|
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
|
|
www.highwayrobbery.net
|
|
If
you
haven't
already done so, please read the Commerce
section on the Camera Towns page City
of Commerce Documents It may be possible to completely
ignore a City of Commerce ticket.
1. If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake ticket, which I call a "Snitch Ticket." For more details about Snitch Tickets, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page. 2. The LA County Superior Court does not report ignored red light camera tickets to the DMV. More info is in "Countywide Information," which is Docs Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page. New
3-18-09,
updated 3-28-13 Total Violations Recorded
(in red type),
Notices Printed [4]
This table
made by highwayrobbery.net, using official reports
obtained under the
California Public Records Act.
Official reports, 2009 - 2011 More official reports, 2009 - 2012 Official reports, 2012 early Official reports, 2012 late Official report, Jan. 2013 [ ] indicates a footnote. [1] Totals are as provided by the City. [2] YTD = Year-to-date total. [3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system. [4] Any 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 Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. 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). [5] Data was requested on 3-11-13. [6] The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available. [7] City claims it does not camera-enforce the posted "no turn on red" signs. [8] Yellow lengthened at ATTG-03L - see Set # 2, below. [9] Bar graphs (see Set # 3, below) have been received for all the months annotated [9] in the table above, but due to time limitations have been posted below only for selected months. If there is public interest, the remaining months will be posted. This
table
made by
highwayrobbery.net, using official monthly
tabulations of citations
actually issued.
City of
Commerce
Docs Set
# 2
Longer Yellow at Atlantic/Telegraph Cuts Violations by Two-Thirds The City lengthened the yellow for the southbound partial left turn at Atlantic and Telegraph, from 3 seconds, to 4 seconds, sometime after March 25, 2009, probably on May 11. Here are the charts, exactly as pdf'd and sent to me by the City on May 12 and 13. Old (2001) Chart New (2009) Chart Notes for the charts: The length of the yellow for the southbound partial left turn is given in Column 1, Row E of the table in the upper left-hand corner of page 1. The date of the change is believed to be May 11, although the 'month' digit of the handwritten "date completed" on the 2009 signal timing chart is not fully formed. The length of the yellow has a great effect on the number of red light camera tickets issued - the longer yellow at Atlantic/Telegraph cut the number of violations by two-thirds (see the first column in the table, above). For another example of the effect of a one-second increase in the yellow for a left turn, see the large table on the Mesa Documents page. City of Commerce Docs Set # 3 "Late Time" Graphs ATTG-03L
Jan
2009 ATTG-03R
Jul 2009 EASL-01
Jul 2009 SLEA-01
Jul 2009 SLGA-01
Jan 2009 SLGA-03
Jul 2009 TEGA-01
Jul 2009 TEGA-03
Jan 2009 TGAT-01
Jul 2009 Bar graphs have been received for the additional months
annotated [9]
in the multi-colored table above, City of Commerce Docs Set # 4 The Contracts and Amendments 2007 Contract In Jan. 2007 the City signed a contract with a term of five years beginning upon the installation date of the first camera. On Nov. 5, 2012 the City extended the contract three years. They got a lower price but still will pay $345,600 too much over the three years (when compared with a $3000 target price). See FAQ # 17. Further problems with the 2012 contract extension: 1. It has no escape clause (Termination for Convenience), something commonly found in other cities' contracts. 2. The contract adds a Halo (collision avoidance) system. I am aware of only one operational Halo system, which is in Marysville, California. I have made several formal requests to Marysville asking for copies of reports about the efficacy of that system, and so far have been told there is no report. At a minimum, the City of Commerce contract should have stated the price for the Halo system as a separate item - as it is in the Marysville contract - so that when the Halo system is removed from the City of Commerce the extra charge will go away. 3. The new contract says: "The Customer may exercise the right NOT to extend the term... by written notice to Redflex not less than 30 days prior to the last day of the initial term...." ) Renewal should never be automatic. Renewals should occur only after a review by the City Council. This list of contracts and amendments may not be up-to-date - there could be a contract or amendment later than the one listed above. City of Commerce Docs Set # 5 More Coming There may be some more Commerce 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 |