Cautious Discretion?

Not long ago the City of Houston began installing red light cameras to record the identity of the cars running red lights. This was met with an uproar from folks whose arguments against the installation of these cameras included invasion of privacy and an unnecessary money grab by the city. There were others, most of which that fell into a category of exceptions, for example “What if someone else is driving my car?”, and “What happens if I am in a funeral procession?”. Without going into detail, none of the arguments against had enough merit to prevent the installation of the cameras, which currently total 50, located at the intersections where the most collisions have occurred in the past.

I was, and still am, a strong supporter of these cameras. I see this as an extremely positive use of technology that will make driving in Houston safer, free the HPD to concentrate on more pressing issues, and generate additional revenue for the city. All good things, I think.

Initially the cameras were to focus capturing those cars who proceeded through an intersection after the light had turned red. A ticket is sent to the owner of the vehicle based on the license number captured by the camera. The fine is $75.00 and the citation is not reported to those in charge of attaching points to the driver’s license.

Last week it was announced that the cameras use will be expanded to also capture cars turning right on red without first coming to a complete stop. Predictably there are folks who object to this use of the technology. One such objection appeared in the August 26 Houston Chronicle’s letters section. Here it is:

“Police wrong to cite cautious

I thought the idea behind traffic police was to give citations to those who drove around recklessly, flouting the laws. The recent news about police giving citations for making rolling stops when making a right turn on a red light is oppressive in the extreme (see the Chronicle’s Aug. 22 Page One article, “Red-light camera law may soon get stricter/ Illegal turns - such as slowing to go right on red - would be ticketed”).

To cite those drivers who use cautious discretion when turning right at an intersection is blatant exploitation of a new technology in an effort to generate revenue.

Welcome, good citizens, to 1984.

R. Belkin
Houston”

So we see several things in that letter; the writer has no concept of what extreme oppression is (the Patriot Act must have this person near suicidal), the writer thinks that breaking traffic laws are permitted under the guise of “cautious discretion”, and he is another of those who object to the city generating revenue from income stemming from fines levied to those who disregard traffic laws.

The first and third are extremely ridiculous, so much so that any person with half a brain can see that the writer has some serious problems with reality. But the second one begs for additional examination.

I was intrigued by the phrase “cautious discretion”, that maybe this person has a rational point,. However, this is just as misguided as the other two ridiculous statements. I could be wrong, but I think the Texas Transportation Code does not provide for the discretionary application of the traffic laws stated therein. So, the phrase “cautious discretion” has no applicability in this case.

An example of “cautious discretion” when operating a motor vehicle would be when a driver chooses not to make or answer a call on his or her cell phone in order to give total attention to the road. The key word here is “chooses”, because in Texas it is permissible to drive while operating a cell phone. However section 544.007 of the Texas Transportation Code states “After stopping, standing until the intersection may be entered safely, and yielding right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully in an adjacent crosswalk and other traffic lawfully using the intersection, the operator may turn right.” So it is clear that there is no choice to be made, you must stop.

My take on the whole thing is that three are a lot of people out there who do not wish to be accountable for their actions. This is something that has reached epidemic proportions in this country. You do not have to look beyond the White House to see this.

What’s the answer? I don’t know. But I am positive that people like R. Belkin know even less.