Posted on 09/01/2006 8:58:53 AM PDT by Snickering Hound
As red-light enforcement cameras start taking money shots at 10 city intersections today, police are warning that it's illegal to try and thwart the technology.
Starting today, owners of vehicles the cameras catch running red lights will receive $75 civil fines. The cameras photograph rear license plates, and citations are mailed to registered vehicle owners.
Officials are cautioning drivers not to use clear sprays and license-plate covers advertised as preventing cameras from taking readable images of plate numbers.
"It's against the law," said Executive Assistant Chief of Police Martha Montalvo, who oversees the camera program.
Most of the stealth products create a glossy covering that sellers say causes a glare when hit by the camera's flash.
Pennsylvania-based Phantom Plate Inc. and other manufacturers of the products have gained business as more cities adopt camera technology for traffic enforcement. Phantom Plate's most popular product, PhotoBlocker Spray, and other items are sold mainly on the Internet.
Phantom Plate has seen an increase in sales in Houston and Texas recently, said company spokesman Joe Scott.
As in many other states, Texas makes it a misdemeanor to obscure a license plate, including use of "a coating, covering or protective material that distorts angular visibility or detectability." Another state law makes it a felony to alter a government document or impair its legibility.
Scott acknowledged that Phantom Plate's PhotoShield clear license-plate covers are illegal in Texas. But state law does not prohibit sprays, such as PhotoBlocker, that are invisible to the naked eye and only affect photos, he said.
New York and Illinois passed laws in recent years against PhotoBlocker Spray, Scott said. An attorney in Houston's legal department said the city has no plans for such an ordinance.
American Traffic Solutions Inc., the company that runs the camera system in Houston, says most such products aren't effective — including PhotoBlocker Spray, which sells for $29.99.
"It's a waste of money. Just stop on red," said Jim Tuton, CEO of Phoenix-based ATS, which also has camera-enforcement projects in Seattle, New York and Philadelphia.
Scott said his company does not condone red-light violators but wants to protect them from overzealous prosecution. Like other opponents of red-light cameras, he says the program is simply a way for the city and vendor to make money.
Houston's $75 fine is low compared with some other cities that use the technology, Tuton said.
Violators have 45 days after the ticket is issued to pay the fine or request a hearing. Violators who do neither will receive a final warning before a collection agency attempts to collect the debt. The city has no mechanism for penalizing violators who don't pay the fine.
Police can still write tickets — misdemeanor criminal citations that carry fines up to $200.
The City Council approved Houston's camera project in 2004, but it was delayed by debate in the state Legislature last year over whether to ban red-light cameras. This year, it was stalled at City Hall for months by rejected contractors who said the vendor-selection process was unfair.
So far, cameras have been installed at 10 intersections, but the goal is to use them at 50 sites. Police are expected to announce the next 10 locations sometime this month.
The list likely will include several intersections that belong to the Texas Department of Transportation. Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott recently told the city it's legal to install cameras on TxDOT roads.
City officials project that the program will bring in $6.7 million for the fiscal year ending next June 30.
Of that, about $2.4 million will go to ATS. It also will receive a processing fee for each citation if the number of violators caught daily by each camera exceeds 25. But the per-camera payment is capped at $5,000 a month, to blunt criticism that a per-citation payment structure gives companies incentive to design systems that catch many violators.
Most of the rest of the revenue will go to police overtime necessary because of the department's manpower shortage, said Houston Police Chief Harold Hurtt. About $100,000 will help fund driver education for high school students.
Hurtt expects the program to reduce the number of drivers who run red lights and reduce the number of fatalities and injuries at intersections.
But critics of red-light cameras say the technology causes an increase in rear-end collisions because drivers hit the brakes to avoid a ticket when approaching a yellow light.
"It's going to make the streets more dangerous while taking people's money," said Greg Mauz of the Texas chapter of the National Motorists Association.
The city plans to monitor crash data at cameras sites, Hurtt said.
A 2005 study by the Federal Highway Administration showed that in seven communities where red-light cameras were used, right-angle crashes decreased 24 percent while rear-end crashes increased 15 percent. Right-angle crashes, or T-bone collisions, usually are more severe.
So the study suggests it has to be cameras OR no cameras? No other solutions possible? What about increaseing the yellow light by a second or two. If the city was REALLY concerned about accidents, wounldn't that work?
"And the Houston cops are fighting for the ability to continue their dangerous chase policy (that often times ends when the perp crashes into some innocent civilian)."
Yeah, I don't know how a high-speed chase on public roads can be defended as any more responsible than getting into an unnecessary shoot-out in a busy street. Deaths and injuries to innocent bystanders are almost certain. But they don't seem to care about that. OTOH, I can see the other side of the argument, too, that if you don't chase then suspects know that all they need to do to end a chase is elevate speeds to a dangerous level.
Great Minds Think Alike. That thought was running through my head as I read the article.
My vote is for industrious vandals to paint the cameras.
I hear that police put their lives on the line every day. So does anyone who goes out to fill up with gas, goes out for a night's entertainment, or drives to work. All such citizens have been the victims of deadly carjackings and drive by shootings.
We need more peacekeepers and less "law enforcement" tax collectors.
No, you're right.
I think that people fail to appreciate the unintended consequences of nanny-state thinking.
If I'm tooling along toward an intersection and the light changes, I'm going to make a judgement based on a lot of variables whether or not I stop or continue.
I suspect that the first blink of yellow will cause otherwise sensible drivers to slam on the brakes.
Adding another variable (a camera) that jacks up the pressure on my decision making doesn't, IMHO, make the intersection any safer.
Time for some target practice with a scoped .22 rifle.
And if a driver spots you giving money to them, Mayor Bob-White wants you to call 311 to report that driver.
His priorities are screwed.
Especially when a collection agency may be jacking with the timing of lights. What you know from past experience with that light may no longer hold.
So mail the owner a speeding ticket (good enough for red lights, good enough for speeders).
In the event of stolen cars, the stolen vehicle report would invalidate the ticket the owner of the vehicle receives.
I know several people who've been carjacked and there was no attempt to prosecute the people who stole the cars when they were later recovered (with photo IDs of the theives still in the cars). So why chase? To total out the stolen car? Or because of too much caffine and too much exposure to COPS, SWAT and other programs?
The the city collects for the lawyers advertising on city benches at the intersection.
I do agree. I don't think many people make a habit of literally running red light - stretching the yellow a little maybe, but there's usually a little padding in the timing that will allow for that. People do sometimes inadvertently truly run red lights (done it myself once, that I know about, with a cop on the other side of the intersection - d'oh!) and I doubt if the presence of a red light camera is going to to much about that.
This is a shakedown at it's finest. It's not about safety, and it's all about the money.
I want the 3 police unions in Houston to state that they will require police to go before a judge for any and all red lights they run.
Happens all the time when there is no traffic around (but maybe pedestrians). Cops don't wait just like cops speed.
I don't see that as a perk of the job or badge. They do it in their private vehicles as well as cop cars (you may hear from time to time about officers who have fatal accidents who "were in pursuit" while driving around out of uniform on their own time in their own vehicles, funny how that is).
Going before a judge would put it all out there in public to see if they really were answering a call.
Red-light cameras?
Money shots?
mmmmmkay.
I must have missed that part in the last radio spot I heard him do. I swear, some days.
I saw his Westchase/park ?? town hall did not go the way he expected.
It's also the (law of the land) for every citizen to face his accusor in a court of law. So I would like to cross examine the camera your honor.
It'll give the politicians $125 more of your money that they otherwise would have had to hold a referendum to get hold of, reason enough in my book to say no to the cameras
Breaking the cameras American't won't break.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.