You talk about constitutional rights Mr. Burke, but you totally overlook driver responsibility. I happened to see the MSNBC article concerning the city of Dallas ? they turned SOME cameras off because they had worked too well. When violations went down, the cost to operate became greater than the revenue created. A review conducted by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety noted that "cameras reduce red light violations by 40-50 percent and reduce injury crashes by 25-30 percent. One study found a reduction of 68 percent in front to side impact injury crashes, the kind of crashes most related to red light running." The key words being INJURY crashes, those that cause fatalities. The review can be found at http://www.iihs.org/laws/automated_enforcement.aspx. Furthermore, I have no need to consult an attorney to try to "get out of a ticket". If I am given a citation for a traffic violation, I am big enough to take the punishment. Maybe that is where we differ, Mr. Burke.

Hmm

For one I am a supporter of our rights as they are wrote in the Constitution, just not the way your trying to twist it so that it meets to your expectations. Me and another person pretty much gave you exactly what due process and the fifth admendment says and your response is to skip like a scratched record and say the same drivel all over again. As far as what other states are doing, that is other states. Just because one state says OH No this is not fair to anyone does not mean that our state must follow suit. Anyways I can see the only thing we will get from you from here on out is a repeat of everything you have already said even though people are giving your so-called facts a run. And the only thing you can say is that our words are USELESS. At least I can quote where I researched my facts at and quoted them in my post, at least 3 people in multiple articles have asked for yours and you have yet to publish anything.

I wont be posting to this again as it would seem that the only thing your wishing to do is get a rise out of people rather than actually DISCUSS the issue.

John Miller...if you took all the time you wasted writing all those useless words that mean nothing and read what is going on all around the country with the courts ruling them unconstitutional and causing more harm than good, you would be further ahead. I have not been put on the spot by anyone. I am just a supporter of our rights. If you do not support the rights we were given, I feel for you.

Mr. Burke - Yes, I remember Due Process from school. I even understood it then, and now. For you, I provide here the entire text of the Fifth Amendment of the US Constitution. "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation." The red light tickets do allow the recipient to go to court to contest them; therefore, due process of law is provided before a person is deprived of property (the fine).

Mr. Burke

Wow, I guess when one doesn't have all the answers its true, they go with personal attacks. Telling people they should move to another country if they agree with the red light cameras is as bad as me telling you if you dont like the cameras to get out of the country.

So let me answer a few of your questions for you and make a few notes.

"How about if you loaned your gun to someone and they shot someone, or robbed a store. Do you want to be arrested for robbery or murder?"

I will not be arrested, I may be questioned by the police or a detective and shortly afterwards they will have the name of the person that I "Loaned" my gun to. Of course this would not happen either cause I never have nor ever will "Loan" my guns to anyone. Oh and since your comparing this to letting someone borrow your car. I have let one person borrow my car. It was a Relative and I let them know "You get a ticket, you will pay for it." If someone is not responsible enough to take care of my belongings they wont be driving my car.

"If the city was out for the best interest of the citizens they would try to adjust the lights rather than trying to make money on a situation."

Yes we all know that increasing the yellow light time will reduce accidents. I mean no one ever slams the gas to make it thorugh a yellow light or to beat that red light they know thats going to hold them up for a whole...2 minutes. So lets increase those yellow light times and have that many more people racing through yellow lights. On the serious side even the Insurance Institute has stated "While the provision of adequate yellow signal timing is important and can reduce red light running, longer yellow timing alone does not eliminate the need or potential benefits of red light cameras" But unfortunatly it usually takes someone loosing money to make the point that something they did is not legal.

You asked Ann Smith "Ann Smith How would you feel if someone else was driving your husband's vehicle and went through a redlight and your husband got the ticket in the mail because he is the owner of the vehicle? " then when she replied you came back with "I did not ask for all kinds of excuses for reasons why your husband's truck would be operated besides him. The fact of the matter, when someone slams on their brakes and you are a normal distance behind them, you will hit them"

No you didnt ask for excuses but you did ask her a question of what she would do. She is answering your question in that she will never have the chance to feel that way because no one would drive her husbands truck unless it was stolen. Same for me, I will never get one of these tickets because I nor anyone else will run a red light in my car and get away with it. As for "Normal Distance" what is your definition of normal distance 65 feet at 58 miles a hour or 120 feet at the same speed? You see my normal distance changes with the speed limit and the actions of the people around me. If someone is swerving infront of me back and forth, I am surely not going to speed up and try to pass him. I will slow down and be ready to stop and hope my actions will cause people to take notice of the car also.

"Again, they are a violation of our constitutional rights that were guaranteed to us by our forefathers" and "Due Process of the Law is what these cameras are in violation of the constitution"

Ok, to start with I am sure our forefathers never knew that one day we would be able to do alot of the things we are doing now. If so I am sure they would have went ahead and included it in the constitution. I mean I am just 100% sure when they said free speech and freedom of expression that they knew people would be making porn and saying human feces was Artistic. In fact if they could have been able to see ahead I would say our constitution would have been quite a bit bigger then it is now.

By what your trying to imply, since these cameras are not an actual police officer then its a violation of Due Process and that your also not able to face your accuser, But due process is essentially based on the concept of "fundamental fairness." As construed by the courts, it includes an individual's right to be adequately notified of charges or proceedings, and the opportunity to be heard at these proceedings. And as far as the cameras not being a officer, your right. The cameras that are around my house are not police officers either, but it wont stop me from filing charges or helping the police find out who someone is that trys to break into my home by letting them view the video. Infact if it did make it where cameras are not admissable as evidence then I would say there would be alot of new appeals. Cameras are in Grocery Stores, Wal-Marts, Gas Stations, interstates, hotels etc. I think you get the hint. Dont think for a moment if there is a pile up and it happens infront of a traffic camera (Not red light or speed cameras) that the cameras tapes wont be pulled, reviewed by an officer and used as evidence in court.

Last but not least it would seem that a larger majority of people support the cameras than those that do not like them. From the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. "The large majority of the US public supports red light cameras. A 2000 Institute survey in ten cities ? five with cameras and five without ? reported that more than 75 percent of drivers supported camera enforcement"

John Burke if you wanna break the law and run red lights and whine because you have to pay the fine, then YOU sir go live in another country. And to sit there and say you dont care about how long Hal Weeden served with the fire department...i bet you would if he was having to come to your house and save it from a fire. And you are responsible for your car if you lend it out. If someone steals your gun or whatever, then you would call the police and report it that way your not held accountable if someone uses it to shoot someone...thats common sense. And if your driving at a normal distance behind someone then no you wont hit them...unless a normal distance to you is right on their tail. A normal distance is 2 car links behind the car infront of you. When the time comes and they have to take down the camera's because a decrease in revenue...well then that means they served their purpose...that doesnt take rocket science to figure out. Its people like you who want to judge something before even seeing what it will do....you dont give it long enough. Get over it. The camera's are there and all the whining and crying in the world isnt going to bring them down...you dont like it STAY HOME OR GET THE HECK OUT OF AMERICA!!!!!

James McNeil.....you state that you should be responsible for your vehicle if you lend it out. How about if you loaned your gun to someone and they shot someone, or robbed a store. Do you want to be arrested for robbery or murder? I doubt it. This is the same principle as the cameras are operating on.

Hal Weeden....I don't care how long you have run the roads as a firefighter. The national insurance institute states that property damage has incresed as a result of the use of these redlight cameras. They also stated that adjusting the timing on the caution light would reduce all traffic accidents. If the city was out for the best interest of the citizens they would try to adjust the lights rather than trying to make money on a situation. Furthermore, "Due Process of the Law" is what these cameras are in violation of the constitution. Do you remember reading those in school?

Ann Smith....I did not ask for all kinds of excuses for reasons why your husband's truck would be operated besides him. The fact of the matter, when someone slams on their brakes and you are a normal distance behind them, you will hit them. As for people like you condoning the use of these illegal cameras should go live in Cuba, or China. You do not deserve to live in this country with the attitude you have. I am not talking about the cameras invading privacy. They don't take your picture anyway. And for the camera taking pictues of an accident occurring....give me a break....they don't work like that. You do not understand how they work. Many states in our country have ruled them unconstitutional. State by state, the cameras are being struck down. Get you head of of the dirt and read what is going on. You are correct about one thing...our rights are being stepped on because of people like you letting it happen. By the way, ask a lawyer next time your husband gets a ticket and he will tell you that you do not have to pay it and the city can not do anything about it.

James McNeil....the study Rather than reducing the number of crashes at busy intersections, traffic cameras actually cause more crashes than they prevent, triggering auto-insurance rate increases according to a study conducted at the University of South Florida.

This is just one study. For your information...it is not "rocket-science" to find these studies.

Many cities have taken these cameras down because of the increased number of accidents. Again, find the articles and read them before you defend something that is illegal. If you do not want to protect the constitution of the United States....get out and live in Cuba, or go to China.

First of all Mr. Burke, the only way someone else is driving my husband's truck is if it is stolen. Secondly, all of the comments I have seen posted here are people who want to blame the cameras for the act of tailgating. Thirdly, for over a hundred years, our government has been dwindling down this "righteous document" called the constitution to the equivelant of Charmin. Fourthly, I don't mind being photographed because I have nothing to hide. Fifth, when an accident does occur, the whole thing is photographed without several different people having several different versions of the story. If you are that worried about your privacy, stay home!

Mr Burke: I am drawing the conclusion that property damage will decrease as violations decrease. Seems like common sense to me: if people stop running red lights, collisions decrease, therefore property damage decreases. It was Mr. Maines who first stated here that violations are decreasing and will continue to decrease until the cameras are not cost effective. As Mr. McNeil asked, will you please cite the source of the studies you are speaking of? Even if you could convince me that rear-end accidents are on the rise from the use of red light cameras, I can tell you from 28 years in the fire and rescue business that rear-end collisions tend to not be as severe or cause as much property or human damage as side-impact collisions. Further, prey tell what constitutional violation do you perceive these cameras create? Right to privacy? There's no right to privacy on a public roadway. Right to a fair trial? These are civil citations, not criminal charges. Right to drive with disregard for traffic laws? There is no right to drive at all; it's a privilege, hence the need for a license. I've spent most of my life in uniform in defense of the US Constitution. I don't live in Kingsport today because my military duty keeps me away from town. What is the battle you see on my home front that I'm neglecting to see?

Hal Weeden.....Where are you getting your information on property damage is down from the use of redlight cameras? Many reports throughout the country are out stating that property damage has increased at intersectons where these cameras are installed. A major study was performed by a University and it states "that the use of these cameras have done nothing to increase safety, but has actually caused more property damage to the point of some cities taking them down." Again, they are a violation of our constitutional rights that were guaranteed to us by our forefathers. And these rights need to be preserved or we will be living in a country like Cuba, China, or any other country that does not grant their citizens rights. Anytime you let someone erode one of your rights, they will attempt to erode another one. So stop supporting a city and try to justify their illegal use of these cameras. It is all about the money because some cities have taken them down because they were not producing enough revenue. No, they are not taking them down because they served their purpose. There are other ways to make intersections more safe as stated in the study performed by the University. They actually have statistical information that states that "when the caution light time is extended that the intersecton will be much more safe."

Mr Maines writes, "This will eventually happen in kingsport when the number of violations are so low that it's costing the city of kingsport money to maintain these intersections. Then, we will see what lies they come up with for the reason the cameras are being removed." Of course the cameras will be removed then. The true reason? Because they will have WORKED! Decreasing the number of violations is the whole point, and I'm glad Mr. Maines recognizes the cameras have and will continue to decrease red light violations, saving lives and DECREASING property damage.

All I can say is I received a ticket at one of these lights a few weeks ago. It was early in the morning. The sun was reflecting off the lights real bright. And it had just rained. When I approached the light I saw green and red. Then all of a sudden it flickered to red. The photos even show green and red. I had them blown up. Looked at the video several times. And it is hard to tell really what color the light was. I did admit it to them when I paid my $100 fine. I did run the light. Problem I had was I had even slowed down to 37mph. I did see green and I also saw red. If I would of hit my brakes I would of been sideswiped by a truck coming off of Eastman Rd. The last time I checked I thought we were taught if a light suddenly changed to red for safeties sake we should go through it. It is just sad that I did slow down at the light. I made my decision. I did see green and I went through. The people down at city hall even said they saw green. But I did run the light. I agreed I did. There was nothing they could do. I don't like these lights because they are dangerous. I approached them with caution made the wrong decision from what I saw at the time. And received the ticket for being a safe driver. I have not received a ticket in over 20 years. This is only a revenue booster for the city of Kingsport. All I know is I do not travel through Kingsport any more. I spend a little more time and go an alternate route and have stopped spending my money on gas and food at restaurants on Stone Dr.

Ann Smith
How would you feel if someone else was driving your husband's vehicle and went through a redlight and your husband got the ticket in the mail because he is the owner of the vehicle? You are missing the point of what everyone is saying. Accidents are on the rise and more property damage has occurred since these cameras were installed. It is all about the money to the city if you believe it or not. If it is not, why is the city of Dallas taking them out because of costing them too much money to operate? So, where is the concern for safety? Sounds like concern for money. Also, your insurance rates will not go up with the citation from the camera. These citations are not reported to the state, or your insurance company. Furthermore, these cameras on a state by state basis are being ruled unconstitutional. If you have an ounce of American in you, you should be upset that the city of Kingsport is stepping on our constitutional rights.

Why do people find it so hard to own up to their mistakes that they have to blame an inanimate object? Maybe instead of blaming the cameras, we should blame the state for not providing a mandatory drivers' training course because evidently people need them. My husband received his $100 fine in the mail for running a red light. Should I blame the camera for observing my husband running the red light? Our insurance rates may go up due to this but will it be the camera's fault? If our insurance rate does go up, is it the camera that I will constantly nag because of his inattentiveness? No, I won't kill the messenger!:)

It doesn't seem to me that the truck would have been a factor in this incident if the driver of the car had been paying attention. We need to slow down and pay attention.

Kingsport installed these lights for safety reasons, Yea right. More accidents are being created because of these lights and this city may someday be held accountable for installing them. I hope they have their insurance premiums paid up.

Redflex at work again. T-bone or not, a big truck like that could have killed a lot of people. Statistics around the country are showing that accidents are on the increase and more damage is being reported to the insurance companies. The city of Morristown was considering redlight cameras, but after reading the studies are backing away from installing them because of the increased property damage.