[tabi] Re: e: Re: Red Light Cameras

  • From: "Allison and Chip Orange" <acorange@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • To: <tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 20:01:26 -0400

Sorry, but I can't agree.  The easiest way to demonstrate how careless
people become about the law is that when wheel-chair parking had a fine of
only $10, the police simply couldn't keep the handicapped-accessible spaces
empty.  when the fine went to $250, magic! no more crime (as related to
parking in wheel-chair reserved spots anyway).  People were simply ignoring
the law, and yes, I think that happens quite a bit when it comes to running
red lights.

And the argument for "guilty until proven innocent"??? sorry, but I am no
more or less guilty because a policeman thinks he has seen me run a red
light than when a camera and motion sensors see me do it.  I'd even bet a
study would show the cameras are more accurate than people, and they're
certainly on duty 24x7.

If the IRS catches you cheating on your taxes because some computer program
spots it, rather than an auditor literally watching you spotting it, are you
somehow less guilty?  are you somehow guilty until proven innocent?  we've
had technological aids for catching criminals for many many years (I don't
know how far back they go), and we've recognized and lived with the idea
that once they become accurate enough, they're as good as any person as far
as being used for making a charge.

 So, if we could catch other types of crime by putting out more cameras, I'm
all for it.  last week or so a package was taken from my front doorstep.  i
wish I had a camera there to capture the image of who did that, because it's
likely to happen again and again, until the potential thieves have some
reason to think they may be caught; I believe the same is true for careless
drivers, and those who just choose to ignore the law and take chances by
driving while using a cell phone, or by "pushing" a red light just that
extra little bit.


-----Original Message-----
From: tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:tabi-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of craig kiser
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 6:49 PM
To: tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [tabi] e: Re: Red Light Cameras

It's easy to get wrapped up in wanting to make our streets safer.  
I don't know anyone who isn't in favor of safe streets.  However, bear in
mind that these cameras reverse our constitutional right to being innocent
until proven guilty.  When you get a notice that you've been captured on
camera, you have to prove your innocence.  The argument that if you've done
nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear has been used by law enforcement for
years to talk people into letting warrantless searches be done to their
homes and automobiles.  Let there be no doubt, revenue is the driving force
behind red light cameras.  Just look at any city council deliberations on
red light cameras and you'll see the greed for the revenue they will
produce.  When I was run down in Tallahassee by a driver turning right on
red, he came to a full stop before running over me while turning right on
red.  The cameras will only stop those people intentionally running the
light, not those who fail to see the red light.  How many drivers
intentionally run red lights?  I have seen too many of our rights trampled
on in the name of stopping crime.

 ----- Original Message -----
From: "blindwilly" <blindwilly@xxxxxxxxxxx
To: <tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date sent: Tue, 26 Apr 2011 18:17:25 -0400
Subject: [tabi] Re: Red Light Cameras


Red lights are installed at the makers cost.   The city gets a 
prophet off
them.   The only ones who loose are those that like to cheat.   
Can you tell
I am in favor of them?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chip Orange" <Corange@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To: <tabi@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2011 5:08 PM
Subject: [tabi] Re: Red Light Cameras

 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
 intersection and let him or her go at it.  Now this would curve 
 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 

 Joe Plummer (JP)

 -----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
 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.
 ----- Original Message -----
 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 
 Therefore, if you loan your car to someone and they run the
 red light, you
 get the ticket, not the driver.
 Red Light Cameras are in danger of being rescinded.
 Write your legislators and write letters to the editor if you
 want them to
 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:
           (850) 488-0580     Fax:  (850) 488-9707
 District 26    Representative Fred Costello     Email:
 District 28     Representative Dorothy Hukill     Email:
 Representative Jason Brodeur - (850) 488-0468
 jason.brodeur@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Representative Larry Metz -
 Larry.metz@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Florida Senate - Local 
 District 7    Senator Evelyn Lynn
           850-487-5033    Local: 386-238-3180
 Senator John Thrasher - (850) 487-5030
 Senator Tony Hill - (850) 487-5024
 Senator Alan Hays - (850) 487-5014
 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 
 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 
 316.1303: 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
 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
 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
 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.
 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 
 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
 Rather than doing away with the cameras, I'd like to see them
 placed at more
 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
 $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,
 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
 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
 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
 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.
 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
 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 
 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 
 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 
 | 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 
 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
 The program, however, could turn out to be short-lived.  A
 bill currently
 working its way through the state Legislature would ban the 
 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.
 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 
 What happens in the case of a redlight camera when the
 citation is simply
 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 
 possibility of abuse?
 Fourth, the use of red-light cameras is meant to curb people 
 property damage, injury and death.  But it merely shifts the
 problem.  As
 drivers become aware of red-light cameras, they begin to drive 
 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 
 When you add it all up, the cost to our society far outweighs
 the claimed
 "God gives you 86,400 seconds in a day.  Take one to say Thank 
 Walter A.  Ward

 Check out the TABI resource web page at
 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
 with the word "unsubscribe" in the subject.

 Check out the TABI resource web page at
 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
 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 

Check out the TABI resource web page at 
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
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: