This is the Home / Defects page

WELCOME TO HIGHWAYROBBERY.NET

Info & Advice about California Red Light Camera Tickets - - for Free!

Opened Sept. 23, 2002.  Updated Apr. 29, 2008

"Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts.  Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."
The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet

s t a r t   h e r e WHAT'S REALLY NEW OR HOT? SPEED cameras (Photo Radar) may be coming!  A bill to legalize them has been introduced in the State Senate, and may be voted upon at a committee hearing in May.  If we all contact our legislators and auto clubs, we may be able to stop it.   See the Hot Legislation section on the Action page. Then come back here. Action page. Does your "ticket" have the address of the Court on it?  If it doesn't, or if it says, "Do not contact the court," it's not really a ticket at all - it's a police trick! See the section entitled "Police Going Too Far...  Snitch Tickets" on the Your Ticket page. Go there also, if you don't yet have a ticket but want to be prepared. Then come back here. Your Ticket page. Was someone else driving your car, and now the police (or even the clerks at the courthouse) are twisting your arm, trying to get you to identify that driver?  You don't have to.  See the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page. Then come back here. Your Ticket page. Photo enforcement tickets can put a point on your driving record.  So, they have to have a good picture of your face.  A picture of your license plate isn't enough.  See Defect # 1, below. Then come back here. Defect # 1. If you want more information about traffic school, see the traffic school Editorial on the Links page. Then come back here. Did you read an article about illegal camera contracts, and want to see if "your" city's contract is legal?  See Defect # 10 - B, below. Then come back here. Was your ticket for making a right turn?  If so, see Defect # 9 (below), FAQs # 4 and # 27 and, no matter what city your ticket came from, the Hawthorne section on the Camera Towns page (don't miss Hawthorne Docs Set # 3). Then come back here. Camera Towns page. Are you worried that you may have had your picture taken in the last few days?  See FAQ's # 8 and # 9 on the Links page. Links page. Do you have a 0.2 or less "Late Time" ticket?  Check out Defect # 7, below. Defect # 7. Is your photo enforcement ticket "in collection?"  See the top of the Handling Your Ticket section on the Your Ticket page. Your Ticket page. Do you have a cover on your license plate?  Or a reflective spray?  A new law has been signed, and after Jan. 1, 2008 you could get a $1000 ticket!  See FAQ # 11, on the Links page. Want word-for-word details of how an actual photo enforcement trial goes? Four trial transcripts are now available - from Culver City, West Hollywood, Hawthorne, and Sacramento. See links on the Your Ticket page and the Camera Towns page. Your Ticket page.   Camera Towns page. Videotape "your" camera - today ! The camera that ticketed you could have one of the defects that affected the cameras at Whittier / Atlantic in East LA (3018 tickets reversed) or in Union City (approx. 3000 tickets reversed).  You need to get tape of the yellow light, before it gets fixed. See how to do it, on the Your Ticket page. Your Ticket page. On your ticket, does the supposedly "red" light look yellow?  To find out if it really is red, or yellow, see FAQ # 20 on the Links page. Links page. If you're not sure what an extension to a "respond to" date is, and what the difference is between an arraignment and a trial, please read the big green Confusing Terminology box on the Your Ticket page. Does your "ticket" have the address of the Court on it?  If it doesn't, or if it says, "Do not contact the court," it's not really a ticket at all - it's a police trick! See the section entitled "Police Going Too Far...  Snitch Tickets" on the Your Ticket page. Your Ticket page. Lost, or want to find something quickly? There's now a detailed Site Index. Also, the FAQ will answer many questions. Speed cameras (Photo Radar) may be coming!  A bill to legalize them has been introduced in the State Senate, and may be voted upon at a committee meeting in May.  If we all contact our legislators and auto clubs, we may be able to stop it.   See the Hot Legislation section on the Action page. Action page.

END OF THE "WHAT'S HOT" BOX

From the Editor of this Website

Photo Enforcement Defects

DEFECT # 1:  DRIVER'S FACE PHOTO

Photo enforcement tickets can put a point on your driving record.  So, they have to have a picture of your face.  A picture of your license plate doesn't establish that you did the crime - it only establishes that your car did it, and anyone could have been driving your car.

A bad "face" photo - blurry, or picturing a driver whose name is not on the ticket - is a common reason for dismissal of red light camera tickets.

(If you have not received a ticket with photos on it - all you have received is a "Courtesy Notice" from the Court, or a notice from a collection agency - you will need to phone the issuing police department and ask them for a copy of the ticket.)

Is It a Fake/Snitch Ticket?

Does your photo enforcement "ticket" have the address of the Court on it?  If it doesn't, or if it says, "Do not contact the court," it's not really a ticket at all.  It's a police trick!  See the section entitled "Police Going Too Far..." on the Your Ticket page.

Is It You in the Photo?

If your name is on the ticket but it's not your face in the photo, go to the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.
And keep in mind that you don't have to identify the person driving.

Photo Blurry?

If it's your face in the photo, but it's blurry, read on...

The driver's photo on the ticket sent to me was very blurry.

The ticket said that I could go to the police station and be shown the original photo, so I did, and it was just as blurry.  Since Section 210 requires that the photo be "clear," the lack of the required clear photo was part of my challenge to the ticket.  Read the discussion about driver's photos on pages 11/34 and 11/35 (or, in the new 12th Edition, page 254) in Fight Your Ticket.   Unfortunately, a judge evidently has a lot of latitude as to what "clear" means.  Commissioner Randall F. Pacheco, who heard my case, ruled against me, saying: "The driver in the picture has remarkably similar coloring and facial structure."

In most cities, on the day of trial (not arraignment), many tickets are dismissed "first thing" at the request of the police, due to poor quality driver's photos.  ("First thing" meaning right after the judge comes in, or right after the defendant has been called forward for his trial.)  If your photo is very blurry, plead not guilty, come in for a trial - maybe your ticket will be dismissed.  If it's not dismissed "first thing," the ticket still could be dismissed during the trial once the judge gets a look at the photo of the driver.  To convict you, the judge needs to be convinced "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it is you.  But you need to know that while some judges are likely to reject bad photos, others will readily accept a photo with only a fraction of a blurry face visible behind the rear view mirror and sunglasses.  If the photo is blurry and the judge hasn't noticed that (or if the officer hasn't shown the photo to the judge), bring it to the judge's attention.  Don't say, "It's not me," as that would be perjury if you know it actually is you.  (See FAQ # 21 on the Links page for more information about perjury.)  Simply ask the judge, "Are you sure it's me?" Or you could say, more formally, "I request dismissal of this ticket as there isn't proof beyond a reasonable doubt that I was driving the vehicle."  The preceding two phrases are not testimony, so give you the added advantage that if the judge asks you, "Well then, who is it?" you can tell him that you have not agreed to testify.

At trial, many defendants with blurry ticket photos have successfully raised "reasonable doubt" in the judge's mind by showing him a snapshot of them together with similar-looking family members or friends.

At one trial (Hawthorne tickets, Oct. 19, 2004), the defendant argued that the photo could be any one of a number of his employees who had access to the truck.  The photo wasn't totally blurry - the officer quipped, "Do you have a twin brother?" and the judge said, "I think it is you - I see shades and a nose."  But then the judge (a retired judge brought in temporarily) said, after taking another look at a blow-up of the photo, "If he murdered somebody, I don't see why I should treat a traffic case any differently."  He then dismissed the case.

The burden of proof (the job of convincing the judge it's you) is on the People (the officer and his photos).  (See the discussion of the law in the "It's Not Me!" section of the Your Ticket page.)  You're not required to help the officer convict you - the Fifth Amendment says, "No person... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself."  You should (politely) invoke that right if the judge asks questions like,  "Is that you in there?" or "Do you recognize yourself?" (For more about remaining silent, read the Fourth Step of the "It's Not Me!" section.)
Sometimes, the officer forgets to display the face photo to the judge.  If that happens, wait until he finishes all his testimony and the judge signals you that it is your turn, then make a motion to dismiss for lack of proof that you were driving the car.

The original photo displayed at your trial may be clearer than the copy you were mailed.  In general, if the camera is the older 35mm still-photo type, the picture will improve only a small amount.  The improvement can range from none to considerable if the camera is one of the new ones that take 12 seconds of video.  Some cities have some of both types of cameras.  To tell which type of camera produced your ticket, see the "How to Read Your Late Time?" box in Defect # 7, below.   If you are trying to decide whether to fight the ticket based on a blurry photo and would like to see how good the "original" is, call the phone number on the ticket (often in the upper corner on the back) and make an appointment to go to the police department and look at the photos.  At the appointment, ask the officer to blow up the face photo, just like he does at a trial.  (For a preview of what your visit to the police department might be like, read "Contact the Police" in the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.)
If it's not convenient for you to visit the PD to view the photos, you can use Discovery to get copies of the photos sent to you!

Did Someone Turn Your Name In?

If the ticket (now in your name) was originally issued in someone else's name, and that person filled-out the affidavit form and supplied your name to the police, their written affidavit identifying of you as the driver cannot be used against you in court.  And I have never seen an officer/prosecutor even try to do so, because it would so clearly be hearsay.  If he was really desperate to convict you, the prosecutor would need to subpoena the person who identified you to come to court and testify in person;  I have never seen that happen, either.  See the "Were You Snitched On?" paragraph on the Your Ticket page.

Did You Turn Your Name In?

If the original "ticket" was actually a fake ticket (Snitch Ticket) issued in your name, and you filled-out the affidavit form and later received a real ticket (Notice to Appear) in the mail, your affidavit identifying yourself as the driver ordinarily could not be used against you in court, due to the Fifth Amendment.  Unless you testify that it wasn't you driving!  See the "Did You Snitch on Yourself?" paragraph on the Your Ticket page.

Face Photo Checklist

Finally, these three things bear repeating:

1.  Make sure it's not a Snitch Ticket!

2.  If it's not you in the photo, you don't have to identify the person driving.
(See the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page)

3.  But if it is you in the photo, don't say, "It's not me," as that would be perjury.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 2:  YELLOW LIGHT TOO SHORT

Were you turning left?

If you were turning left, also be sure to read the last part of Defect # 2, which is headed "Yellow Light Too Short - Left Turns."

The "Traffic Manual" cited in 21455.7 is available online (see CalTrans on the Links page).  It says,

"Section 4D.10 Yellow Change and Red Clearance Intervals"

"Standard: The minimum yellow light change interval shall be in accordance with Table 4D-102.  The posted speed limit, or the prima facie speed limit... shall be used for determination of the minimum yellow light change interval for through traffic movement.

The minimum yellow light change interval for a protected left-turn or protected right-turn phase shall be 3.0 seconds."

Special Note: New Official Definition Changes the Table -
and
These Figures Don't Apply to Turns!

On Jan. 26, 2005 a CalTrans committee changed the "yellow interval" section and table (above) to refer to "Posted Speed or Prima Facie Speed" instead of Approach Speed, the former column heading.
They also added the language specifying the 3.0 minimum for turning movements - the previous section and table were not specific as to whether the minimums applied to turns.
The committee's decision to use Posted Speed seems to be at odds with both the 21455.7 reference to "designated approach speeds" as well as with the Federal Highway Administration recommendations which say, "If available, the 85th percentile speed should be used as the approach speed in this equation."  (From fifth paragraph of Defect # 3, below.)  See Defining Approach Speed for more information about the CalTrans Committee's decision.

Most judges and police know about the table, but sometimes there is confusion about which is the latest version.  You should take a copy of it with you when you go to court.

At the time of my trial, the term "Approach Speed" still was used in the table, but the Traffic Manual didn't define it, so I phoned around and asked a number of traffic engineers and public works personnel about the definition.  There was no consensus, but the traffic engineer for Culver City indicated that it was his practice to use the Posted Speed Limit.  (More about the definition of Approach Speed is below, under Defect # 3.)

As part of my preparation for trial, I went to the court on two occasions and observed a number of Comm. Pacheco's trials of Culver City red light camera tickets.  During the trial for one ticket at the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Beethoven I heard Sgt. Paul Wolford say, in response to cross-examination by the motorist, that the Posted Speed Limit there was 35 and that the signal's yellow time was programmed at 3.5 seconds, which he said was based on 1/10 of the Posted Speed Limit.  That motorist had entered 0.3 second late, and was found guilty.  Later that same afternoon, another motorist who had entered that intersection 0.1 second after the expiration of the yellow, was found guilty.

After observing those trials I made a public records request, and on September 12, 2002 I received a Signal Timing Chart (below) which confirmed that the yellow at Washington / Beethoven was indeed set at 3.5 seconds.

A public records request isn't the only way to find out how long the yellow is.  See More Reading, below.

Since the Vehicle Code and the table in the Manual require a minimum of 3.6 seconds, all of the tickets issued there between Jan. 1, 2002 and Sept. 26, 2002, including the two tickets discussed above, were defective and invalid.  The Sept. 26 cutoff is because on Sept. 27, Culver City adjusted the yellow timing at Washington / Beethoven, Sepulveda / Green Valley, and Jefferson / Cota up to the legal minimum of 3.6 seconds.  The court did not overturn the pre-Sept. 27 tickets.
On that same date, the City reduced the yellow at Washington / La Cienega, from 4.0 to 3.6 seconds.
(Note added 7-18-03:  It is possible that sometime after September, the Washington / La Cienega yellow was briefly increased back up to 3.9 seconds.  For more info about that reduction, and the later (possible) change, see the Jan. 9, Jan. 17 and the July 17, 2003 entries in the Culver City chronology on the Camera Towns page.)

More Reading

For how to measure the yellow at "your" intersection, see the big yellow box in Step 2 of the "Handling Your Ticket" section on the Your Ticket page.

For an example of a too-short yellow and the big refund that resulted, see the Costa Mesa section on the Camera Towns page.

Even though Section 21455.7 says that the minimum yellows are "mandatory," at least one judge has ruled that California's Truth in Evidence law requires him to admit the photo evidence despite a too-short yellow.

The paper, "The Red Light Running Crisis - Is It Intentional," by (now retired) Congressman Dick Armey, focuses on the length of the yellow. It's a "must read."  A copy is available on the Links page of this website.

To see how a court has ruled on this issue, read the Culver City Chronology, linked on the Camera Towns page.  The most recent ruling is in the entry for Oct. 2, 2003.

For more information on how to read the "Late Time" or "Red Time" printed on your ticket, see the big purple box in Defect # 7, below.

Defect # 2, Second Part:
YELLOW LIGHT TOO SHORT - LEFT TURNS
(Where the Money Is...)

New 6-26-04, updated 2-6-05

(Please note that the Jan. 26, 2005 changes (discussed above) to the CalTrans Manual made it clear that for a turning movement, a 3.0 yellow is legal.)

For straight ahead movements (driving straight through the intersection, not turning) the issue of how long the yellow should be is not very well settled, but until recently it was even less settled for left turn movements having a left turn arrow.  If you look at this signal timing chart from Costa Mesa (a city just north of Newport Beach),

(For complete chart, 180 kb, click on image.)

you will see that the yellows for the left turns (in green, 3.2 and 3.5) are less than the yellows for the straight ahead movements (3.6).  At this particular intersection, two of the left-turning movements are camera enforced:  (1) from southbound Newport Bl. ("SBLT" on the chart) and (2), from eastbound 17th ("EBLT").  It's interesting to note that the yellow (3.5) affecting one left from 17th, the lower-speed street, is longer than the yellows for the lefts from Newport Boulevard (3.2).  (Late note:  The chart above is from Jan. 2004; since then, the yellows for straight-thru traffic on northbound and southbound Newport Bl. have been increased to 4.5, while all of the others have remained the same.  For full details about the changes, see Set # 6 of Costa Mesa Documents.)

In Hawthorne (a city just southeast of LAX), the yellow for the double left on the very busy intersection of Rosecrans and Hindry (at a freeway off ramp and the main entry to a regional auto mall and shopping center) is 3.0 seconds.
The result is about 1000 tickets per month, the most I have seen recently at any intersection in California.   That count equals the 1999 - 2000 results from San Diego's infamous Harbor / Grape left-turn camera.  The current runners-up to Rosecrans / Hindry are Harbor / Warner in Santa Ana and Crenshaw/108th in Inglewood, which recently averaged 744 and 716 tickets per month respectively, Ming / South Real in Bakersfield, which briefly averaged 660 tickets per month, and Firestone / Atlantic in South Gate, which averaged 620 tickets per month during the first half of 2004.  Except for San Diego, all of these record-setting cities use RedFlex as their camera vendor.  For more info about Hawthorne, San Diego, Santa Ana, Inglewood, Bakersfield or South Gate, see the Camera Towns page.
(Please note that the Jan. 26, 2005 changes (discussed above) to the CalTrans Manual made it clear that for a turning movement, a 3.0 yellow is legal.)

Other Cities Do It Differently, or Are Changing

When the City of Mesa, Arizona, due to complaints from its citizens, increased its left-turn yellows from three seconds to four, the number of left-turn violators dropped to 1/3 (or less) of what it had been, and the number has stayed down in the years since the change.  (Flipping the numbers over, we would expect that if Mesa re-set those yellows back to three seconds, there would be a three-fold increase of violations.)
To see the actual month-by-month figures, go to City of Mesa, Arizona, Documents.

On Dec. 9, 2003 the City of Inglewood increased the yellows on nearly all of its left turn camera intersections, from 3.0 seconds, to 3.6.  For more info about Inglewood, see the Camera Towns page. 

Around May 2004, the City of Garden Grove re-set the yellows for left turns, which had been at 3.0, to the same length as the yellows for the straight ahead movements.  To see the actual signal timing charts, and the ticket counts, go to Garden Grove Documents.

In Culver City, the yellows for left turns are set at the same length as the yellows for straight ahead movements.

More Reading

In 2004, one defendant, in Sacramento, took the specific issue of the length of the left turn yellow to the appellate court.  While he lost, his trial transcript and appeal brief are very interesting:  Sacramento Left Yellow Brief.

It is difficult to find a "safety" justification for the use of cameras on left turns, so some cities don't use photo enforcement on left turns, at all.  See "Churning Left Turn$" in Defect # 9, below.

'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE

If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory.  I use it too!

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 3:  YELLOW SHORT PER 85TH PERCENTILE SPEED

Jan. 2005: New Official Definition Makes 85th Percentile Largely Irrelevant

On Jan. 26, 2005 a CalTrans committee changed the "yellow interval" table (above) to refer to Posted Speed instead of Approach Speed, making it more difficult to use this section (Defect # 3) as a defense.  Their decision seems to be at odds with the Federal Highway Administration recommendations (fourth paragraph, below).   See Defining Approach Speed for more information about CalTrans' decision.
Despite CalTrans' decision, you will want to read Defect # 3 if you feel that the Posted Speed on the street where you were cited, is too low.

In Culver City the Posted Speed Limit on Washington Boulevard at Beethoven is 35, which if used to do a look-up in the table in the Manual (above), would require a yellow time of at least 3.6 seconds.  In Sept. 2002 the yellow there was increased to 3.6 seconds, which would seem to satisfy the Section 21455.7 requirement.  However, the Manual does not define "Approach Speed," and there is one school of thought that instead of using the Posted Speed Limit, another figure called the "85th Percentile Speed," which is derived from field surveys of the actual speed of traffic, should be used as the Approach Speed.  (That way, the actual drivers have enough time to actually stop!)  Some of the California cities that use the 85th Percentile when determining the minimum yellow light interval are:  Cerritos, Fullerton, San Diego, Los Angeles and San Francisco.  (San Diego also requires a minimum yellow regardless of the speed; their website says that the yellow will be at least 3.9 seconds for a through movement.)

The California State Auditor wrote:
"From the survey, traffic engineers determine the maximum speed that 85 percent of the motorists are traveling - commonly referred to as the 85th percentile - and compare it to the posted speed.  Often a speed survey shows that most traffic is driving faster than the posted speed.  In these circumstances, the chief [ of the CalTrans office of Electrical Systems ] stated, traffic engineers should use the higher speed for determining the minimum yellow light interval."
(California State Auditor's report, page 40 - see Links page.)

The Auditor recommended:
"To avoid the risk of legal challenges, local governments should petition Caltrans to clarify its traffic manual to explain when local governments should use either posted speeds or the results from speed surveys to establish yellow light time intervals at intersections equipped with red light cameras."
(California State Auditor's report, page 46 - see Links page.)

A Federal Highway Administration / Institute of Transportation Engineers "Informational Report" recommends:
"If available, the 85th percentile speed should be used as the approach speed in this equation.  In the absence of 85th percentile speed, some jurisdictions use posted speed as the approach speed.  In most cases, using the 85th percentile speed will produce intervals that are more conservative (i.e., longer).  In no case should the approach speed used in the calculation be less than the posted speed limit."
("Making  Intersections Safer:  A Toolbox of Engineering Countermeasures to Reduce Red-Light Running," FHA / ITE, 2003, page 33.)

The 85th Percentile Speed is determined through and is used extensively in the radar speed trap law (Vehicle Code Section 40802) which requires that wherever a city wishes to use radar for speed enforcement, they must do a radar speed survey sampling the speed of 50 to 100 cars.  The 85th Percentile is always higher than the Posted Speed Limit.
In Culver City, per the City's radar speed surveys, the 85th Percentile Speed on Washington at Beethoven, for westbound traffic, is 45.  Eastbound it is 38.  (Late note:  In August 2003 the city council adopted a new speed survey which changed both of those 85th percentile speeds to 38.  The effective date of that change was Sept. 24, 2003.)   The yellow interval for an Approach Speed of 45 would be 4.3 seconds, per the table.  The (eastbound) speed of 38 isn't listed in the table, and there are two ways to calculate the yellow interval.  (1) If we assume that the phrase "or less" found in the table is meant to apply to all approach speed increments listed there, the yellow interval for an Approach Speed of 38 would be 3.9 seconds.  (2) Alternately, if we assume that we are to interpolate and take just a portion of the 0.3 second difference between the yellow intervals given for 35 and 40 mph, the resulting yellow interval would be 3.6 seconds plus 3/5 of 0.3 which equals 3.78 seconds (which would have to be programmed as 3.8 to provide the "minimum" of 3.78).  The 3.6 seconds (based upon the posted 35) programmed into the signal by Culver City is less than any of those minimum figures, 4.3, 3.9, or 3.8.
If Washington / Beethoven was in the City of Los Angeles (it's actually only 100 feet outside the LA boundary), the yellow would be at least 3.9 seconds.  The City of Los Angeles most often uses the posted speed limit plus 5 mph to do the lookup in the CalTrans table, but where there is a speed survey available, they round the 85th percentile speed from that survey to the nearest 5 mph increment (up or down), and then use the higher of that number, or the posted plus 5.  Thus, for example, a Los Angeles camera on a street posted 35 mph would have a yellow of at least 3.9 seconds - and if the 85th percentile was 45, as it was until recently at Washington / Beethoven, the yellow would be 4.3 seconds.

(Originally, in the section above, I used Sepulveda / Machado, where I got my ticket, to illustrate the defect.  Now I have substituted Washington / Beethoven, as that intersection is where most people get their tickets, and because of the huge difference, for westbound traffic there, between the posted speed and the former 85th Percentile Speed.)

I made this kind of argument at my trial.  I lost.  Comm. Pacheco said that he believed that the Posted Speed Limit, not the 85th Percentile Speed, should be used in the table.  But the 85th Percentile Speed where I got my ticket is just 3 mph over the posted.  Westbound Washington at Beethoven has (had) an 85th that is 10 mph over the posted speed.  Perhaps the current judge will agree that the yellow is too short.

In March 2003 I had a chance to review the speed surveys that Culver City used to determine what speed limits would be posted on the streets where photo enforcement is used.  These surveys revealed a close match between high ticket production and Posted Speed Limits substantially below the 85th Percentile Speed (thereby allowing the City to set a shorter yellow time).  See set # 5 of Culver City Documents

The City of Fremont has several cameras with high ticket production and speed limits substantially below the 85th. See Set # 4 of Fremont Documents.

Costa Mesa's Newport at 17th intersection provides another example of the relationship between high ticket production and short yellows.  See the press release and the Ticket Counts table at: Costa Mesa Documents.

If your ticket is not from Culver City, see the "Handling Your Ticket" section on the Your Ticket page for details on how to gather evidence of this kind of defect at "your" intersection.

For more information on how to read the "Late Time" or "Red Time" printed on your ticket, see the box entitled "How to Read Your Late Time" in Defect # 7, below.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 4:
PHOTO ENFORCEMENT WARNING SIGNS TOO SMALL, ABSENT, ETC.

Vehicle Code (Section 21455.5(a)(1)) says that warning signs must be posted at each camera-equipped intersection and "visible to traffic approaching from all directions," or at all the main entrances to town "including, at a minimum, freeways, bridges, and state highway routes."  (In a city with a large airport, I think that the airport should be considered to be a "main entrance.")  Most cities elect to post the intersections rather than the town entrances, and occasionally some forget to post all four directions at the intersection, especially when they have just made a new camera installation.  (There must be four signs even if there is only one camera monitoring one direction of traffic.)

The posting of warning signs is a "foundational" requirement - Defects # 2, # 3, # 6 and # 10 are others.

All signs must comply with CalTrans specifications:  They must be at least 30" wide and 42" inches high, they must be at least 6 feet above the pavement level (to the bottom edge of the sign), and they must be laid-out per the CalTrans design (immediately below).

and not like these real-life examples (below).

Please note that there is no requirement to post signs at right turns, telling you "stop before turning" or something like that.  See Sign Requirements for more details.

This Issue In Other Cities and Before the Courts

Bakersfield:  According to news reports, on Sept. 3, 2004 the Bakersfield police department, acting on a phone call from a citizen, announced that it would be overturning 613 citations issued between April 30 and May 14 at Ming and South Real, because the proper warning signs were not posted there during that period.  (See the Bakersfield section on the Camera Towns page for details.)

Inglewood:  During the Aug. 20, 2004 trial of a ticket issued at Prairie / 111th in Inglewood the defendant pointed out that while there were signs on Prairie, there were no signs on 111th Street.  Judge Birnstein dismissed that case and all other pre-Aug. 20 tickets from that same intersection, when they came before her later.   (See the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page for details.)

San Diego:  In the landmark 2001 case where he later dismissed approximately 250 San Diego tickets, Judge Ronald Styn ruled:
"In the absence of any evidence that the [undersized] signs are not visible to drivers and are not sufficiently legible to be seen by an ordinary, observant person, the Court finds that the signs used by the City of San Diego comply with the requirements of Vehicle Code section 21455.5(a)."
From Section III(A) of the Aug. 15, 2001 ruling in People vs. John Allen.
...and he also ruled:
"Adams and its progeny were crafted to address anomalies or occasional errors and innocent lapses in law enforcement. They were not meant to provide a means for peace officers and their agencies to ignore clear, easy-to-apply statutory law and administrative rules, for any reason, including budget or personnel constraints."
From Judge Styn's Sept. 4, 2001 final ruling in P. vs. John Allen.

Remember...

A city has the option to NOT post signs at their camera-enforced intersections - they can post the entrances to town.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 5:  ACS CAMERA

Defect # 5 is about problems in cities that use ACS-brand cameras.  Tickets issued using ACS cameras may be recognized by the rectangular (0.5 by 1.25 inches) black data box superimposed on the first two photos.  The data box includes the 'cat face' trademark of Gatsometer, the Dutch camera manufacturer.

(ACS photo from Beverly Hills, with added arrows)

I.

One ACS problem has been proven publicly only one time so far, in May 2003 at Whittier / Atlantic in East LA.  Nearly 3000 tickets issued at that intersection were reversed by the court.  This problem could occur with an ACS camera anywhere in the world.

An ACS camera in your town could have this problem if either (A) or (B) exists.

(A)  The "1Y..." or "2Y..." imprint (see arrow, above) on your top photo (assuming it is more legible than the typical example above) is followed by:

(1)   " 2⁹ " or less in a 25 mph zone or for a left or right turn violation,
(2)   " 3¹ " or less in a 30 mph zone,
(3)   " 3⁵ " or less in a 35 mph zone,
    (4)   " 3⁸ " or less in a 40 mph zone, or
(5)   " 4² " or less in a 45 mph zone.

(B)  The camera has been aimed, as in the photo above, so that the signal head (see arrow, above) is visible, and the visible light you see is yellow, not red.  It's best to check a ticket with small "red time" - 1/10th or 2/10ths of a second - " R00¹ " or " R00² " in the top photo on the ticket.  See also Defect # 7, below.

If your ticket is not in color, or isn't clear enough, so that you can't perform the checks above, you can call the police department and ask them what the numbers are, or go in and look at their copy of the ticket.  Their phone number should be on the back of the ticket.  (Before you go visit the police, read II., below.)

II.

Following the May 2003 ticket reversals in East LA, some cities with ACS installations added an extra camera aimed in the same direction that the driver is looking, to take an extra "forward-facing" photo, of the actual signal heads that the cited driver is facing.  But some California cities did not.  Some appeals court decisions ( Bohl and Moore) have addressed that issue.

If you go to cite-web.com to look at your ACS photos, the forward-facing photo probably will not be there - assuming one was taken.  If you really want to know, for sure, if a forward-facing photo exists for your citation, I suggest asking for Discovery.

More info about Whittier / Atlantic and this defect is in the East LA Section of the Camera Towns page, and in the Other California Towns, Step 2, section on the Your Ticket page.

In early 2006 ACS was charged with bribing Edmonton (Canada) officials to secure their support for its photo enforcement contract with the City.  In late 2007 those charges were dismissed.

An excellent Philadelphia Daily News article (July 1, 2003) about ACS' successful effort to gain advantage over its competitors for camera contracts in Pennsylvania tells us a lot about the wielding of political influence.  It also discusses the wide scope of ACS' other business operations nationwide.  The link to the article is in the News section of the Links page.

For more information on how to read the "Late Time" or "Red Time" printed on your ticket, see the How to Read Your Late Time box in Defect # 7, below.

Added 8-8-03, updated 5-11-05:
DEFECT # 6:  CITY DIDN'T ISSUE WARNING TICKETS FOR 30-DAYS

Defect # 6 applies whenever the installation of "your" camera was not followed by a 30-day period during which only warning tickets were issued by that camera.  Typically that would be a newer camera in a city that had operated a camera system for some time.

Section 21455.5 doesn't make it clear whether a city having a pre-existing system is required to issue warning tickets when it adds a new camera.  As a result, while all cities issued warning tickets at the time they installed their first camera, many cities have not issued warning tickets from the cameras they added weeks or months later.

Recently (Jan. 2005) an appellate court clarified the law - it ruled that a city erred when it failed to provide warning tickets when it added a new camera to its system (People vs. Fischetti).  The appellate judge wrote, "Nor would it make sense, from the perspective of the motorists for whom the statutory requirements were intended to provide protection, for the geographic scope of the 30-day grace period to depend arbitrarily upon the size of each municipal jurisdiction."
The case was not published by the court, so can't be cited as precedent by other defendants, except possibly in Orange County.  See the Fischetti case, and Defect # 10 below, for more details.

In those cities where Section 21455.5 was interpreted so that the sole requirement for warning tickets was issuance at the time when the city installed its first camera anywhere in the city, that left the following motorists without notice:
(a)  drivers who were new to the area (some systems were begun as much as seven years ago);
(b)  in a large city like Los Angeles, drivers in a section that didn't previously have a camera and was miles away from the nearest previously-existing camera;
(c)  drivers who were not yet licensed to drive at the time the first camera was installed.

If we look at all of CVC 21455.5, the legislature's intent is clear.  The authors included, besides the requirement for 30 days of warning tickets, two other requirements to warn motorists:  The requirement to post large signs, and a requirement to make a public announcement 30 days before beginning operation.   Clearly they wanted motorists to be warned to the greatest extent possible.  The issuance of warning tickets each time a new camera is installed is the interpretation most consistent with their desire.

Well before the Fischetti case came up, at least one major city, San Diego, had made it clear that it would be issuing warning tickets for 30 days each time it installed a new camera.  Beverly Hills also was doing so.

If a city has installed a camera and not issued warning tickets for 30 days after that installation, this issue should be raised in court.   If you are arguing this issue, be careful to make sure that the judge does not get this warning ticket requirement mixed up with the separate requirement for a "public announcement" 30 days in advance.
If you wish to do a Trial by Declaration, there is a TBD, specifically written for this warning ticket issue, at the bottom of the Your Ticket page.

Hawthorne, Inglewood, and Stockton are examples of cities that issued warning tickets at their first camera location only - but there are many more.  And even though the Fischetti decision came down in early 2005, as of late 2005 there still are cities signing brand new contracts that do not provide for warning tickets at each new camera.  An example is the contract that was before the Loma Linda city council on Sept. 13, 2005:
"1.30  'Warning Period' means the period that only warning notices and not citations for violations shall be sent during the 30 day period commencing with the installation of the first traffic-control signal monitoring device."

Issuing warning tickets is a "foundational" requirement - Defects #'s 2 - 4 and 10 are others.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 7:  LIGHT BULBS TAKE A WHILE TO COME ON
...and So Do LEDs
AKA:  The "Filament" Defense

Updated 3-20-05

This defect is applicable to tickets with small "Late Times" - 0.25 (one-quarter of a second, or 250 milliseconds) or less.

How to Read Your Late Time You may need a magnifying glass, a pocket calculator, or a crystal ball ! Late Time is how long the signal already had been red (actually, how long power had been applied to the red light bulb) when your picture was taken.  The red light camera industry is so new that there's no standard terminology.  Thus, Late Time is also often called "duration," "time into red," "red time," or abbreviated as "TR." There's also no standard as to the number of decimal places - Some red light cameras display the Late Time rounded down to tenths of a second, others display hundredths of a second, and some of the newest cameras have four digits to the right of the decimal place.  In at least one city (Culver City) the number of digits varies from camera to camera. Pointing up the lack of standards, several cities' camera tickets don't display the Late Time at all, even though their Nestor systems clearly have the capability to do so. (From sample ticket at the end of a Nestor brochure.) A possible motive to leave it off could be so that they can cite for very short Late Times (like 0.1 second) without widespread criticism (including some from judges) about "Mickey Mouse" tickets.  If you phone the PD to ask what your Late Time was, they probably will say that to get that information, you must come in to the police station.  The visit to the police station serves to grind you down, make it harder for you to fight your ticket. See the Costa Mesa, Fullerton, Pasadena, Davis or San Bernardino section on the Camera Towns page for more information. Many red light cameras imprint the Late Time right on the top[2] photo on your ticket - but the format has not been standardized.  So here is how some of the more common cameras would display a Late Time of 1/10th (one tenth, or 0.1) of a second. The now almost-obsolete (but still widely used) ACS "wet film" 35mm cameras print 1/10th of a second as R001 .  The photo in Defect # 5 above is a good example of a ticket from an ACS 35mm camera.  The tenths digit is smaller than the rest and is always very hard to read; to be sure of what the tenths digit is, you may need to call the issuer of the ticket.  While it's not a 1/10th of a second ticket, the photo in Defect # 5 is a good example of that illegibility.  It shows a Late Time of R011, or 1.1 second, in the middle row on the right side of the data box. Early RedFlex cameras, such as Culver City's first 7 installations, are 35mm "wet film" and display the data in bright, but fuzzy, red numerals in a strip across the top of the photos[2].  They would print a 1/10th second Late Time as Red T.  000.1 RedFlex's newer cameras, which are digital and take 12 seconds of video, display the data in tiny faint white letters on a black strip at the top edge of the photos[2] (best way to read them is by putting the ticket up on the window).  They would print a 1/10th second Late Time ("duration," "TR," or "time into red") as either 0.10 or 0.1000.  At court in Culver City I have seen some RedFlex "video" tickets with only the tenths digit displayed.  The officer told the court that this occurs when they are having a problem with their live data link. Most brands of cameras (ACS, RedFlex, etc.) have a second time counter, often called "elapsed time," which starts at zero at the instant the first photo is taken.  It will tell you the time that elapsed between the first photo and the second.  Sometimes using the elapsed time (subtracting it from the elapsed Late Time shown in the second photo on the ticket) will help you to figure out what the hard-to-read Late Time (in the first photo) is.  For example, here are the data boxes from the first and second photos on a typical ticket - actually the same ACS one used in Defect # 5, above. If you subtract the elapsed time of 0.89 (shown in the middle row, left side, below) from the elapsed Late Time of 2.0 ( " R020 " in middle row, right side, below) you get 1.11, which confirms that the Late Time shown in the first photo (middle row, right side, above) is 1.1 (after rounding off). For more practice reading Late Times, see this page. If you are making time/distance calculations, see:  The Math Page. [2] If two photos have a Late Time imprint, the applicable number will be the smaller one.

The Defect

First, a private note to electronic engineers and electronic technicians:
Please don't "tune out" after you read the next paragraph!  Yes, I know that LEDs ordinarily light-up many times faster than 0.1 second.  But bear with me, after a few paragraphs I will explain why that isn't the case with LEDs when used in a traffic signal.

The defect is that LEDs (light-emitting diodes), the fastest-acting light source used in signals, can take slightly more than  0.1 second to light-up (turn-on) after the power has been applied.  If you have a ticket with a ticket with a 0.1 Late Time, that's about the same, or longer, than the Late Time you were cited for.  And the old-fashioned, but still-in-use incandescent bulbs, take about twice as long.

The LEDs

Most signals that I see now, especially where there is a red light camera, have at least some LED lamps.  At intersections CalTrans controls, they have replaced all red lamps with LEDs.

While CalTrans provides, in its Standard Specifications publication, a number of size, weight and durability specifications for LED signal modules, it has not yet published a specification for turn-on time.  In a November 4, 2003 letter to me they stated:  "...since 2001, the Department has been collecting data to be used in future revisions of the Standard Specifications."  (Italics added.)

While CalTrans has not yet formally published their turn-on time specification, they have disclosed it in a roundabout way.  In November 2003 they sent me a blue notebook entitled, and containing, "New Product Evaluation Test Reports for LED Traffic Signal Modules."  In one of those test reports (# 02-01-007) of a sample (two) of red lamps that averaged 141 ms turn-on time (individual results were 116 and 166 ms), we see the notation: "COMPLY, with following exceptions… The module turn-on time should be below 90 ms."  In another test report (# 02-09-033), they have noted "COMPLY" (without any exceptions) for a sample of red lamps where the average turn-on time was 91 ms, with individual results of 72 and 110 ms.  The lamps that received the "COMPLY" (without exceptions) notation were then included in a "Pre-Qualified Product List" at the back of the notebook (and available on the Web).  My conclusion:

Under this averaging regime, 1/2 of all LED lamps approved and sold could have a turn-on time exceeding the 90 ms CalTrans "specification," with the potential (as demonstrated here in test #02-09-033) that as many as 1/2 of all lamps approved and sold could have a turn-on time exceeding 100 ms, or 1/10th of a second - which may be the Late Time you were cited for.

There also is no federal standard for turn-on time.  The ITE (Institute of Transportation Engineers) specification for LED signal module arrows is that they should take less than 75 ms to come to 90% brightness (see http://www.ite.org/standards/VTCSH_Part3_Arrow_spec.pdf , section 5.2.6).

OK engineers, here's your answer. Why do the LEDs - ordinarily a very fast-acting device, take so long to light up?  It is because the power supplies contained in the modules contain capacitors that take a while to charge up sufficiently to fire the LEDs.  The capacitors are needed because the LED modules are screwed into a light bulb socket formerly occupied by an incandescent bulb, and so are receiving 120 volt alternating current - "AC."  The AC needs to be changed, or "rectified," into direct current - "DC" - which is the type of current the LEDs operate on - and then it has to be filtered (the role of the capacitors) to reduce ripple in the voltage and prevent the LEDs from flickering.  But you knew all that.

Incandescent Bulbs

I don't have turn-on time figures for the incandescent bulbs, but they are known to be much slower than LEDs.  You can see it for yourself.  If you take video of a signal with incandescent bulbs, and play it back a frame at a time (the method I recommend for measuring the length of the yellow - see the Measuring the Yellow section on the Tickets Page), you will see that it takes two or three frames for the bulbs to come to full brightness[3].  Even some new cars come with LED brake lights, the selling point being - probably valid - that by lighting faster they give the driver behind you more warning of a panic stop.  ( On a car, the LEDs will light up over a hundred times faster than LEDs do in a traffic signal, because the car's LEDs are powered by the car's direct current - "DC" - power and no capacitors are necessary.)

I believe that LED traffic signal modules simply stay completely dark during most of their "warm up" period, then come up to full brightness very quickly.  Later, when the electricity is turned off, both the incandescent and the LED lamps also take some time to go dark - while the incandescent filament is cooling off, or (for you engineers) the LED module's capacitors are discharging.

In this blow-up of the signal head from a ticket with a 0.1 Late Time,

it appears that both the yellow and the red are at partial brightness.

California Vehicle Code Section 21453(a) or (c), which is the law you have been charged with violating, says: 
"A driver facing a steady red... shall stop...."  (Emphasis added.)

The slowest LED module tested (see above) and found to "COMPLY" by CalTrans will have reached that "steady" (90%) brightness 10 ms (1/100 of a second) after a 0.1 violator's picture is taken.  And an incandescent bulb will be much slower than that.

Additionally, the yellow lamp will have the same sort of delay.  So, if it was an LED bulb and was fed electricity for only the legally-required length of time, it would have been visible for about 0.1 sec. less than the minimum legal amount at the moment the camera computer sensed the application of electricity to the red bulb and began counting off your "Late Time."  And if it was an incandescent bulb, it would have been visible for about 0.15 to 0.2 sec. less than the minimum legal amount.

[3] If you videotape (or take a series of stills of) an intersection that has both incandescent and LED lamps in use, and play the tape back a frame at a time, you will be able to see the comparative slowness of the incandescent bulb.
The photo below shows what can happen when LED and incandescent lamps are mixed.

Here (below) is the same corner, photographed by the red light camera for an actual ticket with a 0.25 Late Time.  While the colors aren't clearly red or yellow, you can tell by the position of the lights - one light is red, the other is yellow.

For more details about this example, see the Cerritos Documents page, linked on the Camera Towns page.

If you want to figure out how far back you were at the moment the power was applied, see:  The Math Page.

Finally:  If you have used a camcorder or a digital still camera, you probably noticed that it could see in dim light much better than your unaided eyes.  Thus, even though the red signal light shows in the photos taken of your car, that light may still have been warming up (if it has an incandescent bulb) and not have been bright enough, at that moment, for you to have seen it from your car.  And it may not have been bright enough, at that moment, to meet CalTrans' minimum brightness specification.

See the Culver City chronology for Oct. 16 and Dec. 18, 2003, on the Camera Towns page, to see how one court has ruled on this issue.

For scientific information about the wavelengths and spectra (color) of traffic lights - including a comparison of incandescent vs. LED, see this page.

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 8:  FAILURE OF CITY TO MAIL NOTICE TO APPEAR ON TIME AND/OR WITH PROPER PROOF OF SERVICE AND/OR INCOMPLETE
Updated 8-22-07

Most of Defect # 8 could apply to any violation, anywhere.

(A)  Many defendants are unaware that they ran a light.  Many other defendants loaned their car to someone else.  So that defendants are able to remember what they were doing on the date of the violation, or to whom they had lent their car, California law gives the police only a limited amount of time to put a genuine Notice to Appear in the mail.

(B)  And since red light camera Notices to Appear are not handed to you in person by a motor officer who obtains your signature, the law requires the police to obtain some evidence that the Notice to Appear was actually mailed.

(C)  Some cities leave the court's phone number off the Notice to Appear, or provide an incomplete address for the court (both of which are part of the approved form), in an apparent attempt to make it harder for defendants to have their day in court.
Or, the officer's declaration is not signed in handwriting.

The Law

In California, Vehicle Code Section 40518 says (in part, with emphasis added):

A.  It Must be Mailed on Time

The law says, "... Notice to Appear... delivered by mail within 15 days... to the registered owner...."

If you are the registered owner and a genuine Notice to Appear was mailed to you, check the postmark date on the envelope it came in.  Check the date the officer signed it and, if there is a "Proof of Service" printed on the it or attached to it, check the date on that, too.  If any of these dates is more than 12^[4] calendar days after the date the violation occurred, the service of the Notice to Appear could be defective and you may be able to make it go away by "demurring" to it.

Demurrer: A plea for the dismissal of a lawsuit on the grounds that even if the statements of the opposition are true, they do not sustain the claim because they are insufficient or otherwise legally defective.   (Webster's New World Dictionary)

Demurring is done "first thing" - at arraignment - before entering any plea (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere).  It would be difficult, and probably ineffective, demurring at a trial.  For details about demurring, see Fight Your Ticket, pages 10/22 - 23 (or, in the new 12th Edition, pages 175 - 178), and contact me.

[4]  For First Class mail, the Postal Service's sole published mail delivery standard reads:  "Service objectives for delivery are 1 to 3 days; however, delivery time is not guaranteed."  Per a July 2006 investigation by the General Accounting Office ("GAO"), only when both the place of mailing and the destination are served by the same mail processing center is 1-day (overnight) delivery likely.  ( But still not guaranteed! )

If you're not the registered owner:  Note that the 15-day requirement applies to the first mailing of a Notice to Appear, which is usually to the registered owner of the car.  If he or she received a genuine Notice to Appear, then gave your name to the police, who then re-issued it to you, the 15-day requirement does not apply to the timing of the mailing to you.  If the registered owner received something other than a genuine Notice to Appear, see the "Were You Snitched On?" paragraph on the Your Ticket Page.

B.  The Evidence of (Proof of) Service

The law says, "...with a certificate of mailing obtained as evidence of service...."

There's a variety of opinions as to what proper evidence of service is, for these Notices to Appear.  I think that the evidence of service needs to be a U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing (which is what Nestor, a camera company, obtains), but at least one judge didn't agree, and was willing to accept a "Proof of Service" that had been sworn-to by an employee of the camera company (found on Notices to Appear processed by another camera company, RedFlex).

The USPS Certificate of Mailing and the sworn "Proof of Service" are discussed separately, below.

1.  Watch Out for Misleading or Defective Sworn "Proof of Service" or "Certificate of Mailing."

Many California cities don't even pretend to send their Notices to Appear out with an official U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing.  Theirs include a small printed box (below) entitled "Proof of Service," in which a camera company employee swears that he deposited the envelope in a Postal Service letter box.

If you are bothered by the logical impossibility of the employee swearing he mailed the Notice to Appear before he even printed it out, you could try demurring.  (Defined above, in Subsection 'A')

Or, if the Notice to Appear was mailed from another state, and the person who mailed it finished their declaration by writing, "I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct," without specifying that it was "under the laws of the State of California," the service is defective and you could try demurring.
Demurring can make the Notice to Appear go away.  Demurring is done "first thing" - at arraignment - before entering any plea (guilty, not guilty, nolo contendere).  It would be difficult, and probably ineffective, demurring at a trial.  For details about demurring, see Fight Your Ticket, pages 10/22 - 23 (or, in the new 12th Edition, pages 175 - 178), and contact me.

(It is possible that a city which imprints such a "Proof of Service" or "Certificate of Mailing" on their Notices to Appear could also be obtaining a genuine U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing - and just isn't saying so.  But most cities are not obtaining USPS Certificates of Mailing, at all.)

2.  The U.S. Postal Service Certificate of Mailing

If there is no box or section labeled "Proof of Service" or "Certificate of Mailing" printed on your Notice to Appear, check to see if the police department has obtained a separate Certificate of Mailing.

C.  The Notice to Appear must Provide the Address and Phone Number of the Court, and be Signed

The law says, "...on a form approved by the Judicial Council...."

Some cities' Notices to Appear do not contain the full physical address of the court, or its phone number.  Or the officer's statement under penalty of perjury is not signed in handwriting.


No signature, no city name, Zip, or phone number.



No street address or phone number for the court.
For an explanation of the $159 fine shown, see the LA Documents page.



No signature, no address, no phone, no hours.


The official format requires that this information be present - so that defendants are able to write to, call or visit the court if they wish.  There's also supposed to be info about Night Court, if "your" courthouse has it (not all do). There are separate instructions for the ticket form and they get very specific:

"6.000 …All language and data fields in unshaded areas on the forms are mandatory…  Mandatory text or data fields may not be re-worded or omitted… "

If your Notice to Appear is missing any or all of the information required by the official format, see the demurrer information in Section (A) above.

Please be sure to familiarize yourself with the "It's Not Me!" and the "Snitch Ticket" sections on the Your Ticket page.

'CHEAT SHEET' AVAILABLE

If all these Code sections (and other numbers) are beginning to circle around in your head, I suggest that you go to the Site Index and print out the 'Cheat Sheet' available there.  That way, you will have a ready reference to refresh your memory.  I use it too!

Home/Defects Page:
DEFECT # 9:  "CHURNING"
Signals that Change Too Quickly, Photo Enforcement on Left or Right Turns, Siting of Cameras at Confusing Intersections

(Please note that the Jan. 26, 2005 changes (discussed in Defect # 2, above) to the CalTrans Manual made it clear that for a turning movement, the yellow need be only 3.0 seconds long.)

"Traffic rules account for most of the contact by average citizens with law enforcement and the courts.  Enforcement of laws which are widely perceived as unreasonable and unfair generates disrespect and even contempt toward those who make and enforce those laws."
The Appellate Department, in People vs. Goulet

Nonsequitur, by Wiley Miller.  Shop at www.gocomics.com/nonsequitur/

A.  Churning - 'Fast Change' Signals

You probably have noticed some signals that cycle much more quickly than average.  Often they go red even though there is no cross traffic waiting.  They may have been set to do that to slow traffic down, or to reduce a heavy volume of traffic impacting a residential neighborhood.  Sometimes your green can be as short as 15 seconds.  There seems to be no law specifically against a city doing this, but it seems inappropriate and predatory when combined with a red light camera - the frequent cycling of the signal can present up to twice as many drivers with the need to make a sudden stop at the signal, and can proportionately increase the number of tickets issued by a camera there.  I have called this unfair enforcement situation "Churning" because of its similarity to the unsavory practice of some stockbrokers.  

The short green can also surprise drivers who are not familiar with the neighborhood, lengthening their reaction time by 1/2 second.  For example:

B.  Churning Right Turn$

"There is nothing so useless as doing efficiently that which should not be done at all."
Prof. Peter F. Drucker

There has been a shift away from ticketing people who run straight thru intersections, towards ticketing people who make a rolling right turn.  Ticketing for right turns has become the profit center of most cities' camera programs.


Per this 2008 contract term, Belmont, California MUST enforce on right turns.

Two events prompted this shift.

1.  In 2001 the State Legislature passed SB 667, which for the first time mandated minimum yellow light lengths.  The longer yellows reduced the quantity of straight-through violations.

2.  Newer camera installations included a video camera, making it possible for police to see if a turning vehicle came to a full halt, or just slowed, in between the two ("before" and "after") still photos.

Because the public has one attitude towards drivers who run straight thru, and another very different attitude towards rolling rights, I think that when a reporter interviews the police, the reporter should ask, "You are bragging about issuing 1000 tickets last month.  How many of them were for rolling right turns?"

If your ticket is for a right turn, see FAQs # 4, # 27 and # 30 and, no matter what city your ticket came from, the Hawthorne section on the Camera Towns page (don't miss Set # 3 of Hawthorne Documents).  And, if you are an auto club member, call your club's legislative affairs office and complain about the heavy right turn ticketing.  Phone numbers are in the big purple box on the Action page.

(Please note that at right turns, there is no requirement to post a sign telling you "stop before turning" or something like that.  See Sign Requirements for more details.)

C.  Churning Left Turn$

Drivers who run left-turn arrows can be a big irritation to other motorists, but they're a very minor safety problem - they hardly ever cause accidents.  One city has explained why it doesn't (didn't?) use photo enforcement on left turns:  "We only handle the through approaches because we felt that the right angle approaches resulted (sic) in traffic collisions, are the ones that were injuring and killing citizens here in Los Angeles."
(LAPD Sgt. Steve Foster, in testimony at the Los Angeles City Council's Public Safety Committee meeting of April 12, 2004.  Transcribed from the official audiotape.)

Thus, most photo enforcement on left turn arrows is a form of Churning.   If cities wish to reduce left turn running, they should make sure the green arrow is long enough, and demand-activated - and that the turn pocket is large enough for the demand.

(Please note that the Jan. 26, 2005 changes (discussed in Defect # 2, above) to the CalTrans Manual made it clear that for a turning movement, the yellow need be only 3.0 seconds long.)

Culver City's Jefferson / Overland intersection with its lucrative photo enforcement on left turns, is an excellent example of an intersection where there is scant safety justification for the use of the camera on left turns.  A ten-year accident history for the intersection (see Set # 12 of Culver City Documents) shows a total of 41 accidents, but only one of those ( 9 years ago ) was caused by a driver running the left  turn light.

Hawthorne's Rosecrans / Hindry intersection, with photo enforcement exclusively on left and right turns and a State-record ticket yield of about 1000 / month, is another intersection where there is poor safety justification for the use of the cameras. In Set # 3 of Hawthorne Documents you can look at the official 10-year accident history for the intersection, and decide for yourself.

Costa Mesa's photo enforcement on left turns from southbound Newport Boulevard (at 17th) is another excellent example of heavy photo enforcement where there is scant safety justification.  The ten-year accident history shows a total of 150 accidents there, with only one being the fault of a driver running the southbound left turn.  The accident history also shows a near-doubling of rear end accidents since the camera was installed.  (See Set # 10 of Costa Mesa Documents.)

See also the section "Yellow Light Too Short - Left Turns," in Defect # 2, above.

D.  Churning - Putting Cameras at Confusing Intersections

Some cities install cameras at confusing intersections - places where there's a double signal (or even a triple one), a curve in the road, a distraction, or another oddity.  Do they sincerely believe that the installation of a camera will stop unfamiliar motorists from getting confused and blowing the light?  Before cities install a camera on an unusual intersection they should try all possible engineering countermeasures.  See the Federal Guidelines, below, and FAQ # 6.

Federal Guidelines Spell Out Inappropriate Sites

From Chapter V. of the Federal Highway Administration's Red Light Camera Systems Operational Guidelines.

The publication was issued in March 2003, and extensively re-written in Jan. 2005.  The 2005 re-write "gutted" many of the Site Selection guidelines.  Both the new and the old text of those guidelines are presented below (section-by-section), for easy comparison).  Notes ( in [[ ]] ) and emphasis have been added.  A full copy of the old (2003) publication is available here.

Please note that these are guidelines and compliance is not mandatory.  In the Introduction to the Guidelines, it says, "Although not a regulatory requirement, the guideline is intended to provide critical information for State and local agencies on relevant aspects of red light camera systems in order to promote consistency, proper implementation, and operation..."

Hearsay

There is an exception to the hearsay rule, for documents created by a government employee - but many of the documents the police present in court have been created by a private company's employees, who have no official duty to report accurately.  A recent appeals court decision (Bohl) addressed the hearsay issue.  Also see the Getting Records/Discovery page.

Foundational Requirements

There was no witness to the crime.  The case is based solely upon physical evidence - the photos and the data the computer recorded.  But the police can't use evidence if it was gathered illegally.  The law specifying things the City must and must not do in order to legally gather red light camera evidence is Vehicle Code 21455.5. (In the box, below.)
( To make this concept clear, here is an extreme example:  Suppose you're accused of shooting a convenience store clerk, and the police have a gun that matches the bullets found in the clerk; the gun also has a full set of your fingerprints on it.  It is almost perfect evidence - just like the photos the red light cameras take - except for one problem.  The police obtained the gun illegally, by breaking into your house without a warrant.  So, they will not be able to use the gun in court, and will have to depend upon other evidence, and eyewitness testimony, to make their case. )

At trial, most (but not all) judges require the city to show how it obtained the evidence, and that it did all the things required of it by the applicable law, including CVC 21455.5.   The officer will most likely give some of that foundational[5] testimony without anyone demanding it: that they posted warning signs (Defect # 4), gave public notice / announcements 30 days before starting up the system, gave warning tickets (a "grace period") for 30 days (Defect # 6), have long enough yellows (Defects # 2 and # 3), etc., etc.

[5] Think of the evidence as a house; houses collapse if they have no foundation.

When it's your chance to cross-examine him, you could ask the officer if he provided public notice 30 days before firing up your[6] camera, issued warning tickets for the first 30 days of operation (of your[6] camera - see Defect # 6), and for proof that all four signs (full 30" x 42") were posted at your intersection at the time you were ticketed.

[6] Articles in the Feb. 12, 2005 Orange County Register and the Feb. 15 LA Times said that Costa Mesa suspended the operation of three of its four cameras (all but the one at Harbor and Adams) for 30 days. In late Jan. 2005 an appellate court found, in People vs. Fischetti, that the City should have issued warning tickets for 30 days upon the installation of each new camera but didn't (see the Defect # 6 section, above), and that it should not have allowed a separate government agency (CalTrans) to set and control the timing of the signals.
The Fischetti decision doesn't say if the "public announcements" (notices in newspapers, radio, TV, etc.) required by CVC 21455.5 have to be repeated before each new installation.  But I believe that the decision supports the approach that would maximize the warning provided to motorists.
I have posted, at the bottom of the Your Ticket page, a new Trial by Declaration form based upon these defects.

If the officer can prove that all 4 signs were posted and that 30-day notice was given and warning tickets were issued before the startup of "your" camera (or if you're not able to convince the judge, even after citing Fischetti, that such noticing and warning is required with the start-up of each new camera), there are still a number of other things that they may have forgotten to do, or did wrong.


Defect # 10, Subsection A:
Foundational Requirement:  Guidelines

One of those things (highlighted in the box, below) is that the city is required to have "uniform guidelines for screening and issuing violations" and "guidelines for [the] selection of location."  (See bold type in box below.)  The second requirement was put into the law after it was revealed, in a landmark court case (People vs. John Allen), that the City of San Diego had allowed its camera vendor to choose the camera locations.  They are also supposed to have "procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines." (Presumably for quality control.)

So, ask him for the guidelines (both kinds), and the "procedures."  If he can't come up with written[7] "screening" guidelines (dated on or before the date of your citation), written[7] "location" guidelines (dated before your camera was started up), and "procedures to ensure compliance," make a motion to exclude the camera evidence, because it was gathered illegally.  Without the camera evidence, the judge will have to dismiss your case.

[7] CVC 21455.5 doesn't say the guidelines, etc., have to be written, so you may need to convince the judge that "verbal" (something in the officer's head) is not good enough, especially in a large organization where, over time, many people get cycled through a given job, or jobs are shared.  Point out 21455.5's use of the word "uniform."
A couple of judges have provided what I think are some of the strongest arguments (besides the law's use of the word "uniform") for written guidelines.
One judge said, "There should be a place where they [defendants] can go and find the guidelines."  (Inglewood trials, Oct. 15, 2004.)
Another judge pointed out that 21455.5(c)(1) says that the city is supposed to be "establishing procedures to ensure compliance with those guidelines," then questioned how a city could establish procedures to comply with something that is not written.
Another argument for written guidelines would be that they would help to prevent "profiling" - or favoritism - by the officers who decide which tickets are to be issued and which are not.  (Also see FAQ # 22.)

If the officer does offer some document(s) in response to your question about guidelines, ask the judge for a short recess so that you can look it (them) over.  Check the date (don't accept a document that was written or revised after the required dates), and check to see if the city, rather than the camera company, wrote it, per the no-contracting-out requirement in 21455.5(d) (in box below).

Make sure the document(s) offered covers all three guideline issues - "...for screening and issuing," "...for selection of location," and "...procedures to ensure compliance."

An example of what I believe are completely inadequate written guidelines are on the Inglewood Documents page, at Inglewood "guidelines."

For a longer but (I believe) still inadequate example of written guidelines, see the West Hollywood Business Rules.

Home/Defects Page:
Defect # 10, Subsection B:
Foundational Requirement:  Pay-Per-Ticket ("Cost Neutrality") Contracts are Prohibited

"Paying red light camera vendors based on the number of tickets issued undermines the public's trust and raises concern that these systems can be manipulated for profit."
(Official comment by author of CVC 21455.5, published in 8/27/03 legislative analysis of AB 1022 of 2003.)

Many cities seem to be pushing the law that prohibits "pay per ticket" contracts.  21455.5(g) says:
(g) A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated..."
( Full text is in the big box, below. )
An example is Marysville, where the contract signed Dec. 21, 2004 says,
"Fixed fee of $6,030 Per Month Per Designated Intersection Approach..."
"City shall be obligated to pay the