Arlington TX Residents Want Red Light Cams on May Ballot

 

The only people opposing the removal are the ones that are probably getting kick backs. The voters should prevail.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Residents-Want-Re...

--
Nuvi 2460LMT
Page 1>>

Your bias is showing

mmullins98 wrote:

The only people opposing the removal are the ones that are probably getting kick backs. The voters should prevail.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Residents-Want-Red-Light-Cams-on-May-Ballot-289152591.html

Let's look at the link, shall we?

Quote:


Arlington Residents Want Red Light Cams on May Ballot
Tuesday, Jan 20, 2015
A petition to put the removal of red light cameras on the ballot in Arlington will be delivered to City Hall Tuesday.
The group "Citizens for a Better Arlington" have been collecting signatures since November.

They want the cameras taken down, arguing their only purpose is to make money for the city.

Once those signatures are certified, the Arlington City Council could vote to put the measure on the May ballot.
Arlington Councilman Wants Red Light Cameras Out

At least one member of the city council, Robert Rivera, has gone on the record opposed to the city's 23 devices. In September 2014, Rivera asked the council to remove them because there is little incentive for drivers to pay the citations.

Mayor Robert Cluck and council members Charlie Parker, Sheri Capehart and Kathryn Wilemon, also in September 2014, expressed their support for the cameras, saying they were less concerned about people not paying their fines and more concerned with how they’ve improved safety.

According to the Arlington Police Department, the number of crashes at intersections with the cameras dropped 32 percent from 2012-2013 (the most recent data available).

Cluck said as far as he’s concerned, that means the cameras are doing their job.

“I know as soon as they come down, those accident rates are going to start increasing,” said Cluck. “I would have a difficult time living with that fact.”

I can see no reason at all to make the blanket statement that
[t]he only people opposing the removal are the ones that are probably getting kick backs.

Assuming you read the release, you must also be assuming that the statistics on crash reductions are false and that the mayor and those on the council supporting the cameras, as well as those in the police department providing statistics, are all getting kickbacks.

I live here and know better that you what goes on here.

jgermann wrote:

Assuming you read the release, you must also be assuming that the statistics on crash reductions are false and that the mayor and those on the council supporting the cameras, as well as those in the police department providing statistics, are all getting kickbacks.

You got that right Jack.

--
Nuvi 2460LMT

Very interesting

mmullins98 wrote:
jgermann wrote:

Assuming you read the release, you must also be assuming that the statistics on crash reductions are false and that the mayor and those on the council supporting the cameras, as well as those in the police department providing statistics, are all getting kickbacks.

You got that right Jack.

Actually, the name is John.

Then, mmullins98, I will ask you to keep us posted on ALL of the information that comes out in the paper and news stations that contains data about red light camera statistics. I assume you will want to keep us posted just to prove your assertion that the mayor, part of the city council and some in the police department are corrupt.

If you are indeed correct, then the situation will be bad enough that the local media will be on it and reporting the "true " facts.

Or, is the media in on this conspiracy as well?

Chicago makes all the RLC companies suspect.

Chicago RLCs have been involved in kickbacks. Why would Arlington be immune?

--
Zumo 550 & Zumo 665 My alarm clock is sunshine on chrome.

Do not agree

dave817 wrote:

[Chicago Makes All The RLC Companies Suspect.] Chicago RLCs have been involved in kickbacks. Why would Arlington be immune?

I happen to have a view of people that says that most of us are trying to do a good job, try to obey the law, and are decent people to our friends and family.

Remember that government is made up of "us"; politicians are made up of "us"; police are made up of "us".

Suppose that someone in your extended family is caught in some indiscretion; would it be all right, in your opinion, for your neighbors to start tweeting, posting on facebook, etc, that "we knew that all of Dave's kin were crooks all along, including him". I doubt you would agree with that.

Yet, you take the attitude that one case of RLC bribery allegations against a city implies that Arlington "should" be painted with the same brush.

Not "could" - because that is always a possibility. However, unless you think otherwise, I will hold to the premise that Arlington is innocent until proven guilty.

Red flags fly on red-light cameras

Here is more to add to the original topic.

In part this article says "A former executive of the company has told prosecutors that officials in 13 other states, including Texas, accepted money and gifts for help with the contracts.".

http://www.dallasnews.com/investigations/watchdog/20150122-w...

--
Nuvi 2460LMT

How honest is this?

Here is a situation that does not seem right.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4605.asp

good grief

so.. I guess it's impossible for us to generally agree that we're going to disagree on if there should be RLC's or speed cams installed and run by city or other folks.

To bad every time this topic comes up it seems there's so much arguing about it.

--
Never argue with a pig. It makes you look foolish and it anoys the hell out of the pig!

Good for them!

I wonder how many RLCs would survive ballots in other jurisdictions ...

Agree

BarneyBadass wrote:

so.. I guess it's impossible for us to generally agree that we're going to disagree on if there should be RLC's or speed cams installed and run by city or other folks.

To bad every time this topic comes up it seems there's so much arguing about it.

But this IS a discussion board - where people are expected to express their opinion!

And like almost every discussion board on the Internet, there are a lot of people with very strong opinions on both sides of this issue. So we have the same people posting variations of their opinion on the subject (including me)... over and over again.

It makes for interesting reading - most of the time.

DC

Having driven in Boston, NYC, Phila., Baltimore, DC, quite a lot, I would say Boston gets along ok without them. But DC?

Again, anyone who has many RLC tix, you are a poor driver.

It's like saying, I've been caught shoplifting at Target 12 times in the last month. WTH is wrong with those people? The shoppers have voted, and they have won a poll. Security devices should be removed from all target stores. The only people who voted against doing so, were Target management and shareholders, obviously people who are biased.

Yes, this is the internet. Lots of folks who have an opinion, but you know the expression.

Not many

scott_dog wrote:

I wonder how many RLCs would survive ballots in other jurisdictions ...

Very few have in places where they have actually gotten to vote on them.

Cost

I would love to attend a discussion in Arlington that argues the fee that the company that administers the installation and payment fees received. The municipalities don't invest in the cameras and receive a percentage of the violation fee. I hope they do it and have the cameras removed..

Arlington Red Light Camera Ban Petition Gets Enough Signatures.

"I take exception to the point [opponents make] that it's only to make money for the city," said (mayor)Cluck. "We make some money off of it, but that's not the most important thing." Yeah right.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Red-Light-Ban-Pet...

--
Nuvi 2460LMT

Has anyone seen the data?

mmullins98 wrote:

"I take exception to the point [opponents make] that it's only to make money for the city," said (mayor)Cluck. "We make some money off of it, but that's not the most important thing." Yeah right.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Red-Light-Ban-Petition-Gets-Enough-Signatures-Likely-Headed-to-Voters-290992491.html

This link also has the following:

Quote:

There are currently 23 red light cameras at various intersections across the city. Cluck and others city leaders cite Arlington Police data that shows crashes are down up to 75 percent at those intersections since the cameras went up in 2007.

Does anyone in the Arlington have any more information about the data cited? Can it be verified?

I'm glad....

I'm glad the voters will have the opportunity to vote on this. Regardless of what the data says, if people don't like them, that is a good enough reason to vote them out.

Only my opinion

If you don't run red lights why would you care if it was there or not. I just think of them as something that might stop someone from running a red light and Maybe saving someone's life.

It's sort of like when the red lights first went up, probably some griping then too.

Plus,money is collected for running stop signs, no seat belts, etc..... Just there to help and collecting money might make someone think twice and save your life.

Sorry for the above. Not used to speaking my mind.

--
Mary, Nuvi 2450, Garmin Viago, Honda Navigation, Nuvi 750 (gave to son)

Please Do Speak

mgarledge wrote:

If you don't run red lights why would you care if it was there or not. I just think of them as something that might stop someone from running a red light and Maybe saving someone's life.

It's sort of like when the red lights first went up, probably some griping then too.

Plus,money is collected for running stop signs, no seat belts, etc..... Just there to help and collecting money might make someone think twice and save your life.

Sorry for the above. Not used to speaking my mind.

I really don't mind much with regards to the presence of a camera at a light. I have difficulty with the shortening of the duration of the yellow light. Especially when longer yellow lights have been shown to have a positive effect to the safety of an intersection. It detracts from the reason in which the cameras were installed to begin with, which is the safety of those who go through the intersection. It paints the picture of increased revenue for a jurisdiction.

vote?

Gee, let's let felons vote on what ID should be required when purchasing a handgun

??????

johnnatash4 wrote:

Gee, let's let felons vote on what ID should be required when purchasing a handgun

No one is talking about felons or handguns in this thread. We are talking about registered voters and getting rid of traffic cameras.

More info

.

jgermann wrote:
mmullins98 wrote:

"I take exception to the point [opponents make] that it's only to make money for the city," said (mayor)Cluck. "We make some money off of it, but that's not the most important thing." Yeah right.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Red-Light-Ban-Petition-Gets-Enough-Signatures-Likely-Headed-to-Voters-290992491.html

This link also has the following:

Quote:

There are currently 23 red light cameras at various intersections across the city. Cluck and others city leaders cite Arlington Police data that shows crashes are down up to 75 percent at those intersections since the cameras went up in 2007.

Does anyone in the Arlington have any more information about the data cited? Can it be verified?

Time and time again, it's been shown that when the companies and municipalities that run the RLC try to use data to show RLC in a favorable light, the statistics have been fudged and/or misrepresented.

Quote:

"...crashes are down up to 75 percent at those intersections..."

Up to? Meaning that some intersections could have had no reduction, or an increase?

And what type of crashes? Side impact? Light injuries? Fatal? Rear end? Ejected passengers? Fender benders? Between a truck and passenger vehicle?

And what about other intersections that do not have a RLC? They could have had the same % or even higher reduction as well since 2007.

They could have purposely easily found 1 RLC intersection, which had 4 accidents 1 year, and only 1 accident the next (a insignificant difference that may not even be tied to a RLC presense at all), and spew out that information as if somehow it's representative of the RLC in their jurisdiction as a whole.

More info on vote...

Looks like citizens will get to vote after all, following continued attempts to stop them...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4677.asp

on the ballot.. Yea!

on the ballot.. Yea!

one day

jgermann wrote:
mmullins98 wrote:

The only people opposing the removal are the ones that are probably getting kick backs. The voters should prevail.

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Arlington-Residents-Want-Red-Light-Cams-on-May-Ballot-289152591.html

Let's look at the link, shall we?

Quote:


Arlington Residents Want Red Light Cams on May Ballot
Tuesday, Jan 20, 2015
A petition to put the removal of red light cameras on the ballot in Arlington will be delivered to City Hall Tuesday.
The group "Citizens for a Better Arlington" have been collecting signatures since November.

They want the cameras taken down, arguing their only purpose is to make money for the city.

Once those signatures are certified, the Arlington City Council could vote to put the measure on the May ballot.
Arlington Councilman Wants Red Light Cameras Out

At least one member of the city council, Robert Rivera, has gone on the record opposed to the city's 23 devices. In September 2014, Rivera asked the council to remove them because there is little incentive for drivers to pay the citations.

Mayor Robert Cluck and council members Charlie Parker, Sheri Capehart and Kathryn Wilemon, also in September 2014, expressed their support for the cameras, saying they were less concerned about people not paying their fines and more concerned with how they’ve improved safety.

According to the Arlington Police Department, the number of crashes at intersections with the cameras dropped 32 percent from 2012-2013 (the most recent data available).

Cluck said as far as he’s concerned, that means the cameras are doing their job.

“I know as soon as they come down, those accident rates are going to start increasing,” said Cluck. “I would have a difficult time living with that fact.”

I can see no reason at all to make the blanket statement that
[t]he only people opposing the removal are the ones that are probably getting kick backs.

Assuming you read the release, you must also be assuming that the statistics on crash reductions are false and that the mayor and those on the council supporting the cameras, as well as those in the police department providing statistics, are all getting kickbacks.

One day it really won't matter what either side thinks, they will be installed everywhere, and we'll be a society who can't afford to break the law.

Remember when we were on the sidelines wanting to get a gps? A Nuvi was like $500+. I bought and joined here, when the price point was $300.

I visited my buddy's business, and every tractor he has, has a cam recording the road at all times, and the driver when commits a violation. This made me think, wow, I want a cam too--the cr** I see every day on my commute would be recorded, and more importantly, there isn't any he said, she said. The camera does not lie.

that's the thing that is hilarious on this forum, people do not accept the fact that only one thing happened, and the camera removes the he said, she said. You either crossed the line after the light turned red, or you didn't. There is no in-between. If you want to run the light at a rlc intersection, you have to make the decision if you want to pay for that privilege, whereas before, it was free.

money

where does the money go for tickets, if a police officer writes you one versus a camera writes you one. cameras do bring down accident's because people tend to be carful knowing a camera is there . would a red light camera be ok if all the fines went to say road repair and upkeep only and to be used for nothing else !! these red light camera outfits make a killing with these cameras I think they get a % of the fines,
im for anything that improves safety but we have to control where the fines go and the cost of the cameras.

Good point!

geo334 wrote:

these red light camera outfits make a killing with these cameras I think they get a % of the fines,
im for anything that improves safety but we have to control where the fines go and the cost of the cameras.

If an individual LEO received a portion of every ticket he wrote, he would lose all credibility as a witness. For some reason, machines put together by companies which often have a pecuniary interest in issuing fines are not subject to the same hit on credibility.

A Grass Root movement

tomturtle wrote:

Looks like citizens will get to vote after all, following continued attempts to stop them...

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4677.asp

Was the start in Cleveland, signatures collected led to the election day land slide win for the removal of cameras owned by Xerox. Today all I see are foundations where the cameras once stood.
So don't be fooled by those that say it can't be done or the cameras are here to stay, because that's a load of crap.

For those of you that feel the cameras should stay, then vote for them. Chances are you will be a small minority.

http://www.cleveland.com/cityhall/index.ssf/2014/09/clevelan...

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

I'm all for having it on the

I'm all for having it on the ballot in all states. Let the people have a say on this issue.

.

OP, can you put Texas in the title? There are a bunch of Arlingtons in the USA.

If there is no transparency,

If there is no transparency, illegal/immoral activity is likely. Two wrongs don't make a right which would support the cameras coming down. However, I used to be dead set against red light cameras but am in favor now. If people would stop running red lights then the revenue stream would cease and the cameras would come down. It really is just that simple. It will be interesting to see if the voters get to decide, I don't think it will make the ballot.

it's really simple

sunsetrunner wrote:

If people would stop running red lights then the revenue stream would cease and the cameras would come down. It really is just that simple.

It's really simple when you get down to it.

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."

agreed

Box Car wrote:
sunsetrunner wrote:

If people would stop running red lights then the revenue stream would cease and the cameras would come down. It really is just that simple.

It's really simple when you get down to it.

This isn't going to be anything to talk about in the not too distant future. Our parents shoplifted, our grandparents used mirrors to look up places they weren't supposed to. Nobody does that anymore.

If theres money to be made

Politicians will take it!!! Put it on the ballot and get rid of the corruption!!! Arizona got rid of State cameras, Pima County got rid of their 7, not cost effective, City of Tucson keeps adding them

Even simpler....

Box Car wrote:
sunsetrunner wrote:

If people would stop running red lights then the revenue stream would cease and the cameras would come down. It really is just that simple.

It's really simple when you get down to it.

Even simpler is just voting them out. Hopefully, that is what happens in the upcoming election.

TX Senate panel backs bill to stop red-light cameras.

--
Nuvi 2460LMT

looks like the beginning of things to come

Looks like the domino's are starting to line up.

--
Using Android Based GPS.The above post and my sig reflects my own opinions, expressed for the purpose of informing or inspiring, not commanding. Naturally, you are free to reject or embrace whatever you read.

yeah

windwalker wrote:

Politicians will take it!!! Put it on the ballot and get rid of the corruption!!! Arizona got rid of State cameras, Pima County got rid of their 7, not cost effective, City of Tucson keeps adding them

They also enact laws to forfeit mutual fund proceeds if inactive for 3 years, gift card balances, etc.

But you realize the politicians don't actually get the proceeds themselves?

imho it's more of a travesty to take someone's mutual fund (this could be 6-7 figures) just because they didn't log in online or call in 36 mos., than it is to fine someone $480 for running a light. In the latter, an offense was committed.

STRIKE ONE!

"Red Light Cameras Could be Finished in Texas"

http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Red-Light-Cameras-Could-...

--
Nuvi 2460LMT

More info....

Cameras Voted Out

The election has been held and cameras have been banned in Arlington.

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/46/4698.asp

Red light cameras do not always create the intended consequences

My wife and I have lived in Arlington and now live in a suburb north of Fort Worth. In my experiences driving in the DFW area, red light cameras do not appear to have the intended effect. I see quite a few drivers who continue through red light camera equipped intersections, often several at a time, day and night. They do not stop those who are either driving faster than they can stop due to a shortened yellow at such intersections or they would effectively halt in the middle of the intersection.

In sequential intersections, those with similar traffic volumes at the same time of day, one with a red light camera and one without, the yellow light duration is much abbreviated at the red light equipped intersection. I have to panic stop more often at RLC equipped intersections or end up accelerating much more slowly to give myself more time to react. The former response creates a situation where I may end up rear-ended while the latter upsets other drivers as they become upset and cut around me.

The two times I have been photographed by a RLC were both questionable in circumstances, but were legally valid. One was where I could not stop in time in a suburb due to having traffic tight on my tail as the light quickly changed from green to a moment of yellow then red. Had I hit the brakes, I would have still run the stop line and stopped fully in the middle of the intersection. Due to commuting traffic I was not able to leave enough room in front of myself to see the upcoming light as I had several SUVs and lifted pickups ahead of me. In the second case, I was making a legal right turn on red on an access road where I stopped for a moment to look both ways, then to the left again before continuing my turn. The stop during my turn apparently was not long enough for the sensor of the RLC and it recorded me.

The matter is, while the incidents legally could be charged, the circumstances are not as clearly cut. Now I know I need to stop aggressively and accelerate leisurely when I approach RLC equipped intersections. I also know I need to pause in a right turn on red situation at a RLC equipped intersection for several seconds before I complete it, even if I have to make two or more advancements as I make the turn to make certain I do not set off the camera.

What is the result, from what I have observed from other drivers, of having RLC equipped intersections? Drivers drive 5 to 10 mph over the speed limit to get through intersections before the light changes from green. People either stop hard and short or they barrel through like a rocket.

Tarrant County, Texas is one of the counties in Texas that does not prevent a motor vehicle owner from renewing their vehicle registration because of unpaid red light camera tickets. There is little incentive to pay the fines as they cannot be legally enforced by law enforcement and often are not enforced at the other end for vehicle registration renewals. I paid the fines because of what I do for a career and the matter that I do not want something on my driver record or listed on my registration record that might make me look bad in the future if something more serious happens.

I do not think red light cameras do anything positive that could not be done by making a yellow light last longer to allow drivers to safely stop.

As an aside, I am working on my masters in criminal justice and criminology and I just survived my statistics course this semester. I know that statistics and political motivations can drive crime fighting policies and that both can be used to create ineffective policies which are sold as "perfect solutions."

Follow-up

Red light cameras reduce the

laugh out loud Red light cameras reduce the number of crashes at intersections. Most collisions at intersections are of the T type. With many deaths or serious injuries from the drivers of cars with side hits having their head hitting their doors window. Actual, Tragic death of my friend her head hit the drivers door window from a car running a red light. With a few lives saved by red light cameras the inconvenience of a few red light tickets is a non issue for me. Of course, those who are forever running 5 to 10 miles over the speed limits and regularly running thru lights on the orange or early red will always oppose red light cameras as a violation of their freedom to drive as quickly as they can get away with.

Not so fast

JohnMarylou wrote:

laugh out loud Red light cameras reduce the number of crashes at intersections. Most collisions at intersections are of the T type. With many deaths or serious injuries from the drivers of cars with side hits having their head hitting their doors window. Actual, Tragic death of my friend her head hit the drivers door window from a car running a red light. With a few lives saved by red light cameras the inconvenience of a few red light tickets is a non issue for me. Of course, those who are forever running 5 to 10 miles over the speed limits and regularly running thru lights on the orange or early red will always oppose red light cameras as a violation of their freedom to drive as quickly as they can get away with.

Many of us dislike the method used to ticket motorists and see it as a fundamentally unfair process. That doesn't mean we favor running red lights or speeding. Just use more traditional methods.

??

tomturtle wrote:

...
Many of us dislike the method used to ticket motorists and see it as a fundamentally unfair process. That doesn't mean we favor running red lights or speeding. Just use more traditional methods.

What makes a RLC ticket "fundamentally unfair"? What makes "traditional methods" fair? or fairer? Contrast this to getting a Parking ticket.

The comment about longer

The comment about longer yellow lights doesn't seem to be helpful. Longer yellows would needlessly make the red lights last longer not a good thing. Longer yellows would encourage more to drive thru on the yellow rather than coming to a stop. (Not a good thing long yellows would likely result in a few more crashes at the intersection) As,Some drivers routinely speed up when they see a yellow light.

Recent info about yellow lights

Looks like increasing the

Looks like increasing the yellow time significantly reduces tickets. cool A good thing grin but my major concern remains T-bone crashes which hopefully are also reduced by longer yellow lights. laugh out loud

The threat of Red Light computer generated Tickets tend to make drivers pay more attention to driving conditions and drive a little safer. In my neighborhood they aren't currently issuing red light tickets but with the cameras and red light warning sign in place folks drive more carefully shock .

Obviously, decreasing the time of yellow lights to increase tickets is evil EVIL evil

however

JohnMarylou wrote:

Looks like increasing the yellow time significantly reduces tickets. cool A good thing grin

People learn the new timings and those that had a tendency to push the timing will do so again. The increase in timings is also not universal so where you had a 3.5 second yellow that was increased to say 4 in your city probably isn't so in the next town over or across the state. Being use to the longer timing just gets you into trouble in a city following the ITE recommendations on timings.

--
"In order to be old and wise, one first must have been young and stupid."
Page 1>>