11th Court of AppealsAl-Yahnai Fountain Hawkins a/k/a Allen FountainAppellant
Vs. No. 11-04-00278-CR -- Appeal from Taylor CountyState of TexasAppellee
Appellant argues that Section 502.407 is the right of the citizen to travel...is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.@ Appellant seems to make a distinction between the use of a public road for gain or monetary purposes and the use for personal, noneconomic travel, arguing that travel for economic gain is a privilege while use for personal travel is a right.
We disagree with appellant=s underlying proposition that driving a motor vehicle for personal purposes is a constitutionally protected right rather than a state-granted privilege. Driving is not a constitutionally protected right but a privilege. Tharp v. State, 935 S.W.2d 157, 159 (Tex.Cr.App. 1996),Gillaspie v. Department of Public Safety, 259 S.W.2d 177 (Tex.1953).,Tharp v. State, supra at 159; City of Coleman v. Rhone, 222 S.W.2d 646 (Tex.Civ.App. - Eastland 1949, writ ref=d).,Riggle v. State, 778 S.W.2d 127, 129 (Tex.App. - Texarkana 1989, no pet=n). Section 502.407 does not violate the constitutional protections under U.S. CONST. amend. 5 or TEX. CONST. art. I, ' 19. The statute is not vague, ambiguous, or overly broad.Appellant asserts in his second argument that the statute is invalid because the proper enacting language is not present.Murphy v. State of Texas, 95 S.W.3d 317, 321 n.4 (Tex.App. - Houston [1st Dist.] 2002, pet=n ref=d).This court has reviewed the enrolled version of TEX. H.B. 924, 76th Leg., R.S. (1999), as well as the published Session Law, and found that the proper enacting language is present. Therefore, Section 502.407 is a valid law.
PER CURIAMSeptember 8, 2005
TSK and others that agree with him/her, you are confusing what exactly the definitions are of a right or a privilege are concerning driving, you do have the right to drive as far as pertaining to earning a living., it is not a right to drive pertaining to personal travel.
You can petition the court for a occupational license, which allows you to travel to and from work, however not to operate a commercial vehicle, or to say, run to the store.
Much the same way as the the IRS treats delinquent taxpayers that they have obtained a judgment against. The IRS can seize vacation homes, not primary residences, all unnecessary items, TV's, video game systems, jewelry ect. They can not seize refrigerators, stoves, clothing or tools used for employment. They can seize vehicles, but must leave ONE for employment purposes. And of course they can seize all bank accounts, 401's ect.
"legion357: You crack me up.
Do you really think your rights are guaranteed at the state level?
Apparently you do not understand that the transportation code has nothing to do with guaranteeing rights"
Once again, IMO, driving is a PRIVILEGE NOT A RIGHT, you think driving is a RIGHT not me, so for purposes of this discussion, your statement "Do you really think your rights are guaranteed at the state level?" is totally irrelevant, YOU think it is a right not me.
"Do you understand that each state has the power to regulate travel within it's boundries?"
Yes I do.
You yourself, or another that believes driving is a right, cited US SUPREME COURT CASES, insinuating that, in fact "EACH STATE" does not have the power to regulate travel, the Federal government does.
"Why are you citing code for non-residents?"
Read the last section I posted carefully,
Sec. 601.009. REPORT FROM OTHER STATE OR CANADA. (a) On receipt of a certification by the department that the OPERATING PRIVILEGE OF A RESIDENT OF THIS STATE has been suspended or revoked in another state or a province of Canada...
Now you are cracking me up.
As you said.... Sorry, Try again.
I am not a fan of redflex, but i do believe that the cameras have validity in being used as one of many tools by the city. If the sheriff is seeing that accidents are reduced at the intersections that have the cameras and not at the ones that don't, that is a little compelling in my book.
lol @ SpokeMyMind trying to compare it to the Water Treatment Plant in Victoria.
My point was, I have more experience with them because I pass them on a daily basis. I see what goes on at these intersections on a daily basis. How many Victorians go through the water treatment plant on a daily basis? LOL Apples to oranges!
I'm not sitting here depending on "studies" conducted by the companies that profit from them.
You sound like you're one of those drivers going 40MPH in the left lane when the speed limit posted is 70....just because you like to annoy everyone.
legion 357. Well I guess since judge Cheshire says so then...
Judges make mistakes too.
It has already been stated and I will state it again. A privilege can be revoked at any time for even no reason at all.
A right can not be revoked for just any reason. A law has to be broken. Thus - your ex broke the law and had her right to drive the automobile removed.
I figured so.
I didn't understand your post. Sorry about that.
legion357: You crack me up.
Do you really think your rights are guaranteed at the state level?
Apparently you do not understand that the transportation code has nothing to do with guaranteeing rights.
Do you understand that each state has the power to regulate travel within it's boundries?
Why are you citing code for non-residents?
Sorry. Try again.
And, I have no idea about your militia question.
(7) "Nonresident's operating privilege" means the privilege conferred on a nonresident by the laws of this state...
(g) The department shall suspend the driver's license or nonresident's operating privilege of a person who fails to make a report as required
Sec. 601.009. REPORT FROM OTHER STATE OR CANADA. (a) On receipt of a certification by the department that the operating privilege of a resident of this state has been suspended or revoked in another state or a province of Canada...
A whole lot of the term "privilege" mentioned, it doesn't say "Nonresident's operating right" or "the operating right of a resident".
By the way, wasn't the "driving is a right" argument used a few years back by a militia leader in Texas that printed up his own drivers license, license plates and inspection stickers? I seem to remember that did not work out to good for him.
According to Judge Cheshire in the first ex-wifes dwi trial, driving is a privilege.
And I paraphrase his words, " Driving is not a right, it is a privilege, surrender your drivers license to the court clerk, it will be returned in six months."
Sure enough six months and two days later, it was returned by the DPS office in Austin by mail.
You have clearly proved you do not understand that driving is a right.
It sure takes you a lot of room to try to get your point across too.
You stated: "If it were a right, then it would not matter if you broke the laws. "
This statement clearly shows you don't understand the law.
If what you said were true, you could shoot someone and the right to bear arms would not be taken away.
You stated: "If it were a right, then the police could not stop me from driving, but since it is only a privilege, police are stopping people every day."
That is a bunch of BS. Police can't do a darn thing if no law has been broken. They are there to protect and enforce the law. If a policeman has probable cause, he or she can pull over an automobile. They do not have the ability to deny a person a driver's license or the right to drive.
Police also have the right to ask if you are carrying any weapons. They do not have the right to take the weapons if they have been properly registered, and you are not breaking a law.
"If driving was a right how could it be taken away? If driving is a right, how can the police enforce traffic laws and stop you for violating them?"
Do you really not know the answer to this? I will state it again. The police can enforce laws to keep you from misusing a firearm too. What do you say to that?
"If driving is a right, then why do I and everyone esle have to have a drivers license to drive. "
Why do you need a license to carry a concealed weapon?
Here is another one for you: How exactly does the posi-trac rear end on a Plymouth work? It just does. "Joe Dirt"
Do you not comprehend this: "is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right"
ExResident: "It never says the right to DRIVE."
As stated in a previous post, you can get out and push your car if you want, because that is your right. I am going to drive mine.
"You get someone else who has the privilege do it. I have transported numerous thing around this great country and even world without physicaly operating the vehicle in which they were transported."
You can share the right with someone else if you decide to become a passenger.
And, I will state all of the case law I want. That case law clearly defined your and my right to drive.
"I have transported numerous thing around this great country and even world without physicaly operating the vehicle in which they were transported."
Then you didn't transport those things. You hired someone else to do it for you. The quote is talking in first person.
Exresident posted "Must I have a Texas Driver's License to drive on public roads in Texas?"
No, but you must have a drives license. It can be from any state or country even, but you must have a valid drivers license. Do you deny that as well or were you trying to catch me with your wording that it must be a TEXAS license to drive in TEXAs?
A privilege is a a special advantage or right possessed by an individual or group. Those who take the proper measures to obtain a drivers license are then given the privilege to drive, thus placing you in that group seperate from te others who have not one through the process.
A right as we are discussing is something granted to all. Since those without a license can not drive and those with one can, we are talking about privilege and not rights when we discuss driving.
Born2Bme posted "Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can someone "transport his property", either by carriage or by automobile, if he is not driving? What is he supposed to do, push the car, walk?"
Yes you are wrong. You can transport your property by carriarge, automobile, train, plane, or even ship without actually operating any of the above. You get someone else who has the privilege do it. I have transported numerous thing around this great country and even world without physicaly operating the vehicle in which they were transported.
Just curious about something.
It says "The right of the citizen to TRAVEL upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile..."
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how can someone "transport his property", either by carriage or by automobile, if he is not driving? What is he supposed to do, push the car, walk?
Of course, for public safety, he has to demostrate that he is capable of operating said automobile first.
TSK stated "The right to travel gives a person the right to travel by any legal means. I along with everyone else have the right to purchase an automobile. I have the right to drive the automobile. I have the right to get a driver's license. If I do not break any laws, the right can not be revoked."
1. The right to travel gives a person the right to travel by any legal means. CORRECT
2. I along with everyone else have the right to purchase an automobile. CORRECT, you can buy and then when you meet the requirements by law allowing you the privilge you can then drive that automobile.
3. I have the right to drive the automobile. INCORRECT, you must first meet the requirements set up by law. See #2. You can have someone who already has the privilge to drive however drive your automobile while you TRAVEL as a passenger.
4. I have the right to get a driver's license. INCORRECT. You have the right to apply for a drivers license and see if you pass. Ask the hundreds of people who fail the driving test if they were still given a license, because it was a right..
5. If I do not break any laws, the right can not be revoked." CORRECT and INCORRECT. If you get your license and do not break the laws, then the PRIVILGE will not be revoked. If it were a right, then it would not matter if you broke the laws.
You don't have a privilge to remain silent, you have the right to. So if I have the right to then the police can not make me speak, if it were just a privilge then they could force me to talk if they needed to. Same with driving. It is a privilge and not a right. If it were a right, then the police could not stop me from driving, but since it is only a privilge, police are stopping people every day.
TSK states "Show me where it is stated that the right to drive an automobile is a privilege. You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, but until you post facts your efforts are futile."
I give you the same task. Show me where it is stated that driving is a right. you can repeat yourself as many times as you like as well.
Even the case law you qoute does not say that. It says "The right of the citizen to TRAVEL upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile..."
It never says the right to DRIVE.
Websters definition of Travel: http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
Websters definition of Drive: http://dictionary.reference.com/brows...
As you can clearly see drive and travel have two totaly different menaings. Since the case law you qoute uses the word travel and not drive I am in agreement wtih SMM. It seems to reason that driving was a right then they would have used the word drive. Since they didn't, I would say that driving is a privlige, but traveling is a right. Again you can travel as a passenger without driving.
If driving was a right how could it be taken away? If driving is a right, how can the police enforce traffic laws and stop you for violating them?
If driving is a right, then why do I and everyone esle have to have a drivers license to drive. Without one I would be violating the law and thus subject to criminal charges.
Again you can keep posting your case law all you want, but until you post something that states you have the right o drive and not just travel, your efforts are futile.
The right to travel gives a person the right to travel by any legal means. I along with everyone else have the right to purchase an automobile. I have the right to drive the automobile. I have the right to get a driver's license. If I do not break any laws, the right can not be revoked.
You state opinion once again.
----"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579
This ruling clearly states that the right to travel by carriage or by automobile is not a mere privilege, but a common right. Your interpretation is wrong. The words are printed very clearly for you to read.
Show me where it is stated that the right to drive an automobile is a privilege.
You can repeat yourself as many times as you like, but until you post facts your efforts are futile.
"either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege"
Read the ruling.
exresident - You post made no sense. You just contradicted yourself.
You posted mere opinion and no facts. I posted facts.
I will post Supreme Court rulings again for you:
----"The right to travel is a part of the liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law under the 5th Amendment." - Kent v Dulles, 357 U.S. 116, 125.
----"The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith 154 SE 579.
A person's choice of travel is inconclusive to this discussion.
You are right stating driving an automobile is a choice of travel.
A person has the right to choose which method of travel to use, so a person has the right to drive an automobile.
Yes, I know that a driver's license does not belong to anyone. The state has laws governing travel, and if the laws are broken, then the right to travel by automobile can be revoked.
Isn't anyone concerned how more and more government at all levels is using law enforcement to balance their budgets? The train charade the other day was unnecessary to get the word out about the dangers of driving around barricades. VPD deliberately used the event to generate income through fines for the city. When someone says it isn't about the money, it's about the money.
I find it funny that most of you have no experience whatsoever with redlight cameras. There are no red light cameras in Victoria, but you seem to think you have all the answers.
I posted this question in another forum that I visit and almost everyone there agreed they weren't there for safety, but rather as another source of revenue for the City. And these are people that live in the DFW/Houston area and have experience with Red Light Camaras. These are also people that haven't received tickets from the cameras. Some have stated they almost rear ended someone because of the red light cameras. People stopping suddenly because the light turned yellow. Yeah, thats right...people stop when it turns yellow even though they can safely cross on yellow because they don't want to risk a ticket. Even though NONE have received tickets from the cameras, they all feel like they aren't making things safer. They are a major distraction at those intersections.
Be careful what you wish for!
eh, it doesn't bother me that much. I have never been ticketed by a red light camara. They are just another thing to worry about when you're driving and that is one distraction I don't need. Yes, I said distraction because I doubt you ever come across red light cameras that often in Victoria so you don't know how distracting they are.
There is 1 camera on a corner right near my job and if you can use your 35 years of experience, I can use my 2+ years of working at this place and seeing what goes on in that intersection on a daily basis. I see plenty of people slamming breaks to avoid passing it and the car behind them slamming breaks and so on...and some sliding into the intersection.....all to try and avoid that ticket. SAFETY FIRST!
These red light cameras aren't going to make you (everyone in general, not directed at my2cents) safer. If you're that scared of driving, then stay in the house. You're probably the ones going 40 in the fast lane.
Answer this question since you're all for safety first and see no wrong in red light cameras.
Are you for SPEED cameras if they were to be implemented? Say you're going 31 MPH in a 30 MPH zone, and you get a $70 ticket in the mail.
"I did NOT say that experience was the only information I had - in fact, I have researched the subject quite a bit since it first came up a couple of years ago."
Looks like it has been a time consuming research project for you.
A city that only charges me $70.00 to take away my rights? That is really great trade off.... You can take all the pictures you want, but until an officer issues the citation for running a red light, like it is supposed to be done, then this issue isn't going to be put to rest.
"I also see where some courts are ruling that local govt entities dont have the right to change the violation from criminal to civil."
I am glad you see this. One thing you won't see are red light cameras in those local govt entities.
"Waving a flag and shouting about RIGHTS is a red herring - we need some clarification by the courts here in Texas (or at the Federal level even). We all have rights. Driving is just not one of them."
Waving a flag and standing up for your rights keeps government from overstepping it's boundries.
I applaud Carl for taking charge and working hard to put and end to red light cameras in Port Lavaca.
Keep it up Carl, you have enough support to put this discussion to rest.
lol @ mytwocents saying his only research is his own observation after 35 years ROFL. I guess that pretty much equals a win for TSK LOL
Also, on the privilege vs right BS:
Driving is a right. There are laws governing that right.
If don't think so, do you think the right to bear arms is a privilege? There are laws preventing you from shooting someone, but you still have the right to own a weapon.
The same thing applies to owning land. When you own land, you have the right to that land. The government can still declare imminent domain and take your land if there is a justified cause.
It is not a privilege.
Just some food for your thought.
Looks like you spent most of the morning replying;
1. I didn't assume you don't understand amendments; your comments have clearly proved this. If a person is denied those rights you and I have listed, then nothing can be done to prosecute for non payment. The legal problem is our rights are infringed when receiving a ticket produced by the camera.
2. I am glad you are a great driver.
3. It doesn't hurt to restate facts. Some may have missed them in your post as I did.
4. That 'legal' stuff I posted is decisions passed down by the Supreme Court upholding the fact that driving is a right not a privilege. If people including our political leaders would worry more about that 'legal' stuff, like our constitution and amendments, then this country would be in much better shape than it is.
The government has not taken away rights by creating traffic rules, they have tried to insure our safety constitutionally.
The cities have taken away our rights to confront our accusers and trial by jury with the red light camera system by creating an ordinance to change the law, with the intention of creating more revenue.
Laws that regulate travel do not take away our rights. Laws regulate just about everything. Our rights are still rights no matter what.
I wish everyone would just stop complaining about the cameras. It's not that big of a deal if you just follow traffic laws.
And to all the confused and unaware people who think driving is a privlilege not a right, you need to do your homework too.
I can't believe what this world is coming to..
Here are a few supreme court cases that prove you otherwise. Do your homework:
----"Even the legislature has no power to deny to a citizen the right to travel upon the highway and transport his property in the ordinary course of his business or pleasure, though this right may be regulated in accordance with the public interest and convenience. - Chicago Motor Coach v Chicago 169 NE 22("Regulated" here means traffic safety enforcement, stop lights, signs, etc. NOT a privilege that requires permission i.e.- licensing, mandatory insurance, vehicle registration, etc.)
If you are going to post, make sure you know what you are talking about first.
Apparently you need to do your homework instead of spouting out false info --
"Do some homework on civil vs criminal offenses. Most citations issued from camera systems are CIVIL - so quit whining about 4th and 14th amendmant rights - they don't apply."
All citations issed from the camera systems are Civil, not most. The city adopts an ordinance to change running a red light to a civil citation instead of a criminal to deny you the rights I mentioned in a previous post.
For a citation to be criminal, you have the right to face your accuser. Maybe you can get out of the vehicle and smile for your accuser if you accidentally run a red light. Don't expect much conversation and wear your sunglasses. That flash may be bright.
It is sad to know that you and many others don't understand our amendments.
Your other comment:
"in fact, many simply don't care, are in too mush of a hurry, or automatically speed up when they see yellow."
Did you do a study asking people what they thought of running read lights, or spend many hours observing an intersection to discover that many people speed up when approaching a yellow light?
For all you people who are sold on the lights increasing your safety, the city could have saved money by just increasing the yellow light timing. This can reduce red light running by 50%.
But, that wouldn't generate much revenue would it?
Thanks to a study by the Texas Transportation Institute and Texas A&M, here's your facts:
Here's your facts: A before-after study is described and the resulting data used to quantify the effect of increasing the yellow interval on the frequency of red-light violations. Based on this research, it was concluded that: (1) an increase of 0.5 to 1.5 s in yellow duration (such that it does not exceed 5.5 s) will decrease the frequency of red-light-running by at least 50 percent; (2) drivers do adapt to the increase in yellow duration; however, this adaptation does not undo the benefit of an increase in yellow duration; and (3) increasing a yellow interval that is shorter than that obtained from a proposed recommended practice published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) is likely to yield the greatest return (in terms of a reduced number of red-light violations) relative to the cost of retiming a yellow interval in the field.
Whether Baugh deserved the ticket or not doesn't matter. I'd like to make a comment ... If people in general spent as much time as Baugh did trying to get out of his ticket, making an effort to drive slower and obey traffic laws the roads would be much safer. Cameras keep us honest.
I hope those of you all for the cameras never speed when driving down the street, and I mean even 1MPH over the posted speed limit. Just remember you're breaking the law when you do. You all sound like you are the perfect drivers and some of you need to get off your high horse. I seriously doubt you drive at or below the posted speed limit all the time.
The cameras are faulty for those making right turns on red even after you make a complete stop. It's gotten to a point where I don't risk turning right on red at all, even if there is no oncoming traffic. Even though I could safely turn I'll just wait until it turns green just so I won't have to deal with the hassel of a possible ticket. That slows down the flow of traffic.
Mytwocents, Don't sit here and talk like you have all the answers. It's a revenue generating idea, and that is it. The City of Dallas had expected it to "fuel its general fund" but had to shut down because it wasn't. Also, I worked briefly in the accounting department for a City in the metroplex so I know what goes on with these cameras.
Now that's my2cents.
Mytwocents said, "Finally - many of us forget that driving is a priviledge, not a right. If you choose to ignore the law - you get ticketed. If you ignore it enough, your priviledges are taken away."Thank You! I couldn't have said it more perfectly myself.
I'm glad to see some people did their homework when it comes to this issue instead of just giving an uneducated opinion. What people don't realize is that there is alot of factors that went into this problem before i started the petition to have these cameras removed. For someone to say they like the cameras for reasons of " if you don't want a ticket don't run the red light" and "i feel safer now that the cameras are installed" are idiotic answers. If you do any reasearch and i mean ANY research you will find out that the cameras aren't generating much revenue on red light running they are generating revenue mostly on right on red even though you stop but not in the right place. To the people that think they are safer i ask them do you really think that cameras is going to stop a truck or car and save your life? it's not an airbag that goes off when you get in an accident. Before anyone comments on anything you think they would at least research the facts before they run off and give an opinion on something they know nothing about. Just to give a few facts i did run the red light but i did it a 19mph. On the citation i received it did say i could go to court in PL and gave time,speed, and a bunch of other data. i sent in to have my day in court but its not court it is overseen by a hearing officer employed by redflex. The problem is they wanted me to drive 4 1/2 hours away to go to court for something that happened in my county. Now that there has been so much publisty redflex has contacted me to give me a new hearing date and apologized for their mistake. Do people think that this is the way you should have to go about getting a fair deal? I videoed and timed all the cameras at every intersection were there is a camera in PL and found the yellow lights all to be under 4 seconds. Do you know who did the study on if the yellow times are acurate? yep you guessed it redflex. You can find all the facts on PL citizens against red light cameras on facebook and watch the video for yourself. I will continue this fight and have it voted on and let the citizens of PL decide if they like these cameras or not. It's for the people by the people. Thanks for all your comments!! Carl
It still amazes me that people are talking about facts that show red light cameras save lives. Where are those facts? The only ones I have seen are the FACTS released by the cities that have cameras and of course THOSE facts will show how great the cameras are. In Houston the city released data that showed reductions in accidents at intersections with cameras but when Rice University did an independent study a different picture was painted showing increases of up to 900% at many intersections with cameras. Hmm.....seems like a good program to me eh? Those of you that think these devices are doing anything to enhance safety have missed the boat and never made it to the dock. Wake up and look at the real data. If you support these red light cameras then you will support the speed trap cameras that are coming to a city near you sooner than you think. Can not wait to hear from you when you get your ticket for going a few miles over the speed limit by a camera. It is just a matter of time before we see those if we do not send these.........then you all will sing a different tune.
BaxCato, I am not "exresident". I do not hide behind a fake ID. I am dwayneb and do not hide when I have a postion like many do.
Wrong not as simple as that. Sit at an intersection and watch the number of cars that get flashed because they do not stop AT THE WHITE LINE and I MEAN RIGHT AT THE LINE for three seconds before turning right. Just stop and look. These people are not breaking any laws and not causing any accidents but they will more than likley receive a ticket. If they stopped the right turn violations then most of us would support the program but they are not stopping these violations cause that is where the money comes from. Wake up and see this program for what it is.
How dumb do you have to be in an article that says that you don't pay your tickets and you don't care. Talk about a bullseye. I can't stand it when people break the law and then all self righteous about whether or not it was "warranted." Man up- take some responsibility!
This has everything to do with revenue and not safety. Why else would the City of Dallas stop doing it if it was for your safety? The last I heard they shut down 25% of their cameras because they weren't bringing in the revenue to justify the cost. Now if it was for your safety, then why shut them off? They may have shut them all off because I haven't seen any, but I've seen some in Grand Prairie, Arlington, and Plano.
lizsizzler, I don't like the cameras and I have never received a ticket. I have a clean record. What's your next reason?
Some of you crack me up, really thinking these camaras are going to protect you. Get a clue. The Cities just want money. People run red lights on accident. That's why its called an accident. Camera or not there will always be someone that is not paying attention and will pass a red light. That's life. Some of you sound like you are constantly living in fear of everything. Sad.
Don't pay at your own risk. It will cost you more in the long run. Not sure why people are opposed to the cameras. Just using technology to enforce the law. Fine with me.
you're playing games with your life and the life of someone else when you run a red light. shame on you.
tstorm22001 I think you and a few others posting here are very confused.
These cameras have nothing to do with the speed limit as you refer too. Their purpose is to catch a person running a red light.
lilsizzler, What kind of statement is this: "The only ones protesting these cameras are those who have broken the law. " Such a bold statement of opinion with no proof? Come on.
If you drive safely and obey the law - the cameras are still there, infringing our rights.
The statement that they are there just to protect us is BS.
I am sure the revenue has quite a bit to do with it.
This is a deliberate attempt to use law enforcement to generate income for the city government. It has nothing to do with public safety.
Commit the crime, pay the fine. Come on people. Personal responsiblity. The only ones protesting these cameras are those who have broken the law. Drive safely, obey the law and it's like the cameras aren't there - except to protect you.
exresident, aren't you dwayneb?
I bet some of you would change your tune if they enforced speed cameras. Go 1 MPH over the speed limit and they send you a ticket. How many of you would agree to that?
Are you serious SailorMoon? People that continuously break the law regarding red lights? I have yet to see people PURPOSELY & CONTINUOSLY pass red lights...most are accidents. I have never seen someone stop at a red light and then take off because no one is coming. I have never heard of someone just passing every red light they come upon.
I totally agree, familyman. These cameras only catch those who continually and aggressively break the law regarding red lights. If cameras prompt any sort of reduction in accidents or incidents involving red light running, I totally support them. Any increase in my and my family's safety is worth supporting.
Can't really sympathize with this guy. Although he did try to stop and his brakes locked, the answer is not just to blow through the light. What people tend to forget is though he might have been successful in getting through without hitting anyone, there are the countless other times that he would hit someone. Take your licks and get over it.
I can't defend the idea that there is not a mechanism to have a local hearing and would be somewhat confident that a process can be worked out. However, red-light camera enforcement has been shown in several studies to reduce collisions and this makes the roads safer for both drivers and pedestrians.
Anyone wanting the petition via email from Port Lavaca please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org and I will get it to you. We have a lot of work ahead of us but we can be succeesful with this petition dirve.
I can tell you that there is a lot of facts and data that show that these devices are increasing accidents by up to and beyond 900% at intersections with cameras. Police Chief Stewart is doing his own study on the results of the camera and if his study is like the one that the City of Houston did it will show that these cameras are reducing accidents HOWEVER when as in Houston an independent study is done a different picture is painted. These are for revenue only and there is no doubt of that and they are doing NOTHING for safety and it is proven. People can say all they want on this blog. Facts speak much louder than opinions and those of us leading the charge to remove these cameras have the facts.
How about this article too?
Just buy some photo blocker for your plates and call it a day !
Squirrely. I am glad you never have to stop at a stop light. I can say that I didn't realize that lights were designed to allow everyone to drift through them without stopping if they drive the exact speed limit. I have never seen that happen.
My problem is that the cities with the cameras in place created an ordinance to convert the criminal act of running a red light into a civil violation. The Fourteenth Amendment right of equal protection under the law is denied to "civil violators”.
Since it is a civil violation, a person who receives a ticket is denied the right to appeal, the right to face their accusers, the requirement of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, and the right to a jury trial.
Tsk you need to read the rest of the comment ...T-bone accidents are down 27% because the ahole stopped because the camera was there....I only said to do the speed limit not more or less than it, The lights are timed for the speed limit ...lead foots wait at the light as I drift by you because I didnt have to slow down or stop. Limit means Max you should do. Wonder if you are the ones who do more than 20 in the school zone on your phones right?
RedRage..."I hate when I'm on the freeway and someone is driving 50MPH in the left lane...SERIOUSLY???? GTFO!!!!! "
Yeah, people who have nowhere to go and all day to get there are a pain in the ........ neck when they're in the left lane.
dragenrider..."The lights change very quickly with the amber on for a very short time."
I'm just wonderin'...did the city change the length of time the yellow light is on when they installed the cameras? That's a easy way to generate extra revenue -- oops, there's that dreaded "R" word again.
squirrely; this is a red light camera, not a speed limit camera.
You might like the cameras along with others, but the fact is the cameras are not constitutional.
There is no Due Process in a Camera giving you a ticket. By law, at the time of receiving a citation, you have the right to be heard and defend your rights. Check the 14th Amendment.
tom_bombadil - Right.
I have seen several pics taken from the cameras. My question has always been "Who was driving the vehicle?". I sure can't tell by the picture, so how can the camera tell who gets the ticket?
I agree with N45BA...we need cameras to detect slow drivers LOL
I hate when I'm on the freeway and someone is driving 50MPH in the left lane...SERIOUSLY???? GTFO!!!!!
I actually wish more cops would ticket slow drivers that drive in the fast lane. Some are like squirrely and do it on purpose while I'm sure others are just stupid and have no idea its the fast lane.
There are red light cameras in various parts of DFW and I can tell you they are a pain. First off, I have never received a ticket from passing a red light camera (knock on wood) so those of you claiming that the only people complaining are those getting tickets can take that claim elsewhere. I have a clean driving record.
I pass 2 cameras on the way to work so I have witnessed first hand that it causes people to brake fast to avoid a ticket causing other cars to brake, and so on sometimes causing accidents.
Also, I agree with the person that stated that you can't see the light if you are behind an 18 wheeler or tall vehicle. 18 wheelers are slow and turn very slow, and there have been several occasions where I'm behind an 18 wheeler turning and the light is green and I'm hoping it doesn't turn red while I'm turning behind this 18 wheeler because I can't see the light. And it's not like this is a dangerous situation of passing a red light because 18 wheelers turn SLOW, and I'm right behind it going SLOW, so it's not like anyone is flying through a red light at 50MPH.
The business owner in the article is correct too. I have avoided several places just because I don't want to deal with that red light camera at the corner. I don't want to deal with the possibility of making a complete stop, and then turning right on red. I don't want to deal with them saying I didn't make a complete stop when I did, etc.
Also, I believe the City of Dallas shut down a lot of theirs because it was costing more money to maintain than what was coming in, but some suburbs still have them.
It's not the end of the world, but be careful what you wish for.
This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.
exresident, as I told you via the PLWave, I have seen a drastic reduction of those running red lights at Virginia and Austin. That's all the statistics I need, especially considering how many trucks go through that intersection at unsafe speeds.
Before the cameras were installed, I watched people run the lights all the time. Many times I had to slam on my brakes to avoid getting t-boned. I was always shocked at how cavalier the drivers were about it, or oblivious, I don't know which.
I have 2 ......"Meanwhile, crashes at the intersections decreased by about 21 percent in the four years after the cameras compared with the four years before. Angle, or T-bone, crashes decreased by 27 percent; and crash injuries declined by 30 percent." http://www.portlandtribune.com/news/s... 2009 also .... http://www.transalt.org/newsroom/medi... 2008 .....need more?
Nope I have the same rights as you. I will be the one you are cussing at, get up earlier so you dont have to speed and I hope you get caught, the signs are there for a reason!
Since when does a low speed rear-end accident more of a threat, spend more money fixing, and more loss of life, than a high speed T- Bone accident because someone runs that light at 50 plus?
When the redlight cameras were first installed, I thought they were a good idea. Wouldn't be a problem for me, I abide by the law. However, now that they have been here a while, I have changed my mind. If you are following a tall vehicle, it is sometimes difficult to see the light in time to stop on amber, even when driving a safe distance from the vehicle in front of you, and at or below the speed limit. The lights change very quickly with the amber on for a very short time. Yes, I have received a ticket, and it was paid, though grudgingly since I was following a large FedEx 18 wheeler, at a safe distance and safe speed. If you saw the video, I think you would agree that some discression could have been used in issuing that ticket.
Now I am much more vigilent and have to brake sometimes much harder than it is safe to brake in order to stop behind the white line in time at these intersections. Everything flies forward into the floor, and I'm checking the rear view mirror to make certain I'm not about to be hit from behind. It's very frustrating, and this is driving the speed limit. There is enough stress on the road without having these cameras to contend with. Better law enforcement by having random patrols at these busy intersections would be a safer alternative. Cameras show no discression.
I think it's all about revenues from the cameras. but that's just my opinion.
Getting back to the article, it will be very easy to get the rest of the signatures on the petition. It's a done deal. Of course who knows if the petition was drafted properly and if all of the signors are registered voters and residents of the City of Port Lavaca. But, barring those situations, it's as good as on a ballot.
Even those who advocate for safer intersections may vote against the cameras simply because each light has to generate a certain amount (over $500 per location per day? MAYBE???) to pay for itself or the city has to pay the company the difference. I heard the city might buy cameras. Sounds like a good idea to me. That's something I can get behind!
Why is P.L. hiring another cop if they're so broke? Seems like paying out another 40K won't help unless... they're just trying to gain more revenue? Hmmm.
TxBohemian: Here is a link that has some good information on this topic. It is dated 2006 but is still worth reading.
You hit the nail square on the head. You are absolutely correct in your statement regarding the drivers and PD in this town.
I agree with everyone here the red light cameras are a great idea. There are ALOT of terrible drivers here. Everyone speeds like its a nascar race or something. Navarro speed limit is mostly 35 not 50! Just this morning almost 1/4 of the people on the road this morning did NOT have their lights on in the Very thick fog this morning.... Whats with that? At 70 miles an hour its hard to see someone without their lights on. I wish the cops would do more traffic stops. Rules are/were made, so we are not in the trees... throwing crap at each other!
This is a civil matter. The "ticket" does not get put on your driving record. It is a matter of a financial slap on the wrist for being stupid.
I'm glad the guy interviewed who refused to pay his ticket didn't run into someone when he had mechanical failures at the light through no fault of his own. I mean, how was he to know his vehicle was faulty? Somebody else needs to take that responsibility. What if he ran over a pedestrian? Who would be responsible then?
I wonder if he got the defects repaired by a certified mechanic so this won't happen again?
tom_bombadil could you explain further?
If you have an outstanding ticket for running a red light, that you got caught through the camera, and you get stopped later for another infraction and the officer checks your record and finds this outstanding ticket, he couldn't arrest you right there?
Not that I'm saying your wrong, just would like to know more info.
I have some news for you, it doesn't matter. there is no recourse for not paying a redlight camera ticket ! you cannot be arrested for non-payment, nor can the ticket be put with a collection agency ! This is fact.
That's right, family man. I agree.
I have seen fewer drivers blatently run red lights and feel safer now that the city has the intersections monitored. The lights are working the way they are supposed to work.
It's a shame that a government has to go to such levels to protect and serve. I guess running a red light means nothing to some people and, to them, an occasional traffic fatality is just a price we have to pay so they can get to their destination quicker.
Now, if the shopping center owners would install curbs to curtail the crazies from driving across like they're in their own cow pastures, I'd feel really safe. To the man who almost ran me over, arrows are not just pretty decorations. They mean something to the rest of us.
I say keep the red light cameras. Those who want them removed are most of those that have been ticketed. If you obey the law then you won't get a ticket, simple as that!