Fake/Snitch Tickets Issued by Police
No Ticket Yet? Be Prepared
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
Popular links from this page:
Contact/Email Address
Journalists/Bloggers/Webmasters
Speed Cameras Coming/Hot Legislation
Please start by reading the What's Hot box on the Home page.
On this Action page - scroll down, or click on these links:
1. An Initiative
2. You Don't Have to Shop There...
3. More Things You Can Do
3.5 Info for Journalists
4. No $ Donations Accepted
5. HOT Legislation - the Governor Wants Speed Cameras!
6. The Guru Club
7. Ticket Questionnaire and Email Address
highwayrobbery.net is a free-of-charge public service.
The Action Page:
1. An
Initiative
The State gets
more than half of the fine from your ticket - and it is BIG money. But they need more money, so the
writing is on the wall. Tickets will become more frequent - if Gov. Schwarzenegger gets his wish
there will be 2.4 million automated speeding tickets each year (see Hot Legislation section, below).
Cities also need more money, beyond what they get from camera tickets, so they are raising the cost of parking
tickets to amounts that resemble the moving violation fines of a few
years ago.
The AAA Auto Clubs, which we formerly could rely upon to oppose
anti-motorist laws, have not spoken out about these exorbitant
fines. In fact, they have been the sponsors of some of the
legislation that will increase them.
It appears that the citizens of California will have to do a
grass-roots initiative to control the cost of tickets - just as they
created Prop. 13 to control property taxes.
In the meantime, if you have a rolling right turn ticket,
please make the phone calls suggested in the Hot Legislation section, below.
The Action Page:
2. You
Don't Have to Shop There...
...and You Don't Have to Vote for these Politicians
Let your Vote Count
The Nov. 2009 council elections in two Ohio cities showed what the voters can do to councilmembers who install cameras. In Chillicothe, candidates opposed to cameras pushed out two incumbents (and 72% voted to end the camera program). In Heath, a political newcomer who said he would not have installed the cameras defeated the mayor who pushed to install them (and the voters voted to end the camera program).
California cities would not be able to run ticket mills without enabling legislation from Sacramento. See the Hot Legislation section, below.
Vote with your Wallet, Too
When you spend $100 at the mall, the government of the city in which the mall is located gets $1 of the sales tax. If you buy a $20,000 car, the government of the city in which the dealer is located gets $200. And then there is "bed tax." If you rent a $100 hotel room there, City Hall gets $10. If you feel that the city that gave you your ticket has taken advantage of you, there's not much you can do about it - except that you don't have to shop there. You can spend your money in other towns that value your business and don't surround their malls with red light cameras.
If you're taking your business elsewhere, I think that it is important (and only fair) to let the city council and the merchants in the "red light town" know that. Even a short email will make a big impact.
Here is an article showing that economic action can work:
Seidler said for most members of council, the bad impact on business is the deciding factor in not
supporting a potential comeback of the camera. He said business owners complained about the device.
"They felt it was hurting their business. Many were told by people that they would no longer patronize their business because of the camera," he said. "It is hard to attract new business when no one is willing to come in and do business."
Seidler and Councilman Mike Costarella both said the camera also generated unnecessary bad publicity for the city. (Youngstown Vindicator, Aug. 2, 2006.)
Stacking the Odds in Your Favor
Even if you're not inclined to do an economic boycott, there is a practical reason to stay away from neighborhoods and/or towns having cameras. In the questionnaire on this website, I ask defendants how often they have driven through the intersection where they got their ticket. While the majority of defendants were caught at intersections they had not visited previously, a substantial portion of defendants were caught at an intersection they were very familiar with. Conclusion: You are not safe from getting a ticket simply because you know there's a camera there - it is necessary to change your routine, to eliminate repeated visits to the intersection. It's like playing with snakes - no matter how careful you try to be, eventually they will catch you off guard, and you will get bit.
Buttons
Why
These Cities?
Hawthorne
was chosen because of the State
record-holding Hindry and Rosecrans intersection (record is for the
highest number of tickets per month anywhere in
California). See the Hawthorne section on the Camera
Towns page for more information.
Inglewood was chosen because of their refusal to reverse or dismiss the
(estimated 6000) tickets they issued at Crenshaw / 108th and Prairie /
111th, both of which are confusing double intersections. See the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page for
more information.
Culver City was chosen because: they employed short yellows compared to neighboring cities (3.6 in Culver City vs. 3.8 in Beverly Hills or 3.9 in Los Angeles), they did not reverse or dismiss tickets they issued when their yellows were too short and their warning signs were undersized, and they shortened the yellow at two intersections.
Are They in It for Safety, or Money?
The public, and the Press, should question the motives of any city that -
| (a)
Targets motorists who are turning right or left - a practice which is primarily about ticket volume
and money. While many cities set their left turn yellows at the State minimum of three seconds, I believe that
the yellows for lefts should be set at four seconds. But it's well understood that if you set them at three
seconds, tickets increase
three-fold, making enforcement on left turns very lucrative. (See Defect # 9 and the second part of Defect # 2 on the
Home page, and the Mesa, Arizona section on the Camera Towns page.) (b) Employs the minimum legal yellows for thru traffic - for example, 3.6 seconds in a 35 - not adjusted for the actual speed of traffic (see Defect # 3 on the Home page). (c) Has no grace period, so issues tickets for a Late Time of as little as 0.1 second. The 2002 State Auditor's report (page 45, see Links page) said: "Although the law does not mandate them to do so, five of the seven local governments we visited employ grace periods of up to five-tenths of a second before their red light cameras will begin taking photographs." "The FHWA [Federal Highway Administration] indicates that a grace period of three-tenths of a second is commonly used and that five-tenths of a second is the international standard." [As of 2009, nearly all cities have bowed to financial pressure and issue 0.1 Late Time tickets.] (d) Ignores the safety implications of allowing red light running to continue at camera locations that generate disproportionate numbers of tickets - a condition easily cured by engineering countermeasures such as lengthening the yellows and improving the marking of the intersection (but which would also dramatically reduce revenue from tickets). Federal guidelines (See the big box in Defect # 9 on the Home page) say:"The installation of a red light camera system at a signalized intersection identified as having a red light running problem should be done when an engineering study of the intersection determines photo enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure to reduce the incidence of red light running." (See also FAQ # 6.) |
The Action Page:
3. More Things You Can Do
(Journalists, Bloggers, Webmasters, Activists - Scroll
Down a Little!)
If you hear that your city, or one nearby, is thinking about getting red light cameras, please let me know.
Please call your State legislators about any current bills listed in the Hot Legislation section, below.
When you go to the courthouse to handle your case, suggest to other defendants that they call their legislators and their auto club about the Hot Legislation. If you are going to hand out any
kind of written materials at the courthouse (such as this one-page action list), you should do it outside the courthouse, at least ten
feet away from the
entrance and any line of people, so that you cannot be accused of intimidating or obstructing anyone coming to the courthouse. Also see The Guru Club section, below.
Join the new (Jan. 2010) Class Action suit.
Another valuable contribution would be to suggest to the editors of
your favorite websites or newspapers that they write about the illegal contracts (Defect # 10 - B), publish a
link to highwayrobbery.net or, if they are really daring, write
about Snitch Tickets. Or you could write a letter to the
editor - see the Getting the Word Out info on the Your Ticket page, and the Snitch
Ticket flyers here.
Or, you could post information on your favorite forums.
And if you drive a tow truck or an ambulance and know of a red light
camera intersection that has an unusual number of rear-end accidents,
please let me know about it.
I would like to make some parts of this website available in Spanish - beginning with the Entry page. If you
could help with the translation, please contact me.
3.5 Journalists/Bloggers/Webmasters/Activists
Hot Topics
If you're writing or taking action about cameras, here's what I think are the hottest topics.
1. Snitch Tickets (see Section 1 on the Your Ticket page)
2. The shift away from ticketing people who run straight thru intersections, towards the much more lucrative ticketing of people
who make rolling right turns. (See Churning Right Turn$, a subsection of Defect # 9 on the Home page, and Hot Legislation, below.)
3. Ticket quotas. See Defect # 9, on the Home page.
4. The repeated attempts to pass State legislation to legalize the use of cameras for speed enforcement. See Legislation,
below.
5. The illegal stop sign (!) cameras installed in parks in and around Los Angeles - see the MRCA section on the Camera Towns page.
6. Cost Neutrality clauses (see Subsection B of Defect # 10, on the Home
page), and the related class action suit.
7. The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (see 2005 - 2006 Legislation, below).
8. The General [gag] Order for LA County Superior Courts.
9. This page about industry / police PR.
10. The (approx.) one million private cars in California having "protected plates," which make them much less likely to
receive a camera ticket. See FAQ # 22.
11. The questions raised in the red box at the bottom of Section 2, above.
California's Photo Enforcement vs. Elsewhere
California's programs are different, in several significant ways, from most other states.
1. California is a "driver responsibility" state; a red light camera ticket is handled in the State
courts, just like any other moving violation. And a conviction goes on one's driving record. In most
other states (especially those on the East coast),
the camera tickets are "owner responsibility," and are handled like a parking ticket - they do not go on one's driving record.
2. The fines on California camera tickets range from (approx.) $440.00 to $500.00, depending upon which county the violation occurred in.
In most other states the fines are $50.00 (New York City!) to $100.00.
3. Because of 1. and 2. above, many California cities issue fake tickets (that have not been filed with the court), in an
effort to bluff the registered
owner into revealing who was driving the car (see Section 1, Snitch Tickets, on the Your Ticket page).
4. California has law specifically prohibiting cities from paying the camera companies on a
incentive basis - although many cities are ignoring it! (See Subsection B of Defect # 10, on the Home page.)
5. A large proportion of California red light camera tickets are for rolling right turns. (For more info about
right turns, see Churning Right Turn$, a subsection of Defect # 9 on the Home page, and Hot Legislation, below.)
6. California law never has permitted photo enforcement of speed, also known as photo radar. But until recently, there
were two (illegal) speed camera programs in the State: One was operated by a parks district near Los Angeles, and the other was operated by the City
of San Jose. (For more
info on photo radar, see the Hot Legislation section, below, and the MRCA and San Jose sections on the Camera Towns page.)
The Action Page:
4. No $ Donations
I can't personally take money since I'm
not a lawyer.
But I do ask each person who uses this website to call their legislators and their auto club. See the Hot Legislation
section, below. (You could even reward helpful legislators with a small
check, or even just a nice thank you note.)
Another contribution you can make is of information to go on this website (see above).
If you could help with an initiative, see The Initiative, above.
The
Action Page:
5. Legislation
You are on the Action page.
2010 (Current) HOT Legislation
2010: So Far, "Only" Eight Actions to Watch -
Among them, the inclusion of speed cameras in the governor's budget, more radar speed traps, more surcharges. Plus, some bills we can support!
For a compact list of the bills/actions described below, click: action list.
Hot Legislation, # 1 of 8
Governor's 2010 Budget Includes Speed Cameras! (Oppose)
|
Governor wants to catch speeders with red-light
cameras to help balance budget LA Times, Friday Jan. 8, 2010 California drivers could get stuck with speeding tickets even with nary a cop in sight under a proposal tucked deep in the budget Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger unveiled today. The Republican governor wants to let cities and counties install speed sensors in red-light cameras to ticket speeding drivers. Those whizzing by the detectors up to 15 mph above the limit would have to fork over $225 per violation. Those going faster than that would pay $325 under the plan. Red-light cameras already exist in communities across the Southland, from Beverly Hills to Yucaipa. The governor wants to install speed detectors in 500 of those cameras, which would nab an estimated 2.4 million speeding violators per year, according to the finance department estimates. That would net cash-strapped California about $337.9 million through June 2011. Every year after that, the program would generate nearly half a billion dollars, the finance department says. Local governments would get a cut of the proceeds. |
At page LJE 9 of the budget details, it says,
"The budget reflects additional revenues of $296.9 million from the new Automated Speed Enforcement Program, which allows a commensurate reduction in General Fund support for trial court operations."
In other words, the courts will be expected to process 2 million more tickets, for the same pay! If we thought that the lines already were too long now, and the court employees already too surly,
we have another think coming.
The blog laist.com commented: "The SacBee duly noted that 'the governor did not propose increasing fines for talking on cell phones while driving or parking in red zones,' both of which his wife was caught on camera doing last year."
Another article. And another.
This is the fifth attempt in six years to allow speed cameras. But this is the first attempt having the governor's public support. (For info about the previous attempts, see way below.) The AAA opposes this speed camera proposal.
Please call your legislators in Sacramento - and the governor.
For phone numbers, see the big purple box, below.
Calling is much more effective than email.
I recommend calling your legislators' offices in Sacramento, not in the district.
After you talk to them (and the governor) about the governor's photo radar proposal, talk to them about the other 2010 bills and fees, below.
Previously (in 2008, see way below) I suggested that we should call the speed cameras, if installed, Kuehl Kams. Now, I think a better name would be "Schwarzeneggers." As in, "Look out mom, Schwarzenegger at 200 yards!"
Hot Legislation, # 2 of 8
2010: New $40 Surcharge - (Oppose)
Some recent newspaper articles,
and a press release from an assemblymember (see third bulleted point), have revealed a proposed $40 surcharge on each ticket, which "will be debated as part of the budget during the month of June."
Hot Legislation, # 3 of 8
2010: California Assembly Bill 909 - Reducing the Fine for Rolling Right Turns (Oppose in Present Form)
AB 909
(Hill) has been advertised as cutting the fine for a rolling right turn to about half of what it is now. Unfortunately, it looks like the proposed cut will be nullified by new surcharges: There is the proposed $40 statewide surcharge - see above - and there is a new 20% surcharge which went into effect on June 10, 2010. So, if AB 909 passes as presently written, a rolling right ticket will cost about $400 when the two surcharges and the cost of traffic school are included.
Prior to a June 14 amendment, the bill was interesting; it would have revised the law to allow a motorist to turn right without having to stop, so long as they did not interfere with a pedestrian's or other motorist's right-of-way.
For more info about this
bill, see this special page.
I think that rolling right tickets should cost a more appropriate - but still effective to remind motorists not to swoop around corners - $20 or $30 (including all fees and surcharges). Some cities outside California charge as little as $25. (See the expanded version of Defect # 9 for info about those other cities.)
Hot Legislation, # 4 of 8
2010: California Senate Bill 1362 - Minor Changes to CVC 21455.5 (Oppose in Present Form) (Failed)
Updated 8-14-10
SB 1362 failed when on Aug. 13 the Assembly Committee on Appropriations blocked it and kept it from reaching the Assembly floor for a vote by the annual deadline. Highwayrobbery.net provided the info in the box below during the time when the bill - now failed - was under active consideration.
|
SB 1362 (Simitian, with co-authors Ashburn & Huff) has been amended five times - most recently on Aug. 2 - and all that is left is a minor restriction on the issuance of Snitch Tickets, buried in CVC 40518(c) - (e) of the bill. The original version of the bill was weak - the bill has never dealt with the "gorilla in the room," the thousands of $500+ tickets for minor violations like rolling right turns. (For perspective, in New York City the camera ticket fine is $50.) And the numerous amendments weakened it further. Here is what has happened to some key provisions. Illegal acts by the city: The original bill made tickets "null and void" if the city violated the easy-to-follow rules set out in CVC 21455.5. Then a June 30 amendment removed that language. Snitch Tickets: The bill (see 40518(c) in the bill) allows cities to continue to issue an "other notice other than a notice to appear" (a Snitch Ticket), but requires that these notices be on an approved form (to be created). Until the June 30 amendment the bill said that if the form was "materially altered" the ticket "shall be dismissed." Now it says, "may be dismissed." Then there is the issue of the phone calls some police departments make to registered owners (see Creepy Phone Calls, on the Your Ticket page). While the bill's 40518(e) says that if a city "contacts" the registered owner, he is to be "made aware" that he is not required to provide information, how could the registered owner ever prove that the police failed to make that required disclosure if the contact was by phone? And even if he was able to prove that the police failed to make the disclosure, would be ticket be dismissed? The bill does not say. The bill's 40518(e) disclosure requirement also makes us realize that an equivalent requirement has not been applied to Snitch Tickets. The bill's 40518(c) lists three kinds of information that must appear on an "other notice" but it does not include a disclosure that there is no requirement to provide information. (If it was addressing this issue, we would expect the bill to specify things like the size of type and its position on the page.) Warning signs: The original bill required more signs - they would have to be posted at the intersections and at the entrances to town. Then a May 11 amendment removed the requirement for signs at the entrances to town, and the June 30 amendment removed the requirement for signs to face all directions of traffic - only the directions enforced by cameras need to be posted. Who can issue tickets: An early version of the bill changed CVC 40518 so that only a "peace officer" could issue a ticket, thus promising to end the practice in some cities of having tickets issued by non-sworn police services personnel. Then, the June 30 amendment reversed the change, again allowing so-called "qualified personnel" to issue tickets. Using clerks to issue the tickets is controversial, even in the Industry - see FAQ # 36. If it is amended again, SB 1362 should be changed to actually DO something to protect motorists. Here are some suggestions. Increase the warning ticket period to 90 days, and clarify that warning tickets must be issued at each camera, not just the first one in town. Reduce the fine for rolling rights to a maximum of $30 including all surcharges, and with no "point." (Compare to AB 909, above.) Provide for automatic dismissal of multiple rolling right tickets occurring at the same intersection within the same 30-day period, when the first one is paid (see FAQ # 40). Require that the yellow for a left turn be at least as long as the straight-thru yellow, and at least 4.0 seconds if the turn pocket is longer than 200 feet or if it is a double or triple left turn (see expanded version of Defect # 9 - C). Restore the provisions removed by the May 11 and June 30 amendments (as discussed above): "Null and void," "intersections and entrances," "only a peace officer." Right now it looks like the three senators are just trying to give the appearance of doing something, to mollify the constituents who are calling their offices to complain about ticket mills. If you act NOW, you may be able to affect SB 1362's direction. Contact your local legislators, and if you live in or commute through one of the senators' districts, contact them. Their phone number are at these links. Ashburn represents Bakersfield, Barstow, Tulare, 29 Palms, Ridgecrest, Visalia. Huff represents Yorba Linda, Chino Hills, Diamond Bar, La Habra, Sierra Madre, Walnut, Glendora. Simitian represents San Carlos, Redwood City, Menlo Park, Atherton, Palo Alto, Los Altos, Cupertino, Campbell, Santa Cruz, Capitola, Aptos, part of San Jose. Going in, know Simitian's voting record: AB 909 of 2010 (if signed by governor, will reduce fine for rolling rights): No ABX 8-3 of 2010 (effective June 2010, added 20% to all fines statewide - an additional $20 on a camera ticket): Yes SB 570 of 2009 (would have gutted the protection the Speed Trap Law provides to motorists): Yes SB 1325 of 2008 (would have allowed speed cameras): Yes AB 117 of 2008 (would have added $20 to all fines in Santa Clara County): Yes SB 1773 of 2006 (added 20% to all fines statewide): Yes While you are talking to your legislators about SB 1362, please also talk to them about the speed cameras proposed by the governor, the new $40 surcharge, and the other bills described below. For phone numbers, see the big purple box, below. |
Highwayrobbery.net provided the info in the box above during the time when SB 1362 - now failed - was under active consideration.
Hot Legislation, # 5 of 8
2010: Assembly Bill 2097 - Dealing with "Protected Plates" (Support) (Failed)
Updated 8-14-10
AB 2097 passed through four votes, all unanimously (in three committees and on the Assembly floor), but then on Aug. 13 the Senate Committee on Appropriations blocked it and kept it from reaching the Senate floor for a vote by the annual deadline. Highwayrobbery.net provided the info in the box below during the time when the bill - now failed - was under active consideration.
|
AB 2097 (Miller) was filed on Feb. 18, 2010. The Legislative Counsel's digest says: "This bill would require a person who requests the confidentiality of his or her home address to provide the department with a current employment address for purposes of processing the service and collection of a traffic, parking, or toll road violation." Under present law, the more than 1 million private vehicles having "protected plates" are, as reported by the Orange County Register newspaper, "protected from easy or efficient look up, thus are effectively invisible to agencies attempting to process parking, toll, and red light camera violations." Read more in FAQ # 22. The AAA supports this bill, and I strongly support it. But I would like to see one change. The bill's provisions don't go into effect until April 2012, nearly two years from now. I think it can and should be much sooner. I urge everyone to contact their legislators and the AAA about AB 2097. If this bill does not make it, the bureaucrats will keep laughing at us as we pay our $500+ fines. |
Highwayrobbery.net provided the info in the box above during the time when AB 2097 - now failed - was under active consideration.
Hot Legislation, # 6 of 8
2010: Assembly Bill 2729 - Outlawing "Right on Green" (Oppose)
AB
2729 (Ammiano) would allow cameras to be used to enforce a "No Right Turn on Green" restriction at one intersection in San Francisco. The right turn is prohibited (even on green!) because turning cars have been hitting bicyclists using the parallel bike lane. I oppose this bill because it proposes an expansion of the use of cameras to deal with a sitation where no one has presented information as to whether it is visitors, or "locals," who are causing the accidents, and I believe that the cameras would be ineffective against violations by visitors. Further, a City memo indicates that while the City already has accomplished a 93% cut in the number of illegal right turns through the use of signage, that big drop in illegal turns didn't reduce the accident rate at all. Cameras cannot stop ALL of the remaining right turn violations (at least that never happens in other cities), so to stop the accidents, the City needs to try further engineering fixes. The Auto Club of SoCal has submitted a "Letter of Concern" about this bill.
Hot Legislation, # 7 of 8
2010: Senate Bill 1318 - Possible Attack on our "Speed Trap Law" Protections (Undecided) (Passed)
SB
1318 (By the T & H Committee) is a huge "omnibus" bill - everything has been thrown in there - 17,034 words! On Apr. 14 someone added "Section 45" which modifies the speed trap law. Then, six days later, the Committee voted to OK it. (Did they read it before voting?)
Until May 1 I was recommending "Oppose unless amended to remove Sec. 45" on this bill. More recently I have been assured (by AAA staff which deals with legislative issues full-time) that the Sec. 45 changes are necessary, and harmless. Therefore - and considering all the other bills which require strong opposition or strong support - I am now recommending leaving this bill alone for the time being.
Hot Legislation, # 8 of 8
2010: Senate Bill 949 - Dealing with Local Kangaroo Kourts (Oppose in Present Form)
SB
949 (Oropeza)
Some cities have begun setting up their own Kangaroo Kourts for moving violations - which they cite under their own local version of the California Vehicle Code. This bill was created to stop that practice. Until an Aug. 20 amendment making an exception for
the stopsign cameras operated by the MRCA, I supported this bill, and so did the AAA. (I do not know the AAA's position on the amended bill, which is 3600 words bigger, more than quadruple the previous size. Isn't the legislature supposed to focusing their efforts on the State budget?) For more info about Kangaroo Kourts, see Section 8 on the Links page. (In 2003 Sen. Oropeza was the author of AB 1022, which outlawed pay-per-ticket and percentage-of-revenue contracts between cities and red light camera suppliers.)
For a compact list of the bills/actions above, click: action list.
You are on the Action page.
|
General Info about Lobbying Auto Club Phone Numbers CSAA - Northern California: CEO Jim Pouliot (415) 565-2005 Board's fax: (415) 552-5017 Director of Corporate Affairs Bob (Robert) Brown (925) 279-2300 Legislative Affairs Manager Richard Shrader (916) 443-2577 CSAA email addresses: Robert_Brown@csaa.com, Don_Patton@csaa.com, letters to editor to viamail@csaa.com ACSC - Southern California: CEO Thomas McKernan (714) 885-1222 Board's fax: (714) 885-1280 and 885-1888 VP Legislative Affairs Alice Bisno (714) 885-1253 Legislative Counsel Tim Chang (916) 443-2577. ACSC email addresses: Lenzi.Stephen@aaa-calif.com, letters to editor to westways@aaa-calif.com AAA National Headquarters: CEO Bob Darbelnet (407) 444-7000 Board's fax: (407) 444-8416 VP Public Affairs Kathleen Marvaso (202) 942-2050. For a compact list of the current bills/actions listed above this box, click: action list. |
Previous Legislation
2009 Legislation
2009: Four Bills in California Assembly - Photo Enforcement of Speed (Photo Radar) & Multiple Attacks on the Speed Trap Law (All Failed)
Added 3-26-09, updated 6-26-09
Highwayrobbery.net provided the info below during 2009, when AB 564 and three other bills - all now failed - were under active consideration.
Three Bills Attacking the Speed Trap Law...
Of the four bills, three would gut the Speed Trap Law - each bill doing it a slightly different way. If passed [they have failed], the bills would allow the reduction of speed limits even when such reduction is not justified by the engineering survey required under the Speed Trap Law. As of June 24 two of the three were dead, but one (unfortunately the worst one), AB 564, still had the potential to move ahead:
AB 564 (Portantino, Pasadena) - passed a final "floor vote" in the Assembly on May 18 and was moved to the Senate for further action, which could come on June 30 or July 7, in the Senate Transportation Committee,
AB 766
(Krekorian, Glendale) - stalled, and
SB 570 (Maldonado, Monterey) - stalled.
...and a New Bill to Allow Photo Radar
The 2008 bill to allow speed cameras (photo radar) did not make it out of the legislature in Sacramento. In 2009, they tried again - although as of June 24 it was stalled.
The bill - the fourth anti-motorist bill for 2009 - is:
AB 987
(Fiona Ma, San Francisco) - stalled. For more info about photo radar, see the section about last year's bill, SB 1325, below.
What to Do...
AB 564 could be voted upon as soon as June 30, in the State Senate. Call your senator, and the governor. It is optional to call the auto club, as they already are opposing the bill.
For phone numbers, see the big purple box, [above].
Calling is much more effective than email.
I recommend calling your senator's office in Sacramento, not in the district.
After you ask them to protect the Speed Trap Law, please also talk to them about photo radar, and about the ridiculous fine for rolling right violations. Right now, the fine is the same as the fine for going straight through an intersection - $400+. The goal is to get the legislature to reduce the fine for rolling right tickets to a more appropriate - but still effective - $20 or $30 (including all fees).
The Press So Far:
Blog Article about the Speed Trap Bills
Blog Article about the Photo Radar Bill
Latest blog article, about AB 564
Even the Legislature's Staff Knows AB 564 is a Bad Bill
Read this official analysis of the bill, by the legislature's own staff:
"By redefining the definition of 'local streets and roads,' under this bill, it is possible that unrealistic posted speed limits would be established without any regard to prevailing speeds (85th percentile) or traffic characteristics of the roadway. This could result in 'speed traps' and speeding citations for the overwhelming majority of drivers that are driving these roads in a prudent and safe manner causing no undue speed-related traffic hazards."
(From the official Bill Analysis of 5-15-09, available online at the AB 564 link given above.)
2008 Legislation
California Senate Bill 1325 -
To Allow Photo Enforcement of Speed Limits (Failed)
Added 2-21-08, updated 8-31-08
Highwayrobbery.net provided the info below during 2008, when SB 1325 - now failed - was under active consideration.
" Now cut that out ! "
State Senator [now termed-out] Sheila James Kuehl as Zelda Gilroy in the 60's TV series "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis"
If it passes [it has failed],
SB 1325 (Kuehl, Santa Monica), will legalize automated speeding ticket cameras, also known
as photo radar.
It was introduced in Feb. 2008,
and had its first committee hearing on Apr. 29. At that hearing it narrowly failed to get
enough votes - it needed seven "ayes" and got five - but it could be allowed to come back
to a later meeting (in August), for another vote. If we all phone
our legislators and auto clubs, we may be able to stop it.
SB 1325 is the successor to Kuehl's earlier unsuccessful speed camera
bills, SB 1300 of 2006 and SB 466 of 2005 - which are discussed in their own sections, below.
Speed cameras are an idea that won't go away!
As presently drafted, SB 1325 is restricted to a pilot
program in only one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph and school zones - making it very
similar to Kuehl's SB 1300 of 2006. But
if it is able to move onward through the legislature, SB 1325 will likely be amended to include other
cities:
(a) Per the
Legislative Analysis dated Apr. 24, the City/County Association
of Governments of San Mateo County has asked to be included in the program,
(b) according
to the LA Times, the bill "is being
closely watched in San Jose"
and (c), Burbank, Carson, Culver City, Pasadena and LA County came on board as
supporters
when Kuehl's previous speed cam bill (SB 1300) was in the legislature in 2006.
SB 1325 could also be amended to enforce higher speeds - there is no technical bar to the use of the cameras for
enforcement on freeways. Nor is the use of speed cameras on freeways unprecedented.
Scottsdale, Arizona is an example of the use of cameras on freeways, and it is also an example of a pilot
program rapidly spreading statewide. In early 2006, the City of Scottsdale installed cameras on an 8-mile section of the 101 freeway
loop, for a 9-month pilot program. At the end of the pilot program, the East Valley Tribune
reported that there had been an astonishing 130,992 tickets issued. Now, in 2008, the Governor of Arizona has taken control of the camera programs (and their revenue), and is rapidly installing cameras statewide.
What to Do...
Call your local State legislators, and the auto club [even though SB 1325 has failed].
For phone numbers, see the big purple box, above.
Calling is much more effective than email.
I recommend calling legislators' offices at the Capitol, not in the district.
So far, the two AAA auto clubs in California have not been opposing this bill. They describe their position as "neutral,"
and explain that
they are not opposing the bill because the author accepted amendments that the clubs proposed. If you
are an auto club member, call your
club. Tell them that you don't want speed cams, no matter which bill or which party they
come from, and that you're not fooled by a so-called
"pilot" program - nor by the Clubs' "neutral" position. I believe that if the
auto clubs strongly oppose speed camera bills, they will not pass. I recommend
using the club phone numbers in the big purple box, above,
and reminding the club representative
that you have a wide choice of auto insurance companies.
Late note: This lizard maybe isn't so innocent either.
In Sept. 2008 Warren Buffett, owner of Geico, invested $5 billion
in Goldman-Sachs which, at about the same time, invested $50 million
in one of the leading red light cameras companies, ATS.
If you are a professional driver, call your union or your trade association.
Is this about money for the state budget? Read this box.
|
Kuehl Kam® Cash
At the time I composed this, the California State budget shortfall was estimated to be $16 billion. The author of SB 1325 has not published an estimate of how much a statewide implementation of her photo radar cameras - let's call them Kuehl Kams® - could bring to Sacramento. But it is easy to make an estimate, by looking at Arizona's program, and scaling-up the figures:  From Arizona Gov. Napolitano's FY 2009 Budget, page 147
Later on, Arizona's estimate was revised, to $165 million. California has six times the population of Arizona, so should be able to produce six times as much ticket revenue - $990 million. Is this a significant amount of money to our legislators, enough that they would consider selling us down the river? To gauge that, we need to look at their past behavior when similar sums were dangled in front of them. Indian gaming is a good example. With the expansion voters approved on Feb. 5, Indian gaming is expected to bring in $430 million:  From Revenue Estimates, Gov. Schwarzenegger's Budget Summary 2008-09, page 44
Kuehl Kams® could bring in more than twice as much as Indian gaming. |
2007: California Assembly Bill 117 - $20 Fine Increase in Santa Clara County (Failed)
Added 1-24-07, updated 1-11-08
This bill failed to get out of committee, but if it had been passed, AB 117 (Beall, San Jose) would have added 20% to the base fine ($20 on a red light ticket) on tickets in Santa Clara County. Originally, it was to fund traffic safety programs and courthouse construction statewide (basically another tax increase, similar to SB 1773, which Gov. Schwarzenegger signed in Sept. 2006. See the SB 1773 info, below), but on March 22, 2007 AB 117 was amended so that the increase would have applied only in Santa Clara County.
2007: California Senate Bill 848 - An Attack on the Speed Trap Law (Failed)
Added 4-16-07, updated 5-24-07
SB
848 (Corbett, San Leandro) would have removed some of
the protections provided drivers by the Speed Trap Law. The bill was sponsored by the California State Sheriffs
Association and the Alameda County Sheriff. It was opposed by the
auto clubs and the Teamsters.
This bill died in May 2007. The opposition by the auto clubs is probably what stopped
it. If you would like to thank your auto club for opposing this bill, you can find
the appropriate phone number in the big purple box, above. And, if you would still
like to let the legislature know your feelings about similar bills they might try to cook up in the future), I recommend
using the phone or fax, not email, and contacting the following:
(A) First, call or fax the senate members who are based closest to
where you live, work, or shop, and are on the committee currently considering
the bill. A list of those committee members is here. I do not
recommend email as they get inundated with it, just as you do.
(B) Also call or fax the senate [and/or assembly] members who represent the districts in
which you live, work, or shop, even if he or she is not on the committee currently
considering the bill. You can find their phone numbers in the government section
of your phone book, or at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html.
For more information on the Speed Trap Law, see Section 7, Speeding Tickets, on the Links/Ref/FAQ page.
2005 - 2006 Legislation
Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC)
Added 11-25-05, updated 3-19-06
The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) is the body responsible for the January 2005 shortening of the legal minimum
length for yellow lights. The January 2005 action included a recommendation that the Committee re-visit the decision after
one year; that review was scheduled for Feb. 23, 2006, in West Sacramento.
A new review would have been a chance for motorists to get longer yellows, but it did
not happen. The Committee decided that there would be no review! Part of the
problem is that of the CTCDC's eight voting members, two work full time for
insurance companies (the auto clubs), and two work for cities (Modesto and LA) that operate red light cameras. Please
call your legislators
and ask them to require CalTrans (which operates the Committee) to replace the members having financial conflicts.
While you are talking to your legislator's office, please also ask them to vote against
any new version of SB 1300 (speeding ticket cameras - see below).
You can get more info about the CTCDC, and its shortening of the yellows, by following the "Defining Approach
Speed" link in Defect # 2 on the Home page.
2006: California Senate Bill 1300 -
Photo Enforcement of Speed (Failed - but came back as SB 1325, then AB 987, and again in the 2010 budget, all above)
Updated 7-6-07
Highwayrobbery.net provided the info below during 2006, when SB 1300 - now failed and replaced by SB 1325 and then AB 987 (both failed - see above) - was under active consideration.
SB 1300 of 2006 (Kuehl, Santa Monica) would have legalized automated speeding ticket cameras, also known
as photo radar. It was created in Feb. 2006 after Sen. Kuehl was unable to revive her nearly identical
2005 bill (SB 466). SB 1300 was to come to a Senate committee
vote on May 9, but the author pulled it just before the meeting date, and it died. However, it is likely
to come back - speed cameras are an idea that won't go away!
As first drafted, SB 1300 was restricted to a pilot program in only one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph zones. But
it could easily have been amended to include other
cities (as of May 2, Burbank, Carson, Culver City, Pasadena and LA County were listed as additional supporters of the bill), and
higher speeds - there is no technical
bar to the use of the cameras for
the enforcement of higher speed limits, such as on freeways. Nor is the use of speed cameras on freeways unprecedented.
A current example is Scottsdale, Arizona, which recently installed cameras on an 8-mile section of the 101 freeway
loop. Even though there was a 30 day period during which warning tickets were mailed
out (Jan. 22 to Feb. 22, 2006), the Mar. 31 East Valley Tribune reported that in the five weeks after
Feb. 22, Scottsdale issued more than 6500 REAL tickets! And on Oct. 23 - at the end of the test period - the Tribune
reported that the total had risen to an
astonishing 130,992 tickets issued.
The use of a "pilot
program" as a way of getting their foot in the door may be part of a nationwide scheme by the
industry - very similar legislation has just been
passed by the Maryland legislature.
Late note: Another "foot in the door" is a 2007 project by the MRCA, a
State agency which manages parks in
the Los Angeles area, to install speed cameras on park roads - despite the fact that speed cameras are
illegal in California. For more info about the MRCA, see its entries above and on the Camera Towns page.
The Auto Clubs' (Lack of) Position
On March 20, 2006 I called the auto clubs to inquire as to their positions on SB 1300. Neither club
called me back, so I called them again, on the 22nd. Again, neither club called me back, so I called them
again on the 23rd. I was able to reach ACSC's Vice President of Legislative Affairs, who told me that her
club was taking a neutral position
on the bill. On the 24th I got a call from CSAA's Director of Corporate Affairs, who told me that
his club was neutral on the bill. If you are an auto club member, call your
club and register your opinion about speed cameras - maybe they will change their position, and oppose all
future speed camera bills. I believe that if the
auto clubs strongly oppose such bills, they will not pass. I recommend
using the club phone numbers in the big purple box, above. Please also let
them know that you are concerned about the CTCDC's action (above).
Auto Clubs - Are They Fish, or Fowl (Foul)?
Automated enforcement is mostly about money - BIG money for the state-run courts (see FAQ # 16), a little bit of money (or maybe a loss) for the city, and an opportunity for insurance
companies to charge higher rates
to motorists who have received a "point" due to a camera ticket. So, are the auto clubs benevolent organizations, operating
in motorists' best interests, or are they really just insurance companies in disguise? Here's some information, so you can
decide for yourself. In 2007, ACSC, the AAA auto club for
southern California, had $196 million net income from its insurance operations, fourteen times that from its "club" operations and membership
dues ($13.9 million net income). (Figures are from financial statements published in May 2008 Westways magazine.)
One
legislator has gone public with
his criticism of the
California AAA clubs.
Thanks go out to the readers of highwayrobbery.net who called their legislators and asked them
to vote "no" on SB 1300.
The bill was also opposed by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen.
For a book about speeding camera tickets, see the Speeding Ticket section on the Links page.
|
[In this box is the info
highwayrobbery.net provided during the time SB 466 - the first in a series of failed speed camera
bills - was under active consideration.] The bill (SB 466) of 2005 is in the Senate Transportation Committee, and needs to get that Committee's approval, and approval by the full Senate, by Jan. 31, 2006. Brief history of the bill: This bill started in early 2005, but the City of LA withdrew their sponsorship, so on April 18 Sen. Kuehl temporarily withdrew the bill from consideration. On Sept. 14, 2005, I called the auto clubs to ask their positions on the then-current bill, SB 466. ACSC said they opposed it, and had, back in April 2005, lobbied the City of LA to drop their sponsorship. CSAA said they opposed it, too. Now, in early 2006, it is coming back under consideration as a "two-year bill." [The clubs may have changed their positions - see SB 1300 materials, above.] The bill began life as a statewide program, but to make it more acceptable to those who opposed it before, Sen. Kuehl has reduced it to a pilot program in Beverly Hills, only. I suspect that this is a "get your foot in the door" maneuver, and that the bill will be further amended, in the next few months, to add other cities. [The info in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time SB 466 - now failed and replaced by SB 1300 (which also failed) - was under active consideration.] |
2006: California Senate Bill 57 - Vetoed Once by Governor but Back as SB 1773 - and No Veto This Time!
Added 2-3-05, updated 10-4-06
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (916) 445-2841
SB 1773
was
created in Feb. 2006 because SB 57 was "terminated" (vetoed) by the governor
in Oct. 2005 and its sponsors
were unable to get the 2/3 vote necessary to override his veto
by the Jan. 26, 2006 deadline to do so. SB 1773 adds 20% to the base fine on moving violations. Even
though he vetoed the previous version, SB 57, Gov. Schwarzenegger approved SB 1773 on Sept. 30, 2006.
|
[In this box is the info
highwayrobbery.net provided during the time SB 57 - now
vetoed and replaced by SB 1773, which has passed - was under active consideration.] SB 57 (Alarcon, San Fernando) will add $20 to the fine for many traffic tickets. It was introduced on Jan. 12, 2005 and on Sept. 7 was adopted by the Legislature. It is now on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk for signature (or veto). In the legislature the votes were along party lines, with Republicans strongly opposing the bill. Please call the governor and ask him to veto SB 57 (and SB 466 when it comes back in 2006 - see [SB 1300] above). Tell him you regard SB 57 as a tax increase, and remind him that his fellow Republicans are against it. Gov. Schwarzenegger's phone is 916 445-2841 (be prepared to wait on the phone for a while). I also suggest calling local newspapers, trying to get them to write something about the two bills. On Sept. 14 I called the auto clubs to ask their positions on SB 57. Both ACSC and CSAA said they oppose it, and planned to lobby the governor to veto it. I suggest that if you are a member of either club, call them and register your opinion on SB 57 [now SB 1773] and SB 466 [now SB 1300]. Use the club phone numbers in the big purple box, above. [The info in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time SB 57 - now vetoed and replaced by SB 1773 - was under active consideration.] |
2004 Legislation
Assembly Bill 517 (Vetoed)
Added 7-8-05
AB 517, a failed attempt by the author of AB 1022 to fix one of its provisions, is discussed in confidentiality and shredding issues in AB 1022, and in the AB 1022 section, below.
2004: Senate Bill 1900 (Failed)
Updated 11-18-04
[This is the info
highwayrobbery.net provided during the time SB 1900 - now
failed - was under consideration.]
SB 1900 will [would have] add 15% to the
penalty assessment on criminal violations
($15 extra on a red light
camera ticket), to pay for forensic DNA
programs. 80% of the money collected will go to Sacramento; 20%
will stay in the county where it was collected, to be used by local law
enforcement agencies for DNA programs. SB 1900 has passed in
the Senate and now is before an Assembly Committee, which will vote on
it on August 11. You
can view it at
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html.
highwayrobbery.net does not have anything against DNA programs, but is opposing this bill
because it continues the trend of milking motorists to pay for the
operation of State government departments having nothing to do with
transportation. The State is already reaping a huge windfall from
motorists this year - the sales tax on the big increase in gas
prices. One
estimate is that the sales tax
windfall will
be over $450 million, enough to pay for the SB 1900 program 15 times
over!
2004: Senate Bill 1800 (Murray) (Failed)
On June 21, 2004, SB 1800 failed to pass out of
the Assembly Committee on Transportation, and wasn't
resurrected during the 2004 legislative session. But it, or
something like it, may be back sometime later, so you may want to read the
info in the box below.
The reason why SB 1800 failed to pass out
of the committee is interesting. The vote was 5 - 2 in favor
of the bill, but since the committee has 13 members, the bill needed at
least seven "ayes" in order to pass. It could have received the
necessary number of yes votes, but there were four committee members
who, while they were present, chose not to vote.
|
[In this box is the info highwayrobbery.net provided during the time
SB 1800 - now failed - was under consideration.]
SB 1800 may [would have] allow the police to add an expensive additional charge to your red light camera citation. Here is a legislative alert I received from the National Motorists Association.
Please call your
legislators and ask them to vote against both SB 1800 and
SB 1900. If you would like to contact
the AAA
Clubs to express your displeasure about their sponsorship of SB 1800,
there is an extensive list of their phone numbers in the big purple box, above. Here is an interesting
breakdown of how the legislature has voted, so far, on SB 1800.
[The info
in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time
SB 1800 - now failed - was under consideration.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2003 Legislation
Two red light
camera bills were introduced in the 2003
California legislative session. Both of them were anti-motorist,
pro-industry (police, camera companies, insurance companies). One of them, SB
780, was "killed" in July 2003. The
other, AB 1022, passed, was signed by [then-exiting due to recall] Gov. Davis on Sept. 25, and went
into effect on Jan. 1, 2004. See below for details about both bills.
Assembly Bill 1022 (Oropeza) [Adopted]
Assemblywoman (now Senator) Jenny Oropeza
Assemblywoman (now Senator)
Jenny Oropeza (Long Beach), the California AAA "auto clubs" and the
California State Sheriff's Association sponsored and supported
new legislation,
Assembly Bill 1022
which was signed by outgoing Gov. Davis on
Sept. 25 and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2004.
It was another anti-motorist bill.
AB 1022 looked good, at first -
| AB 1022*: (1) Prohibits camera corporations from being paid on a per-conviction basis, (2) prohibits camera corporations from selecting the location for cameras, (3) prohibits camera corporations from changing the timing of signal phases, (4) prohibits camera corporations from reviewing and approving tickets, (5) continues the present confidential treatment for the photos, so that only the police, the registered owner, and an identified driver of the car, can look at them, (6) requires shredding of the photos after 6 months (A late note: A year later, Ms. Oropeza tried, but failed, to fix her mistake and lengthen this to 13 months**), and (7) attempts to make mandatory the existing requirement that CalTrans' minimum yellows (3.0 in a 25, 3.2 in a 30, 3.6 in a 35, etc.), must be complied with. This provision was added in a July 8 amendment because of a West Hollywood judge's highly publicized [then] recent decision to ignore the CalTrans chart and OK ticketing so long as the yellow is at least 3.0, no matter the speed limit on the street (see the WeHo section on the Camera Towns page). *You can read AB 1022 on the Internet. **A detailed discussion of that failed "fix" and of the confidentiality and shredding issues in AB 1022 is on another page. |
Provisions (1) - (4) above are grandfathered; two grandfather clauses contained in AB 1022 make sure those four provisions will not apply to cities that have a system in operation (or have signed a contract to have one installed) prior to Jan. 1, 2004. Why is it that the very cities whose actions have demonstrated the need for tighter regulation of camera operations, are to be immune from the new regulations? The authors won't admit it, but the probable reason is that the State doesn't want to create an "unfunded mandate," a situation where the State treasury would have to reimburse cities for the expense of actually having to make the changes the bill pretends to require. Provisions (5) and (6), confidentiality and shredding, will make it impossible for the media, a citizens' group, or a website editor, to investigate improperly-run camera systems and get refunds, as occurred [then] recently with nearly 3000 East LA tickets going back 2-1/2 years (see East LA section on Cameras Page). A much more detailed discussion of the confidentiality and shredding issues in AB 1022 is on another page. Provision (7), the attempt to make the existing minimum yellows "mandatory," is toothless because California's "Truth in Evidence" rule (part of the Constitution) prohibits judges from excluding evidence simply because authorities failed to follow a procedure specified in a State law - unless: (a) that law has been passed by a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature, and (b) that law explicitly states that evidence shall be excluded if the authorities haven't followed the procedures specified therein. The Speed Trap Law (Vehicle Code Sections 40801 - 3) is a good example of a law that requires exclusion of evidence if authorities haven't followed its procedures. AB 1022 is not. It has not been written to require a 2/3 vote, nor does it state that evidence shall be excluded. Absent the explicit language and the 2/3 vote, "Truth in Evidence" (Prop. 8 of 1982, Cal. Constitution Article 1, Section 28(d)) prevails, and the camera evidence must stay in. (This isn't speculation. In 2003 I saw three different judges repeatedly cite "Truth in Evidence" when refusing to exclude camera evidence in localities where citizens had discovered that the yellow was shorter than the minimums provided in the previous, very similar, law (CVC 21455.7 effective Jan. 1, 2002)). |
The police-sponsored SB 780 (see SB 780 section below) would have
been in some ways a much better deal
for motorists than is AB 1022. SB 780 would have kept the "point"
off your driving record, and (before it was amended) included a minimum 4.0
yellow and a reduced fine ($200).
Back to AB 1022. There are many provisions that should have been in AB 1022, but weren't there - because they were stripped, or not included despite an official recommendation, or overlooked. Here are the most important ones.
I. Stripped from bill - consider alternative strategies,
demonstrate safety need.
On July 8 the author amended the bill, removing a
200-word section which
required cities, prior to installing a camera, to consider
alternative traffic safety strategies, improve
the physical environment, and demonstrate a safety need. The stripping of this language came four days after the League of California
Cities took the position reflected
by this item from their newsletter.
II. Not included despite official recommendation - posted speed limit, or 85th Percentile?
The author of AB 1022 (Assemblywoman - now Senator - Jenny Oropeza, Long Beach) tries to justify AB 1022 by saying it
"codif(ies) recommendations made by the state auditor."
Indeed, her bill addresses (albeit inadequately, and in a contorted manner) almost
every official recommendation made by the state auditor (Auditor's Report, pages 45-46
- see Links Page) except for the following (which is the basis of
Defect # 3 on the Home Page). "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." III. Not included despite discussion by auditor - a mandatory grace period. The
Auditor's Report says:
"Although the law does not mandate them to do so, five of the seven
local governments we visited employ grace periods of up to five-tenths
of a second before their red light cameras will begin taking
photographs." "The FHWA indicates that a grace period of three-tenths of
a second is commonly used and that five-tenths of a second is the
international standard." (Auditor's Report, page 45.) IV. Overlooked: clarify the 30 day warning
requirement. Existing Vehicle Code Section
21455.5 requires that warning notices be issued for 30 days, but
doesn't make it clear whether a city having a pre-existing system is required to issue
warning notices when it installs a new camera. AB 1022 re-enacts the same
vague language. (This is the basis of Defect # 6 on the Home
page.)
|
The new
shredding requirement, and the total
absence from AB 1022 of any provisions such as an
adequate minimum yellow that judges can't
ignore, a reduction or graduation of
the onerous fines, or a mandatory grace period, signaled us that AB 1022
was not a pro-motorist bill.
The
California AAA "auto clubs" should be ashamed of having lent their heretofore-good names to this
sheriff-supported, anti-motorist, bill.
AB 1022's bottom
line is about money - including for insurance companies that can charge higher rates
to motorists who have gotten a "point" due to a red light camera ticket. In 2005, ACSC, the AAA auto club for
southern California, had $252 million net revenue from its insurance operations, more than ten times the revenue from its "club" operations and membership
dues
($18 million). One
legislator has gone public with
his criticism of the
California AAA clubs. Now that cities have
Sacramento's permission, they will shred their camera
records, relieving themselves and their camera vendors
of significant liabilities. And, in
the weeks before January 1, 2004 cities rushed to sign contracts
for cameras, or update existing contracts, so that they would be able to use AB
1022's grandfather clauses to evade the bill's meager pro-motorist
requirements.
If you'd like to join an auto club that actually stands up for motorists, I recommend the National Motorists Association. See their link on the Link page for more information.
A late
note, 1-4-04, updated
6-9-04 -
The following cities are among those that signed contracts just before the Jan. 1,
2004 deadline:
Del Mar, Encinitas, Escondido, Lynwood, Maywood, Oceanside, Poway,
Ridgecrest, Santa Clarita, and Vista. And
Solana Beach has voted for cameras, subject to approval by the vendor.
In the Los Angeles area, in late 2003 the City of Upland signed a
10-year extension to a contract it first signed in July of 2003.
Let Ms. Oropeza know
what you think about her "yes" vote on SB 1800,
her sponsorship of AB 1022, and her embarrassing attempt, the following year (AB 517 - see above), to fix part of her little Frankenstein!
A detailed discussion of that failed "fix" and of
the confidentiality
and shredding issues in AB 1022 is
on another page.
You can read the legislative history of
AB
1022 on the legislature's website.
2003: Senate Bill 780 (Failed)
SB 780 (Sen. Torlakson, Antioch, and Sen. Speier, San Mateo/San Francisco), sponsored by the California
Police Officers' Association (CPOA President's Message), was approved
by two Senate committees (see table of votes, below) but stalled in the
Senate Appropriations Committee. It could have come back under
consideration in 2004 as a "two-year" bill, but did not receive the
Senate approval needed (to be carried-over) prior to the January 31,
2004 cut-off date.
While the bill would have kept
the "point" off your DMV record, it also would have made it
much easier for cities to issue tickets, and much harder (and more
expensive) for you to fight one.
According to the legislature's website, SB 780's only officially-listed opponents were the AAA auto clubs. A possible
explanation for their position may be
the fact that the Clubs' main cash flow is from
car insurance premiums, and SB 780's lack of "points" would have prevented insurance companies from raising your insurance rates.
Here are details on the last amendments to SB 780, made
on May 13, 2003, by the bill's author, Senator Tom Torlakson:
The May 13 amendments raised the originally proposed (reduced) fine of $200 up to $341, and dropped the provision
that would have clearly specified a minimum yellow time of 4.0 seconds.
There does not seem to have been a strong rationale for those amendments.
The fine was increased because a state agency (The Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training,
or "POST," http://www.post.ca.gov/ ) complained that the
proposed reduction in the fine would reduce monies coming to their
agency. The 4.0 minimum was dropped because the City of Santa
Ana, which had just installed its first camera, complained of the expense of
potentially having to adjust the yellow time in their camera(s), and
questioned why camera-equipped intersections should be required to have
longer yellows than non camera-equipped intersections.
Here is a breakdown of
how the senators voted on SB 780.
| SB
780 |
Transportation
Committee May 6, 2003 |
Judiciary
Committee April 22, 2003 |
||
| Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
| Dems |
7 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
| Reps |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
| Female |
4 |
0 | 3 |
0 |
| Male |
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
|
We interrupt this serious discussion for
The Humor Items du Jour
(Even
though we got a *&@#!! ticket,
we think we still have our twisted sense of humor. So, for your
entertainment, we now provide "The Humor Items du Jour.") Humor, I.
Humor, II.
Humor, III.
Buzzword Bingo New, 2-9-08, updated 1-10-09, 6-18-10 You probably know what Buzzword Bingo is, but if you
don't, have a look at this Wikipedia article. (Yes, I
am aware that Buzzword Bingo is mostly known by another, catchier, name.
I just can't use that name here, because this is a "G" rated website.) It occurred to me that we need to do a Buzzword Bingo card for: a. The baloney heard when city councils are being sold a camera system, and So
here is the Bingo card. I provided the phrase for the
center
square. Send me your suggested word(s) and if they're really
good, I will post them here. By the way, I won't feel too bad if
you happen to suggest a better word for the center square!
* Community Service and traffic school
|
The Action Page:
6. The Guru Club
You are on the Action page.
If you have been researching a red light camera ticket, you are now a red light camera ticket Guru.
Welcome to The Guru Club.
2. (g[=oo]"r[=oo]) one who has expert knowledge of a
technical area and serves as an advisor to others; an
expert and teacher. Usually written guru.
Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44
You may not think you are a
Guru, but that is what your family and friends think. Very soon
they will be coming to you crying,
"O Guru, I got a red light camera ticket, what shall I do?"
Here's what to tell them.
1. Tell them to bring the ticket to you, before they do anything about
it, so you can check to see if it is a Snitch Ticket - see the Your Ticket page for what to do with Snitch Tickets.
2. If it is a real
ticket and the face photo is blurry or is not them, tell them that there
needs to be a good photo, of the person cited - not just the license
plates - and that the lack of a suitable face photo is a good
defense.
3. If they want to
fight it, tell them about this website. Don't tell them
it's free - they probably won't believe you. Or, if they do
believe you, they may decide not to visit, assuming that since it's
free there's nothing of value. And watch them when they write
down the website address - they'll probably write ".com" even though
you just told them ".net." Everyone does.
4. If they don't
want to fight it, tell them to be sure to get traffic school or, if they need it, Second
Offender traffic school (a lot of people haven't heard about Second
Offender school).
5. Warn them about the legislators who are trying to pass bills to allow
speed cameras in California. (See the
Legislation section on this page, above).
6. Tell them that THEY are now a Guru, too.
7. Questionnaire, Email Address
(Scroll down a little for the Ticket
Information Questionnaire)
(Scroll all the way down for the email address)
