Looks like we can dispose of any notion of the city installing red light cameras to make the streets safer. It’s all about the money, apparently: "But had the council delayed the vote two weeks, council members would have been forced to plug a $140,000 hole in the Dallas’ 2007-2008, since revenue from the 40 new red light cameras is included in City Manager Mary Suhm’s budget proposal. The council is slated to pass a final budget by Sept. 26. "
Note to council: Congratulations. You have convinced someone who initially supported red light cameras to oppose them. Public policy should be determined by what’s good for the public, not to make budgets work. I expected more from a council with so many members who talk about fiscal responsibility. What are you doing to do next year if red light revenue falls off? Install more cameras? Move to speeding cameras?
The Wine Curmudgeon 
So if somebody does the right thing for the wrong reason you want them not to do the right thing?
So signal light technology knows if you run a red light and can send you a citation, but it does not bother to see that you are sitting at that red light alone, without an oncoming car in sight and consequently turn that light green.
Running a red light is wrong, illegal, immoral and dangerous. But to get hit by someone who does so more often than not means somebody didn’t make sure the intersection was clear before going through it. You want better safety, we need better training and better drivers. That license should not be a birthday present from the State.
Boy, you guys are hard on me. I changed my mind because motive does matter. Plus, there is the issue of the dubious constitutionality of the process. It’s one thing to use the cameras to make the world a safer place. It’s another to use them to prop up the budget because the polticial will doesn’t exist to raise the cash by traditional means, such as taxes.
Boy, you guys are hard on me. I changed my mind because motive does matter. Plus, there is the issue of the dubious constitutionality of the process. It’s one thing to use the cameras to make the world a safer place. It’s another to use them to prop up the budget because the polticial will doesn’t exist to raise the cash by traditional means, such as taxes.
I do not completely support red-light cameras since I think they are too “Big Brother” for my liking, however I support the goal(s) they try to solve. I commend municipalities for coming up with creative solutions to raise funds instead of doing the easy thing and raise taxes like Jeff proposes. I also like the fact they deter red-light running (even though I “ran” a few due to a poorly timed light – no ticket though).
In fact, they seem to deter red light running so much, Garland’s revenue has dropped so much they can barely afford to pay the vendor. I suspect the same will happen in Dallas. Revenue will spike and then come down. Maybe, the only way they can think to increase the revenue is to add more cameras which will only be a short term solution.
Raising taxes is always the easy way out and frankly is a cop-out.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/latestnews/stories/082907dnmetredlights.256f857.html
Jeff: you are 100% correct.
Something to chew on: How much revenue is raised when we catch murderers or burglars? Why do we all assume that traffic revenue has to be profitable?
What would be wrong with eliminating 100% of the profit from these programs? Allow cities to recoup operating costs and nothing else. Would we see as many cameras? Or any?
Jeff: you are 100% correct.
Something to chew on: How much revenue is raised when we catch murderers or burglars? Why do we all assume that traffic revenue has to be profitable?
What would be wrong with eliminating 100% of the profit from these programs? Allow cities to recoup operating costs and nothing else. Would we see as many cameras? Or any?
BTW, cities are statutorily banned from operating speed revenue machines by the most recent legislature. But all it takes to reverse this is the next legislature!
You guys need to check out http://thenewspaper.com. You’ll be shocked at how anti-driver our revenue-based traffic enforcement system has become.
Why do Texans get upset when someone interferes with their god given right to blaze through a red light? And just what is the “dubious constitutionality” at issue? It’s a civil proceeding, it does not go on your driving record, and the fine is pretty low. You have plenty of due process if you want to contest it. Go down to City Hall and watch the 12 second video of your car running a red light. You don’t get a ticket unless you enter on red. These things actually work and they catch only the people who blatantly blast through these red lights. As to the revenue issue, there’s nothing wrong with budgeting for what you know is coming in. People get tickets, they pay tickets, so it just makes sense to plan to spend the money the best way possible.
Hopefully we can all agree running red lights is a bad thing (although it’s been a while since I looked through Deuteronomy, so immoral may be pushing it.)
If there’s a significant problem with running red lights at a particular intersection, then our highly paid road engineers should look at the traffic patterns and light timing as a first measure.
Hopefully we can all agree running red lights is a bad thing (although it’s been a while since I looked through Deuteronomy, so immoral may be pushing it.)
If there’s a significant problem with running red lights at a particular intersection, then our highly paid road engineers should look at the traffic patterns and light timing as a first measure.
DK, it’s in Romans 13, rather than Deuteronomy. 🙂