said that local government knew better than state or federal officials how to deal issues of local concern?

Apparently, most members of the Texas Senate Transportation Committee think the state knows best as it regards red-light cameras.

http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/2015/04/texas-senate-committee-votes-to-approve-ban-on-redlight-cameras.html/

I believe the committee is mistaken.

The panel voted to ban cities and towns from deploying the devices to stop people from running red lights. Amarillo is one of those cities.

The author of the bill is state Sen. Bob Hall, R-Canton. “The public has expressed great opposition to the growing practice of unmanned, automatic-controlled traffic cameras,” Hall said.

Great opposition? Have there been massive protests? Have motorists marched on city halls across the state to demand removal of these devices?

Come on. Let’s get real.

Amarillo and a handful of other Texas cities have seen a need to crack down on a practice that puts the public in peril. So why not let cities deal with these issues the best way they can?

The full Texas Senate is going to get this bill. It’s full of Republicans who, I once thought, believed local control was the best control.

I think the words of my favorite Amarillo City Council member, Ellen Robertson Green, sums up the issue succinctly. She once told a protester at City Hall the best way to avoid being hassled by the camera is to “just don’t run the red light.”

Is that so difficult?

 

What? Cities can't decide these things?

Oklahoma Gov. Mary Fallin has signed a law that bans cities from enacting municipal minimum-wage standards for businesses within the city.

That’s strange. I have thought Republicans, such as Fallin, were categorically opposed to what they call “government overreach,” that local control should trump bigger-government control whenever possible?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/oklahoma-minimum-wage_n_5152496.html

Oklahoma cities, like cities in all the other states, do have this thing called “home rule charter” form government. I believe that enables cities to set the rules inside their corporate limits. Do I have that wrong?

Gov. Fallin’s signature on the bill now disallows cities from making that call.

It reminds me a bit of the Texas statute that used to prohibit cities from deploying red-light cameras if city officials perceived a problem with people running red lights, causing accidents and putting local residents in danger. That law has been amended and some cities — such as Amarillo — are using the cameras to catch those who run through red lights.

Those who support the Oklahoma minimum-wage ban say it “levels the playing field” for all cities. A GOP state representative said, “An artificial raise in the minimum wage could derail local economies in a matter of months. This is a fair measure for consumers, workers and small business owners.”

Sure thing. But if business owners agree that the $7.25 hourly wage is too low and are willing to pay more, don’t they have the right to do so if the city where they operate grants them permission?

Local control, man. Local control.

I thought that was preferable to patronizing Big Government.

 

Red-light cams up for scrutiny?

Amarillo isn’t Chicago, a fact that makes many residents in the Texas Panhandle quite grateful.

A story out of the Windy City, however, might serve warning for Amarillo traffic engineers to perhaps take a look at some technology being employed here to stop red-light runners.

http://dailysignal.com/2014/07/27/rahm-emanuel-seeks-quell-controversy-red-light-cameras-chicago/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social

Chicago city officials are reviewing thousands of citations issued as a result of motorists being caught by the electronic devices. They have issued many enough citations to generate about $400 million in revenue since 2007, about the time Amarillo deployed its red-light cameras at selected intersections.

Critics in Chicago have questioned the validity of the tickets, noting a dramatic increase in citations at certain intersections.

What’s the problem? Is it the vendor that supplied the equipment to Chicago? Is there some under-handedness going on that, given that it’s Chicago after all, isn’t surprising to some of us?

I continue to support the concept of using these devices to help police intersections where motorists frequently run through red lights. Chicago officials, though, note that the cameras there have produced only a negligible improvement in the safety on city streets.

That’s sure to bring out the critics in Amarillo, even though they seem to be relatively few.

Still, the questions surrounding Chicago’s deployment of the cameras should give other cities that use them reason to examine their own enforcement policies.

That should include little ol’ Amarillo, Texas.

Big government takes over in Louisiana

Can it be that big-government know-it-alls are running amok in the Louisiana Legislature?

And isn’t Louisiana a bastion of small-government, local-control ideology that prides itself on letting communities decide for themselves what’s best for their constituents?

Welcome to paternalistic, big-government (dare I say it?) socialism over yonder in Louisiana.

http://www.theneworleansadvocate.com/home/8778876-172/bill-to-curb-traffic-cameras

A Louisiana House committee has passed a bill that would enable the state to ban the use of electronic cameras to regulate traffic. You know, it’s those dreaded red-light cameras … kind of like those currently deployed right here in Amarillo.

According to the New Orleans Advocate, “The bill would ban local governments from using traffic cameras to issue tickets on state highways, including those within city limits, unless motorists are traveling more than 10 miles per hour over the posted speed limit.”

It passed the Louisiana House Transportation Committee by an 8-7 vote and now heads to the full House for what is likely to be a raucous debate.

The Texas Legislature once had a ban on cities deploying red-light cameras. Then it relented. Some cities now use them with varying degrees of success. Some cities have yanked them, citing public unhappiness over them.

State Rep. Jeff Arnold, D-New Orleans, a critic of the cameras, said, “We are here to stand up for the citizens.”

Well, OK. But what if some cities want the option of deploying them while allowing other cities to forgo them? Isn’t that the essence of small-government legislation? Let communities make these calls for themselves.

That’s not how some folks see it. Some in the Texas Legislature continue to harp on keeping the state’s hands wrapped tightly around these traffic enforcement policies. Meanwhile, mayors and senior city law enforcement authorities say they can use the electronic assistance in helping them enforce traffic laws.

Big government is supposed to be anathema in these so-called “red states,” right? But is it? Really?

What the … ? Red-light cams in hospital zone?

Allow me this prediction: The day the Amarillo City Council authorizes installation of red-light cameras on Coulter Street, smack in the middle of the city’s medical complex, is the day a recall petition will be launched to kick every one of them out of office.

I might even gather signatures myself to put it on the ballot.

Some leaders in Tamarac, Fla., though, apparently think it’s all right to bust red-light runners in emergency zones.

http://watchdog.org/132348/red-light-camera-hospital-emergency/

The idea at the Tamarac hospital zone is to catch those who run red-lights. The cameras take pictures of license plates, police track down the registered owner of the vehicle and the cops issue a citation. That’s how it’s done in Amarillo and in virtually all cities that have deployed these devices.

In Tamarac, however, the cameras are nabbing motorists rushing to the hospital to seek medical attention.

How fair is that? Not at all, if you ask me.

One guy ran a red light as he was rushing to the hospital. He got caught, went to court to appeal the fine and was told his medical emergency was not sufficient to warrant his running the light. The judge also slapped an additional penalty.

When I saw this story, I couldn’t believe it. I thought the source, Watchdog.org, was one of those farcical websites that pokes fun at public policy with fake news reports. Turns out the site is legit, and the story appears legit as well.

Amazing stuff.

Don’t even think about doing something like this, Amarillo City Hall.

Red-light camera signs: make ’em bigger

Let’s visit the issue of red-light cameras once more. An idea from a long-time acquaintance is worth sharing.

This acquaintance is a retired West Texas A&M University professor who says he supports the red-light cameras positioned at intersections throughout Amarillo. He recently got popped by one of them for scooting through an intersection; the camera snapped a picture of the license plate on his car — which he was driving — and he paid the fine.

No problem with that, he said.

But then he offered this interesting caveat. If the city is sincere in its contention that the cameras are not intended strictly as a revenue source, why not make them more visible?

Hmmm. Why not, indeed?

My pal noted that the signs are difficult to spot when you’re concentrating on traffic moving in two directions on a busy street. State law requires cities to position the signs at least 300 feet from the intersection where the camera is deployed. I’ll have to admit that I don’t usually notice the signs either along the streets on which I drive frequently.

I’ve been fortunate, though, in that I haven’t been ticketed for running a red light. I darn sure won’t burst through the intersection after coming to a complete stop.

I don’t believe state law stipulates that the signs must be a certain size.

So, if the city’s declaration that the cameras are intended to make driving safer in Amarillo, is there anything that prohibits the city from making the signs a bit larger, a bit gaudier, more noticeable to the average driver?

I continue to strongly support red-light cameras as a traffic-enforcement tool. The revenue aspect is negated somewhat by state law that requires the city to spend money only on traffic improvement. The jury is still out as to whether they’re reducing the number of accidents caused by motorists running through red lights.

Perhaps larger signage would help. Any thoughts on that?