PLEASE DONATE!
We need your support, we are about to do a massive campaign which can be very expensive, all funds collected will be used to fight red light cameras. Donations of $10 or more get a bumper sticker, $50 or more gets a T-Shirt, please be sure to include your address and shirt size, and finance laws require us to record your name, occupation and address so please include this in your payment otherwise it will have to be returned. You can paypal to baytownredlightcamera@yahoo.com or mail to PO box 7064 Baytown, TX 77522. Please Make checks out to Baytown Red Light Camera Coalition. Please note donations must be reported to the state according to finance campaign laws and donations will be part of the public record.
CHECK OUT OUR NEW FORUM
http://myforum.saferbaytown.com
See the reasons for safety minded, freedom loving citizens to oppose the red light cameras on our FAQ page
2-2-10
We need your input. The city has reached out to me to figure out what if anything they can do to enact strict reforms on the red light camera program. The intent would be to give safe drivers every benefit of the doubt for violations while still penalizing the worst offenders. I told the council that I would put the possible changes up for our supporters to review and respond. Please review these changes and offer me your input on these potential changes. It is important to consider that these are only possible solutions and if they are all implemented there would still be numerous problems that we still object to such as; constitutional issues of equal protection and due process, the worst offenders would still face no criminal prosecution or any penalty for ignoring the violation notices . Also, it would not address the safety issue of people slamming on thier brakes to avoid a ticket risking more accidents. We are also continuing with our petition effort as many of our supporters tell us that regardless of any reforms they want a vote on the cameras. Please email me at baytownredlightcamera@yahoo.com with your input, I will be reviewing all responses and sharing them with the city to discuss recommendations. What I need to know from you is what do you think of the proposed changes and would you still support a vote to ban the cameras even if all changes were implemented. Any other comments are welcome. Some of the proposed changes we discussed are;
Ensuring that all camera monitored intersections conform to the ITE minimum yellow change interval standards and allow a slight grace time before a violation will be issued.
Reduce the amount of right on red violations for "California" stops for drivers going through the intersection at less than a low speed such as 3mph.
Set up a citizen's advisory panel as an oversight of the program and to recommend policies and procedures.
A freeze on installing any more cameras not already installed and operational.
Offer refunds for those ticketed under the short yellow timing.
Renegotiate with the camera company to have them paid a monthly fee instead of a % of every ticket issued and collected.
01-06-09
NEW PETITIONS READY TO SIGN
We need you again. We have proposed new petition language that conforms to all the requirements for a valid petition. While we believe our initial petition is valid we are willing to do whatever we need to do to get this issue on the ballot. If you signed the petition before we need you to sign again. If you haven't signed before now is the time! Please stop by one of our petition locations to sign the new petition. We also will have volunteers coming to your neighborhood soon, please watch for them. If you want to help gather signatures please contact me for instructions.
WE DEMAND A VOTE!
One day after accepting the petition from the people demanding a vote on the red light cameras the city has rejected the petition. They claim our petition is invalid. We don't think the will of the people asking for a vote can be invalid. The overriding principle of a petition is to have the will of the people done. The city knows that this unpopular program will never survive a public vote and will do ANYTHING to make sure you don't get a say on it. See the actual language of the initiative section of the city municipal code below. Note that the people can propose "any ordinance" by petition. We are considering our legal options at this time and will decide what our next steps will be soon. Be sure to contact your council member here; http://www.baytown.org/contact/council-members.htm let them know you demand a vote and that their decision on this matter will influence your vote during their re election bids. The city council can call a vote to place the issue on the ballot or demand the petition for their review if they want to. Ultimately the responsibility rests on the council members. Ask them to do the right thing.
here is the language of the city municipal code governing initiative petitions;
Sec. 97. Power of initiative.
The electors shall have power to propose any ordinance except an ordinance appropriating money or authorizing the levy of taxes, and to adopt or reject the same at the polls, such power being known as the initiative. Any initiative ordinance may be submitted to the council by a petition signed by qualified electors of the city equal in number to at least twenty-five percent of the number of votes cast at the last regular municipal election at which at least two candidates ran for mayor.
12-29-2009
The day has come! We turned in our petition today with over 1300 signatures! but our fight to hold the city accountable and remove the cameras has just started. The city has given every indication they intend to invalidate our petition and ignore the will of the people. Even now the city is putting up more cameras even though they know we want a vote on them. The next step is to wait for the city clerk to certify we have enough signatures and pass the petition to the city council for their review. We still need your help, please contact your council member to urge them to pass the petition and demand a vote! You can see who your council member is here,
http://www.baytown.org/contact/council-members.htm
You can also see the baytown sun article including information on the descrepencies in the accident data here,
http://baytownsun.com/story/48984
12-20-2009
Proof the city is deliberately misleading the press and the people in their statements about the effectiveness of the red light camera program.
Mayor DonCarlos and other council members have been claiming that accidents at camera controlled intersections have gone down "20-40%" and there have been "no fatalities" since they went up. Sounds pretty impressive right? But how are they getting these numbers and what do they really mean? This is bargraph that the head of the redlight camera program gave to the city council when I addressed them this past July;
Seems pretty impressive right? Looking at this you might even convince the most skeptical that the cameras make a difference. Here is where they deliberately mislead us. There is no additional documentation here that discloses that the "before" and "after" times are of unequal months! The data for the "before" period covers 18 months, but the "after" period only covers 12 months! (See the raw data documents at our links and resources page). Of course the numbers will look better afterwards when you give yourself a 6 month advantage! The person that gave this to the council gave them a misleading document and the mayor and the council have repeated this fraud and never bothered to ask questions or crunch the numbers themselves. Why? Because they have all bought into the sales pitch from the for profit camera company and don't want to admit they made a mistake. Now more cameras are going up based on this fraud, all because they are basing their decisions on deliberately misleading information.
What about the claim that there have been no fatalities at these intersections since the cameras went up. Well, that is true, but it is misleading as well, as it implies that there were fatalities at these intersections before and when the cameras went up there were no more fatalities because of the cameras. So what's the truth? The truth is that for 2 years before the cameras went up there were no fatalities at any of these intersections! You have to go back to 2005 to find a fatality at any of these intersections. But where do we see the most recent fatality? Garth at Crosby Cedar Bayou Lynchburg in 2007. Well surely this would have been one of the first cameras to go up right? NO! There is still no camera at this intersection where there was the only recent fatality! Does that make sense? Does that sound like all they are concerned about is saving lives? Here is the scan of the fatality report from BPD, see for yourself.
BEFORE AFTER PROOF THE RED LIGHT CAMERAS DON'T WORK! but the mayor and other officials are going around telling us accidents at these intersections are down as much as 40%???????? How does that add up?
12-08-09
It's official, the city public information officer, Patti Jett, confirmed to me by phone today that the city will not comment on the request I sent in asking for a statement on who authorized the signal timing change at Garth and Baker, who requested changing the speed limit to 40mph and back again to 45mph, what the procedure for doing so is and if it was followed and whether or not the city is now adopting the ITE standards for yellow change interval timing. The city officially thinks you don't deserve to know the answers to these questions. Again we see proof that the city thinks they don't have to answer to the people, again we see the blatant arrogance when they get caught redhanded! See the full details on our "city statements" page.
11-22-09
City of Baytown plays more red light camera games.
After Mr Leiper emailed me that the city deliberately lowered the yellow change timing on southbound Garth at West baker from 4.5 seconds to 4.0 seconds, (see earlier post below from 11-12-09), and telling me that Garth was actually a 40mph approach which means the 4.0 second light was appropriate for the 40mph approach, they replaced the 40mph sign with a 45mph sign and raised the signal timing to the previous 4.5 seconds required for a 45mph road! What happened to the statement that this was actually 40mph not 45? What happened to the statement that the lone 40mph sign was an "additional" sign? Why does the city continue to get caught breaking the law and profiting from it, but only when they get caught make the proper corrections silently while denying they ever did anything wrong? Is this the attitude and methods you want from your city leaders? See the before and after photos of this sign and see the full details in the "archives" section.
11-17-2009
finally, the proof we have been waiting for, from the city's own reports.
The Baytown PD put out accident reports for monitored intersections for the period before the cameras went up compared to the period after they went up. If the cameras really work then the best results should be seen in the busier intersections with the most cameras. Garth at West Baker should show the best results if the cameras really work, 3 of the 4 approaches have cameras and there is definitely a high traffic volume. What do the numbers show? Total accidents, red light violation accidents and rear end accidents ALL WENT UP AFTER THE CAMERAS WENT UP! Look for yourself.
Total accidents before cameras = 36. After cameras = 40. UP 11%
Red Light violation accidents before cameras = 6. After Cameras = 8. UP 33%
Rear end accidents before cameras = 19. After Cameras = 20. UP 5%
This would be bad in and of itself right? How about this, the time period of comparison for pre installation accident is 18 months and the post installation data is 15 months. That's right, these figures give the pre installation data a 3 month disadvantage!
THERE WERE MORE ACCIDENTS OF EVERY TYPE IN THE 15 MONTHS AFTER THE CAMERAS WERE INSTALLED THAN THERE WAS IN 18 PREVIOUS MONTHS WITHOUT CAMERAS!
Remember this when the city tells you it is about safety. Keep in mind this is the city's own report. I have posted the scans of the reports so you can add them up yourself.
12-18-2009
More info from the crash test data;
Accidents went down at only half of the monitored approaches. This is at a time when accidents nationwide are down to record lows due to reduced traffic volume because of the economy. Total accidents and red light violations (which is what we would expect to see if the cameras worked) only went down at 3 of the 10 monitored approaches! At WB 146@ Alexander there were no red light violation accidents in the period before installation and 1 after installation. That's right, the city put up a red light camera at an approach where there hasn't been a red light violation accident! WHY? Why put a camera here with no red light violation accidents when there are intersections with red light violation accidents and fatalities that did not get a camera? Obviously safety isn't the primary concern when deciding where to place the cameras. All documents will be scanned soon and appear on our resources page, check back soon!
