Comments

  • If you see the study rleased today from the Insurance Institute read a bit deeper and you will see this is a flawed study by an organziation that has a stake in the game. Their member insurance companies are allowed in some states to raise insruance rates on those with red light camera tickets so they are in it for the money. Very flawed study and not independent.

    Lots of good comments being said on this blog. Most tickets are issued in the first 1 second of a red light yet most accidents happen after 5 seconds. So we are ticketing those that are not causing accidents. Hence a reason for engineering changes at intersections: increase yellow lights, make traffic signals more visible and increase the time that both lights are red at teh same time. These methods are proven ways to decrease accidents without taking all that money from the community that could be better spent within the community. We all want safer intersections just done the way that makes SENSE and saves CENTS.

    February 1, 2011 at 8:07 a.m.
  • PHOTO enforcemetnt is not about safety. (Nevermind the IIHS propoganda piece about to be released. Get this IIHS compares 1992 thru 1996 to 2004 thru 2008 numbers. The problem is 2008 was the year the deaths dropped due to recession, talk about CHERRY PICKING YOUR NUMBERS!).

    RLC require violations to be profitable!

    Most RLV crashes are PLUS 5 seconds into red. Most have secondary themes like DUI, fleeing police, not paying attention, mechanical/medical.

    In the meantime most RLC tickets are for technical fouls like:

    1. right turns on red!
    2. stopping over the stop line.
    3. split second mistakes that longer ambers stop!

    Fight the SCAM!

    Ban the CAMS!

    www.motorists.org
    www.banthecams.org
    www.camerafraud.com
    www.bancams.com

    January 31, 2011 at 10:08 p.m.
  • ARTDEC008 I couldn't agree more. I know the city wants everyone to believe that redflex contacted them to help with a so called problem. But if you want to believe that someone from Australia contacted lil' old Port Lavaca to help them out with their red light problem they must be living in lolly pop land. If so shouldn't the police chief be held responsible for his lack of oversight? Not to mention the police chiefs own words on not knowing about the red light camera scam....that's a real shocker!! I am sure they sent letters out to all municipalities in hopes of selling ( key word selling) them a system that could generate a lot of revenue. If it was all about safety they would have a camera up at Virginia and 35 were an accident was just this morning but, that particular intersection didn't have enough violations or was it through traffic? The only place they were installed were at hi volume intersections hinse the high school, Brookhollow and Brookhollow estates. I can't believe they even asked Russell Cain's opinion...whom owns a real estate company...Naturally he would be for them, he doesn't want anyone to think negative about him. People need to wake up and smell the money!!

    January 31, 2011 at 4:31 p.m.
  • There are NO definitive, unbiased studies indicating red light cameras make intersections any safer -- none whatsoever!

    Also, from a legal perspective, the companies operating the units and collecting the fines really have no authority to do anything if a fine isn't paid. Check the judicial system nationwide and you'll see this is true...

    The camera systems are nothing more than an easy way for cities to line their coffers with ill-gotten gains.

    January 31, 2011 at 4:12 p.m.
  • And the video attached to this story says it all. Even with cameras in place all these distracted drivers still ran the red light. Did not stop them. Only made the city a little richer if the people were stupid enough to pay the fine.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:18 p.m.
  • I could not have said it any better........they do NOT work except in raising revenue for the city and camera operator.

    January 31, 2011 at 3:16 p.m.
  • Red Light Cameras do not make intersections safer! Under the guise of public safety many municipalities have installed red light cameras, but the reality is they use it for generating income by lowering their out of pocket cost of using patrol officers.

    Yes, they reduce the amount of red light violations. Yes, they reduce the number of accidents either head on or side impact. But, the reality is that more rear-end accidents occur because of individuals not familiar with the actual laws that govern the cameras or the "act" of running a red light.

    What the officials of municipalities need to do is a thorough case study!

    Take Lubbock, Texas for example; after installing the red light cameras, accidents involving vehicles running red lights decreased but rear-end accidents increased exponentially because many people were afraid to get tickets and slam on their brakes at the last second giving the driver behind them no time to react. Fines were mailed out to the violators, but less than a 1/3 of the fines were ever paid. It was deemed irresponsible for the city to continue the program at the cost of safety and loss of income to pay for the system and man hours to check the violations. The city repealed the city code/law after two years and remove the cameras. They increased their patrol activity and were capable of managing the problem.

    Another factor in the red light cameras were the timing of "yellow" lights. Many of the lights were not of the legal length of time based on the speed limit of the road.

    My vote is to strike down any possibility of red light cameras. I would rather see police officers do their jobs for once in this city and stop the numerous "bad" and "irresponsible" drivers in Victoria!

    January 31, 2011 at 1:58 p.m.
  • Cameras do not stop people from running red lights. Red light related accidents are caused by distracted drivers and a camera being at an intersection will not prevent a driver from being distracted. These are in place for revenue only. A better answer as per a study conducted by the Texas Trasnportation Institute is to make engineering enhancements at intersections either by increasing the timing of the yellow lights or increasing the timing when both lights are red. These are proven ways to decrease accidents. Unfortunately this story was not well written and did not really hit the key points as to why cameras are not the real solution to red light running. Everyone wants safer intersections and there are such better ways to accomplish that then sending hundreds of thousands of dollars out of the city to a red light camera company. Engineering enhancements and law enforcement officials are the answer not a red light camera company that does nothing but mail bills out for the city.

    January 31, 2011 at 1:23 p.m.
  • KyleC - Then again there are some I would not.....

    January 31, 2011 at 12:42 p.m.
  • There are a few bathrooms I'd love to see cameras in.

    January 31, 2011 at 12:23 p.m.
  • BaxCato..."I will never understand why that intersection wasn't blessed with a light-camera. It is dangerous."

    Gee, I'm confused. How would the camera PREVENT someone from running a red light? Do they control a gate or some such device? Every intersection is dangerous. Driving while holding hot coffee between your thighs is dangerous. Stepping out of the bathtub is dangerous. You suppose we need cameras inside our cars and bathrooms to eliminate dangers?

    January 31, 2011 at noon
  • Cameras are nothing but revenue producers that don't require any manpower to administer the citation. The powers that be will always use the word "safety" when these are installed, but we know the real reason they appear. A fatal wreck is always cited as the reason needed, but there is not a busy interesection around that hasn't had a fatality even with red lights. It's just like the seat belt law. I can cruise around in my 6500 lb Tahoe IF I have my seat belt on, but if I'm riding a motorcycle, I don't need a helmet!!! Revenue producing law all the way, but it's for my safety. Sure it is.

    January 31, 2011 at 11:10 a.m.
  • I saw the accident. It was minor. No 18-wheeler. The guy was standing there while his car was being loaded. He looked fine to me...

    January 31, 2011 at 10:59 a.m.
  • There was an awful wreck at 35 and Virginia in Port Lavaca this morning. I suspect the truck (18 wheeler?) ran the light but of course I am just guessing. A poor driver in a little green car got t-boned. Let's pray for the driver and any other victims there may have been.

    I will never understand why that intersection wasn't blessed with a light-camera. It is dangerous.

    January 31, 2011 at 10:27 a.m.
  • We should have them at EVERY intersection and stop sign. Even in neighborhoods. Then after the city generates enough money from those tickets, they can hire more officers to catch all of those folks that are riding their horses at night without tail lights properly installed.

    http://blog.bestoftexas.com/san-anton...

    January 31, 2011 at 9:21 a.m.
  • If the motive for the Red Light Cameras is revenue that is wrong. If the public official's motive is safety, then the cameras could be a good thing. So Port Lavaca ask your elected officials to donate all of the cities' "take" from the cameras to charities for the homeless and hungry. Their answer will tell you their real motive. And while you are at it, assign traffic ticket revenue to other charitable works. Perhaps then our law enforcement's time would be freed up to preventing crime.

    January 31, 2011 at 8:13 a.m.
  • Can we also use them to ticket all of those who use the Left Turn lane as the MERGE lane! It's scary on Navarro.
    Patrick Barnes

    January 31, 2011 at 7:53 a.m.
  • Traffic cameras generate revenue...that's why they have them.

    January 31, 2011 at 7:25 a.m.
  • Victoria needs them! Especially along Navarro and the main streets, as well as around school zones, Lone Tree and Ben Wilson and Lone Tree and Ben Jordan and North Streets to name just a few.

    ---I'll have more to say after the BASHING begins!-------------------------

    ------------------------- oh well ---------------------------------------------

    January 31, 2011 at 6:40 a.m.