Email Address
Site Index

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

City of Riverside Documents - Program Closed
(and Information)

At the July 8, 2014 council meeting they voted to close the program in 60 days.
(See Set # 3, below).

Some of Riverside'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 "Fake Ticket."  For more details, see the Fake Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

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 Kams" 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.

We need to watch Kuehl carefully, because as a Supervisor she will have a seat on the MTA/Metro board and she will be a vote to continue and expand their huge (101 cameras, so far) red light camera system.

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

Do you live in Orange County, in or near Tustin, Orange, Lake Forest, Placentia or Yorba Linda?  Is Donald Wagner your State assemblymember?

Wagner, who probably will be running for a Senate seat in 2016, was the sponsor of AB 2487, a 2014 bill which would have taken away your right to a Trial de Novo.

Cal. Asm. Donald Wagner,
                sponsor of AB 2487
Asm. Donald Wagner

Please don't reward him with your vote.


  Riverside Docs Set # 1
Locations and Ticket Counts

Violations Recorded and Citations Printed

The City has provided tables of ticket counts, covering 2006 - 2014.
I have assembled the city-provided data
into a single

Spreadsheet (new 9-28-09, updated 11-20-14). 

Source data (provided by City):

City-Created Tables, to Mar. 2009
RedFlex-Created Tables, Feb. 2009 to Aug. 2009
Sept. 2009
Oct. 2009
Nov. 2009
Dec. 2009
Jan. 2010
Feb. 2010
Mar. 2010
Apr. to Nov. 2010
Nov. 2010 to Sept. 2011 (big file)
Oct.2011 to Jan. 2012 (big file)
Feb. to Aug. 2012
Sep. to Oct. 2012
Nov. 2012 to Jan. 2013
Feb. to Mar. 2013
Apr. 2013 to June 2014
July 2014 to Sept. 2014

Current Highlights

In July and August 2012 monthly ticketing citywide averaged 2675, a level last seen in June 2010.

In July and August 2012 monthly ticketing at Tyler/91 averaged 994, an increase of 61% over the average for May and June 2012.

Code Lookup Chart

In the city-provided tables the camera locations are encoded.  Use the Code Lookup Chart below to decipher the code.

In this table, cameras notated with one or more ‡ marks are believed to have been removed prior to the ending of the citywide program.

Intersection Direction Activation Date
Alessandro Sycamore Canyon WB 12/04/2006
Chicago/Arlington WB 04/08/2008
Canyon Crest Central NB 12/04/2006 ‡‡
Chicago Martin Luther King NB 12/04/2006
Third NB 12/29/2006
Third EB 12/29/2006 ‡‡
Columbia Main NB 12/30/2006 ‡‡
Main WB 12/30/2006
Canyon Springs

9/2009        ‡
Indiana Tyler WB 01/25/2007
Arlington NB 07/31/2007 ‡‡‡
Iowa University EB 12/30/2006 ‡‡
University SB 12/30/2006
Market University SB 02/26/2007 ‡‡
Mission Inn Lime WB 12/04/2006 ‡‡
Mulberry 14th (next to 91 Fwy)
SB 07/31/2007
14th (next to 91 Fwy)
EB 07/31/2007 ‡‡‡
Tyler 91 Fwy WB on-ramp SB 03/25/2009
Magnolia WB 12/04/2006
Van Buren Arlington EB 12/04/2006 ‡‡‡
Arlington NB 12/18/2006 ‡‡
Arlington SB 12/18/2006 ‡‡
Dufferin SB 08/18/2008 ‡‡
Dufferin NB 08/18/2008
Indiana EB 03/05/2007
Indiana NB 12/04/2006
Trautwein EB 12/04/2006 ‡‡
Trautwein WB 12/04/2006 ‡‡
Wood EB 03/05/2007

‡ Camera CSDA-01, which was on the border with Moreno Valley, was shut down in April 2012 after that City requested its removal.

‡‡ Per a Nov. 1, 2012 Press Enterprise article, these cameras were shut off on Sept. 30, 2012, and the equipment was to be removed.

‡‡‡ These cameras were shut off in 2013, possibly due to freeway construction.

The chart above is as was published by the City on its website (see Set # 5, below), except that added a column of intersection codes, the entry for camera RIV-CSDA-01, and the notations indicating removed cameras.

In the City's tables of ticket counts, Violations Captured is believed to represent total incidents photographed by the camera (including during any warning period), and Citations Printed is believed to represent the sum of any warning notices mailed, genuine citations issued (those filed with the court), plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch/phishing/fake Tickets).

Speaking of Snitch Tickets...

Riverside issues a lot of Snitch Tickets.   Per this
spreadsheet found in emails obtained via a public records request, the fakes were 47% of everything they mailed out in 2011.

Read this 2012
discussion, also obtained via a public records request:

RedFlex employee:  "I can reissue this but you can't see the face on the correct vehicle at all.  The windshield is very dirty and it caused a glare."
Riverside employee:  "Thanks.  It subsequently went out as a corporate notice [Snitch Ticket] to 'educate' the driver."

Riverside Camera Locations as of Fall 2012

Red light cameras in Riverside
Map by

Red dots represent Riverside camera locations as of Sept. 2009.
Green dots are cameras which were operated by the City of Moreno Valley until Jan. 2010.
Dots with an X represent intersections where some or all cameras were removed prior to 2013.

In Apr. 2009 the camera at 91/Tyler (near the Galleria) issued 2441 tickets, a state record.
Then in Oct. 2009 Riverside's camera at Indiana/Arlington beat that record, with 2472 tickets issued.

Major businesses at or near 91/Tyler:
Abercrombie & Fitch, America's Tire Store, Barnes & Noble, Bed Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, Burlington Coat Factory, Children's Place, Days Inn, Disney Store, Econo Lodge, Frederick's of Hollywood, Gap, Godiva Chocolatier, Guess, Gymboree, Kaiser Medical, JC Penney, Lamps Plus, Macy's, Men's Wearhouse, Michaels, Motherhood Maternity, Nordstom, Payless ShoeSource, Quality Inn & Suites, Sanrio Surprises, See's Candies, Sleep Number, Shiekh Shoes, Sport Chalet, Staples, Target, Three Day Blinds, Toys R Us, Tuesday Morning, Vans Shoes, Victoria's Secret,  Wet Seal.

Major businesses at or near Indiana/Arlington:
Ace Cash Express, AJ Wright, Arlington Dental Group, Cardenas Market, Enterprise Car Rents, Payless Shoes, Popeye's Chicken, Rite Aid, Starbucks, Target, Wonder Bread, Yum Yum Donuts.

From Dec. 2006 to Aug. 2009, the cameras at the six camera-enforced intersections in the downtown-university corridor issued 24,796 tickets carrying (approx.) $10 million in fines.

Major businesses near cameras in the downtown-university corridor:
Marriott Riverside, Courtyard by Marriott Riverside, Mission Inn Hotel & Spa, Dynasty Suites, Americas Best Value Inn, Comfort Inn University Riverside, Thunderbird Lodge.

Riverside Docs Set # 2
"Late Time" Graphs

These graphs show, lane-by lane, how late violators were.
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.

Graphs, Four Cameras, Feb. 2013

Early 2013 was the first time Riverside agreed to provide their graphs
.  Until then, Riverside's email records - obtained via a public records request - included something almost as useful, a
spreadsheet giving a lane-by-lane breakdown of citations issued during 2011.

Our Analysis of the Spreadsheet

In 2011 61% of all red light camera tickets citywide went to motorists who were in the rightmost lane, most likely for rolling right turns.  Ten cameras exceeded 80%.
We expect that the citywide percentage of rolling right tickets will increase.  In late 2012, twelve cameras were shut down and removed.  In 2011, 67% of the tickets from the seventeen cameras not later removed went to motorists in the rightmost lane.

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

Riverside Docs Set # 3
The Contract
Program Closed in 2014

2006 Contract

At the Council meeting of Oct. 25, 2011, they  voted 5 - 2 (nays:  Davis and MacArthur) to approve a 5-year renewal of the contract.

2011 Staff Report and Contract Renewal

The council threw away $2 million. Eight Redflex customers in SoCal are paying below $3000 per month for their cameras (see FAQ # 17), yet Riverside agreed to pay much more ($3850) despite offering the vendor far better economies of scale than in any other local city. (Usually, when you buy more of a product, you get a better price.)

The waste of the $2 million is doubly disappointing, because it is not even being put into the local economy. The money will be permanently gone, sent to an Australian company with offices in Arizona.

The council had been told individually, in writing, about the better deals negotiated by the other cities. Their action at the Oct. 25, 2011 meeting should have been to send staff back to the negotiating table.  Apparently though, since they have over
$400 million cash in the bank, $2 million is not enough to bother about.

They also tried to remove cost neutrality, but failed.  While the contract amendment mentions that cost neutrality is to be removed, they overlooked the following clauses in Exhibit D of the amended contract.

 4(b)  Payment will only be made by Customer up to the amount of cash received by
 Customer from the County through the collection of red light citations
 up to the amount currently due.
4(c)  Customer to open special revenue account and payments to Redflex will come
 only from the available balance in that account up to the amount currently due,
including any unpaid prior invoiced amounts.
4(e)  Except where a balance remains unpaid due to a deficit in the gross cash received
 as described herein, Customer agrees to pay Redflex within thirty (30) days
 after the invoice is received.

The 2011 renewal included a contract amendment (see Sec. 6.3) allowing the City to cancel the contract on short (60 days) notice.  At the June 18, 2012 Public Safety Committee Meeting, the councilmembers voted 2 - 0 (Ayes:  McArthur, Melendrez;  Absent:  Hart) to accept a staff recommendation to discontinue the program.  A major factor in that recommendation was CalTrans' refusal to renew the encroachment permits for the five of the City's cameras that are on CalTrans right-of-way.  (Also read Docs Set # 4, below.)
A post-meeting Press-Enterprise article revealed that RedFlex offered a $300,000 discount - $25,000 per month for a year - as an incentive for the City to continue the program.  (See the second-to-last slide in the June 18 PowerPoint presentation.) That discount, when computed over the 50 months remaining in the contract, would have equaled a $240 reduction in the monthly per-camera rent, bringing it down to $3610, still far more than in many other cities.
The Committee's recommendation to discontinue the program went to the full city council for a final vote, during the meeting of July 10.  The council voted to wait 60 days before making a decision.

"It’s impossible to attribute causality to one thing. I don’t know whether and to what degree the red light cameras have contributed to a reduction in traffic crashes." 
Chief of Police Sergio Diaz, quoted in July 14, 2012 Press Enterprise
article. (archived copy)

On Oct. 2, 2012 the matter again came before the council.  The new staff report contained nothing about the $300,000 discount previously offered, but did say that CalTrans had changed its mind and will continue to allow cameras on its right-of-way.

The materials presented at the Oct. 2 meeting included many letters from the public, such as this email from a retired 28-year Riverside fire captain:

"I have spoken publicly against the program several times in the past, once before the public safety committee and twice before the entire council. Each time, I expressed my dislike of the general concept of the program, the unethical tactics used to collect fees, inconclusive data regarding their effectiveness and the realization of corporate profits at the expense of our citizens.  My position on these matters has not changed." 

The council voted 4 - 3 to continue the program.  It also ordered that the issue be voted upon. 

A Nov. 1, 2012 Press Enterprise article said that eleven of the cameras (noted ‡ in Code Lookup Chart, above) were shut off on Sept. 30, 2012.

Feb. 2013 Study Session - Ballot Delayed...

The official minutes of the Oct. 2 meeting say:

"Following further discussion a substitute motion was made and carried to (1) continue with the current system incorporating the new legislation [California Senate Bill 1303] to the extent possible and test other possibilities that would make the current program safer until an alternative is found; and (2) present a ballot measure to the voters in June 2013.  (Emphasis added.)
On Feb. 13, 2013 I heard about a Feb. 26 study session during which the council would consider delaying the vote to November.

In a Feb. 19
article, the PE guessed that the City's motive for delaying the vote could be their concern that the high voter turnout expected for a vote on the cameras would cause the water fund tax matter to fail.  The PE wrote:

"If city officials are thinking strategically, they realize the red light camera measure
will inspire voter participation, and measures that even sound like a tax don’t usually benefit
 from greater turnout. So having the red light camera measure on the same ballot as the water fund transfer
 could spell doom for both — and if the water fund transfer is voted down,
that’s a $5 million hole in the city’s 2013-14 budget."

On Feb. 21 an advance copy of the
staff report for the Feb 26 meeting was made public on the City's website and in it, City staff claimed that an unsettled lawsuit in Murrieta justified delaying the ballot.
I think that supposed reason is pure baloney, as the situation in Riverside is legally very different than that in Murrieta.  In Murrieta, the city council would not voluntarily put the matter on the ballot; the citizens had to force the issue by qualifying a ballot initiative.
I think that the Feb. 19 PE article revealed the true motive.

The staff report also showed that staff has failed to "test other possibilities," as directed by the council in October. 
I have a page about that subject matter, which I call
Alternatives, or Engineering Countermeasures.

At the Feb. 26 study session the City Council voted, 5 - 2, to delay the ballot on the cameras, possibly beyond November.
The Council seemed unconcerned that City staff had not tested the "other possibilities that would make the current program safer."  The Council accepted, "hook, line and sinker," staff's claim (page 2 of the staff report) that a late 2007 experiment that added one second to the yellows at three cameras had produced "No significant decrease in red light running violations."
Here is what actually happened at those three cameras.

1.  Violations Captured by the "COMA" camera at Columbia/Main dropped 26% between October and November 2007, then leveled out.  As of late 2012 this camera was capturing about 400 violations each month, and was not one of the cameras that were decommissioned.

Riverside Columbia Main
This graph was made using data from the spreadsheet linked in Set # 1, above.

2.  Violations Captured by the "MACO" camera at Columbia/Main dropped 87% between September and November 2007, remained down for another month (December), then rose quickly to previous levels.  The data suggests that the yellow was lengthened in mid-October, then shortened in early January and shortened again in early March.  This camera was decommissioned in October 2012.

Riverside Columbia Main red light camera

3.  Violations Captured by the "MILI" camera at Mission Inn/Lime dropped 75% between July and October 2007, then leveled out.  The data suggests that the yellow was lengthened in early August and lengthened again in early October. This camera was decommissioned in October 2012.

Riverside Mission Inn/Lime red light camera

July 2013 Report:  City Attorney Says No Ballot, Ever

In a report prepared for the July 23, 2013 council meeting the city attorney said that the council could not legally keep their promise to let the voters vote about the cameras.
I can understand, sorta, the logic why such a vote could not be binding, but what would have been the barrier to having an
advisory vote?
The Press Enterprise had a good
article about this.  It included a discussion of where the council candidates stood on the camera issue.

Program Closed in Sept. 2014

At their June 17 meeting the council considered a staff report, took public testimony, and voted 6 - 1 to ask staff to come to the July 8 meeting with a plan to close the program.
June 17 Article
staff report prepared for the July 8 meeting gave the council a number of options, including:  Continue the program, or shut it down and void all remaining tickets, or shut it down and continue to prosecute all tickets.  RedFlex submitted a last minute letter suggesting a delayed shutdown combined with a study - which the company offered to pay for.
July 4 Article 
The council voted 5 - 2 to shutter the cameras within 60 days and to continue to prosecute the tickets.
PE Article   KESQ Article

PE Article

On July 9 the city manager directed RedFlex to turn off the cameras at 11:59 pm on Sept. 15.  He also wrote:

"Please note it is the intent of the City to continue issuing all photo red light violations captured prior to the equipment shut off date identified above.  Additionally the City intends to process these violations to their final conclusion."

If you have an unresolved ticket, be sure to read Set # 5, below.

The contract info above is up-to-date as of Sept. 15, 2014.

Riverside Docs Set # 4
Tyler/91 Camera (and Others) Not Justified, Permits Revoked

...Then Reinstated

In 2009 I wrote to CalTrans:


To: Richard Goh, Manager, Riverside County Encroachment Permits, CalTrans District 8

Dear Mr. Goh:

This is my request that you revoke the encroachment permit for the City of Riverside's red light camera at the intersection of the westbound 91 ramps and Tyler Street.

In a phone conversation on 10-27-09 you explained to me that CalTrans' guidelines provide that permits are to be issued when a "compelling need" has been demonstrated.

Earlier today your office provided me with a copy of the City's
8-1-08 and 10-21-08 memos wherein they addressed the need for the cameras. I have reviewed those memos, and they fail entirely to demonstrate a compelling need for a red light camera. In fact, the twelve accidents they note as having occurred in five years is a very low rate when the intersection's obviously heavy traffic volume is considered (and that may be why the City's memos did not discuss traffic volume or the accident rate per million vehicle miles). Further, most of the twelve accidents listed in the City's Collision Report Summary table of 10-7-08 (part of the 10-21-08 memo) are not relevant to a discussion of the need for a red light camera.  To wit:
Three of the twelve accidents occurred 225 to 630 feet away from the intersection.

Another eight of the twelve did not involve red light running. Of the eight:
Two were noted as "rear-end," and one of those two involved an impaired driver.

Two were caused by "improper turning," with the motorist hitting a fixed object.

One was caused by an illegal, or unsafe, U turn.

Two (11-29-04 and 6-8-06) describe improbable scenarios as they show an eastbound movement at an intersection where no eastbound movement is allowed.

One (9-17-04) was caused by a southbound driver making a left turn where no left turn is permitted.
Only one accident (8-16-04) was likely caused by red light running. I submit that one accident in five years (at a very busy intersection) does not demonstrate a compelling need for a red light camera.


It took a couple years, but eventually CalTrans came to the same conclusion.  In Jan. 2012 they
wrote to the City:

"Based on the above findings, the Red-Light cameras at these locations [ Tyler/91, Indiana / Arlington, Mulberry / 14th] are not warranted and have to be removed."

That would have been the end of those cameras but lack of a safety justification was trumped by the State's need for money
(the cameras at those three intersections produced more than half of all the tickets in town, worth $25 million in fines).  By Oct. 2012 - after lobbying by the City - CalTrans changed its mind and agreed to allow the cameras to stay.  Article

Riverside Docs Set # 5
2015 Appeal Victory

In Jan. 2015 a Riverside defendant won a significant decision in the District Court of Appeal, California's second highest court, overturning his rolling right ticket from Tyler/91. Among other things, he proved that the yellow was too short.  Read more about the Rek-- case, on's
Library page.

Riverside Docs Set # 6
Info at City's Website

The camera program is operated by the Dept. of Public Works, and they have a page with a small amount of info on it.

Riverside Docs Set # 7
More Coming

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