[tabi] Re: Red Light Cameras
- From: "Joe Plummer" <joeplummer@xxxxxxx>
- To: <tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:05:06 -0400
Hi, sorry but I am for getting rid of the red light cameras they in my
opinion is just a money grabber and another way to get our money as tax
dollars. It don't matter what they call it is at tax. It don't make us no
more safer and it kill jobs. now what I would support would be a no right
turn on red and more police officers out on the road catching the ones that
turn on red and running red lights. Put a officer at the most dangerous
intersection and let him or her go at it. Now this would curve running
lights and make things more safe by banding right turn on red. This will
help the economy by putting people to work and money into the economy. But
red light cameras just give the camera companies and government our money
and does nothing for safety. The results all over the state show that it did
nothing to make it safer but accidents went up with the red light cambers.
This is Just my opinion and not trying to start a political war here.
sign,
Joe Plummer (JP)
joeplummer@xxxxxxx
-----Original Message-----
From: tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Allison and Chip Orange
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:47 PM
To: tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tabi] Red Light Cameras
From: fcb-l-bounces@xxxxxxx [mailto:fcb-l-bounces@xxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Sherri
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 9:07 AM
To: "Undisclosed-Recipient:;"@radio.acb.org
Subject: [fcb-l] Fw: Red Light Cameras
I am forwarding the following to encourage all of us to call or write our
reps to oppose the proposed legislation to get rid of red light cameras.
Doug and Nancy Hall have written excellent letters and I encourage all of us
to do the same.
Sherri
----- Original Message -----
From:
Holly
To:
Holly Idler
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 7:48 AM
Subject: Red Light Cameras
I received this email from a good friend of mine. I think it is important
for us to call our Representatives and let them know that we need to keep
the red light cameras in place. If people are following the laws, then they
should not be against them. The people who don't feel that the law applies
to them are the ones who are against the red light cameras.
It is in my opinion that the blind are safer with the cameras in place. If a
car is running a red light, it is caught on tape. There is a miss conception
that the red light cameras take pictures of the drivers and everyone in the
car. This is not true. The camera takes a picture of the back of the cars
where the license plate is located. The driver is not seen at all.
Therefore, if you loan your car to someone and they run the red light, you
get the ticket, not the driver.
Holly
Red Light Cameras are in danger of being rescinded.
Write your legislators and write letters to the editor if you want them to
continue.
This week the Florida House will be voting on HB 4087, rescinding the red
light camera law.
Florida House of Representatives - Local representatives:
District 27 Representative Dwayne Taylor Email:
Dwayne.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(850) 488-0580 Fax: (850) 488-9707
District 26 Representative Fred Costello Email:
fred.costello@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
850-488-9873
District 28 Representative Dorothy Hukill Email:
dorothy.hukill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
850-488-6653
Representative Jason Brodeur - (850) 488-0468
jason.brodeur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Representative Larry Metz - (850)488-0348
Larry.metz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Florida Senate - Local representative:
District 7 Senator Evelyn Lynn
lynn.evelyn.web@xxxxxxxxxxxx
850-487-5033 Local: 386-238-3180
Senator John Thrasher - (850) 487-5030
thrasher.john.web@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Senator Tony Hill - (850) 487-5024
hill.anthony.web@xxxxxxxxxxxx
Senator Alan Hays - (850) 487-5014
hays.alan.web@xxxxxxxxxxxx
_________________________________
Nancy's Letter:
Happy about red light cameras
I, for one, am in favor of the red light camera. If drivers obeyed the
traffic laws, stopped the use of cell phones while driving and were
defensive drivers, red-light cameras would be unnecessary.
Too many of my blind friends have been hit in their attempt to lawfully
cross streets at intersections (Florida's white cane law, FS 316.1301,
316.1303: Drivers must stop for pedestrians with a white cane, guide dog or
mobility aid). Too often, drivers ignore the ''right on red law'' and fail
to yield the right of way to pedestrians.
Too often, there are no witnesses to stand up for the victims of careless
drivers.
Perhaps these cameras will catch the lawbreakers so they can be prosecuted.
Citizens don't complain about the cameras in banks, at ATMs, toll booths, in
stores, airports, hospitals, court houses and other government buildings -
all of which are placed for our safety.
Those people who vocally protest against the cameras just don't want to be
caught and told to pay for their misconduct.
Automobile accidents are decreasing where these cameras have been placed.
The new count-down walk lights alert the driver as to when the light will
turn, thus preventing any need to suddenly brake.
As a side benefit, cities and the state of Florida are getting a little
needed income during these hard economic times.
Please DO NOT rescind these needed safety measures.
__________________________
Doug's letter:
I understand that an attempt has been made to overturn the Legislature's
previous vote to permit red light cameras at intersections in Florida. As
far as I am concerned, supporters of HB 4087 are voting to approve a
driver's decision to endanger pedestrians and others by refusing to obey the
law. As for their assertion that red light cameras are an invasion of
privacy, what about camera use by business, at many agencies or on the
interstates? Are the use of cameras to assist in stopping or resolving
crimes, like robberies or assaults, an invasion of a criminal's privacy? As
for the argument against them, saying that their use is just a way to
increase revenue, what is wrong with that? I thought the administration is
trying to balance the budget.
Frankly,
all a person needs to do to avoid paying these fines is to obey the law in
the first place.
As you know, we have been endeavoring to improve pedestrian safety,
especially for people who are blind. In the past few years, we've had
several instances where people who are blind have been hit while attempting
to cross streets. How can we judge when it is safe to cross when drivers
refuse to stop for red lights or pedestrians?
I hope and expect that use of red light cameras will assist in pedestrian
safety.
Rather than doing away with the cameras, I'd like to see them placed at more
intersections!
_______________________
Florida House to reconsider red light camera law Some lawmakers argue the
law contributes to more accidents April 21, 2011| By Kathleen Haughney,
Tallahassee Bureau Just a year after lawmakers passed a law legalizing red
light cameras at traffic intersections, a new crop of legislators wants to
slam on the brakes.
The decision authorizing local governments to install cameras - and ticket
drivers
$158 for running red lights - came after several years of debate and a push
by municipalities, law enforcement and safety advocates. But the experience
with the cameras in South Florida, advocates of repeal argue, justifies
pulling the plug.
Both the Florida House and Senate are looking at repeal proposals, though
only the House measure is moving. On Wednesday, the House Appropriations
Committee voted 12-9 to send HB 4087 to the full House. Its sponsor, Rep.
Richard Corcoran, R-Trinity, argued that cameras have actually increased the
number of bad traffic accidents at intersections.
"Let's step back and figure out a way where we can make these intersections
safer for our communities," he said.
_____________________
April 1, 2011
Daytona Beach has erected red-light cameras, counted the money it should
take in, and is set to turn them on next week. But this could turn out to be
a very short-lived experiment.
The Florida Senate's Transportation Committee voted 4-2 Tuesday for a bill
that would ban the devices. The bill slid over to the Community Affairs
Committee.
Red-light cameras take pictures or videos of license plates of cars that run
red lights.
The registered owners of the vehicles then receive a ticket in the mail.
Florida
law started authorizing them only last year.
When the city of Daytona Beach looked at how many red-light runners it was
likely to catch at 10 major intersections, and did the math, it figured it
could take in more than a $1 million in the first nine months. The City
Commission jumped at the chance to approve them.
If this bill passes, the cameras will need to come down and the city will
have a more than million-dollar hole in its budget. But it's not like we're
alone.
It's
estimated that around the state, the camera systems were going to raise $70
million in the state's next fiscal year and $71.7 million for local
governments.
__________________________
April 4, 2011
Red light cameras in full swing today
DAYTONA BEACH - Drivers might want to pay closer attention to the yellow
caution lights at four major intersections in the city starting today.
Red light cameras were set to go into effect just after midnight Sunday,
with violations costing $158, according to a city news release.
The four intersections set to have the cameras up and running include:
| Clyde Morris Boulevard and West International Speedway Boulevard | Nova
Road and International Speedway Boulevard | Nova Road and Mason Avenue |
Ridgewood Avenue (U.S. 1) and International Speedway Boulevard.
Eventually, plans call for cameras at another five or six of the city's
busiest intersections.
The state will collect $83 from every $158 fine, and the Massachusetts
company that's installing the cameras and doing most of the work on the
program will charge the city $4,600 per month per camera.
But even after those fees, the city estimates it could still raise more than
$1 million
annually.
The program, however, could turn out to be short-lived. A bill currently
working its way through the state Legislature would ban the cameras.
_________________________
Editorial in the News-Journal
April 6, 2011
FLORIDA VOICES Red-light cameras fail on privacy, effectiveness By CHAR-LEZ
BRADEN vice chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida Red-light cameras
are a cure that's worse than the disease.
Careless drivers running red lights are a serious hazard. The desire to
catch these dangerous drivers and motivate them to be safer drivers is a
good one.
Unfortunately,
the use of redlight cameras presents us with some very disturbing problems.
First is the cameras' constitutionality. In our legal system, one has the
right to face one's accuser, per the Sixth Amendment. No defendant can
subpoena a camera and cross-examine it, yet it is giving testimony in a
legal proceeding. No law enforcement officer was present when the photo was
taken, if it was taken at all.
Indeed, it is presumed that the photo is authentic and unedited, and that
the camera or street light system did not fail. None of these things can be
honestly determined in a court of law.
These are not trivial points because, taken collectively, they open the door
to justice by robot, where evidence is manufactured, out of the control of
responsible authorities to be used in a court proceeding against defendants
who are denied their constitutional protections.
Second, the citation process is prone to error. In a standard situation, a
police officer stops the car in question, identifies the driver, and, after
some discussion, hands the driver a citation to sign which notifies the
driver of the pending charge and gives the court evidence of such
notification.
What happens in the case of a redlight camera when the citation is simply
mailed?
What if you're not often at your official residence, as may be the case for
college students? What if you recently moved? What if you're sent on
military deployment immediately after the photo was snapped? What if the
postal service just makes an honest mistake? There are many reasons why
people may not receive their citation in the mail, and yet the court is
supposed to act as if you have received proper notice?
This leads many people to conclude the use of cameras is about money for the
government, not safety for the drivers. And this is not just idle paranoia
as you will see with the third point: The motives of the vendors of the
equipment, and those municipalities that use them, are suspect at best
because neither makes any money unless someone breaks the law. This puts the
municipalities in the position of being tempted to arrange yellow lights and
other factors to trap motorists. This may sound like a far-out assertion,
but it is exactly what was shown to be the case in Baltimore.
If it happened there, why not where you live?
In a time of financial stress, do we really want to allow even the
possibility of abuse?
Fourth, the use of red-light cameras is meant to curb people causing
property damage, injury and death. But it merely shifts the problem. As
drivers become aware of red-light cameras, they begin to drive more
erratically when presented with a yellow or red light as they smash the
brake pedal in an attempt to avoid a ticket, thus leading to an increased
number of rear-end collisions.
Red-light cameras create accidents - exactly the thing they were to address
- while
opening a can of worms on the constitutional issues and making a pile of
money for cities and vendors. Does anyone else see how these things fail to
pass the sniff test?
Fifth and finally, we have every right to ask ourselves this: Do we want to
live in a society where cameras record our every move? This issue is not to
be left to the politicians, who have been shown to be willing and even eager
to create a surveillance society. At the end of the day, those are our
streets and our corners and our red lights. We have the final say about
having our every move monitored.
Free people are not lorded over by faceless ones issuing citations from
desks, on evidence the faceless ones cannot personally vouch for. Free
people drive their cars, not looking over their shoulders for cameras.
When you add it all up, the cost to our society far outweighs the claimed
benefits.
--
"God gives you 86,400 seconds in a day. Take one to say Thank You."
Walter A. Ward
Check out the TABI resource web page at
http://acorange.home.comcast.net/TABI
and please make suggestions for new material.
if you'd like to unsubscribe you can do so through the freelists.org web
interface, or by sending an email to the address tabi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject.
Check out the TABI resource web page at http://acorange.home.comcast.net/TABI
and please make suggestions for new material.
if you'd like to unsubscribe you can do so through the freelists.org web
interface, or by sending an email to the address tabi-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject.
Other related posts:
