LET THE VOTERS DECIDE

[Uncle Joe]

I SAY WE LET THE VOTERS DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT WE KEEP THE CAMERAS AT THE RED LIGHTS.

[sambosam]

Both council members Capetillo and challenger Fallin have now stated they would support a vote on the issue.
Capetillo says theres not enough data or statistics to look at, but the stats are widely different depending upon where you get them from.

[tride93]

This is the problem with government today (local and national), they do not want to listen to the voters. Not only do they think they can spend OUR money better than we can, they think they know better than we do what is right for us. We are not dummies. Probably the only dumb thing we have done is to vote them into office. Let's vote out the lights and vote out the supporters of them. This issue has nothing to do with Public Safety and everything to do with finding one more way to get your hard earned dollars.

[baytownb]

Hi all,
Just a point on this. Current council members and candidates will all say that they support letting us vote on the issue. Of course! They know that it will be on the ballot no matter what. The question is why did they stop it before if they really want us to vote on it? Why didn't they let us vote on it before they put them up? They knew at the time that accidents could go up and they knew the program was controversial. Wouldn't that warrant a mandate from the people? So don't let anyone play politics with you. Ask them if they support a vote why doesn't the council vote on it and ask them how they would vote if there was a council vote. That will tell you the answers you want.

Both council members Capetillo and challenger Fallin have now stated they would support a vote on the issue.
Capetillo says theres not enough data or statistics to look at, but the stats are widely different depending upon where you get them from.

[Realtalk]

Well, now that you metion it you do have a major point. They could have elected to place the matter on the ballot the first time the petition was taken to city hall, but instead they fought it.

[baytownb]

winner winner chicken dinner! There is not one single councilman or opponent that will tell you they will stop a vote of the people. But they said that before the city blocked the petition and it happened anyways!

Well, now that you metion it you do have a mjor point. They could have elected to place the matter on the ballot the first time the petition was taken to city hall, but instead they fought it.

[baytownb]

BTW most of you probably know, but if not, I am the one leading the charge to get the camera issue on the ballot. You can keep up with me at www.saferbaytown.com

[tride93]

The cameras have ACTUALLY caused accidents to rise. If you look at the number of accidents within the intersection (that imaginary square using the white lines), then there may be less accidents. That would be the "T-Bone" accidents. However, if the accidents occur prior to the "white line" then it is not counted! These accidents have increased substantially! The reason is because people are making reaction stops to these intersections in fear of the ticket. Plus if the city wants to increase revenues, then the city's engineers just need to "TWEEK" the caution lights. Cut one second off the caution light time and "CHA-CHING". These lights pay off better than a hot Las Vegas slot machine! But what happens to the public safety? It just goes out the window. In fact, if the accident does not occur within the "BOX", then the stats do not attribute the intersection as contributing to the cause. Thus, the stats are skewed to make it appear that the camera intersection is safer when in fact, the accident rate is actually going up! Don't be fooled by the proponents! LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!!!!!!!!

[Realtalk]

Actually for statistical purposes they count the rearend collisions caused the vehicle abuptly stopping to avoid a snapshot of the cameras, but if the accident occurs several car lengths back, most officers work them as not occurring in the intersection.

Case and point: My wife and I were south bound on Garth a few days ago and a blue car slammed into the rearend of a pickup in the left lane of S/B Garth north of CBL in front of Lowe's. The pick up that the car hit was slamming its brakes on as a chain reaction to the very first van that stopped at the light a few car lengths ahead, so suddenly that everyone behind it followed the same reaction.

The first thing I said was "look, there's a rear end collision that is attributed to the RED LIGHT CAMERA ( or the perception of one) that'll never be logged in the stats because it wont be logged as an accident that occurred in the intersection".

[Realtalk]

Brandon Capetillo stated Monday night that he would allow a vote of the people on the red light cameras. My question to Brandon is Why did you not bring a motion for the council to vote to allow it on the ballot instead of fighting the petition that was presented???

[baytownb]

Great observation, when you compare the older tallys that they used before they changed the way they count the accidents. Get this, there are even what they call "non red light related right angle" accidents. Think about that. If you have a right angle accident in the intersection someone had to violate that signal right? There was a signifigant increase in these "non red light related" right angle accidents after the cameras went up. It would appear to the causal observer that they may be reclassifying accidents. Plus I have BIG BIG news on the stats that will come out after the council election cools down.

The cameras have ACTUALLY caused accidents to rise. If you look at the number of accidents within the intersection (that imaginary square using the white lines), then there may be less accidents. That would be the "T-Bone" accidents. However, if the accidents occur prior to the "white line" then it is not counted! These accidents have increased substantially! The reason is because people are making reaction stops to these intersections in fear of the ticket. Plus if the city wants to increase revenues, then the city's engineers just need to "TWEEK" the caution lights. Cut one second off the caution light time and "CHA-CHING". These lights pay off better than a hot Las Vegas slot machine! But what happens to the public safety? It just goes out the window. In fact, if the accident does not occur within the "BOX", then the stats do not attribute the intersection as contributing to the cause. Thus, the stats are skewed to make it appear that the camera intersection is safer when in fact, the accident rate is actually going up! Don't be fooled by the proponents! LET THE PEOPLE VOTE!!!!!!!!!

[cecgreen]

The voters must claim their rights........ The right to vote on these camera lights. But as important, we must not forget the counsel members who chose to deny us of our rights. When an elected official starts controlling your rights and telling you which rights you have and don't have, they fail to be a representative of the people and should be voted out of office. They were elected to protect our rights, not to deny us our rights! DON'T FORGET!!!!!!!

[Sponsored content]