Eyman expects ripple effect of red light camera vote

birdwire said on November 11, 2010 at 5:27 PM

It will be interesting to see how Bellingham structures this program in light of the vote. It will be interesting to watch accident rates in Mulkiteo. Sad that Eyman profits off high accident rates.

bancams said on November 6, 2010 at 7:14 PM

It's ridiculous to think that the people in Mukilteo (or the 4 other cities in the US that banned them on Tuesday) are just the exception to the rule. Are all 15 cities in the US who have voted to ban the cameras all being influenced by Tim Eyman? I think not. Cameras have never survived a vote of the people. ATS knows this. Look at the article on BanCams dot com about how they have people (or just one person) to comment on red light camera articles to try to sway public opinion

hasselgotback65 said on November 5, 2010 at 12:30 PM

This vote doesn't make sense for safety. Eyman doesn't care about the safety of drivers, just about money. If he really wanted safety he would have done his best to make sure that the police have all the tools they can to enforce the laws.

dantewasright said on November 5, 2010 at 10:09 AM

Please stop feeding the ballot box beast that is Tim Eyman. If there's one thing/person doing this for the money, it's him. This is how he makes his living by acting all put out by these things and then deceiving the public against something to propel his cause up. Cameras do work for safety and Eyman knows it. He just wants to whip you into a fury against them to make himself rich. How about let's not do that?

jdundas said on November 5, 2010 at 9:29 AM

Any politician who says they are against the red light cameras are either: 1) wrongly elected in to this area or 2) Just saying they are against the cameras to gain popularity against citizens. I can't imagine anyone in office who who vote against the safety of the citizens. Hate them or not, they will eventually be on every street corner.

boooyahh said on November 4, 2010 at 10:07 PM

The last thing everyone needs is for the wayward vote of Mukilteo to make its way across the country. Cameras make the roads safer- the problem with putting it to a vote is that people will vote against anything that holds them accountable.

mercerislandrat said on November 4, 2010 at 9:04 PM

I see the paid shills for the camera company are out in full force in this thread. Seriously, do you clowns actually think people will believe you're actually Seattle locals? The initiative to stop the cameras passed OVERWHELMINGLY, yet most of the comments in this thread are pro-camera. There's a real disconnect here. It's obvious the public doesn't like your ridiculous product. Yuo've lost. Beat it.

bancams said on November 4, 2010 at 9:00 PM

Bellingham City Councilman Michael Lilliquist says the Mukilteo vote will not affect what happens in his city. "We are doing this for safety reasons only," he says. He goes on to say "this intersection right here is one of the most dangerous intersections in Bellingham" I'd love to know how many engineering solutions th...ey have tried to fix that "dangerous intersection"... probably none, because it's NOT about safety.

gonefishing said on November 4, 2010 at 4:06 PM

getting a parking ticket for $20 is not comparable to barreling into an intersection and needlessly putting lives at risk. this is terrible

trailblazer4ever said on November 4, 2010 at 3:46 PM

This is about safety, not revenue - look at other localities across the country and you'll see that the number of citations drops off fairly quickly once reckless drivers realize they WILL get caught. Making them think twice is the whole point and it will save lives.

kickballqueen said on November 4, 2010 at 2:58 PM

Next thing you know, Eyman is going to come up with an initiative to get rid of parking tickets because they don't ticket the driver, the ticket the owner of the vehicle. This is absolutely ridiculous- of course people would vote to decrease the chances of getting a ticket. This is why these things should be left up to the officials to decide, and if we don't like their decisions, vote them out at the next election.

blazerbvr92 said on November 4, 2010 at 2:46 PM

I hope those in Bellingham realize what a joke the Mukilteo initiative was. The voters passed that anytime the city wants to put up a camera that it would have to go to a public vote. Why not just get rid of the city council and have the citizens vote on everything. Let's leave how we enforce the law to those who are elected and we can concern ourselves with the positions of those elected.

robert667 said on November 4, 2010 at 10:48 AM

The enactment of traffic laws should, like any other law, be decided on by the elected officials. If the public is unhappy with positions taken by an elected official, they can vote him/her out at the next election. There are nearly 1,000 deaths and 150,000 injuries nationally each year as the result of red light running. Something needs to be done to reduce these statistics and I am for camera enforcement to be part of the necessary action.

imustsay said on November 4, 2010 at 10:38 AM

I don't like getting tickets anymore than the next guy but red light running is becoming an increasing problem. As a safety measure, aren't we all better off having to think twice before running a red light?

marinelife said on November 4, 2010 at 10:29 AM

My question of Eyman is what do you propose to make things safer on the streets in these communities.

dakotanative said on November 4, 2010 at 6:46 AM

Actually, increasing the yellow time also increases accidents. When the yellow time is increased, more people try to get through before the red so they don't have to sit through the longer cycle. Also, people are more trigger happy when the light turns green, causing the late red runners to tangle with the speed racers. The best answer is to make the greens and yellows count down and make the punishment for being caught running a light double what it is now.

theropingeffect said on November 4, 2010 at 1:37 AM

The "We know better than you" attitude from these council members is not winning me over. I am still not convinced about red light cameras and I shall double my efforts in blocking them.

dejablue said on November 4, 2010 at 1:09 AM

If safety is the overiding consideration in the installation of these cameras, then the cities should not object to the receipts from the fines from violations, less the cost of operating the cameras, be turned over to the Department of Transportation. That way, the cities will truly have safety in mind and not a money making scheme.

yessir said on November 3, 2010 at 11:46 PM

I'm no fan of red light cams... I do think they are appropriate for school zones. But Eyman has done nothing but cost our state (meaning us the taxpayers) money. He's a self-serving tool who ditched his watch-making business for a more lucrative business "creating initiatives". He'll keep making them up because it's HIS source of revenue.

bounder said on November 3, 2010 at 9:57 PM

Red light cameras are solely a revenue generator for the counties or municipalities that use them. These government entities ask the "red light companies" how to justify these cameras and the companies come up with some BS safety stats that claim to make the intersections safer. In reality, various independent research companies that have been hired by more responsible and less greedy government agencies have proven these cameras actually make intersections more dangerous. Increasing the Yellow Caution light is the only way to make an intersection safer.

dakotanative said on November 3, 2010 at 7:53 PM

Tell that to the guy who got convicted of killing a girl in Florida when he was caught by the car wash video camera. Or the people who rob the 7-11. Even the case against the people who robbed and killed the armed guard at Wal-Mart is based around the cameras. The fact is that the average guy has no problem running red lights, and hates to get caught. The average guy doesn't care about 7-11 cameras because they don't plan to rob the joint.

theropingeffect said on November 3, 2010 at 7:41 PM

I would vote for a state wide initiative to ban these red light cameras. Calling Tim Eyman, Johnny Weaver and the other concerned citizens. Let's not let these coroporate puppets have their way and be monitoring our every move. Bancams.com

photoradarscam said on November 3, 2010 at 7:34 PM

dakotanative, you don't understand the privacy issue. The cameras at 7-11 (or any business) can't identify you (no license plate on your back) and don't track you and don't make accusations.

dakotanative said on November 3, 2010 at 7:25 PM

If it is a privacy issue, why don't we see protests down at the 7-11 or car wash where the cameras point out to the public street? Atleast the red light cameras warn you so you can avoid them. You cannot go outside and expect privacy anymore.

photoradarscam said on November 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Has anyone asked the Bellingham councilman in the video why, if the intersection is so dangerous, they haven't hired a traffic engineering firm to sudy and analyze the intersection to find out why it's so dangerous? How does the councilman know that the intersection is dangerous because of intentional red light running? Is he a traffic engineer? Let's use science and data to fix safety problems, not speculation by the unqualified.

blankingout said on November 3, 2010 at 6:23 PM

Dakota, it's called privacy and I do have a problem when I don't owe you or the state an answer!

blankingout said on November 3, 2010 at 6:20 PM

dakota, it's called privacy!

dakotanative said on November 3, 2010 at 5:13 PM

You can't go anywhere without being on camera. The only people having a problem with the cameras are the one who have something to hide.

klondiko said on November 3, 2010 at 4:36 PM

Auburn has a money grab in a "school zone" coming into town. Fine is $200 and the only place you see kids is in the fenced school yard. I do my shopping elsewhere now.

grannyra said on November 3, 2010 at 4:12 PM

what does everyone compare us to Europe? They are backward ,socialists that fail at every system they try.

passionfruit said on November 3, 2010 at 4:09 PM

sbond, I agree totally. Red light cameras improve safety in a big way and they bring in much needed revenue. But Eyman does not like the idea of the govt receiving revenue. He is the kind of political figure that likes messing with politics without any of the responsibility or accountability. Just about the easiest thing to promote in the US is reducing taxes or protecting the voters hip pocket. But doing the hard work of finding the funding for much needed infra-structure and then standing your ground as an elected official to see such a project through to completion despite huge opposition from the likes of those such as himself - now that is something I would respect. Eyman is a hit and run politician, he has all the egotistical fun of manipulating voters and none of the accountability for the measures he sponsors. Way to go Tim how about sponsoring an initiative to find the funds to build a bridge or a huge pollution clean up. A champion of the little guy , yeah right!?

cyrixlord said on November 3, 2010 at 4:07 PM

In Monroe, I'm seeing police cruisers and vans stopped by the side of the road with cameras on tripods on them next to the police cars. I hope they're just looking for stolen cars by looking at their plates and nothing more sinister... But then again I know better, dont I?

blankingout said on November 3, 2010 at 4:06 PM

Citizens vote for the cams!

zaxxon7469 said on November 3, 2010 at 4:04 PM

@ Sbond if this was just a safety issue, this would have not been a big deal, but it is the way they are used causes the problem. First off, Tbone collisions statisics go down, but the rear end goes up. Independent studies have shown the signal timing is adjusted to faver catching red light runners. Common laws and practices are either enforced that havn;t been before, or penilized. The point of no return, where when the light changes the driver does not have enough time to safely stop, and legaly must contune thru the intersection. This produces the most infamous fraction the Yellow Red ticket. Recently, I have seen complaints about drivers coming to a full stop for the free right, but getting a ticket because they did not stop for a full three seconds, prior to stoppong, and even not stopping before the line, and even on the line. Some municipalities are contracting out of state to a private contractor in Arazona. Not even a criminal moving violation but a Civil infraction.

kong5 said on November 3, 2010 at 4:02 PM

I think I'm one of the few that walks. Can't tell you how many times I have to wait before using the cross walks to let cars run the red light.

concorde said on November 3, 2010 at 3:31 PM

Cameras everywhere = German Utopia! Is there a better argument against the Surveillance Society?

waterkider said on November 3, 2010 at 3:21 PM

Germany has a history of a 'big brother' government, something we tried hard to stop. I don't think we want to use them as a guide for the USA.

stickneyw said on November 3, 2010 at 3:20 PM

Something Eyman and I can agree on for once !

saintquickey said on November 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

So what did happen in Mukilteo. This is a pretty lame article without including this bit of information.

sbond said on November 3, 2010 at 3:06 PM

Although I am often a supporter of Mr. Eyman's initiatives, I do not support his or anyone else's effort on this issue. Having lived in Germany for 7 years, I experienced first hand traffic cameras. They were everywhere: at intersections, on the autobahns, and on streets. The Polizei had impromptu set-ups and were often stationed at the sides of the roads and autobahns. Very often the cameras are hidden--YES!--hidden. The point of this is that traffic cameras are there for safety. Revenue as well, but that takes a back seat to the safety issue. It also frees up patrol officers to do go on pressing calls and not spend their time looking for speeders or red light runners as the cameras act as a deterrent. Having been "back" in the United States for just over a year now I see all too often vehicles running red lights. If many of the itnersections had red light cameras there would be far fewer vehicles running those lights and creating a danger to so many--and themselves!