Spokane7
49°
August 6, 2010 in Region
Judge OK’s Mukilteo red light camera vote
MUKILTEO, Wash. — A Snohomish County Superior Court ruled Friday that Mukilteo voters will have their say in November on red light cameras.
Political activist Tim Eyman, who sponsored the initiative, says this will be the first time voters in the state have had a chance to decide on the automatic ticketing systems. He says it could lead to similar votes in more than 20 other Washington cities.
Mukilteo’s measure would require a public vote for any red light or speed zone camera in the city. It also would limit fines to the least-expensive parking ticket.
The city council agreed to put the initiative on the ballot, but that action was challenged in a lawsuit by a group calling itself Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government.
© Copyright 2010 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Children permitted at Washington prison powwows 
oneanddone on August 06 at 12:07 p.m.
Red light cameras are a bad idea because there’s too much temptation, or the appearance anyway, of setting controls to raise revenue. But, you cannot govern by committee - or initiative. The people making these decisions, or at least those in charge of those that do, have been elected and can be unelected just as easily. Eyman is a two year old who wants what he wants when he wants it. If he wants to run things then he can run for office. Let the government run the way it was meant to.
SafeKids on August 06 at 1:49 p.m.
I disagree with oneanddone. The cameras cannot be manipulated at will. Additionally the cameras have been shown over and over again to decrease serious, harmful, intersection collisions. It seems that the people that are against the cameras are conspiracy theorists or traffic lawyers worried they will no longer be able to fight traffic tickets because there will be overwhelming proof against their clients. Keep the cameras. They are good for our kids safety.
tj51 on August 06 at 2:49 p.m.
I agree with SafeKids.
Day after day I dodge red light runners or people driving across crosswalks because they weren’t paying attention to a changing light. I don’t even let my kids walk to the park alone because of how many times I’ve seen people run the light at the intersection on the way to the park.
I would like to see more intersection cameras because I want people to be more aware of the 2,000 pound monsters they drive and the dangers that they pose to a 50 pound child. If it takes a couple of tickets then so be it. I’d rather inattentive people be ticketed than my children killed by them.
isabellaA on August 06 at 2:56 p.m.
As a trauma nurse in the ER, I see car accident victims all the time. I can tell you from personal experience (living in a city that has increased the number of red light cameras over the past couple of years) that they truly reduce the number of accidents. There will always be accidents, but the fact remains that the overall number and severity of these accidents are reduced when there is more vigilance at intersections.
ethomas on August 06 at 4:30 p.m.
It’s a shame that running red lights is so prevalent that what is prudent is when your light turns green, look all directions before proceeding through an intersection. I always look first for this exact reason. It’s exactly this kind of thing that makes me realize that people will not stop running red lights unless there is a penalty. Bring on the red light cameras!
remymartin on August 06 at 9:46 p.m.
The government, be it local, state, or federal is completely out of control. They do not listen to what the people are saying and the people are saying “STOP”! If the majority of the people want this crap stopped, then it needs to be stopped. We have hired these people to represent our views and they are not doing it, so that is what the initiative process is for.
monkeyman on August 06 at 10:21 p.m.
@ isabellaA on August 06 at 2:56 p.m.
“As a trauma nurse in the ER, I see car accident victims all the time. I can tell you from personal experience… they truly reduce the number of accidents. … and severity of these accidents are reduced when there is more vigilance at intersections.”
Thank you so much for your comment. This is the first ever actually useful comment on the topic I have ever read/heard. My impression was that if anything at all the cameras probably increase the accidents as people brake as soon as they see a yellow light.
Reading your comment I realized that severity of a fender bender would be much less than that of a high-speed T-bone impact. One solid T-bone would probably cause more damage than a dozen or more accidents that result in little more than a dented bumper…
All argument regarding private firms/city making money are separate from the above new thought that I had not considered before. And I am still not sure of the effectiveness of the cameras… thanks again.
Banphotoradar on August 06 at 11:11 p.m.
Ten cities have been caught shortening yellow light times to increase profits. No government agency has ever calibrated the equipment the corporations use. Also, number counts go down at the intersections because people want to avoid the cameras. One town lost 60,000 drivers in a year at intersections with cameras. They really hurt local businesses.
20 reasons to oppose photo radar:
http://www.meetup.com/camerafraud/messages/boards/thread/7496696