[tabi] Re: Red Light Cameras

  • From: "Chip Orange" <Corange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 17:08:48 -0400

it makes no sense to me to pay for policemen, but not to pay for
cameras, to make an intersection safer.  if one is cheaper than the
other, then it means many more intersections can be made safer.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joe Plummer
> Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:05 AM
> To: tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [tabi] Re: Red Light Cameras
> 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.
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: