12 Comment

  • 59 and Highway 6! My stepdad got a ticket for running that one.. Haha..

  • My favorite is Bissonnet@ Hwy 59

    …because in the late 1980s my Cutlass was t-boned @10:30 am on a Saturday. If I’d had a passenger, they would likely have been killed. Car was totalled; other driver abandoned his LTD and fled the scene.

    I’m sure some morbidly obese ticket-fixer/lawyer (know of any?) would claim otherwise (no conflict of interest, here),
    but I believe enforcing the law against red-light runners is the issue, and those who fear cameras are idiots unless they
    simply want the right to flout the law.

    I’m tired of these silly bogus counter-arguments. This is about a cost-effective way to enforce laws on the books that OBVIOUSLY protect public safety. They introduce hard-to-counter evidence and reduce a scofflaws incentive to hire a ticket-fixer and incentifies them to own up, pay up and take responsibility for their own dangerous driving.
    Unless you’ve been slammed into broadside @30 mph by someone who KNOWS he won’t be ticketed, you might not understand why offering this scofflaw a near-guaranteed
    financial penalty is a NO-BRAINER, even if it saves a relatively small number of people from violent, life-threatening collisions. Oh, and it’s the law.
    Why do you think all those EMS folks, Docs and nurses who SEE THE CARNAGE offered (uncompensated) endorsements for this commonsense way to enforce ESTABLISHED LAW.
    If you’re on the other side of this issue from us, the Kubosh ticket-fixers say “thanks for protecting our billings”!

  • No way. The very best one is at Richmond and Hillcroft. The lighting and angle are just right that you get a really nice, clear photo of your car as well as a good profile/silhouette of the driver. Really a top notch red light camera.

  • The people spoke but will they be heard? There seems to be a trend of “government knows best” and I’m not buying.

  • Udunno:

    You think a camera would stop someone from running a red who is clearly that clueless? Don’t think so.

    My main problem with the cameras is that they are owned and operated by a private company. This company is the one that bills you, not the city, and you have no obligation to pay. So the dishonest red light runners will just not pay the tickets anyways. It’s a complete farce.

  • Well, time to by more photoblocker for the plates!

  • @Udunno: You are completely off base. Kubush is merely plump, in a jolly Santa Clause kind-a-way. He is clearly not morbidly obese.

  • @Old School,

    Plump or obese, either way the government should decide what he can eat.

  • @Justin, all

    Is this actually true? Is there any way to make it so that there’s no way to flaunt the cameras, if we must have them?

  • Yeah, right….$44 million in revenue…not farcical.

    Justin, you’re wrong. It will catch up to you…even (less serious) parking tix catch up with you…and any loopholes will be fixed.

    Further, yes, some of the clueless will always run red lights. Let’s issue them tix.
    Also, let’s issue tix to the “non-clueless”who break the law, despite being clued-in. They’re even worse.

  • This is lazy revenue. If people want to bring in more $ go start your own business and pay some taxes instead of sitting around ticketing people who obviously have places to be.

  • “people who obviously have places to be”

    Therefore, I will run red lights with impunity.

    I am complete unfamiliar with the term “lazy revenue”. It is revenue; maybe a laid-off, otherwise productive city worker would have an opinion here. It is nice that we can pick and choose legal revenue sources since the economy
    is so robust! We bad!

    Anyway, look for your “non-ignorable” red-light ticket in the mail soon.

    We won. The tardy election was bogus.