[cays]

By Steve Scauzillo, San Gabriel Valley Tribune
POSTED: 01/21/14, 7:33 PM PST

Los Angeles and Pasadena removed all their red-light cameras within the past two years. Both cited numerous reasons, but one that they had in common was declining support from the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

The court does not report the violations to the state DMV. It is not attached to a person’s driving record and does not pop up when a driver is renewing a license or car registration, said court and city officials.

Registered drivers would receive the violations in the mail. But the courts said that was not proof the driver violated the law, only the car. That led to the nonreporting of the red-light camera violations by the courts.

Often, judges would reduce the fines or dismiss them, if the picture of the driver on the video was blurry. Since the fines are split by the state, the county and the city, residuals dropped below the cost of the program, said Norman Baculinao, traffic engineer manager with the city of Pasadena.

“Literally, the voluntary payment became the norm,” he said. “The judge exercised a lot of discretion. Sometimes the judge would give them community service and then no revenue would go to the city.”

Former Los Angeles City Councilman Dennis Zine, who voted with the majority to remove all its cameras at 32 intersections on July 31, 2011, said the program became too costly to operate. The city continued collecting fines until April 1, 2012.

Zine at the time called the program “completely wrong” and characterized it as one that was more about revenue than public safety.

In a recent phone interview, he said the city ended the program because payments to a vendor and time spent by LAPD officers reviewing videotape from the cameras outweighed the benefits. “It was costing us much more than the city was receiving from the fines,” he said.

After further analysis, Los Angeles concluded most of the fines were for people who stopped at the red light but made a right turn where a sign prohibited the normally allowed move. He said right turns on red, or rolling right turns, were not causing traffic collisions.

“The fine of $500 didn’t seem just and fair to the motoring public,” he said. “It was oppressive.”

Pasadena had red-light cameras at: Lake Avenue and Union Street, Marengo Avenue and Union and Foothill Boulevard and San Gabriel Boulevard. Some were installed in 2003, others in 2005. All were removed in July 2012.

Accidents dropped during the first year but city engineers saw a huge fall-off in violations in the years following. Drivers had become aware of the cameras and drove more carefully, Baculinao said. Now, the city has a blue LED light that tells a live police officer when the light turns red. If he sees a car entering the intersection when the blue light is shining, he can manually cite the driver, said Mark Yamarone, transportation administrator.

The city of Pasadena also increased the yellow light times. “We made it yellow longer than required,” Baculinao said.

Beeber said red-light cameras are ineffective and unnecessary. The best way to reduce collisions is to lengthen yellow-light times, he said.

His committee is working with Democratic Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian of Sherman Oaks on a bill, A.B. 612, that will require the minimum yellow light time be increased by one second beyond the designated interval set by the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for all intersections with red-light cameras.

If the bill is passed, red-light camera violations issued on intersections with the shorter yellow would be invalid, he said. Also, fewer violations would be issued since most occur within the first second when a light turns red, according to Nazarian’s bill, which used research from the Texas Transportation Institute. The TTI concluded a one-second longer yellow light decreases accidents by 40 percent.

Caltrans increased the yellow-light time at an intersection near a freeway in the Bay Area town of Fremont, a city fighting off challenges to red-light cameras. The change resulted in a 76 percent drop in straight-through red-light camera violations at that intersection, said Roger Jones, an opponent of the cameras.

As little as three-tenths of a second on yellow-light times can reduce accidents, Beeber said.

West Hollywood added three-tenths of a second to all its stop lights, resulting in a 49 percent to 70 percent drop in violations at red-light camera intersections, Beeber said.

He’s trying to convince Beverly Hills to do the same at a controversial red-light camera intersection at Wilshire and Whittier.

“My message is this: At a properly engineered intersection, you shouldn’t have a lot of red-light running. And you don’t need red-light cameras,” Beeber said.

Jones said the evidence is overwhelming, but many smaller cities that have had the programs for 10 or 15 years don’t want to reverse themselves out of pride or if the revenue stream is positive. Like a prosecutor who is shown to have convicted the wrong man, they want to save face.Los Angeles and Pasadena removed all their red-light cameras within the past two years. Both cited numerous reasons, but one that they had in common was declining support from the Los Angeles County Superior Court.

[Dracon]

Originally Posted by zx10guy

You keep saying that around here in the 3 DC metro area jurisdictions and see how far that gets you. If anything, this area has more lawyers per capita than any other place in the country. If what you say is true, then the lawyers here would have gone to town with all 3 municipalities. Yet not one jurisdiction has repealed any of their laws nor pulled their cameras.

In fact, DC has continued to expand their red light and speed camera programs...same as the various counties in Maryland. Fairfax county in Virginia was the exception in pulling the red light cameras but there's been talk about starting up the program again.

It's similar to "DUI by Consent" laws we have in Tennessee. Basically, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for anything that happens involving the vehicle, even if the vehicle owner wasn't present.

Tennessee DUI law provides that an owner or passenger of a vehicle may be held criminally liable for the actions of another person who commits the offenses of DUI, vehicular homicide, or related Tennessee crimes. This means that an owner or passenger may be found guilty of a Tennessee DUI offense when the driver is found guilty of Tennessee Driving Under the Influence. This crime is most commonly referred to as “DUI By Consent.”

A passenger or owner of a vehicle may be found guilty of DUI under Tennessee law even if the passenger or owner never drives. As a result, two or more people in the same car may be arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence, even if only one person drove or operated the vehicle. In certain circumstances, a person can be charged and convicted of DUI by Consent even if he or she is not present in the vehicle at the time of the driver’s arrest.

[ouchie]

Originally Posted by John 070

Is that red car even a BMW? I know people who got rlc tix for not coming to a complete stop, and also where there is no turn on red. If neither if the above apply, then whomever reviewed the violation made a mistake. But two times is odd.

No it is not a BMW, it's an Infiniti. No, there was no sign that said No Turn on Red.

[fazman]

Originally Posted by ouchie

Help! I got 2 tickets from 2 red light cameras, one is in Garden Grove, CA and the other is in Culver City, CA.

1) I have 0 money to pay for more than $1,000 in tickets. It's $590 for Garden Grove and $640 for Culver City.

2) I read at some web site that I can ignore anything that comes from LA County, and some web site that says I cannot ignore tickets from Culver City which s a part of LA County.

3) I'm confused, I really don't want to screw things up!

Please help!

Send them a picture of you writing them a check?

Was any Due Process followed on this citation? Contest the ticket? Get an attorney? Maybe turn tricks on street corners that have red light camera's so you can learn your lesson???

[fazman]

Originally Posted by Dracon

It's similar to "DUI by Consent" laws we have in Tennessee. Basically, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for anything that happens involving the vehicle, even if the vehicle owner wasn't present.

Thats just stupid, i would just say my car was stolen without my consent if I was ever asked about my vehicle.

My mom stole it...
My brother stole it...
My now ex-friend stole it...
My wife stole it...

If you were a passenger in the car, I would claim that I was kidnapped and the vehicle was just stolen by them and I was forced to ride along so I couldn't report the incident

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by fazman

Thats just stupid, i would just say my car was stolen without my consent if I was ever asked about my vehicle.

My mom stole it...
My brother stole it...
My now ex-friend stole it...
My wife stole it...

If you were a passenger in the car, I would claim that I was kidnapped and the vehicle was just stolen by them and I was forced to ride along so I couldn't report the incident

That will work until the person you name calls bullshit on your implication of them when faced with tickets / charges.

[Ross61]

I've often wondered, would a person get a ticket for running a red light if they looked at the yellow light and said to themselves "self, we better slow down, that light is about to change to red" and then they actually did that AND stopped for the red light instead of running the red light?

Holy run-on sentence Batman!!

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by Ross61

I've often wondered, would a person get a ticket for running a red light if they looked at the yellow light and said to themselves "self, we better slow down, that light is about to change to red" and then they actually did that AND stopped for the red light instead of running the red light?

Holy run-on sentence Batman!!

The problem where I live is that you have to check the rear view mirror first, because the guy behind you may not be planning to stop

[cays]

I have read that the estimated number of red light tickets issued yearly in CA is between 5M and 6M. Apparently California is #4 in state rankings of red light tickets issued annually. So the math works perhaps out like this, minimally:

5M tickets X $500/each = $2,500,000,000 yearly red light ticket revenue

That is just over 1% of the state of California's annual budget.

[SakhirM4]

Originally Posted by cays

I have read that the estimated number of red light tickets issued yearly in CA is between 5M and 6M. Apparently California is #4 in state rankings of red light tickets issued annually. So the math works perhaps out like this, minimally:

5M tickets X $500/each = $2,500,000,000 yearly red light ticket revenue

That is just over 1% of the state of California's annual budget.

But how many did they actually collect on

[cays]

Well most who have posted here appear willing to bend over and pay so who knows...?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by cays

I have read that the estimated number of red light tickets issued yearly in CA is between 5M and 6M. Apparently California is #4 in state rankings of red light tickets issued annually. So the math works perhaps out like this, minimally:

5M tickets X $500/each = $2,500,000,000 yearly red light ticket revenue

That is just over 1% of the state of California's annual budget.

Using the standards applied to red light tickets perhaps they should put one on each stop sign in the state and fine people $500 if they don't come to a 100% complete stop at the stop sign or proceed through a 4-way stop in the wrong order. Maybe other random cameras to catch people that don't put their headlights on in the rain, too. That might really help the state budget. (Joking, not suggesting the actually do it...)

Actually, the red light camera company that spent the capital to install cameras all over the place and monitors them gets a big chunk of whatever is collected (if same setup as FL). Alternatively, CA would need to be spending a lot of capital to install, maintain and monitor cameras if the setup in CA is different, so either way it's not the full ticket value that results in net cash to the budget. It is some fraction of it.

[zx10guy]

Originally Posted by Dracon

It's similar to "DUI by Consent" laws we have in Tennessee. Basically, the owner of the vehicle is responsible for anything that happens involving the vehicle, even if the vehicle owner wasn't present.

Thank you. That's exactly the reason why auto insurance doesn't get pinned to the driver but the vehicle itself. So there's already precedence for what the states are doing with automated enforcement.

[deeLow]

$600 for a RED LIGHT TICKET?!?

Holy shit, screw CA all day long. That same ticket was $85 here in NJ, and our Gov just got rid of the whole red light camera program because it's a total SCAM

[ouchie]

Originally Posted by deeLow

$600 for a RED LIGHT TICKET?!?

Holy shit, screw CA all day long. That same ticket was $85 here in NJ, and our Gov just got rid of the whole red light camera program because it's a total SCAM

Yup, Thanks to Arnold Schwarzenegger

[NOITALL]

So you guys think it's better to have a lesser penalty so that more people could run red lights more frequently with a smaller financial burden to them?

[RickFLM4]

Originally Posted by I'm wrong

So you guys think it's better to have a lesser penalty so that more people could run red lights more frequently with a smaller financial burden to them?

I think there is clearly a big difference in severity between someone blowing through a red light into a busy intersection and someone that doesn't come to a complete stop before turning right on red with no traffic coming. First driver should face a huge fine and lose their license. Second driver should get little or no fine at all. There are not enough people blowing through red lights into oncoming traffic to warrant the cost of cameras in every intersection so they started fining the second driver obscene amounts to justify the existence of the cameras. That, IMO, is bullshit.

[NOITALL]

Originally Posted by RickFLM4

I think there is clearly a big difference in severity between someone blowing through a red light into a busy intersection and someone that doesn't come to a complete stop before turning right on red with no traffic coming. First driver should face a huge fine and lose their license. Second driver should get little or no fine at all. There are not enough people blowing through red lights into oncoming traffic to warrant the cost of cameras in every intersection so they started fining the second driver obscene amounts to justify the existence of the cameras. That, IMO, is bullshit.

Valid point. Thanks.

[Darkfox2002]

Honestly you got off a little easy I had 2 friends get red light tickets one in Laguna Niguel and one in Irvine and they costed $1000 (no license also) and $800 each.

I also managed to get myself a $700 ticket 5 years ago after skidding my last car sideways into a wall haha