Vote Yes On Issue 3 To Keep Red Light Cameras In Houston

There is an initiative on the ballot in Houston to get rid of red light cameras. This is Proposition 3 on our ballot. To keep the cameras, you must vote yes on Proposition 3.

The only reason to get rid of these cameras is so that we can run red lights and, by so doing, cause accidents that kill and maim people.

Anybody who drives in Houston knows that our roads are filled with drunks and crazies.

Why would we make our roads any less safe than they already are?

Red light cameras reduce accidents and save lives.

Red light running crash

One objection people make to red light cameras is that cameras exists only for cities to make money from tickets.

No money would be raised if people would stop running red lights.

Revenue from the cameras have raised millions of dollars for Ben Taub Hospital in Houston.

The bottom line is that red light cameras save lives.

Here is the Houston Chronicle editorial in favor of Proposition 3.

From this editorial—

“We’ve all seen the tragic consequences of motorists violating traffic signals and maiming or killing innocent pedestrians and occupants of other vehicles. The right to privacy doesn’t apply to reckless driving on public thoroughfares that endangers the community. We believe the cameras are a vital extension of our undermanned police traffic-enforcement capabilities. In this case, a picture can vastly multiply the eyes and extend the arms of the law…Mayor Annise Parker and a majority of City Council support red-light cameras. These elected officials are joined by an impressive group of community law enforcement officials and health care leaders of the Texas Heart Institute, Harris County Hospital District, Memorial Hermann Healthcare Systems, Teaching Hospitals of Texas and the Texas Hospital Association.”

Read more in favor of Proposition 3  at the web page in favor of the issue.

Safe driving is not an ideological issue. All people need safe roads.

Please vote Yes on Proposition 3.


  1. carguy says

    This “issue” is a “no-brainer”. Unfortunately, lots of people in this city are just that, “no-brainers”. THis is gonna be a close vote when it SHOULD be 95-5.

  2. Oilacct says

    I would vote for the proposition if it included language that:
    Allows only a flat rate payment to the camera company, or requires outright purchase
    Requires appropriate light sequencing, including longer yellows and overlap of reds
    All money over operating costs go to the hospitals.

  3. alienHunter says

    I’ve heard of studies that claim they actually cause more accidents? I don’t know. I don’t really have a problem with them but then I haven’t been nailed.

  4. offshore778 says

    I don’t live in the city of Houston so I can’t vote on this at all. If these cameras find their way into Pearland, though, I would hope that there would be a more viable way to challenge the “tickets” that are issued for violations.

  5. Frank says

    Very well said. I never understood those people who were against enforcing our traffic laws, which are designed for our safety. Break the law, pay the penalty.

  6. Jim B says

    If this were about safety the “fee”, not fine because drivers are never charged with a crime, would be $1000 or $2000 or $3000. This might motivate drivers to stop on the red signal, but it would also create a powerful incentive to fight the “fee” in civil court. $75? I’ll pay it and keep running red lights. $3000? Ouch, I’ll fight it.
    How about dedicating 100% of the remaining revenue, after paying the vendor a flat fee, to intersection improvement. Things like engineering studies to eliminate blind spots, improve visibility, adjust the length of the yellow caution, and perhaps paying for HPD to sit and write serious citations to flagrant violators. Citations that carry criminal weight like ‘reckless driving’ resulting in real consequences.
    In the meantime, it’s all about the money. Money for the City, The hospitals, the vendors, and the elected Officials who accept campaign contributions.
    Voters should VOTE NO and demand a more reasonable approach. One without financial incentives and conflict. And for the record: No one is FOR accidents and running red lights.

  7. doug says

    I can see both sides on this issue. The cameras probably do make people more aware of them, and for those that are inclined to run red lights, they’ll think twice about it. But, we’ve already talked a lot on here about how society is closing in on us, (Big Brother), and anything that is done to further that scares the crap out of me. The cameras also don’t allow for any discretion on the part of a police officer. We all have done illegal things unintentionally, (speeding) and it’s nice when you can find an understanding police officer. Now..with this law, you would be charge as guilty 100% of the time, even if your act was unintentional. I guess I come down as not being in favor of these cameras. In ten years when they are all equipped with facial recognition software, what will we think of them then??

  8. bubbabobcat says

    I would have loved to have a red light camera downtown a few years ago when an idiot blatantly ran a red light (3 cars in my direction went through the intersection before me) and destroyed my car and nearly killed me. If I had been in the intersection a half second earlier, he would have broadsided me on the driver’s side at over 40 MPH. My wife who was following me in another car had to chase him down and block him in to catch him and then he had the nerve to claim I had run the red light! Since I didn’t have any independent witnesses who stayed to corroborate (my wife was considered a “biased and unreliable” witness) and despite the fact that I had called 911 and the cops to come, they did not ticket him and then neither insurance company would pay out. That red light camera would have been my smoking gun to nail his sorry, unconscionable, unethical, immoral, lying ass! People afraid of Big Brother are usually doing something wrong they want to hide.

  9. doug says

    Hi Bubbabobcat,
    I can sure appreciate what you went through, however I am responding to your comment because I am the only one that mentioned “big brother” and so I assume when you reference big brother, that comment was with me in mind. Really…you think that the only people that don’t want a complete surveilance state are people that have something to hide? Have you not been paying attention that fascism, literally fascism, is on the rise now, and is a clear and present danger? Are you going to be okay with a fascist state with the power to know everything about you? Do you understand historically what this means to societies?

  10. bubbabobcat says

    Doug, we’re talking automated surveillance cameras for traffic violations, not wiretapping, eavesdropping, or unwarranted surveillance.
    As a matter of fact, the UK and most of Europe has more surveillance cameras throughout their countries and have helped to document terrorist acts and capture the perpetrators.
    In this country, any private business can surreptitiously monitor and record anywhere in their premises except for bathrooms and locker rooms. Look at how sophisticated casinos are with their electronic monitoring.
    And as for “knowing everything about me”, Wal Mart and the overbearing financial/insurance industries know more about me than my government.

  11. Scott Barzilla says

    I have to admit, lack of due process is bothersome. For instance, there is an intersection on the way to pick up my daughter (Alienhunter probably knows the one) where the left turn signal rarely works properly. So, I can sit there for two hours like a dumbass or I can simply run a red light when traffic is light. A red light camera would not take the situation into account. Also, what happens if my wife is driving my car?
    That being said, the idea of cameras being more dangerous doesn’t pass the smell test.

  12. alienHunter says

    yeah, I run it on a routine basis…however, mostly when my daughter is beating on me telling me to hurry up and get to whataburger…

  13. gary says

    Studies show that red light cameras increase overall accidents by increasing the number of rear-end from drivers stopping too abruptly.

  14. Neil Aquino says

    Thanks for all the comments. The objections are understandable. I’ve come to the view that the cameras save lives. That seems the bottom line here with this traffic safety concern.

  15. bubbabobcat says

    Gary, would you rather be rear-ended at a very slow speed or t-boned at 40-50 MPH?
    If those “studies” are in fact accurate, it would more than likely be a temporary result until drivers get acclimated to actually stopping at a red light…like they are supposed to. Behavioral modification, Pavlovian conditioning, et. al.

  16. gary says

    I’d rather not get hit at all. Studies also show that most of the violations occur just a very short time after the light goes to red. This is not what causes the serious accidents since most people don’t gun it as soon as the light turns red on their side. The serious accidents occur well after the light has turned red when the opposite driver with the green assumes that all is clear.
    Let’s face it, it is not about safety. It’s about revenue.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

+ five = 11

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>