RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net


Email Address
Site Index

If you haven't already done so, please read the Bakersfield section on the Camera Towns page

City of Bakersfield Documents
(and Information)

Bakersfield, pop. 231,000, is 112 miles north of Los Angeles.

Some of Bakersfield's tickets can be ignored.  If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket."  For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page, and Set # 15, below.


WATCH OUT!

In Nov. 2015 four new cameras were activated at two new intersections:  Coffee/Gosford and Stockdale, and Old River and Ming.  See Set # 10, below.



In 2018, Vote No on Sheila Kuehl

Do you live in LA County?  Was Zev Yaroslavsky your County Supervisor?  (He represented the Third District, which includes the central and western San Fernando Valley, Malibu, Santa Monica, Venice, Beverly Hills, the City of West Hollywood, and part of Hollywood.)

Zev "termed out," and in the Nov. 4, 2014 election Sheila Kuehl won the race to succeed him, by a narrow margin.

Sheila Kuehl authored 3
                  speed camera bills
Sheila "Kuehl Cams" Kuehl, in 2007

During her career in the California Legislature, Kuehl made three attempts to pass bills to allow the use of automated speed enforcement (photo radar) in California.

As an LA County Supervisor, she has a seat on the MTA/Metro board and she will be a vote to continue and expand Metro's huge (101 cameras, so far) red light camera system.

In 2016 she voted to put an additional LA County-wide sales tax, to go to Metro, on the Nov. 2016 ballot - and it passed.  (See
Measure M on the Action/Legis page, for more about that tax.)

Kuehl will be up for re-election in Nov. 2018 and Nov. 2022.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 1
Missing Warning Signs - Big Refund

This is the City's first press release about the missing warning signs.


Sometime later they issued another press release about the missing signs, giving details about how the refunds would be handled.

It is interesting that they issued that many tickets in just half a month.  That would be about 1200 tickets in a full month.  At that time that was the highest rate of ticketing I had seen anywhere.

Sets # 3 thru # 9, below, discuss other refunds the City should have made, but did not.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 2
Ticket Counts

Violations Recorded (some months) and Citations Issued

Be sure to read the footnotes!

New 9-25-04, updated 9-21-17

Cam #
CAOA
01
CAST
01
CHBR
01
COST
01
COST
03
COTR
01
COTR
03
MI99
01
MIRE
01
OACA
01
ORMI
01
ORMI
03
OSBE
01
STCA
01
WHWI
01
WIWH
01
[3]





Calif-
ornia
@
Oak

[4] [6]
Calif-
ornia
@
Stock-
dale
[4] [6]
Chester
NB@
Brundage


[4] [6]
Gosford
&
Stock-
dale
[4]
Gosford
&
Stock-
dale
[4]
Coffee
SB@
Truxtun


[4] [6]
Coffee
@
Truxtun

Left
[4] [6]
Ming
EB@
99/Valley
Plaza

[4] [6] [10]
Ming
WB@
South
Real

[4] [6] [8]
Oak
@
Calif-
ornia

[4] [6]
Old
River
&
Ming
[4]
Old
River
&
Ming
[4]
Oswell
NB@
Bernard


[4] [6]
Stock-
dale
@
Calif-
ornia
[4] [6]
White
@
Wible


[4] [6]
Wible
@
White



[4] [6]

Total
Violations
Recorded/

Notices
Printed
Not
Including
New Cams
COST
&
ORMI
[4] [12]
Total
Notices
Printed
as % of
Violations
Recorded
[4]
Total
Violations
Recorded/

Notices
Printed
Per
Official
Monthly
CMR
Reports
[1] [4]
Total
Citations
Issued/
Rolling
Right
Citations
Per CVC
21455.5(i)
Annual
Reports
[13]
Feb03



















[9]

Mar03


[5]
















213

Apr03


[5]















218

May03


[5]















256

Jun03


[5]















296

Jul03


[5]















154

Aug03


[5]















164

Sep03


[5]















[9]
Oct03


[5]















[9]
Nov03


[5]















[9]
Dec03


[5]















175

2003


















49%
5859
2851

Jan04


22


37
45





49





74%
207
153

Feb04


43


37
60





109





78%
319
249

Mar04


69


58
27
-
-



112





76%
349
266

Apr04


19


35
74
39
51
35



120





77%
417
322

May04


39


37
43
47
993
701



96





71%
1359
963

Jun04


43


28
36
43
927
679



93





74%
1243
924

Jul04
[4] [8]


65
49


40
32
43
31
59
47
790
600



111
88





76%
1108
847

Aug04


79
53


57
37
59
32
70
26
544
305



155
82





55%
964
535

Sep04


70
45


39
25
69
42
63
29
554
323



152
59





55%
947
523

Oct04
0
0

67
28


42
20
57
34
56
21
547
375
0
0


103
39





59%
872
517

Nov04
82
31

45
6


41
25
47
21
64
33
437
331
90
60


72
39





62%
878
546

Dec04
112
52
0
0
38
16


44
31
56
33
57
10
466
309
197
129


108
69
0
0
0



1078
649

2004





















Jan05
85
49
0
0
46
34


43
29
36
22
72
14
292
146
101
71


88
71
0
0
0



763
436

Feb05
65
32
0
0
64
31


50
34
56
36
52
40
350
177
131
99


107
88
0
0
0



875
537

Mar05
84
41
0
0
60
41


50
29
59
46
65
44
427
296
158
115


137
109
0
0
0



1040
721

Apr05
73
35
23
12
33
18


64
46
80
60
49
33
383
252
106
72


144
112
45
24
0
0



1000
664

May05
59
29
198
120
58
42


62
39
49
39
45
19
319
195
99
50


123
97
429
202
0
0



1441
832

Jun05
77
30
180
111
40
21


52
34
87
62
33
8
402
253
150
100


120
97
404
194
0
0



1545
910

Jul05
75
17
159
71
57
42


52
28
55
34
30
13
368
212
145
83


130
95
347
148
39
7
1
0



1458
750

Aug05



















1580
669

Sep05



















1552
904

Oct05



















1510
830

Nov05



















1465
949

Dec05



















1357
817

2005





















Cam #
CAOA
01
CAST
01
CHBR
01
COST
01
COST
03
COTR
01
COTR
03
MI99
01
MIRE
01
OACA
01
ORMI
01
ORMI
03
OSBE
01
STCA
01
WHWI
01
WIWH
01





Jan06
42
15
137
68
10
2


40
28
34
24
47
17
159
100
89
54


99
59
172
81
19
11
243
191



1091
650

Mar06



















1263
670

Apr06



















1170
625

Jul06
41
6
94
42
31
12


45
22
39
25
76
36
274
135
133
63


134
57
151
47
88
35
169
115



1275
595

Sep06



















1261
530

Oct06



















1137
539

2006
[2]



















7218
(Proj.)

Jan07
34
14
102
61
19
13


47
34
45
31
52
33
162
86
77
39


86
42
152
60
29
17
93
78



898
508

Mar07



















1169
603

Apr07



















1045
473

Jul07
36
12
79
45
44
21


34
15
49
29
61
31
234
100
112
53


37
13
142
56
64
40
157
31



1042
546

Sep07



















809
372

Oct07



















919
438

2007
[2]



















5880
(Proj.)

Jan08
49
20
69
43
28
11


29
17
38
26
27
21
169
120
76
47


90
63
91
40
0
0
47
38



713
446

Feb08



















367

Mar08



















412

Apr08



















827
408

May08



















414

Jun08



















415

Jul08
40
12
61
30
27
9


31
19
38
18
50
18
129
82
69
32


129
61
38
22
43
28
154
108



809
439

Aug08



















511

Sep08



















505

Oct08



















910
591

Nov08



















515

Dec08



















489

2008
[2]



















5512

Jan09
15
4
110
74
14
5


25
11
39
25
16
11
74
59
60
28


110
86
127
82
20
12
81
67



691
464

Feb09



















424

Mar09



















525

Apr09



















933
482

May09



















439

Jun09



















420

Jul09
1
0
93
58
47
18


14
6
35
15
26
9
99
60
0
0


171
82
139
91
0
0
63
51



688
390

Aug09



















435

Sep09



















505

Oct09



















1022
555

Nov09



















555

Dec09



















507

2009
[2]



















5701

Jan10
19
5
63
38
35
12


7
4
25
18
12
9
87
65
40
20


114
55
116
67
109
73
88
53



715
419

Feb10



















507

Mar10



















709

Apr10



















970
638

May10



















756

Jun10



















756

Jul10
42
9
65
33
46
17


30
19
22
15
32
20
185
104
62
22


127
84
199
122
171
102
114
84



1095
631

Aug10



















621

Sep10



















577

Oct10



















1082
642

Nov10



















496

Dec10



















619

2010
[2]



















7371

Cam #
CAOA
01
CAST
01
CHBR
01
COST
01
COST
03
COTR
01
COTR
03
MI99
01
MIRE
01
OACA
01
ORMI
01
ORMI
03
OSBE
01
STCA
01
WHWI
01
WIWH
01





Jan11
25
3
78
44
29
11


22
10
23
15
29
15
155
125
57
32


78
41
132
74
95
80
71
62



794
512

Feb11



















845
509

Mar11



















958
531

Apr11
27
8
80
46
19
6


26
14
32
13
26
15
176
101
51
9


125
64
117
69
184
85
72
59



935
489

May11



















1003
496

Jun11



















1000
554

Jul11
32
7
76
48
25
10


23
11
23
8
22
7
193
119
66
19


120
84
126
66
157
83
101
76



964
538

Aug11



















1095
667

Sep11



















1127
696

Oct11
34
10
113
60
38
13


33
22
13
7
0
0
146
78
55
20


135
63
106
67
178
106
111
95



962
553

Nov11



















972
565

Dec11



















1055
668

2011
[2]



















6778

Jan12
19
7
113
73
39
14


30
18
11
2
15
3
127
94
53
28


88
38
128
79
116
72
76
63



815
491

Feb12



















995
659

Mar12



















1036
683

Apr12
29
14
113
86
62
32


38
17
14
12
14
10
151
119
70
40


124
100
174
104
190
122
122
102



1101
758

May12



















1079
697

Jun12



















1121
743

Jul12
27
13
100
70
66
41


29
16
18
13
20
10
114
73
72
46


135
108
156
81
129
79
116
101



982
651

Aug12



















1165
671

Sep12



















886
565

Oct12
6
1
150
108
64
38


0
0
0
0
24
15
0
0
7
6


114
69
271
121
166
102
109
93



911
553

Nov12



















776
486

Dec12



















849
576

2012
[2]



















7533

Jan13
37
17
62
46
41
21


9
5
20
10
11
9
123
85
52
40


102
71
106
66
143
87
70
59



776
524

Feb13
46
17
74
48
65
41


14
7
23
14
8
2
101
66
97
72


98
72
186
119
147
89
88
74



947
621

Mar13
55
29
78
49
51
33


19
6
30
23
12
7
93
42
66
45


111
60
188
103
185
100
113
84



1061
680

Apr13
59
29
72
55
63
36


9
5
18
16
17
9
165
100
95
67


145
88
214
134
214
142
80
67



1151
748

May13
58
27
93
70
43
28


23
14
37
29
32
22
183
79
110
73


159
113
216
139
200
106
111
95



1265
795

Jun13
48
32
64
44
67
56


26
21
15
10
33
25
112
53
100
83


162
128
198
141
204
125
116
103



1145
821

Jul13
49
32
75
52
74
59


17
11
9
6
22
15
104
63
96
71


146
111
213
157
248
156
86
73



1139
806

Aug13
72
37
120
86
63
38


40
19
4
3
30
16
122
73
80
40


156
108
126
75
213
108
109
89



1135
692

Sep13
51
28
117
84
57
38


27
10
3
2
45
15
116
57
65
36


128
76
152
74
188
106
83
70



1032
596

Oct13
71
34
136
83
57
31


22
4
7
2
42
17
149
69
60
40


174
89
156
19
169
103
97
76



1140
567

Nov13
46
14
148
82
40
18


28
11
8
4
32
16
135
69
79
37


120
57
127
33
159
89
101
61



1023
541

Dec13
48
28
91
70
26
16


23
15
10
5
33
18
146
97
79
54


124
91
128
42
143
94
104
92



955
622

2013
[2]



















8013
4250
788
Cam #
CAOA
01
CAST
01
CHBR
01
COST
01
COST
03
COTR
01
COTR
03
MI99
01
MIRE
01
OACA
01
ORMI
01
ORMI
03
OSBE
01
STCA
01
WHWI
01
WIWH
01





Jan14
45
29
107
73
41
25


23
12
11
7
15
9
96
57
63
39


113
70
133
57
178
116
78
57



903
551


Feb14
90
43
123
81
49
25


16
8
8
6
33
17
126
72
112
49


123
63
99
52
160
87
97
83



1036
586


Mar14
108
60
114
82
70
45


34
17
12
9
38
23
139
93
79
49


154
99
98
60
182
103
100
84



1128
724


Apr14
83
55
122
80
64
38


40
30
12
5
38
22
115
62
78
40


141
86
137
79
182
103
87
61



1099
661

May14
42
28
120
84
69
42


35
18
12
9
38
25
141
82
52
35


178
135
160
111
194
130
98
76



1139
775

Jun14
29
9
118
80
43
30


26
15
12
8
24
9
88
29
58
34


157
94
132
70
166
85
91
67



944
530

Jul14
27
15
81
47
76
58


44
25
13
6
32
19
91
51
56
39


150
81
66
24
171
88
48
37



855
490

Aug14
43
19
26
11
64
27


14
8
11
4
37
8
114
17
64
28


138
54
11
3
171
54
45
26



738
259

Sep14
38
15
23
7
37
21


27
17
9
4
33
14
127
42
45
17


124
41
152
30
220
84
64
54



899
346

Oct14
0
0
23
3
75
37


34
20
10
3
34
12
165
66
59
32


148
27
165
27
170
54
90
66



973
347

Nov14
19
3
19
10
77
31


28
16
11
5
31
13
154
64
45
21


151
24
48
11
150
37
102
57



835
292

Dec14
44
11
25
8
71
27


29
16
6
4
22
8
178
76
69
45


139
17
136
36
172
46
125
91



1016
385

2014
[2]



















5946
3835
711
Jan15
31
7
14
2
76
32


6
2
14
6
49
26
102
48
52
29


107
30
132
19
171
55
78
55



832
311

Feb15
56
2
85
40
87
26


15
2
16
7
46
18
121
50
86
34


168
54
112
8
84
50
91
21



967
312

Mar15
95
10
100
53
96
44


18
13
12
5
68
24
170
31
109
58


150
69
144
39
208
100
89
20



1259
466

Apr15
[11]
57
2
70
32
84
53


46
24
15
7
66
25
269
18
97
58


167
78
152
27
226
120
49
26



1298
470

May15
20
3
98
41
72
42


49
23
8
5
59
21
210
32
57
38


197
136
113
1
230
116
23
11



1136
469

Jun15
49
14
101
54
29
11


54
16
18
7
53
19
148
25
23
10


208
111
142
30
201
58
82
27



1108
382

Jul15
56
20
111
49
69
33


40
15
22
6
42
8
118
42
32
3


137
55
116
36
186
52
110
48



1039
367

Aug15
63
23
101
49
107
51
0
0
0
0
58
17
17
8
51
13
81
34
32
11
0
0
0
0
231
117
112
44
158
69
130
98



1141
534

Sep15
70
15
129
70
127
50
0
0
0
0
31
17
7
3
4
1
128
58
8
6
0
0
0
0
247
136
188
45
200
87
126
88



1265
576

Oct15
56
12
105
51
55
29
27
0
3
0
27
13
14
5
63
20
288
151
17
5
24
6
9
3
219
129
141
48
210
114
164
119

1359
696

1422
705

Nov15
[12]
65
22
103
47
64
31
384
159
141
18
12
7
9
4
66
24
138
90
11
1
262
80
98
32
161
101
108
25
165
88
46
39

948
479

1833
768

Dec15
52
9
105
35
39
24
227
80
120
3
141
18
11
5
44
24
219
131
5
0
245
93
239
91
89
51
92
25
180
107
27
22

1004
451

1735
718

2015
[2]



















6078
3664
934
Jan16
[7]



















1646
825

Feb16
[7]



















1716
804

Mar16
76
28
117
53
28
16
346
167
87
17
42
16
11
5
29
12
211
150
12
5
152
109
161
87
128
79
81
33
203
101
140
104

1078
602

1824
982

Apr16
[7]



















1961
918

May16
[7]



















2068
773

Jun16
[7]



















2007
765

Jul16
70
34
111
48
113
58
268
88
119
16
59
25
14
7
47
24
161
92
18
12
128
86
57
15
221
142
105
55
257
108
165
130

1341
735

1913
940

Aug16
[7]



















1856
987

Sep16
[7]



















1876
1001

Oct16
73
35
104
66
129
83
476
280
71
11
29
15
24
16
49
18
217
138
15
9
77
41
160
89
286
154
104
69
122
45
160
122

1312
770

2096
1191

Nov16
[7]





















Dec16
[7]





















2016
[2]
(proj.)



















22756
11023
6526
2429
Jan17
[7]





















Feb17
[7]





















Mar17
[7]





















Apr17
[7]





















May17
[7]





















Jun17
[14]
54
23
94
39
88
49
442
222
92
28
46
28
19
11
64
26
218
159
32
21
270
76
68
33
98
65
76
36
227
77
178
140

1194
674

2066
1033

Jul17
[14]
73
27
101
46
72
44
349
138
102
46
70
46
20
8
53
24
130
71
30
13
202
73
112
45
127
89
100
53
232
79
160
122

1168
622

1933
924

Aug17
[14]
49
13
84
41
51
29
355
167
114
40
63
38
23
14
62
34
265
186
14
8
208
88
179
59
137
84
135
72
236
78
152
111

1271
708

2127
1062

Sep17





















Oct17





















Nov17





















Dec17





















2017
[2]
(proj.)
704
252
1116
504
844
488
4584
2108
1232
456
716
448
248
132
716
336
2452
1664
304
168
2720
948
1436
548
1448
952
1244
644
2780
936
1960
1492

14532
8016

24504
12076

Cam #
CAOA
01
CAST
01
CHBR
01
COST
01
COST
03
COTR
01
COTR
03
MI99
01
MIRE
01
OACA
01
ORMI
01
ORMI
03
OSBE
01
STCA
01
WHWI
01
WIWH
01
[3]





Calif-
ornia
@
Oak

[4] [6]
Calif-
ornia
@
Stock-
dale
[4] [6]
Chester
NB@
Brundage


[4] [6]
Coffee/
Gosford
&
Stock-
dale
[4] [12]
Coffee/
Gosford
&
Stock-
dale
[4] [12]
Coffee
SB@
Truxtun


[4] [6]
Coffee
@
Truxtun

Left
[4] [6]
Ming
EB@
99/Valley
Plaza

[4] [6] [10]
Ming
WB@
South
Real

[4] [6] [8]
Oak
@
Calif-
ornia

[4] [6]
Old
River
&
Ming

[4] [12]
Old
River
&
Ming

[4] [12]
Oswell
NB@
Bernard


[4] [6]
Stock-
dale
@
Calif-
ornia
[4] [6]
White
@
Wible


[4] [6]
Wible
@
White


[4] [6]

Total
Violations
Recorded/

Notices
Printed
Not
Including
New Cams
COST
&
ORMI
[4] [12]
Total
Notices
Printed
as % of
Violations
Recorded
[4]
Total
Violations
Recorded/

Notices
Printed
Per
Official
Monthly
CMR
Reports
[1] [4]
Total
Citations
Issued/
Rolling
Right
Citations
Per CVC
21455.5(i)
Annual
Reports
[13]

This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports provided by the City under the California Public Records Act.

Official reports, July 2005 to July 2010, Six-Month Intervals
Official reports, 2011, Three-Month Intervals
Official reports, 2011 - 2012
Official reports, 2006 - 2013
Official reports, Mar. to Nov. 2013
Official reports, 2005 - 2014
Official reports, Spring 2014
Official reports, 2006 - 2015
Official reports, First Half 2015
Official reports, to Nov. 2015
Official reports, July & Dec. 2015
Official reports, First Half 2016
Official reports, to Oct. 2016
Official reports, to Sept. 2017

[  ] indicates a footnote.
[1]  Except  where noted, monthly totals are as provided by the City.  Some monthly totals are from the 2008-2013 tally in Set # 14, below.
[2]  2006 and later annual citywide grand totals, or projections, are by highwayrobbery.net.  The 2016 and 2017 projections are based on data displayed in the table.
[3]  Un-used column, to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4]  Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated. 
Figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what RedFlex calls Total ViolationsRecorded, or all incidents recorded by the cameras.  The figures in black type are what RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets). Due to time limitations data may have been posted to the table only for selected months or locations.  If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months or locations will be posted.  Full official data has been received and is available at one of the links given above.
[5]  Intersection-by-intersection data has been requested but has not yet been received.
[6]  The camera enforcement is on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left) has not yet been verified.
[7]  Official data has been received, is available at the links above, but due to time constraints has not yet been fully posted to the table above.
[8]  On Jul. 20, 2004, the yellow for through movements at Ming / South real was increased from 3.5 to 3.9.  See Docs Set # 3, below.
[9]  The count for this month is not known.  However, the 2003 annual total given reflects all 12 months.
[10]  The yellow for eastbound through movements at Ming/99/Valley Plaza may have been too short.  See Docs Set # 9, below.
[11]  The report for this month was generated less than ten days after the end of the month, so not all tickets (for violations which occurred during the month) may have been approved and counted by that time.
[12]  In Nov. 2015 new cameras were activated at two new intersections:  Coffee/Gosford and Stockdale, and Old River and Ming. See Set # 10, below.
[13]  From the annual reports required, beginning with 2013, by CVC 21455.5(i).  They become available by the Fall of the following year.
[14]  The monthly total for this month is by highwayrobbery.net.


Ticketing Highlights

Per the City's annual reports, right turn ticketing in 2016 was more than triple what it was in 2013 and 2014.  The numbers are displayed in blue in the rightmost column in the table above.

 
  




Bakersfield Docs Set # 3
Ming / South Real - Another Refund Needed

On Oct. 15, 2004 I received the signal timing charts for Ming / South Real.  There was a current one, created on July 20, 2004, showing 3.9 second yellows ("yellow change") for all four straight-through movements.

       
(Click here to see the complete July 20, 2004 chart.)

I also received an old chart (below) from 1994, giving the time settings that had been in effect up to July 20, 2004.  (I phoned City personnel and confirmed that there were no additional charts in-between the 1994 and July 20, 2004 charts.)

   
(Click here to see the complete 1994 chart.)

The speed limit on Ming is 40.  In a 40 zone, the required minimum yellow is 3.9 seconds.  (See Defect # 2 on the Home page.)  Thus, many of the tickets issued on or before July 20, 2004 could be invalid. 

Many of the tickets issued at Ming / South Real are probably for westbound left turns, for which a 3.0-second yellow is arguably
legally long enough (even though it has the practical effect, compared to a 4.0-second yellow, of doubling or tripling the number of cars running the left-turn).  So, if in the future there is a refund due to the too-short (3.5 second) yellow, it will probably apply only to straight-through traffic, not left turns.  To see more about the issue of 3.0-second yellows on left turns, see the second part of Defect # 2, on the Home page.

On Oct. 21, 2004 I talked to the Bakersfield police about the Ming / South Real short yellow.   On Oct. 26 they sent me an email saying that the City had been using a 1992 edition of the CalTrans Manual, which, according to them, allowed a 3.5 second yellow in a 40 zone.  They said that when they recently discovered that the manual had been updated
[sometime prior to 1998 according to the records I can find - see the CalTrans section on the Links page], they acted to increase the yellows.   The final paragraph of their email said:

"The citations issued between May 14, 2004 and July 20, 2004, were
issued in good faith and will not be dismissed.  Defendants could use
the yellow light interval as a defense, but would have to present their
case to the court.  The Police Department would use the aforementioned
information to support its position that the citations are valid."
   

A Question

The police said (above) that they issued the tickets "in good faith."  They claimed that they didn't know the law had changed (years before) and that a longer yellow was mandatory.  "Ignorance of the law" is no excuse for us civilians, and it should not be for the police and the City.  The police cannot argue that they prosecuted the tickets in good faith because, when they found out that the yellow was too short (obviously they knew by July 20) they should have stopped all prosecution of the tickets they then knew to be invalid.  But they didn't stop. 
If you think that is prosecutorial misconduct, see Set # 8, below.


More about Ming/South Real is in Sets #'s 5 - 8 below.



 Bakersfield Docs Set # 4
Court Congestion - Caused by Camera Tickets?

On the website of the Kern County Superior Court ( http://www.kern.courts.ca.gov/ ) I found the following Aug. 5, 2004 notice.

KERN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT

TRAFFIC DIVISION EXPERIENCES A “TRAFFIC JAM!”

Due to a large increase in the number of tickets received by the Traffic Division of the Superior Court, many of our customers are being inconvenienced by appearing at the court on the date given on their traffic ticket, only to be given another date because the ticket was not in our system.

In order to reduce these incidents and better serve the public, we are advising our customers to wait until they receive a courtesy notice from the court before appearing. If they have not received their courtesy notice three days prior to the appearance date on their ticket, they should call the court at 868-2382 to check on the status of their ticket or e-mail the traffic division at http://www.co.kern.ca.us/courts/email_privpol.asp?s=t. [Dead link.]

The court is endeavoring to reduce the entry time for this large increase in traffic citations and hope that any inconvenience is short term.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 5
One Defendant's Experience at Court

New 12-1-04

Here is one defendant's November 2004 experience in the Bakersfield court, in his own words.


Thank you for your very helpful web site, and special thanks for the Bakersfield yellow light timing information.  The vehicle it appears I was driving was videotaped in June 2004 at the Ming and South Real intersection heading west on Ming.  The speed limit was 40 mph and the vehicle was going 32 mph (which calculates to be 46.9 feet per second) according to 2 photos taken from the video.  The first photo taken at 0.2 seconds after the light turned red shows the bottom of the vehicle's front tire (where it contacts the street) at the first, or most easterly, of the crosswalk lines.  The front bumper of the vehicle was 3 feet into the crosswalk.  At Time Zero (the instant electricity was applied to the red light) the vehicle would have been about 9.4 feet (46.9 x 0.2) back from there, with its front end about 6 feet from the line.  According to the officer who was present at my trial, the crosswalk is 8 feet wide and I would have had to be at or beyond the second crosswalk line under the yellow light to have legal "control of the intersection," which apparently means something like the right of way.  The Judge had some problem with that because the section of the law the Judge was looking at indicated that a vehicle entered the intersection when it crossed the first crosswalk line.  Since the front of my vehicle was about 6 feet from the crosswalk at the instant the red light came on, the discussion between the Judge and the police officer about where the intersection began was moot as applied to my case.  I mention this here only because it might apply to others' cases.

The officer agreed that the yellow lights at Ming and Real were set to stay on for 3.5 seconds until July 20th when they were reset to 3.9 seconds.  The officer was very adamant that 3.5 seconds was the correct timing during the period when my violation occurred.  Apparently he thought that CalTrans had not changed the timing specification until July 20, 2004.  Thanks to your advice, I had visited the CalTrans web site and had made a copy of the regulations affecting intersection lights, etc. (40 pages of which the light timing table was just a small part of one of the pages near the end of the document).  I showed the Judge that document and brought to the Judge's attention the fact that the document was dated May (20th I believe), 2004, so the yellow light should have been set at 3.9 seconds prior to the time I was alleged to have violated the red light.  [Editor's note:  CalTrans changed that spec in 1998 - see Defect # 2 on the Home page of this website.]  That extra 0.4 seconds would have enabled me to be well into the intersection under the yellow light.

I told the Judge that something was terribly wrong with the timing of the light at Ming and Real because tables available at your web site indicated that typically over 500 red light violations occurred there each month and on at least one occasion exceeded 900.  I also reminded the Judge that most of the red light offenses heard in the Judge's Court that morning were at Ming and Real.  The Judge told the police officer that the City of Bakersfield needed to abide by the standards set by CalTrans.  The Judge wanted to review some sections of the law before making a decision in my case, so I agreed to wait for the Judge's decision which I received by mail yesterday.  The letter, which was from the Court Clerk, stated, "You were found not guilty at your trial," and "Cash bail will be returned to postee in approximately four to six weeks."  I had to pay the bail amount prior to being permitted to go to trial.  Bail is set at $371, which is the fine one pays unless one goes to Court to fight the ticket.  It appeared that those who go to Court typically paid about $150 - $200.  Five-hundred-fifty violations per month at $371 per violation is $204,050.  Ming and Real is a real cash cow and it is easy to understand why the City of Bakersfield fights so hard to make those tickets stick."

Regarding the issue of how the officer established the identity of the driver, the Judge had a computer into which the officer was allowed to insert a CD which had the video on it.  I was allowed to approach the bench so that the Judge, the officer and I could view the video together.  The display would have been difficult for the rest of the people in the courtroom, except for the bailiff, to see.

I was surprised to see all of the parties who had apparently plead "not guilty" offer no, or at best, a very minimal defense.  They were most likely hoping the ticketing officer would not show up.  I believe the Judge offered each of them the opportunity to take traffic school, which most of them did.  Fines for red light violations, with the traffic school add-on, were around $200.






Bakersfield Docs Set # 6
Newspaper Article about Short Yellow


A James Burger article in the Dec. 21, 2004 Californian (page B1) carried the headlines:  "Officials Admit Yellow-Light Oversight" and "BPD says it won't cave on tickets despite city's failure to adjust signal."  The text of the article said:  "The City of Bakersfield has another red-light camera problem.  But if drivers want their tickets dismissed this time, they're gonna have to fight for it."
The article is about the short yellow discussed in Docs Set # 3, above.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 7
Re-Opening Your Case


New 12-24-04

I wrote what follows for a defendant who just wrote to me and said that he pled guilty and paid his Ming/South Real ticket (straight- though, not a left turn) four or five months ago but now wants to get his money back.

"First step would be to get and fill out a one-page "re-open" form - a request to be allowed to re-open your case and get a new trial - then file it with the court clerks.  (Full title of form:  "Bail Forfeiture Set Aside Motion to Re-open Case."  This process is authorized by CVC 40512.)  The clerks will schedule a date for you to go before a judge to ask him to grant the request to re-open.  If the judge grants the request to re-open, then you can plead not guilty and get a trial date.  (That first judge you see will also have it within his power to clear the matter for you right then and there, without you having to go to trial.  So ask that judge to reverse your conviction.  But it will depend upon the judge.)"

"It becomes more difficult to re-open a case that has been closed for more than 6 months, so you will need to start without much delay.  To figure the 6 months, you need to know that cases are closed once the fine has been paid and proof of attendance at traffic school (if required) has been received by the clerks."

"If you end up having to go to trial, at that trial you would go though an abbreviated version of the trial described in Bakersfield Documents # 5, above.  Hopefully very abbreviated.  With the article in this week's [Dec. 21] Californian, I think that by the time you get to court all the judges should be familiar with the problem so that you won't have to do much explaining."

"If going back to court is going to cost you money for lost work or travel to court, etc., you may want to consider an additional filing - filing a claim with the city for the costs you have incurred, and will incur, due to their mistaken prosecution.    The process would be similar to what I describe on the Costa Mesa Documents page.  I would recommend filing it right away because maybe the city would prefer to reverse your ticket themselves, so that you don't run up any more expenses that they will have to pay.  You get the claim form from the city."

"In most courts you can get a re-open form from the clerks at the courthouse, fill it out at the window, submit it, and you've got a court date.  However, I was just checking on the Kern court's
website and I see that they have recently posted a copy of the full formal routine they would like people to go through.  Also posted is a sample form.  It's all at http://www.co.kern.ca.us/courts/Informational_Sheet_Traffic.pdf.   [As of March 2005 the link ceased working.]  They probably had to post it because of so many people applying to re-open their Ming/South Real camera tickets.  I suspect that in reality the process is more-streamlined and less formal."

If you already have been through the re-open process, please send me details about whatever steps you went through to get your money back, so that I can post more information here.  Also note:  This simple process would not apply to a case where you went to trial and were found guilty.



Bakersfield Docs Set # 8
Further Action


If you have a straight-through (not a left turn) ticket at Ming/South Real and the violation date is before July 20, 2004, I believe you're entitled to a dismissal, or a reversal if you have already paid it.
Whether or not you're able to take the time to go through the steps necessary to get a dismissal or reversal, I suggest that you take a little time now to file a complaint with Attorney General Lungren in Sacramento.  He has an on-line complaint form at: 
http://ag.ca.gov/consumers/mailform.htm .



Bakersfield Docs Set # 9
Ming / 99 / Valley Plaza - Yet Another Refund Needed


On June 7, 2005 a defendant sent me a copy of this signal timing chart for Ming / 99 /Valley Plaza.
 


(Click here to see the complete chart. )

It showed a 3.5 second "Yellow Change" for the eastbound ("EB") movement (or "phase"), which is too short.  The speed limit on Ming is 40.  In a 40 zone, the required minimum yellow is 3.9 seconds for a thru movement.  (See Defect # 2 on the Home page.)  Thus, many eastbound tickets could be invalid.

On June 8 and 10 I phoned the City traffic engineering department to see if the chart, which bore the inscription "printed on 8/26/2004," was still current.  During the conversation of the 8th, they told me it was.  On the 10th I phoned Lt. Borton, who runs the camera program, and he told me that he thought the yellow had been increased to 3.9 sometime in 2004.  Later that day I called traffic engineering again.  This time they told me that they remembered lenthening the yellow in 2004, that it probably was done around the same time (July 20, 2004) as the yellow at Ming/Real was lengthened, but that the only notation as to the exact date would be on the documents kept in the signal cabinet at the intersection.  I then filed a request for copies of those documents.  On June 16 I got a call from a traffic engineering staff member who told me that the chart (above) had been mis-labeled as to phase assignments, and that the City was mailing me a corrected chart.  I will post a copy of the corrected chart here, as soon as it is received.

Despite the confusion about the labeling on the chart, I think that it is still likely that the yellow was too short on tickets issued before July 20, 2004 - of which there are about 170.   In the meantime, if you have a Ming/99 thru ticket, I suggest that you get a copy of the video (do a Discovery) and check the length of the yellow by playing the video frame-by-frame on your computer, using a program like Windows Movie Maker.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 10
The Contracts, Amendments, and the Price

2002 Contract
2008 Staff Report
2008 Contract
2009 Amendment


These
statistics, obtained from the City in Jan. 2014, were an early indicator of what would happen when it came time for the city council to decide whether to continue the program, or let the contract expire.

To see how the cost neutrality works, go to Set # 14, below.

In March 2014 it
looked like the police might extend the contract for just one year, but then a new staff report came out, asking the council to vote on a two-year extension. 
At the June 4 meeting the council adopted the extension, without discussion.

Signed Copy of Extension to June 2016, with Internal Correspondence


The Price

In March 2014 the City of Elk Grove, California approved a new contract which specified the following rents for their five RedFlex cameras.


From Exh. D of the Elk Grove Contract

On Apr. 22, 2014, highwayrobbery.net wrote to the Bakersfield PD business manager, and suggested that he negotiate the rent.

The contract presented to the council on June 4, 2014 did not address the rent, so the City paid 93% too much (compared to Elk Grove prices) over the two years of the extension, $466,704 extra.  To cover that extra rent, the City needed to issue an extra 4667 tickets (assuming that the City receives an average of $100 for each ticket issued).
 
And there was no way out.  The contract
did not contain an escape clause - a way for the city council to end the program, or renegotiate the price, before the two years is up.


Five-Year Extension to 2020 - Paying $1,266,000 Too Much - and Still No Way Out

  On Aug. 12, 2015 the city council reviewed a two page
staff report (which did not discuss safety, at all - it was just about adding more cameras, and money), discussed the matter for six minutes, and voted 6 - 1 (Maxwell: nay) to sign a five-year extension of the program, to Aug. 2020.
They agreed to pay $39,100 monthly rent for the twelve original cameras, but since those cameras were all more than ten years old at that time, they should not have agreed to pay a dime more than $18,000 per month ($1500 per camera). 
Over the 60 months of the extension, the City will pay $1.266 million extra rent, and to cover that extra rent the City will need to issue an extra 12,660 tickets.

And there is no way out.

It is unclear whether the top paragraph on page two of the staff report is a "finding of fact" as required by
CVC 21455.5(c)(2)(A) for the four new cameras.  Neither the minutes of the meeting nor the video shows any discussion of a finding of fact.

Here is the survey RedFlex conducted to show the potential ticket production by the new cameras.

Redflex video survey of new
                              cameras in Bakersfield  

For info about how much net revenue the program makes, see Set # 14, below.

For more info about what other cities pay, see FAQ # 17.

This list of contracts and amendments was up-to-date as of July 19, 2016.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 11
Lawyer's Court Victory

From KGET-TV, Bakersfield, July 20, 2005 -

Anchor Robin Mangarin:  Red light cameras can catch you red handed, but what if you weren't the one behind the wheel?  Should you be compelled to snitch on your wife or kids if they get caught running a red light?  KGET-17's Kiyoshi Tomono has the story of a Bakersfield man who faced that very dilemma.
Reporter Kiyoshi Tomono:  A flash of light and suddenly you're caught on camera and getting a ticket for running a red light.  It happened to local lawyer Bill Slocumb.  Thing is, neither he nor his wife was behind the wheel.
“My stepdaughter ran the red light southbound on Coffee Road onto Truxtun Avenue,” said Slocumb.
But Slocumb’s wife got the $350 ticket.
In the same envelope was a form encouraging the couple to divulge who may have been driving if it wasn’t them.
They decided to fight in court.
Slocumb said the judge didn’t push the issue and dismissed the ticket, but the Bakersfield police still wanted to know who was driving.
“The officer who apparently runs the red light program demanded [[during a phone conversation before the court session]] to know the name of the driver, the address of the driver, whether I knew if she was a California licensed driver or not, and we simply told him that we were not interested in providing that information,” said Slocumb.
But does the officer's request or the city's form have any teeth?
Police said it’s a matter of civic duty and safety.
“If someone is driving your car and they run the red light and they [[you?]] get the notification, sure, we think that you should identify the violator,” said Det. Mary DeGeare from the Bakersfield Police Department. “It's an infraction. It's a red light violation. But there's no law that says you have to do that.”
DeGeare said not being able to identify the driver is not the norm.
“There's a process in place that helps us identify who the driver is,” she said. “We're able to compare, usually, the violator's photo to their driver's license photo.”
Reporter Tomono:  Bottom line, read the fine print.
Slocumb said he thinks he’s lucky because he’s a lawyer.
“I guess it was a happy ending and we moved on with our lives,” he said.

From KGET-TV 7-20-05, with emphasis added, and clarifying notes, in [[  ]].

(For more about this issue, see the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.)




Bakersfield Docs Set # 12
Misleading Info on the Court's Website


As of October 2006 the court's website ( http://www.kern.courts.ca.gov/traffictickets.asp#photo ) said:


"If you receive a photo-enforced red light citation or notice of violation and you were not the driver, you must follow the instructions on the citation or notice of violation and complete the accompanying form to identify the driver who committed the violation. If you need further assistance, either go to the Bakersfield Police Department or call them at (661) 326-3882. Failure to respond to the citation or notice of violation may result in further penalties such as additional fines or driver's license holds.  [Emphasis (bolding) added by highwayrobbery.net.]

I say:  You are not required to tell anyone who was driving the car, so the mandatory "must" is incorrect, and should not be on a court website.  See the "It's Not Me!" section on the Your Ticket page.
(It is OK for such a misleading/false statement to be on a document sent to you by the police - they are allowed to lie to you!  But not the court.)




Bakersfield Docs Set # 13
"Late Time" Graphs

  The City has provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for each of its cameras, on several occasions. 
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)


Grand Terrace late times bar
                                    chart
The picture above is an example from another city.

OSBE-01Jan2006
OSBE-01Jul2010

CHBR-01Jan2006
CHBR-01Jul2010

COTR-01Jan2006
COTR-01Jul2010

COTR-03Jan2006
COTR-03Jul2010

MI00-01Jan2006
MI99-01Jul2010

MIRE-01Jan2006
MIRE-01Jul2010

OACA-01Jan2006
OACA-01Jul2010

CAOA-01Jan2006
CAOA-01Jul2010

CAST-01Jan2006
CAST-01Jul2010

STCA-01Jan2006
STCA-01Jul2010

WHWI-01Jan2006
WHWI-01Jul2010

WIWH-01Jan2006
WIWH-01Jul2010

All Cameras, Jul2012

All Cameras, Jul2013

All Cameras, Jul2014

All Cameras, Dec2015

The New Cameras, Jun2016

Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.





Bakersfield Docs Set # 14
Revenue/Expense Documents Show How Cost Neutrality Works

Invoices, vouchers and spreadsheets show how cost neutrality works.

Invoices
Vouchers and Spreadsheets
Running Tally, 2008 - 2012
Running Tally and Invoices, 2008 - Nov. 2013
Running Tally, to Apr. 2014
Running Tally, to Nov. 2015
Running Tally, to Apr. 2016




Bakersfield Docs Set # 15
Snitch Tickets

To see an example of the City's fake/Snitch Tickets, go
here.




Bakersfield Docs Set # 16
More Coming

There may be some more information posted in the next few weeks.  Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!


---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS

www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net