Houston Red light cameras to go dark Monday

Turning the cameras off SAVES the taxpayers money. It's only a COST when the taxpayers have to pay their hard earned money to the city or govt.

Well the issue is still not settled,it is till in the newspaper here what they are going to do with them,and who may sue who.

Well, apparently there is a cancellation clause in the contract allowing for 90 days notice;

ATS may well go after the city because anyone can sue for any reason whatsoever. But I suspect they don't have much of a case, especially since the city had no mandate from the voters to sign the contract in the first place.

I think that ATS could well be wasting their money if they proceed with a suit.

Now, if we could just get the rest of the darned things removed from their perches.

Bad publicity is the reason ATS should not sue. Not that bad publicity would hurt ATS in Houston, but as the story got covered elsewhere, it would draw attention to citizens fighting back against these cameras, hurting future business in other places.

It occurs to me that I haven't heard any RLC warning sounds on this trip to Houston. The POI Factory must really be up-to-date!

No they have been turned off,read some of the previous discussions on this.

http://www.click2houston.com/news/28296052/detail.html

http://www.click2houston.com/download/2011/0620/28296008.pdf

Screw the camera companies. Put them out of business.

That's not a letter, that's a novel! I started reading it, then noticed how long it was.

The "letter" from ATS to the City of Houston which can be found in the link provided by Martin77429 several posts above is only 2 pages, so it should not take anyone very long to read it.

To make it easier to see what is in the PDF link, here is a table of contents:
1. ATS to City of Houston page 1
2. ATS to City of Houston page 2
3. Cover page Attachment 1
4. City of Houston to ATS
5. Cover Page Attachment 2
6. Complaint for Declaratory Judgment (CDJ) filed by City of Houston page 1
7. CDJ page 2
8. CDJ page 3
9. CDJ page 4
10. CDJ page 5
11. CDJ page 6
12. Cover Page Attachment 3
13. ATS to City of Houston page 1 (November 26, 2010)
14. ATS to City of Houston page 2
15. Cover Page Attachment 4
16. City Of Houston Attorney to ATS page 1 (November 24, 2010)
17. City Of Houston Attorney to ATS page 2
18. Cover Page Attachment 5
19. City of Houston Legal Department to Mayor of Houston page 1 (August 23, 2010)
20. City of Houston Legal Department to Mayor of Houston page 1
21. Cover Page Attachment 6
22. Crash Report 5 months prior page 1
23. Crash Report 5 months prior page 2
24. Cover Page Attachment 7
25. Crash Report 5 months after page 1
26. Crash Report 5 months after page 2

Seven of the 26 pages have only the word "Attachment" followed by a number

Four of the pages at the end are the crash statistics for the 5 months just prior to the red light cameera being turned off and the 5 months after. Now, statistically, the numbers in these two reports are suspect because they do not measure like seasonal time frames. However, you ought to look at them and see what you might conclude. The increase in accidents is significant and not likely to be a statistical fluke.

It's only two pages, yet you go on to list 26 pages of information (minus 7 "attachment" covers). I guess what I should have said was, "When I have nothing better to do, I'll go over the information before I say anything, because jgerrman will invariably find fault with whatever it is I say."

Is that better?

Hope we can get the cameras turned off in Tucson.