On The Spot Blog

As we come to mid-month, more news from Austin on all of the action to stop or slow the spread of the disease known as red light cameras.

Two more bills have been filed, House Bill 1570, and Senate Bill 195.  House Bill 1570 is identical to the previously discussed Senate Bill 125, requiring that the revenue be directed towards a designated Trauma Facility.  If both pass their respective chambers, it would hold promise for the bill to make it to Governor Perry’s desk.

Senate Bill 195 takes a radically different approach from the other bills proposed and looks back to the 78th legislative session.  It repeals a section of the state transportation code that was enacted in 2003.  The earlier changes eliminated the requirement that red light runners be served the criminal citation in person by the citing officer, allowing for the offense to be ticketed with a civil citation - bypassing the requirement of being served by the officer.  The new bill repeals that change, making all red light cameras illegal in the state.

So, by my scorecard, here’s the bills that are in the legislature as we speak:

• 3 bills prohibiting cameras on state highways
• 2 bills requiring revenue to go to trauma facilities
• 1 bill requiring minimum light change intervals at camera enforced intersections
• 1 bill setting standard signage requirements
• 1 bill repealing the previous legislatures authorizing change

Now, for some good news.  The Senate Transportation and Homeland Security committee is planning a hearing February 21 in Austin, and both Senate Bill 125 and Senate Bill 195 are on the agenda.  No hearings have been scheduled with the House Urban Affairs committee for the six on their agenda.

I will continue to support all of these bills, and strongly support Senate Bill 195, since it clearly removes the right to use cameras - while the others just restrict their usage.

As soon as I can get a transcript of the upcoming hearing, I will post a commentary.  For those of you reading this after my post in the Chronicle’s City Hall blog, I hope to have some more insight into the flawed Insurance Institute for Highway Safety’s report on cameras posted here later this weekend. 

More news coming out of the Austin. 

Legislator Coleman introduced House Bill 1304, which institutes a moratorium on Taser purchases and use during calendar year 2008.

With the current number of Taser related incidents that have happened around the state, it might sound like a good idea.  In fact, it, like the Houston Police Department’s chase policy will limit the options that are available to those who have sworn to protect and serve the public. 

I agree that possibly the state should propose a standardized training requirement, along with specific “recertification” intervals.  Right now, each department has their own set of requirements, and I think those inconsistencies are part of the problem.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, the requirement to be shocked by the device is optional in some departments training, while others, including Houston Police Department, doesn’t even include that option.  To me, the standardized training should include exactly that, a requirement to receive a shock from the device that they are going to use.  This is just like an officer at the academy being able to participate in hand to hand combat to understand taking control of a situation, to safely handling the police car in special cases such as pursuits.

So, Austin, tell the cops how they have to be trained to use it, but don’t stop them from using a taser. Otherwise the officer might have to resort to a stronger, more deadly force to stop a suspect.

And that’s not good for anyone.

We’ve all seen them, along a freeway or on a street.  Four or five tow trucks lined up to try and get a piece of the business at a scene of an accident.  We’ve seen the drivers of those trucks snake their way down the emergency lane past the backed up traffic just to get in on it.

Could the days of the cowboy tow truck driver be numbered?

In a bill filed today in Austin, Senator Hegar offered:

Senate Bill 500: Relating to the establishment of a tow truck rotation list in certain counties; providing a penalty.

Let’s look at an example of this working.  The city of Olathe, Kansas, just outside of Kansas City, implemented just such a program 15 years ago.  Tow truck drivers argued it’s unfair, but the city proved them wrong.  While it thinned out the number of renegade drivers (those that only have a truck or two), and gave better opportunities to the larger organized tow companies.

The tow companies realized that they now had a guaranteed tow once out of every so many incidents - a sure bet, when compared to the current Texas method of selection.  Renegade drivers banded together to form larger companies, and everyone won.  Best of all, the trucks themselves weren’t creating additional hazards by weaving through traffic to get to the call.

I saw this in action last fall, when I was visiting family near Olathe.  The car I was riding in was rear-ended, pushing us into a vehicle in front of us.  Olathe Police were called, and informed of at least one wrecker needed.  Within a few minutes, both an officer and a single wrecker arrived.  We were in the left turn lane on a very busy street, yet traffic continued to flow fairly smooth around the accident.  Fortunately, we were able to drive away, but the wrecker driver offered to assist us with the trip home if we had further problems.

Here in Houston, of course we not only have the renegade drivers, we have SafeCLEAR.  While the text of the bill is not as clear as I wish it was, it is possible that this could bear impact on it as well.   

I guess we’ll just have to watch this and see, but if implemented in Harris County, it could make the roads much safer then they are today.  It would also be much more fair to the tow companies then the current SafeCLEAR program is.

We’ll keep you posted. 

Phoenix suburb Scottsdale, Arizona recently conducted a 9 month test of a "Photo Radar" system on loop 101 (Phoenix's version of 610).  The city has now passed a resolution to turn the cameras back on full time, considering the system a success.

In the ZDNet and Arizona Republic stories, it says that the cameras activate when speed is 11 miles per hour over the speed limit. The Arizona Daily Star reports that the fight may not yet be over, not without a statewide ballot issue on the November 2008 ballot.

As most Houstonian's know, Police Chief Harold Hurtt still maintains a home in Phoenix, and travels there most weekends.  We know that Phoenix uses red light enforcement, much like what is now being deployed throughout Houston.

Could photo speed enforcement be the next cash cow the city of Houston tries to cash in on?  I suspect it will come up for discussion.

Would it make Houstonians slow down from the blazing fast speeds that we travel on area roads?

Or, will the state legislature put the brakes on another of the city's misdirected ideas before it takes off?

Only time will tell.

Funny question to ask.

It’s when people like a religious group from Topeka, Kansas (I know who they are, and I’m not going to add to their fodder with their name being searchable on Google to this site) can protest military funerals as a way of speaking out against abortion.

I’m sorry, but the (Name Removed) family and their band of followers should disappear; take their protests elsewhere - somewhere other than a church, funeral home or cemetery.  Ideally it should never be visible or heard from a location where funeral services and graveside services are held.  It also should not be seen anywhere along the route a grieving family will travel in a funeral procession.

Fortunately, the state legislature may be working on just a solution.  I applaud legislator Geren for doubling the minimum set-backs for these kinds of protests.

UPDATE Feb. 8: State Senator Harris just introduced a duplicate bill in the senate.

My RSS feed blinked across yet another bill being floated around Austin:

House Bill 1052: Relating to requiring warning signs before intersections at which a municipality uses a photographic traffic monitoring system to enforce compliance with a traffic-control signal

Add this bill to the six others that I mentioned in an earlier post. 

This one in particular requires that cities use a TXDOT approved sign and requirements for size and display of the sign at all intersections with camera enforcement.

I will continue to support all of these bills, and will continue to monitor the developments here. As many know, the state legislature can be ineffective at times, with all of their procedural and time wasting processes.  Let’s keep our fingers crossed that one or more of these bills make it to Governor Perry’s desk.

I subscribe to an RSS feed from the Texas Legislature that gives a one-line title to each bill introduced in the current Legislative session.  Tonight, as I was scrolling through the day’s activity, a couple of titles caught my eye:

Senate Bill 369: Relating to an offense involving a motor vehicle with an altered or obscured license plate.

and

House Bill 985: Relating to the power of a local authority to enforce compliance with speed limits or a traffic-control signal on a highway under its jurisdiction by an automated traffic-control system.

The first bill is important, as it clarifies the earlier passed laws regarding obscuring license plates, and takes out the clause that has been abused about frames on license plates. 

It also clearly legalizes the use of license-plate mounted transponders, like the ones being used by the Harris County Toll Road Authority when the metallic coating of some windshields interferes with traditional EZ-Tags.

The second bill instructs the Attorney General to deny implementation of photographic enforcement devices on highways within the state, including traffic light and speed enforcement.

This raised my curiosity, so I decided to dig deeper.  I did a search on the Legislature’s web site for the word “photographic” in Bills introduced so far in this session and came up with a total of eight results.  Here are the others of relevance:

• House Bill 55: Relating to the power of a local authority to enforce compliance with a traffic-control signal on a highway under its jurisdiction by a photographic traffic signal enforcement system.
• Senate Bill 125: Relating to the deposit of revenue collected from certain traffic penalties in the designated trauma facility and emergency medical services account.
• House Bill 614: Relating to requiring a standard change interval for a yellow signal at intersections at which a municipality uses a photographic traffic monitoring system to enforce compliance with a traffic-control signal.
• House Bill 922: Relating to the power of a municipality to enforce compliance with speed limits by an automated traffic control system.

The above bills show some of the creativeness of the representives that we have sent to Austin.

House Bills 55 and 922 are the same as House Bill 985, but they only cover traffic signal enforcement, while 985 added speed enforcement devices as well.

Senate Bill 125 seems the most interesting one.  It says “fine, you can have them” but says that 50% of all revenue generated has to go to a designated trauma facility or other emergency health care center.

House Bill 614 also doesn’t ban them, but says that cities must maintain a minimum yellow light time as defined in the statewide standards.  This is good, since it says they can’t shorten yellow lights to increase revenue.  I have always advocated longer yellow light times at high-risk intersections, and several studies concur that the longer yellow light is a better accident deterent than red-light running tickets.

I support all of these bills, although a combination of Senate Bill 125, House Bill 614 and House Bill 985 would be the best solution.  Tell the cities, “You can’t use them on the highways, but everywhere else is fine, and while you’re at it, those have to have minimum yellow light times and the trauma centers get half your revenue.”

I suspect a combination of that would deter many municipalities from beginning a program, and might even have some of the cities that have already taken the steps to install them to turn them off.

In the business I’m in, I frequently see questions about how to enforce human behavior by using a piece of technology.  My response has always been, technology will not fix the problem of human nature, but humans work best at changing human behavior.

Cities like Houston need to invest in real officers on the streets, not in technology that accuses drivers of something without rock solid proof.  The cameras they invested in only take pictures of the rear of the car, and then put the burden of proof on the owner to incriminate another driver or pay up.  The system is flawed, and I hope that the state legislators will at least pass one of the above bills to start the way towards fixing the system.