Texas House OKs bill on red-light camera use (two years to prove devices aid safety or remove them)

 

Texas sunset law for red light cams

"...prove the devices promote safety or remove them."

The phrase that worries me. The village idiot can produce stats that "prove" red light cams "promote safety".

I applaud the amendment but it simply does not go far enough to define the actual goals required of the red light cams to justify their continued use.

You could prove anything...

They could make those statistics say anything they want. Red light cameras aren't going anywhere.

yep

I have to agree give a statistician enough information and they can make it prove anything you want.

There's an old saying...

Archer wrote:

I have to agree give a statistician enough information and they can make it prove anything you want.

Figures don't lie...and any liar can figure.

This is especially true in TV ratings...if the lowest rated show moves up one spot on the list - they advertise how the ratings for the show went up 1000% or something like that when they're really still circling the bowl on the way down & out... smile

--
*Keith* MacBook Pro *wifi iPad(2012) w/BadElf GPS & iPhone6 + Navigon*

Sadly but true

It is such a cash cow and the municipals will fight to keep them. When property tax is raised to insane level (almost 3% in my city) they have to find other ways to create new revenue stream....

Jeff

Houston lawyer: Loophole voids red-light camera tickets

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5791176.html

Quote:

Attorney Randall Kallinen said drivers should appeal their tickets because the affidavits that back up the video images are "conclusory," instead of based on evidence. "Conclusory" is a legal term for an assertion that is not backed up by facts.

"Anyone challenging a red-light camera ticket under this should have their case dismissed," Kallinen said. "The affidavits are not sufficient to take your hard-earned money."

Only 54 people have appealed ... since Sept 2006

Quote:

The city has issued more than 260,000 citations since the red-light camera program began Sept. 1, 2006. Only 54 people have appealed those to an administrative judge.

COST to INSTALL

I can only speak for my location - the city fathers came up with the idea to install cameras @ two locations - contracts were awarded at high dollar to the tax payer - at one location (next to a restaurant) the system had to be replaced twice because of customers backing over the camera - again at tax payer expense -but yet the city fathers said these were safety issues - the local law enforcement continues to maintain that the revenu collected will not only pay for the camera but put dollars in the coffer - my point - tax payers will contiue to pay and the cameras will remain in use - Have a Great day from TEXAS

--
CW -------Please Remember Those Who Are Serving & Those Who Have Perished Defending Our Freedom-------1Sgt(Ret)

Trial by Jury

Martin77429 wrote:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5791176.html

Quote:

Attorney Randall Kallinen said drivers should appeal their tickets because the affidavits that back up the video images are "conclusory," instead of based on evidence. "Conclusory" is a legal term for an assertion that is not backed up by facts.

"Anyone challenging a red-light camera ticket under this should have their case dismissed," Kallinen said. "The affidavits are not sufficient to take your hard-earned money."

Part of the new law that came in with the sunset law is that the accused can now request to have a trial by jury rather than just the hearing officer like it has been in the past. This came effective as of Sept of last year. I bet if you go in and ask for a jury trial, they'll probably drop it then. Costs more for a jury than the $75 would cover. smile

But the deal is that most people will just pay the $75 and go about their day since it does not cost them anything else. Most won't want to take off from work and wait to see the hearing officer who is going to do anything that they can to dissuade you from fighting it. That is why they don't do the points and $350 like they do in California. Less fight, more money.

Just part of the game....

--
I knew I shoulda made a left turn at Albuquerque! -- Bugs Bunny

City does not pay a dime.....

Chriswilson wrote:

I can only speak for my location - the city fathers came up with the idea to install cameras @ two locations - contracts were awarded at high dollar to the tax payer - at one location (next to a restaurant) the system had to be replaced twice because of customers backing over the camera - again at tax payer expense -but yet the city fathers said these were safety issues - the local law enforcement continues to maintain that the revenu collected will not only pay for the camera but put dollars in the coffer - my point - tax payers will contiue to pay and the cameras will remain in use - Have a Great day from TEXAS

The vendor pays for everything. The cities are not out a dime. I have a copy of the contract from 3 of the DFW suburbs that they have with Redflex. Redflex pays for EVERYTHING. The city does not pay one dime ever. The cost is $4500 per camera per month. It is written that if the citations do not cover this monthly fee, they will adjust the billing and make it the next month. Anything above the agreed fees are then transferred to the city coffers.

Don't think for a minute that the cities are doing this for anything other than money. They are allowing the vendors to come in and install their cameras, the vendor runs the system, ticketing, mailing, etc from front to back. Then they send the excess profits to the city. "cost negligible" is the key phrase in the contract.

--
I knew I shoulda made a left turn at Albuquerque! -- Bugs Bunny

Money? Ha

Yep! It's only money, too. My son received one of these "tickets" in the DFW metromess. Red light cam in Ft. Worth Texas. "Fine" sent to Minnesota!