If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Chron)   Houston red-light camera critic intentionally runs red light so he can challenge the program, gets ticketed by a live cop instead. No, you can't have a lawsuit -- not yours   (chron.com) divider line 46
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

6195 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Sep 2006 at 6:26 PM (8 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



46 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2006-09-17 12:32:20 PM  
As far as comedy goes... I totally don't get Benny Hill, The Three Stooges, and the "Not Yours" cliche. I look at it both written and the retarded graphic with the little inset picture and nothing happens. Not even a smirk.

Oh well. Not mine.
 
2006-09-17 06:08:26 PM  
Article: "They are afraid of the challenge we're going to give them in court,'' Michael Kubosh said.

Then maybe they shouldn't have the stupid cameras. IMO, tickets should only be given out by actual cops. We don't need this bullshiat-government-money-maker to protect people.
 
2006-09-17 06:32:29 PM  
He should have read the article below on how to beat a ticket...
 
2006-09-17 06:33:09 PM  
Why is the fine $200 if a cop sees you do it, and $75 if the camera does?
 
2006-09-17 06:33:17 PM  
The big problem with red light cameras (besides the stories of shorter yellow lights to increase revenue) is that they mainly catch people running yellow lights, not people running full red lights. The other problem is that red lights in areas that aren't so busy should act as stop signs between 10pm and 5am.

/imho
 
2006-09-17 06:33:41 PM  
aw well...LOL!

might not want to run red lights, sport


also: when is everyone just going to give in and realize..we live in a police state and we dont need to think for ourselves at all, just pay your taxes and shut up....and die when we say you can..
 
2006-09-17 06:39:12 PM  
how about not running red lights?
 
2006-09-17 06:39:37 PM  
Bear Toy

I wondered what kind of a person goes into a thread just to say how unfunny he thinks it is.

Then I clicked your profile and it became clear.

Somebody from Dallas would do that.
 
2006-09-17 06:45:10 PM  
I totally don't get Benny Hill, The Three Stooges, and the "Not Yours" cliche. I look at it both written and the retarded graphic with the little inset picture and nothing happens. Not even a smirk.

I get the "not yours" joke, but I think it only works when used with graphics/pictures.

(As for the others: Benny Hill just isn't funny, and think of The Three Stooges as clowns.)

/teh headline blows
 
2006-09-17 06:50:05 PM  
The other problem is that red lights in areas that aren't so busy should act as stop signs between 10pm and 5am.

Flashing reds. I agree.
 
2006-09-17 06:53:38 PM  
HPD has been cracking down on the homeless problem in that part of downtown.A bum last week attack a man riding his bike.
 
2006-09-17 06:54:37 PM  
Yea, please don't run red lights. If you're having trouble with that little concept, maybe you shouldn't be driving.

I'm at a red on my bicycle or motorcycle, light turns green, *whoosh* there goes a truck. I'm the jerk you're always stuck behind at a green light who waits a full second or two to go just because I would rather not be killed by some selfish a-hole who can't judge distance/time/speed correctly.

So please dont honk at me when the light turns green and I don't immediatly gas it: I'm waiting for the soccer mom in the SUV on her cell phone to blow through
 
2006-09-17 06:59:38 PM  
The other problem is that red lights in areas that aren't so busy should act as stop signs between 10pm and 5am.

Damn right. There's a little town roughly 80 miles from where I live that has a single stoplight on main street. I drove through there one night at about 3AM. The light was red when I pulled up to it, so I stopped and waited. And waited. And waited. There was *no* other traffic; the whole town and everyone within probably 20 miles was asleep. The farking thing refused to turn green for me. But I did the "right" thing and kept waiting, but after about five minutes(!) I said fark it and ran the light. Gah. It's been probably 2-3 months since then and I'm still irritated about that light, for some reason.
 
2006-09-17 07:06:14 PM  
Hey, cut Benny Hill some slack. Ok, the comedy was lame, but seeing that much skin and boobies on free TV was a pretty big deal to this teenager back in the mid 80s!

/Still don't like teh stooges
 
2006-09-17 07:15:02 PM  
One problem with our legal system is the you cannot challenge the validity of laws until you are charged with violating said law.
 
2006-09-17 07:17:15 PM  
One problem with our legal system is the you cannot challenge the validity of laws until you are charged with violating said law.

Actually, that's a very good thing.
 
2006-09-17 07:22:50 PM  
my girlfriend got a ticket from one of these a YEAR after. what sucks is you get the ticket even if someone else was using your car.
 
2006-09-17 07:23:16 PM  
i33.photobucket.com

/ "On some sin-infested street corner in Houston, Texas ..."
 
2006-09-17 07:31:59 PM  
trueaustinite: Actually, that's a very good thing.

No, it's not.

/1st grade debate champion
//Not really
 
2006-09-17 07:35:19 PM  
balthan

Is too ;)

No, really. Without the requirement for harm, it is possible, and quite likely, that people and groups would have the entire legal system choked down with lawsuits about law after law -- just because they could.

What we're talking about is the 'standing' doctrine.
 
2006-09-17 07:43:36 PM  
I just had this great idea:
Install tire-shredding spike strips at major intersections. after the light turns red, based on the same signal that turns the light red, 5 inch spikes shoot up out of the ground and destroy the tires on any car running the light.

//feeling spiteful after i nearly got t-boned by a redlight runner/
 
2006-09-17 07:47:54 PM  
trueaustinite: No, really. Without the requirement for harm, it is possible, and quite likely, that people and groups would have the entire legal system choked down with lawsuits about law after law -- just because they could

Well, I never said there was an easy solution. :) It's just a shame that people are affected by bad laws because they are unwilling are unable to violate those laws in order to challenge them.

It's too bad there's no mechanism in place to challenge laws without allowing actual criminals from tying up the court system.
 
2006-09-17 07:48:31 PM  
I have a solution to red light runners: eliminate the red lights. At each intersection, dig a tunnel to that one of the roads can pass under the other.

/Available for consulting contracts for other problems
 
2006-09-17 07:49:53 PM  
Camera tickets are considered a civil offense hence the cheaper fine. Each 'taping' is reviewed by an officer to confirm the validity of offense, the tape of the incident is available for review in-line by the owner of the vehicle.

Running red lights causes accidents, it kills and maims people and raises insurance rates, don't do it. The intersections have all been in the Houston paper andthe few of them that there are are are clearly marked so the ticket is an idiot tax as much as anything. So, don't be an idiot.
 
2006-09-17 07:51:16 PM  
Texas is farking hardcore!

I'm shocked that running a red light is a criminal offense and a misdemeanor in Texas - and can get you arrested!

What happens in Texas if you commit what people in "regular" states consider a petty crime - like shoplifting or criminal tresspass? Do they shoot you on sight?

Assumming traffic violations in Texas are crimes and most of us have been caught violating traffic laws:

Doesn't that mean most Texans have a criminal record?

Just wow...
 
2006-09-17 07:51:20 PM  
i agree with EB007. where i live there's this idea that red light means only 2 or 3 more cars get to go.(makes left turns not so easy)
 
2006-09-17 08:03:21 PM  
Where I live, the city is doing a trial of some red light camera. That intersection had the most accidents. That's the reason they gave but I think they want to see how much money they can make from it.

I imagine rear end accidents will occur more.

People like to drive like assholes in Saskatoon.
 
2006-09-17 08:06:57 PM  
corporatestool
besides, you admit this would make for interesting videos on the local news.
Cue Ric Romano
Ric: After the City installed this new anti-red light runner spike strips fatal auto accidents at this intersection doubled...why?
Cut to video of cell-phone toting soccer mom running the light, slo-mo of spike strips coming up and popping all four tires.
 
2006-09-17 08:11:27 PM  
It does not surprise me to see that HPD staked out the scene to guarantee that the guy got a ticket so he could not challenge the cameras in court. HPD has always been right up there with the NOPD as the most corrupt/useless cops in the nation.
 
2006-09-17 08:21:05 PM  
FuturePastNow: Why is the fine $200 if a cop sees you do it, and $75 if the camera does?

They'll say because less resources were used. I'd say it's because there's less of chance you'll biatch and pay.
 
2006-09-17 08:35:41 PM  
How are red light cameras a bad thing? Yes, they can be disputed, and that's fine..

But I can't see it as a violation of any of our rights because driving isn't a right, it's a priviledge and, after all, we're not on private property. :D

/I don't run red lights
//But I've almost been hit by those who do.
///Farking dip-shiats.
 
2006-09-17 08:45:32 PM  
balthan: It's too bad there's no mechanism in place to challenge laws without allowing actual criminals from tying up the court system.

28 USC 2201 allows declaratory judgments. So long as there is a chance the law might be enforced against you, you can challenge its validity. Though the statute I cited was federal, Texas has a similar version.
 
2006-09-17 09:07:26 PM  
I agree with what corporatestool is saying. I remember back when the light turned yellow you could count on making your left because the people opposite you would slow down and stop. Now I'm lucky to make that left before its red because I have to wait for the other guys to run the light.

The sad thing is that I've be rear ended by the people in SUVs who assume im gonna floor it to get through and are thus unable to deal with me actually stopping my car instead of running the light. This only makes my decision to stop or not longer because I have to think about whether I'll be rear ended if I stop.

Granted many yellow lights are not timed right anymore for the speed of the road they are on. I've seen 55 MPH highways with 15 second+ yellow lights, thats proper timing. I've seen roads with 40 MPH traffic having 2 second yellow lights, thats not proper timing! There has to be some official study from the NTSB on yellow light timing versus road speed. They should require yellow lights to be timed properly. Luckily the only places I know with red light cameras (or atleast what I assume are) have properly timed yellow lights.
 
2006-09-17 09:11:48 PM  
www.strk3.com
 
2006-09-17 09:32:41 PM  
My only nagging problem with these red light cameras has been and still is that the owner of the car is the one ticketed. If a cop pulls you over and you're driving your brother's/mother's/girlfriend's etc. car, you get the ticket and not them. If a red light camera catches you, bro/mom/gf gets the ticket. Also, what if you're driving a newly purchased car with a dealer drive-out tag? There is no way to send anyone a ticket. The only explanation is that the cameras are a government-sanctioned racket. They don't make the streets any safer, since a habitual red-light runner will still run lights, and those of us who try to avoid running them in the first place will now be more anxious than ever and will likely be rear-ended when we slam on our brakes to avoid running even a yellow light.

No, these things are all about the money.
 
2006-09-17 09:52:52 PM  
Here's a good article on how red light cameras cause more accidents and are installed just as revenue producers.

http://www3.roanoke.com/columnists/gottstein/11342.html

Much of the information contained in the article is from A 2001 report entitled "The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it Intentional?" commissioned by U.S. House of Representatives Majority Leader Dick Armey, R-Texas, and researched by the non-partisan General Accounting Office of Congress.

If you're interested in traffic saftey, you lengthen yellows.
 
2006-09-17 10:10:44 PM  
In Florida, you get .15 seconds of yellow for every mph of the speed limit and this is the same everywhere in the state; 40mph, 6 second yellow. Also, you aren't running the red if you are already in the intersection when the light changes. It's simple and consistent.
 
2006-09-17 10:36:11 PM  
I graduated high school with the lawyer brother of the guy who ran the red in the article... Can't wait to call up and laugh at them. We were best friends in high school... always thunk it was too bad he chose to become a lawyer and go to the dark side like this.
 
2006-09-17 10:47:41 PM  
heinousjay

email me, please.
 
2006-09-17 11:43:42 PM  
Doesn't everyone know in Houston a red light means One more car can go through the intersection.

Actually this guy was on the radio talking about doing this and they even aid they would have a cop on site just to write him a ticket. You would think he would have listened and moved his test case spot.
 
M-G
2006-09-17 11:56:44 PM  
Studies have shown that red-light infractions can be reduced by simply increasing the amount of yellow time.

Interesting that when revenues drop at camera-equipped intersections, one of the things they do is lower the yellow time.

Red light cameras are pushed by a couple of companies who convince cities that their products are the solution to all their traffic problems, and will make them some revenue too.

Last weekend I was behind someone who obviously thought the emergency vehicle detection system was a traffic camera, and he practically locked up his brakes when the light turned yellow, which of course required me to do the same.

Are blatant red-light runners dangerous? Sure. But if they're so dangerous, why don't they rate a real police officer to stop them and cite them?
 
2006-09-18 04:44:40 AM  
FuturePastNow: Why is the fine $200 if a cop sees you do it, and $75 if the camera does?

Because they can get 4 or 5 people a day at $200 if they have the cops do it, and most of those will be people that ran the light way after it changed - cops aren't going to waste their time on the ones that hit the light .65 seconds after the change. But the camera will give out 300 or 500 or 1,000 tickets that same day, and .65 seconds after the fact is enough for it.

And all they want is the money. If they cared about accidents, we would be going down a different path.
 
2006-09-18 05:05:11 AM  
trueaustinite: Actually, that's a very good thing.

I totally disagree. I've read your posts before, and I'm surprised that you said that. If you really believe it, I'd like to argue about it a bit, if you are interested. I'm hoping that as you think about it again, you would realize that it's a bad plan.

I've never gotten pulled over or ticketed for running a red light, but I have read enough to believe that doing this is a bad plan. Your theory seems to be that I don't have any say unless I'm already labeled as a criminal that broke the law. I don't like that at all. I think that if it's a bad law, I should have a chance to say that up front - before I get arrested for it, and before anyone else gets arrested for it.

And while I'm not at all opposed to using cameras to help decide who is driving reasonably, and who isn't, the way that red light cameras are set up is all about money, and actually makes us less safe.

If a law is wrong, I shouldn't have to break that law in order to have a right to say "That law isn't right!".
 
2006-09-18 08:55:04 AM  
balthan: It's too bad there's no mechanism in place to challenge laws without allowing actual criminals from tying up the court system.

And there is such a mechanism. It's called "voting." Elect people who will pass the laws that you want and un-elect the people who won't. And if you don't like any of them, you can run for office yourself.
 
2006-09-18 10:19:35 AM  
JuggleGeek

The points you made are all the good arguments for your stance.

The argument against is one of judicial economy.

Can you imagine how completely paralyzed the judicial system would be in this country if anyone could, at any time and for any reason, challenge the validity of any law?

No matter what law is passed, somebody somewhere does not like it.

We exercise our voice as citizens at large through the election of the legislative branch.
 
2006-09-18 03:02:19 PM  
Hah! Looks good on the bastid.

There's a simple solution to everyone complaining about "what if someone else is driving my car?". How about you don't loan your vehicle out except to maybe your spouse?

Since typically married couples share income (conceptually, rather than a joint account) if one gets the ticket, both will know about it.

Anything else is stupidity... if you're getting a ride home from a designated driver, after a night of drinking, the DD better be smart enough to actually drive sensibly.

It's like the person who ran 15 red lights on Christmas day once because there were no cars at all on the road, and got a HUGE fine. Looks good on them. If you're too impatient to wait a couple minutes at a light, then you shouldn't be on the road in the first place because you're a menace to everyone else.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report