Houston, TX : Group pushes for a vote on red light cameras

As someone who travels to Houston frequently--in fact, another trip to there later today--my experience is that Houstonians don't really worry much about them. The most agregious example (of many) was when I was once traveling on Westheimer towards and very near I-610. My redlight POI warning came up, I stopped, and then immediately saw two quick flashes of light as the cam caught two different cars through the intersection.

When in Houston, I am very careful to wait just a bit longer when my light turns green, because I'm worried about getting t-boned from a car going through a redlight on the crossing street.

Cameras seem like the new thing to do I guess. I just can believe how much things are turning out to be the police state. Cameras are comming, what's next? Police robots? Terminator.....

"Drop your weapon" (innocent pedestrian drops water pistol he bought for his son). "Drop your weapon... drop your weapon..."

Innocent pedestrian cut down by robotic machine-gun fire... manufacturer could not be reached for comment.

I think rlc is necessary for our safety, though sometimes it's really boring. We need to get detailed information of how the rlc works.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7146495.htm...

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7169043.htm...

So far there is no advanced enough robot. I think there is problem with their mobility and power sources are not lasting too long. So far they are limited to something like this:

Biometrics R&D firm Global Rainmakers Inc. (GRI) announced today that it is rolling out its iris scanning technology to create what it calls "the most secure city in the world." In a partnership with Leon -- one of the largest cities in Mexico, with a population of more than a million -- GRI will fill the city with eye-scanners. That will help law enforcement revolutionize the way we live -- not to mention marketers.

"In the future, whether it's entering your home, opening your car, entering your workspace, getting a pharmacy prescription refilled, or having your medical records pulled up, everything will come off that unique key that is your iris," says Jeff Carter, CDO of Global Rainmakers. Before coming to GRI, Carter headed a think tank partnership between Bank of America, Harvard, and MIT. "Every person, place, and thing on this planet will be connected [to the iris system] within the next 10 years," he says.

source: http://www.fastcompany.com/1683302/iris-scanners-create-the-...

But I'm sure that it's worth if one life can be saved [irony off]. And there is quite few people even on this forum that will like that idea. After all, if you have nothing to hide...
And just think, that we started with some people applauding CCTV and RL Cameras. They must feel safe like hell.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7194200.htm...

Which of the two sides involved in the Houston debate is the "special interest" group and why do you label that side as such?

That would be the red light camera "boosters". Somehow I doubt that they're your average private citizens; especially if they are pushing to suppress the rights of others to vote on the issue.

We have a similar situation here in Anne Arundel County with slot machines. AA County is going to have slot machines now, and that's fine... it keeps the revenue here in MD instead of having folks just go spend their money in another state.

Problem is, that's not good enough. The Cordish Companies, who are going to administer the program; want to put the slots at Arundel Mills Mall instead of at one of the local racetracks here, which was where it was originally inferred they would go in order to benefit the troubled horse-racing industry. There are lots of other reasons why many believe that slots should go to the racetrack but Cordish knows that they will make more money if they're in a heavily-trafficked residential area, like Arundel Mills Mall. They were doing everything they could to keep people from being given the opportunity to vote for or against the slots, and since that failed; are now threatening that if they don't get their way and get the slots at Arundel Mills, they'll pull out entirely.

Sounds more like a big baby than a company to me - one that needs to be reminded that they can't always get their way at the expense of everyone else.

I'm suspecting that the "boosters" could be put into a similar category.

- Phil

houston chronicle story on the issue

seems the Boosters of Houston will be running the cameras.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7194200.htm...

"Boosters of Houston's 70 red-light cameras are seeking to prevent a November vote on whether to ban the devices, alleging in a federal lawsuit that the initiative was placed on the ballot illegally and that it could violate the Voting Rights Act."

The United States is a republic - there is a significant difference.

And the citizens did vote for what they want - they elected the representatives who are charged with the duty to enact laws. That's how the process works.

I wasn't kidding. My question still stands?

What differentiates opponents of red-light cameras from proponents of red-light camera as far as one being labeled "special interest" and the other thought of as "average private citizens"?

If (in your terminology) the "average private citizens" have not followed the law in terms of getting an issue before voters, why should there not be a push back on general principles?

I think you're becoming overly concerned with terminology here - especially if you think it helps to make your point.

The reason I stated it that way, is simply due to the fact that the proponents of safety cameras are (usually) those who will financially benefit from them.

I'm not always against safety cameras, I think they have their place... especially the red light cameras when they are administered and configured properly.

The main point I was trying to make though is actually very simple - what I find interesting is the fact that they're trying to avoid a vote on the issue. That's it. If you are trying to do what's best for the people, then why not let them vote on it?

I'm always suspicious of any group trying to interfere with that process - and for good reason (in my humble opinion, of course).

- Phil

I do not think you can support a statement that there are citizens who are proponents of cameras who will "(usually) ... financially benefit" from them in the way you wish that phrase to be interpreted. I would say that proponents of cameras want to avoid being "financially" impacted by being in an accident caused by someone running a red-light. Certainly, the vendor company will benefit and I would think they are somehow involved in the suit.

Further, the group claiming that the call for a vote was illegal may very well include "opponents" of cameras who nevertheless feel that rules are rules and should be followed (even though they would love to see the cameras removed). I would hope that you would be part of such a group if you lived in Houston and felt that the law had not been followed.

I know that you want to frame the issue as "trying to do what's best for the people" but that very phrase should also apply to following the law.

When any group attempts to subvert a process (if that is the case and I do not believe either of us know for sure), then another group that "interferes" with that attempt should be applauded.

Perhaps I should have said "often" instead of "usually", as there have been plenty of cases of abusive policies towards motorists. This forum is full of examples.

As for the group including opponents of cameras; I certainly hope so, and agree that you could be right, but I think that it would be very interesting to know who constitutes the majority of this group.

No framing on my part... the laws are supposed to exist to try and "do what's best for the people", isn't that the whole point? We must however, keep in mind that those laws are written by people and are often imperfect in implementation and interpretation by those same aforementioned people. Because of this, we should be certain that the "needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few or the one", especially when the possibility exists for a small minority to benefit at the expense of others.

This is why it's important for EVERYONE to have an opportunity to vote on the matter.

I totally agree with that statement, and could not have said it better.

- Phil

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/metropolitan/7276380.htm...