FAQ
FACTS ABOUT OUR PETITION;
Our petition was carefully crafted based on other successful petitions in other cities and with a careful legal review. When our first petition was rejected by the city on the grounds that we couldn't do away with the ordinance that authorized the cameras we knew that the camera company would try to make similar arguments against just about ANY petition we wrote. Our new petition modifies the program by taking the financial motive out of the program and recriminalizes running red lights by ensuring a law enforcement officer witnesses the violation before a ticket can be issued by a red light camera. If other similar initiatives are any indication, after the revenue dries up the camera company will take the cameras down once they are no longer profitable. We believe this will be the case in Baytown if the petition passes. This is why the camera company and their paid front group in Baytown are fighting so hard to keep us from voting. Think about it, if it won't work why are they fighting us so hard?
While we don't think it will happen, the city may decide to run the camera program under a different contract with the camera vendor. If the city decides to keep the program after the initiative passes it will provide great improvements to the program by ensuring the worst red light runners face full criminal prosecution and police officers once again focus on arresting red light runners that are caught with arrest warrants, DUI, expired insurance or registration or illegal drugs and weapons in the car and actually take them off the streets, none of which a camera can do. But make no mistake, this initiative is an UP OR DOWN VOTE ON THE CAMERAS. Which is what we have been fighting for this past year. I urge the city and the council to keep their promise to let the voters have an up or down vote on the cameras this November. Anything short will be a sure indication the city once again caved and gave in to the camera lawyers.
Q; Does this petition limit the use of any other equipment than red light cameras?
A; NO! Absolutely not. Our petition only applies to automated ticket cameras.
This proposed ordinance also only applies to traffic tickets, no other criminal activity.
Q; Has this petition been passed in other cities?
A; YES! Similar language passed the vote in more than one city in Ohio including Cincinnati and the cameras were banned! See their language here;
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/23/2358.asp
OUR CORE BELIEFS
Cameras are no substitute for cops;
the city likes cameras instead of cops, why? Cameras don't get sick or hurt, don't require medical insurance or take vacations and operate writing tickets 24/7 in all weather conditions. But only a cop can take a red light runner off the street, they can look for arrest warrants, illegal drugs or weapons, expired licenses or insurance, cameras can't!
Red light running should be re-criminalized;
that's right, red light cameras decriminalize red light running. A camera citiation is a civil offense no worse than a parking ticket with no real penalty for not paying it, no arrest warrant, it doesn't go on the red light runner's driving record or insurance or even their credit report for not paying. We don't believe a civil penalty with no teeth is a real deterrant to criminal red light running.
Proven engineering methods are the best way to reduce red light violations and accidents;
with simple, proven engineering changes the city could reduce red light accidents and violations more than what they claim the cameras have done without sending millions of our local dollars to a Goldman Sachs owned Arizona camera corporation. Isn't that what we all want?
Something as controversial and unproven as red light cameras should be voted on by the citizens before being implemented.
Our petition seeks to rectify this situation, our petition will take the profit conflict of interest out of the camera program and re-criminalize red light running in Baytown. Our belief is that once the cameras are no longer profitable they will cease to exist, this will be a test to see if the cameras are really about safety or profit. If you think the cameras are not about profit then vote for our initiative in November and we will have great improvements in the program if the city keeps it, and running a red light will once again be a crime. If you believe, as we do, that they are more about revenue than safety, the initiative will drastically reduce the revenue aspect of the program and we believe the camera company will remove them when they are no longer profitable.
1. Why do you oppose the red light cameras?
Red light cameras decriminalize red light running. Most people don't realize that a violation issued by a camera is a civil offense, like a parking ticket, not a criminal offense as when an officer issues a ticket. The true red light offenders, the ones that willfully break the law know this, that is why they throw away their tickets because they will never receive a warrant for their arrest, will never have their license revoked and never have it show on their credit report. The only real teeth the program has is they say you will not be able to renew the registration on the vehicle until the fine is paid, but the tax office does not uniformly enforce this and again the owner, not the driver is the one holding the bag.
Cameras don't do what they advertise. The for profit camera companies use questionable or tainted studies in their sales pitches to city councils. They promise dramatic city wide safety improvements that rarely if ever materialize. At many intersections accidents actually went up after cameras were installed. In Houston accidents nearly doubled at camera controlled intersections, same with corpus christi and Lubbock city council voted out the cameras after they found no safety improvement and accidents went up. We saw the same results in Baytown. During a national trend of record low accidents Baytown saw accidents of all types go up at the intersection of Garth and Baker, the intersection with the most cameras. People slam on their brakes trying to avoid a ticket or speed up to make sure they clear the intersection before the camera flashes all creating dangerous situations.
Cameras don't prevent the most common red light violation accidents. Most red light violation accidents are caused by intoxication, distraction or police or emergency vehicle actions, none of which are minimized by cameras.
Cameras are not the only solution to cutting down on red light violations. In fact they aren't even the best solution. Engineering methods are the most effective way to reduce violations. By simply adding 1 second to the yellow change interval reduces violations by as much as 40-50%. Other methods like countdown timers and more visible signals and marking make more reductions.
Cameras don't take any dangerous red light runners off the streets. If an officer initiates a red light violation he can look for expired licenses or insurance, illegal drugs or weapons, intoxication, outstanding warrants or other violations that may mean jailtime and that violator being off the streets. Cameras can't do that. Unfortunately, when cities put cameras up they actually reduce the amount of officer initiated stops. The states with the highest number of cameras are even laying off officers because the cameras issue more violations and don't cost them a dime to operate.
There are many misconceptions about the people that oppose the cameras too. Many people think that our opposition is because we are law breakers and want to run red lights and want red light runners to roam free. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our supporters include law enforcement officers, firemen, soccer moms, church leaders, doctors and even insurance company owners. We are law abiding citizens that recognize that cameras don't work and want our streets to be safer, our families drive on these streets too.
2. Don't cameras free up police officers to suppress crime elsewhere?According to the BPD wesbite total crime in Baytown has gone up 27% since the cameras have gone up. Apparently this theory doesn't work in Baytown. Baytown, a city with over 70,000 people doesn't have one single dedicated traffic patrol unit. There simply weren't any police officers to free up. We remain below the average number of police officers for a city our size. Instead of hiring more cops the city put up cameras, which the camera supporters think are just as good as cops. The only way to stop criminal red light runners and suppress crime is with cops. WE WANT COPS NOT CAMERAS!
3. But don't red light cameras make intersections safer?
No, they do not. You don't have to look any farther than Texas to see real world results. Corpus Christi recently reported accidents went up at camera monitored intersections. Lubbock city council voted out red light cameras after they found no safety improvement at monitored intersections. Rice university recently did a study that showed accidents went up at Houston camera locations and right here in Baytown accidents of all types went up at Garth and West Baker and other intersections. Several universities have reported no statistical safety improvement at camera monitored intersections. See our links page for more information on this subject.
4. But doesn't the city of Baytown have our best interests in mind?
Normally, I would say they do. But in this case the city's actions speak louder than words. The city rushed into a contract with the red light camera company in 2007 to beat new Texas legislation that would have given citizens more protection with regards to photo enforcement and would have required the city to have an engineer certify that cameras were really needed. Then the city neglected to make sure the intersections were safe by allowing the yellow light change intervals to be changed to a time that was dangerously and illegally short. When caught, the city refused to issue refunds to people that never should have received citations. They raised the yellow change intervals to the legal minimum after getting caught, but recently lowered them back to illegally short times again after revenues fell. When the Texas legislature was going to pass legislation to ban red light cameras in Texas the city rushed to extend their contracts with the red light camera company for over a decade to get around the intent of the legislature. Does this sound like someone that has your best interests in mind?
5. What's the big deal about yellow light timing? Can a half second really make that much of a difference to our safety?
Yes, a half second can make a BIG difference. Most red light violations are issued at a half second or less. When a city shortens the time of their yellow lights they get more violations, violations from people that would have been completely within the law if the signal was legally timed. The Texas Transportation institute reports that simply adding 1 second to the yellow light time reduces red light violations by more than 40%. At even just 45 MPH a vehicle travels 33 feet in just a half a second, that is almost the entire width of a 4 lane intersection! A lot can happen if drivers don't have that cushion they need to safely stop.
6. What can I do to help?
Tell your friends! Tell them about our website and remind them to vote in November. We will also need volunteers for activities over the summer and poll workers for November. Please check back often for updates. We can now accept donations, you can paypal to baytownredlightcamera@yahoo.com or mail to PO Box 7064 Baytown, TX 77522, please include your mailing address so we can send you a thank you gift! Campaign finance laws require us to record your occupation and address so include that with your payment or it will have to be returned. Or you can call Byron Schirmbeck at 281-728-7220 for more details.