Texas Governor Greg Abbott after signing a bill banning red light cameras in the Lone Star State. Photo: Twitter

Texas Gov. Makes Life-Saving Red Light Cameras Illegal

With a knowing smirk and a steely gaze, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott set public safety back decades this weekend when he outlawed traffic cameras in the Lone Star State.

StreetsBlogUSA - continues

 

There are also statics that say you are better off without them so...

https://www.motorists.org/issues/red...ase-accidents/

 

+1! Red light cameras and short yellow lights exist to generate revenue!

 

Yep. Companies sell their cameras to states to generate revenue and in return get money to "manage and maintain" the cameras. It seems to be more about making money then being safe!!

 

Your link here is a little suspect. The article linked articles from their own site! When looking a little closer, they make conclusions that aren't even what the source made! Lets look at the first link of their "Reports From The Media".

motorists.org states - A local TV station fact-checked the city’s claims that their ticket cameras reduced accidents and found that the opposite was true. At 20 of the 32 intersections studied, accidents increased and several intersections tripled their accident rate

No it doesn't! Read the article. It states - The audit released Wednesday blames police for not adequately compiling statistics at the 32 intersections where red light cameras are installed, making it difficult to conclude whether they are effective.

If you bothered to read the article, it states that there's many tickets but they are going unpaid. The article states in part and is basically the whole message in the article;

A September audit questioned the effectiveness of the 4-year-old program, finding that 56,000 citations worth more than $7 million in potential revenue have gone unpaid. Police blame the court system for not aggressively going after violators who fail to pay their tickets.

I guess we can make the deduction that if we did't have the cameras, things would be better? Sorry I'm not following your logic here!

(If you need me to go into more details on what you have provided, I can if wanted.)

 

From what I've read, it may slightly increase low-speed rear-ending but decreases more dangerous t-boning accidents.

Does it make money for the gov't? Probably. Is that terrible? No.

 

then ≠ than

Maybe you can provide some study that supports your view? I'm hoping you can do better than the first post.

 

Jeez man - I don't think any of us feel as strongly about this as you do.

 

Regardless of the revenue-generating argument against red light cameras, they violate a citizen's right to due process, operating within a very grey area in the Texas constitution, and under the assumption that it wouldn't be challenged at the state level and presuming that the registered owner of the car committed a violation.

Local municipalities that keep the fine revenue weren't paying the county tax assessor's office process to the requests they were sending to add drivers to the no-renewal list. Some of the county tax assessors have said that current staff could not handle that magnitude of requests and still do their current assigned duties. In addition, the registration renewal refusal was county assessors' departments money as drivers would just opt out of or delay renewing their registration, so the department wasn't getting the operating revenue to keep the budgets whole. So several county tax assesors have just stopped the tracking and enforcement.

This was just one more mechanism of overreach at the local level, and I'm glad someone put their foot down. The cameras won't go away for a while due to some of the contracts in place, however it will be likely that any fines will be hard to enforce.

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/texa...p-becoming-law

 

Jeez man, you would think people would add some legitimate support to their views or stance.............. unless this is some religious cult here?

 

Sounds like the biggest issue people have with these cameras is that it assumes the registered owner is the violator. This can easily be solved by requiring a good pic of the driver with the data. No pic and it can't be assumed the owner is the driver. The argument that these cams are a money maker is ridiculous! Don't break the law and it doesn't make money!

We have cams here in CA. It's at some pretty heavily trafficked intersections. I'm glad they're there as it would be far more dangerous without them. Should be interesting how TX manage without cams. I'm betting higher fatalities will be the results.

 

I don't remember where I read it but anyone can Google whatever they want and come to a conclusion on their own.

You are pationate about this issue and that is great. We have them in my state and I don't have a problem with them.

There are studies that support all sides of any issue.

 

You're correct that anyone can Google, but that doesn't necessarily make you an expert. You still have to read and make your own conclusions or trust what you have read. I'm not sure where you are on this progression. Looks like you just Googled something and posted it up? You actually believe the link you posted? I didn't even look that hard and made it look awful. I'm sure going through it thoroughly would not make it look any better.

I am more "pationate" (passionate?) in drawing a good conclusion that can be followed and hopefully believed.

In regards to studies that support all sides. Very very rarely does that ever happen. That is as long as studies have been done following the scientific method. Trusting that reporters have come to rational conclusion following the scientific method or principal is quite helpful too. That was not followed with the link you provided and I personally would never follow that motorist.org site.

 

Those cameras are nothing more than a revenue stream for the cities that have them. My take is there is nothing safety about them. Life saving, what a crock of $#@*. Glad to see them going away. Just my .02.....

 

So much for objective journalism.

 

What's next, accusations that McDonnell Douglas really benefit from fire suppression activities and the fires are just a revenue stream for them?

 

Hello sneefy, can you point out to everyone where I said this?

 

Did you read the article you linked? It's the first sentence of the first paragraph.

Or are you going to say I misattributed it to you and should have cited the source?

 

God bless texas!

 

Oh my bad, I thought I supposedly said that. Yeah that was probably the weakest part of the article. I didn't see any smirking or anything like that in the video. Not like what we'd see from the likes of our great, greatest president. :rotfl: