Filed under: Etc., Government/Legal, First Drive
They do it different in Texas: Speed cameras banned statewide
Finally, someone's fighting back against the fleecing of the general populace. Famous for liking things big, Texas lawmakers have laid the smackdown on red light and speed cameras in a large manner. HB.922 states "A municipality may not implement or operate an automated traffic control system with respect to a highway under its jurisdiction," which means that cameras, automated radar or laser, or anything else designed to snag an image of a car, driver, or license plate and record its speed is now forbidden. The even larger racket of red-light cameras have had the brakes applied by HB.1052, which requires giving motorists notice of the devices at least 100 feet out. These bills have passed through the legislature and are awaiting Governor Rick Perry's inscription. If the measures do make it into law, we hope that other states follow suit. Ticketing egregious speeders and actual red-light scofflaws is one thing, but the systems have been calibrated in a cynical manner to generate loads of revenue (and kickbacks) for the companies that sell and administrate the systems for municipalities. Rather than keeping people safe, random ticketing amounts to a tax, and that really sticks in our craw. We're pleased beyond words that Texas has taken up the motorists' cause, and we hope that the new legislation can stand as a precedent.
Thanks for the tip, Dylan!
[Source: caradvice]
_opt_thumbnail.jpg)
Reader Comments (Page 2 of 2)
Redwood 12:28PM (5/23/2007)
Yeah, this doesn't change the red light cameras one bit. All the ones I recall seeing near my house (I live in Dallas area) all have warning signs about 100 feet before. The same with the ones in other cities. They are popping up on a daily basis it seems. I typically don't run lights, but if I know there is a redlight camera, I slam on the brakes as soon as it turns yellow. And yes, highway does not mean freeway. Most surface streets are considered highways and probably have a highway number in addition to their regular name (at least in Texas). I don't know if this applies to a neighborhood street though.
Reply
beanspants 12:35PM (5/23/2007)
AZMike,
Do you know what a "cash cow" is? it's a product that requires next to no upkeep or new investment, that brings in money basically for nothing.
The city gets "~20%" of a ticket (i believe they are $75, so that would be $15) for doing nothing.
Reply
RACER X 12:53PM (5/23/2007)
Thank god there are none of those in Michigan - knock on wood.
Reply
Owain Ozymandias Buck 12:55PM (5/23/2007)
It's not a red state/blue state thing. We have plenty of the red light cameras here in Georgia. They just installed some the damned Redflex systems in my town. So if it's not bad enough these things are here, the profits are going to a foreign country. Where are the Sons of Liberty when you need them?
Another member of my household got one of these when driving my car a few weeks ago. They cite the registered owner of the vehicle. I'm going to try to fight it. The state law says that swearing under oath you were not the driver is enough to rebut the evidence. The notice they mail you makes it sound like you have no choice but to rat out the real driver. It's shady, man. Shady.
Reply
Tremelune 1:50PM (5/23/2007)
"Rather than keeping people safe, random ticketing amounts to a tax"
Exactly. Screw that.
Reply
Patrick Long 2:07PM (5/23/2007)
some government official or legislator must have been caught on camera with his girlfriend or boyfriend.....again.
Reply
Brandon 2:19PM (5/23/2007)
Problem is though, to the letter of the law, most would be illegal to be "Automated Traffic Control" But if the Red Light/Speed Camera 'reports' to an individual, and the individual verifies the license plate as "MRQ 123" rather than "NRQ 123" before allowing it to be sent out for revenue collection, it's no longer an automated system and would be legal.
Also "..with respect to a highway under it's jurisdiction" indicates that an automated system is only to be illegal for highway speeding. Any municipal street can still have speed cameras and/or red light cameras for generating revenue.
I'm guessing the state government doesn't want to deal with issues sent to the Texas Highway Patrol when the revenues are collected by the city. So instead of spending money to handle the call/concern volume, they just eliminate the opportunity since they can't profit. Or, this would allow the state government to implement speed cameras on the highway which revenues go to the state coffers rather than to the city where the infraction occurs.
Reply
Don 2:53PM (5/23/2007)
Well, that'll at least slow down "1984" a bit.
Reply
Brian 4:25PM (5/23/2007)
Re-Read the words carefully!!!! "A Municipality" there is nothing preventing the state from doing it!!!
In PA there are laws preventing municipal police from using Radar so that the State police can be the only ones to profit from the procedure.
Reply
gary 5:07PM (5/23/2007)
yeah...TX's is the only state where I have seen someone pass an ambulance with it's lights flashing too.
Reply
Don Zuchowski 6:48PM (5/23/2007)
It says "with respect to a highway under its jurisdiction". So it seems to me that this only covers highways and nothing else. So red light and speed camaras are still legal on regular non highways like "main street".
Reply
John R 8:01PM (5/23/2007)
that should read DRAG limited
Reply
Micah 11:44AM (5/24/2007)
gig 'em.
Reply
Mike H. 4:45PM (5/24/2007)
I love red light cameras!!! you know why?? because they bust idiots that run them! I wish the tickets were $500!!! AND THEY SHOULD BE!!!
Reply
gsolman6 10:55PM (5/24/2007)
I still don't understand why people are making such a big deal about these cameras when the infractions are real and their is definite a societal cost (i.e. accidents, injuries, deaths) yet no one cares the least bit that the feds can monitor all internet traffic and emails without probable cause or a warrant?
Reply