|
| |
01/16/06 For Different Folks
I love the idea of red-light cameras, but not everyone
agrees.
Below are pro's and con's and an exchange between my good friend, Dr. Bill, and
me:
|
01/16/06 John Willis |
|
|
01/16/06
Sharon Boyd |
|
I'm split on this
red-light cameras issue. I understand the public safety issue here
and would completely support the cameras if that were the only issue.
My first problem is with who gets the
fine, the driver is not necessarily the
owner. I know the fines are civil, not
criminal. Can the car's
owner present a preponderance of evidence to show she
or he was not the driver and avoid the
fine? I don't know. In any case, the driver
needs to be the one responsible for the fine.
Other than people driving
responsibly, the real solution is stepped up
police enforcement. A ticket issued by a
police officer for running a red light carries a
much higher fine. A ticket from a police officer
holds up in court, if the officer shows up.
My second problem with red-light
cameras is what you now see in Garland. The
Safe Light program is now seen as a revenue source instead of a public
safety resource. Instead of it being used to
reduce accidents at problem
intersections, it is now a revenue stream to
be used to fund a controversial air unit for
the GPD. What would you like to bet when
revenue from intersections currently monitored drops
(which it will), more "problem"
intersections will be found from which to generate
more revenue? Will it be any different in Dallas? |
|
|
How are red-light cameras different from cameras at toll booths that catch people who don't pay?
The tollway ticket is sent to the car owner, not the driver. A recent TV newscast about
the guy who sold that infamous BMW (driven for awhile by
the FBI's favorite target),who got a bunch of letters from the tollway
folks demanding payment of fines for non-payment of toll fees, plus
additional penalties. There
will be ways to prove you did not own a vehicle when its driver ran a red light,
just like at toll booths. If you loan your car to someone who runs a
toll booth (or a red light in Garland), you are responsible for that
violation because you let them drive your car.
If we had the 750+ new officers we need vs. the 50 authorized by
city council, we could talk about stepped-up policing of intersections.
This is a huge city, and we cannot have officers at every intersection.
We don't have highway patrol at all toll booths. A police
officer-issued fine is higher, because it's CRIMINAL.
What's wrong with the cameras as a revenue source? Designate
it for "police new hires" or for a helicopter like Garland is doing.
If an intersection becomes safer and less revenue-producing, all the better
to add other intersections to the program.
As for "big brother", some of the people who screaming against red-light
cameras have toll tags on their vehicles. "Big brother" can know where
they drive and where they are at all times, just like with On-Star.
They love the convenience of toll tags and the security of On-Star.
Red-light cameras are a convenience to the Police Department; Garland has
proved they reduce red-light running. |
|
| |
|
01/15/06 David Stokes |
|
|
01/15/06
James (Chip) Northrup |
|
Please check on the problems
San Diego had with red light cameras. The
contractor who ran the lights for the city turned down
the length of yellow lights to increase the number of people
getting tickets (and their share of the money). This not only
made it so that only a few cars could get through the busy
intersections without fear of a ticket, it also backed up traffic.
Does Dallas have a good history of
picking good contractors?
Is Dallas traffic free flowing enough
that you won't risk a very expensive ticket trying
to get through an intersection?
Is the
Dallas City Council responsible enough to provide proper oversight
to make sure the public is not screwed in the process?
Would the Dallas
City Council use any additional revenue to hire cops, fix pot
holes, or fix non-Calatrava bridges?
By the way, if you are on the City
Council and driving a car that you do not know who
owns it, would you be liable for any red light camera
tickets? |
|
|
Of
the $75 fine, the City will get whatever it can negotiate with the camera
service providers. The high bidder will give the City the most money with
the most accurate system. That is not privatization of police work, that's
a money maker for the City.
The DPD wants those cameras.
The class action lawsuits in San
Diego and DC were caused by issuing traffic tickets to the owners of the
red-light runners - when
the city could not prove the owner was the driver.
Not the case here in Texas. The
CIVIL fine goes to the registered owner, the
driver is not ticketed. So,
the City does not have to prove who was driving the car. Get it ?
The results in Garland and other
cities speak for themselves. The cameras
deter running red lights. The city gets the
money, the state does not.
Once enough cities implement this,
the odds of the state taking a cut goes to zero.
So let's proceed. |
|
| |
|
1/16/06 Dr. W. K. Gordon, III |
|
|
1/16/06 Sharon Boyd |
|
|
This
is one issue where I cannot disagree more with you. Your Republican (big
government) idea of personal security by surrender of individual rights to
Big Brother is definitely showing. I'm sure you probably were all for
seizure of private property by eminent domain if the victims were crack
houses or topless clubs, but the problem is the slippery slope. You of all
people should be aware of where laws like this lead. |
|
|
If police
calls to the crack house were costing the city money. Yes, I
might support taking the house. |
|
| |
|
The
confiscation of property is a poor means to an arguably worthy end. The
problem with these laws is that they circumvent civil rights by essentially
making the property the criminal. Since property is not a person, civil
rights and due process do not apply. In the past these confiscatory laws
have led to severe abuses by law enforcement/government bureaucrats. The
sad fact is that it simply provides a "legal" excuse for the government to
bully and steal from individual citizens. That the press as well as the
politicians are fixated on the red light cameras as a cash cow, rather than
a safety measure (where the empirical data is hardly supportive of a
positive effect from them) is telling. I'm surprised you can't see this.
|
|
|
The bums
who were selling cars up the street from me on
their front yard got criminal tickets after repeated city
warning citations. The city also fined the property owner for allowing the
criminal activity to continue. This stuff doesn't happen over
night. They got lots of warning citations and
ignored them. Their rights stop where mine start. |
|
| |
|
What
does this have to do with red light cameras? If they ignore the citations,
then warrants should be issued, they should be arrested, and then they
should be fined, jailed, or both. The owner is not in control of the
property so he should not be liable. He should, however, be able to evict
his tenants for misusing his property. |
|
|
When you go
out on public streets, you are subject to public laws. |
|
| |
|
With
the red light cameras you can be fined without setting foot or tire on
public property. You don't even have to own the car; it could be a car you
sold that was not re-registered or a mistaken ID. With the red light camera
you ("your" car) would be assumed guilty under any circumstance. It would
be incumbent on you to prove your (or your car's) innocence. |
|
|
I hate eminent domain, and you know that. Since
everything in town is built out, we have to use it
for public bldgs (schools, jails, etc.), but not for
private use. |
|
| |
|
There is no registering of red light running people, only registering of
cars (or license paltes, actually) that are presumed to have run a red light
based on the claims of the red light camera company as to their product's
reliability. |
|
|
I cannot for
the life of me see how cameras at intersections registering red
light runners is an infringement of my or your rights. |
|
| |
|
Don't believe the hype. These systems have great value in terms of
generating cash for municipalities and red light camera companies, but their
effect on public safety is far less evident. They surely don't protect your
rights to due process. |
|
|
If
anything, the cameras protect my right to get to
and from my home in one piece. |
|
| |
|
Would that include alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, sugar, OTC and prescription
concoctions, and all the other "legal drugs in which we indulge with adverse
reactions and consequences? It would have to be a pretty big reservation!
But then, all the cars and houses confiscated in the process could generate
a lot of cash (if anyone were left to buy them). |
|
|
As for drug
laws, communities have a right to establish rules of conduct.
There are consequences to society when people use drugs. They get
sick, and I have to pay for their care. They
steal. They kill. I have no sympathy for
druggers. I would like to put them all on a reservation and give them
all the drugs they want. |
|
| |
|
The
drug black market would be severely undercut by decriminalization. A major
change would be that users could have some faith in what they were buying
and using, leading to a big decrease in the health problems. There are
still moonshiners and cigarette runners, but neither is a big problem,
except maybe those nefarious Cuban cigar smugglers. Doing drugs is dumb and
certainly to be discouraged, but a sad excuse for the sanctions put in place
under the "War on Drugs." Do you think your pal Laura was right in pushing
through the cigarette smoking ban in restaurants? Should a restaurant owner
have their restaurant confiscated if someone is caught smoking in it? Or
perhaps by a clandestine cigarette smoke detector? Have you ever heard of
the "slippery slope" concept of erosion of liberties and protections? |
|
|
Legalizing
drugs will not change anything. You will still have pushers
selling the stuff off books. You will still have users stealing and
worse to support their habit. You can afford to
live with a wall around your homes. If someone is
selling and using drugs in my neighborhood, it is a
disaster. I lived with that problem for over a year at Hood Street.
It is not a victimless crime. |
|
| |
|
Today, everyone (except a few white males,
perhaps) is a victim, of course. Surely you've been keeping up with that
phenomenon. I would hope there would be a
huge outcry over this travesty. |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
