III. PHOTO ENFORCED
![RedFlex camera](../media/carsdriving/cars_art_rlc_img.jpg)
To
gain insight into my personal position on automated enforcement, please
consider reading a term paper I wrote for a government class discussing
the pros and cons of automated enforcement, along with my own
conclusions. You can read that paper
here.
There are numerous reasons as to why automated enforcement is a sham.
The National Motorist Association has provided a detailed breakdown of their views on automated enforcement in
general, along with specific arguments against red light and speed cameras. [Click on their Issues and Positions button.]
Photo enforcement exists for one reason only:
money. Don't be fooled into believing otherwise.
A. Red Light Cameras
Red light cameras do as they suggest: they photograph vehicles that run
red lights. Taking a picture of law breaker does not stop that instance
of law breaking.
Instead of being pulled over by a peace officer and cited, the
registered owner of a vehicle in "violation" is sent a citation via
snail mail along with photographs.
I highly suggest that you visit highwayrobbery.net.
It is entirely possible to fight these tickets. The Ticket Assasin
has written several editorials on red light cameras and provides trial
by declaration templates that coherently argues the technology's
limitations, physically and legally.
Here are the four arguments you can use:
1. It's a speed trap as per CVC 40802(a)(1).**
2. If the light had only been red for 0.1-1.0 seconds, you could have
crossed the intersection while it was still yellow. See the Ticket
Assasin's shareware example for a fully proofed calculation.
3. If you were not the driver, you are not morally or legally obligated
to provide information as to who was driving (on your declaration,
simply state that you were not the driver).**
4. If the ticket arrives in the mail over 15 days from the date of the
alleged violation, you can have it dismissed as per CVC 40518.**
**WARNING: Do not count on judges to obey the law or to listen to these
arguments. Although these are very good defenses, they should not be
your only defense.
The specifics of each argument is provided by The Ticket Assasin as "shareware."
FAKE TICKET AND ARM-TWISTING ADVISORY
Fair warning: Some
cities are going to extraordinary lengths to get registered owners to
fess up who the drivers are. You can read about it here.
Have a look at "Police going too far" on that site. These so-called
tickets instruct the alleged violators to not contact the court, but
rather fill out a form requesting the driver's identification. Other
departments actually call the homes of the registered owners to get
them to give up information. You are under no obligation to tell the police or to testify in court who the driver is if it isn't you.
How do you tell the difference between a fake and real ticket? Although
both will coax you to identify the driver, a "fake ticket" will tell
you to not contact the court. It will also lack an address of the
court. Instead, you'll find addresses of either the police department,
camera vendor, or both.
Also beware of cities that insist you view the video or photos of the
alleged violation before going to traffic court. Usually these cities
contract with RedFlex (see image of the red light camera to tell if
your city has similar-looking cameras; those are RedFlex cameras). The
police departments may arm-twist you into identifying the driver before
issuing the summons. Remember that you are under NO OBLIGATION to reveal who the driver is.
|
A1. Is a trial by declaration really effective in these cases?
Usually it is. However, keep in mind that some money-hungry (aren't
they all?) traffic courts have figured out the "loophole" a trial by
declaration provides in these cases and will refuse to accept them
until you show up
in person
so that they can verify if you are really the driver. Of course, this
is deliberate on the court's part to prevent you from receiving a "not
guilty" verdict. Keep in mind that once you convince the court that you
are not the driver, they will arm twist you into revealing who the
driver is so that they can forward the notices. Are you really going to
rat out a family member or a loved one so that the traffic court,
insurance company, and vendor can get rich at your expense? Remind the
person attempting to coax you into snitching on the driver that you
have not agreed to testify.
A2. Culver CityThe best advice I can offer about
driving in Culver City is "don't." A local news investigation revealed
that Culver City prosecutes
85%(!)
of all automated enforcement photos taken. As a comparison, West
Hollywood - another city notorious for photo enforcement - prosecutes
50%. Beverly Hills? Only 20%. In addition, Culver City is known for
routinely prosecuting red light-running incidents by
0.1 second.
At the intersections with automated enforcement, the signals are
deliberately timed for short yellows (often in violation of acceptable
standards) as to increase the likelihood of going through a red. The
short yellow times are also based on nearby speed limits, which are
grossly below the 85th percentile.
Don't believe me? Why is Culver City going through these lengths to prosecute trivial red-light "violations?"
Money.
Safety is definitely not in the equation (why else would the yellow
lights be deliberately shortened). Automated enforcement cameras are
huge money makers. Ignorant of their rights, motorists pay up the $340
fine thinking that they are law-breakers because a camera snapped their
picture. Think you can avoid a photo enforced intersection in Culver
City? Wrong. Every major artery through the city has at least one
intersection with the cameras.
If you do get an automated enforcement ticket,
fight it. DO NOT LET the city and the private corporation operating the cameras get rich at your expense!
A3. Other California Cities
For more on red light cameras, check out
HighwayRobbery.net.
A4. Position Paper
Please take the time to read my
thought paper on red light cameras.
A5. Tricks Cities Use to Rig Their Intersections
Here are some things to watch out for if you encounter a photo-enforced intersection:
1.
Short yellow light times.
In order to maximize the number of red light runners, some cities
employ short yellow light times often against recommended times based
on the speed limit, which is also often below the 85th percentile. If
you believe that the yellow light time was short at a particular
intersection, record the traffic light in question on video and get a
stopwatch handy. Measure how long the yellow light stays lit. If the
yellow light time checks out (see highwayrobbery.net for a copy of a
table showing the speeds and times), investigate whether the speed
limit is justified by a recent traffic engineering survey. One city is
known to set yellow light times by deliberately reducing the speed
limit against the survey's recommendations.
2.
Enforcement on protected left or right turns.
There is scant justification for enforcing protected turns for "safety"
- especially when one peruses past collision information at particular
intersections with such enforcement - yet some cities do so anyway.
Why? Ticket counts and analysis by citizens have suggested that such
enforcement is very lucrative. The bottom line? Photo enforcement on
protected turns is purely for revenue. Beware of shorter yellow light
times on protected turns, as they are often not the same as for
straight-through traffic.
A6. Other Articles
Still not convinced? Read
Red Light, Green Cash.
B. Photo RadarPhoto radar has been spotted in
California. While testing has been carried out in the past on freeways,
so far the city of San Jose appears to be the only municipality that
regularly deploys vans equipped with photo radar. They claim some sort
of loophole in the law where they can do it so as long as someone is in
the van. Photo radar is still radar, and still has the same flaws as
outlined on web sites discussing legal issues with radar enforcement.
Currently, photo radar is prohibited in California as per CVC
21455.6(c), which states:
(c) The authorization in Section 21455.5 to use automated
enforcement systems does not authorize the use of photo radar for
speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction.
As photo radar becomes more popular (Arizona heavily uses it),
lobbyists working for special interests (law enforcement groups,
corporations specializing in automated enforcement, insurance
companies) may pressure the state legislature to authorize it.
There are several ways to defend yourself against photo radar: sprays
(also used against red light cameras), anti-flash license plate covers
(illegal in CA; you cannot put covers over your plates even if they are
clear), and a good radar detector (remember, it's still radar).
Don't even think about taking your front plate off. Camera vendors have
caught on and now have cameras to take photos and video of the
offending vehicle's rear. If you're caught without a front plate? It's
no longer a fix-it ticket. The fine will also be hefty.
One more thing about sprays: they're only effective against 35 mm "wet
film" cameras. ACS and older RedFlex cameras use "wet film." If you
live and work in Los Angeles (a city that uses ACS cameras), that may
be great news for you, but when you chance upon another city's camera
installations, you may find yourself with an unexpected surprise if you
have blind faith in your spray. Why? Newer cameras utilize digital
video. Sure, there are flash apparatuses, but I'm pretty sure that the
video can be zoomed in. I don't have an opinion one way or the other
about anti-flash sprays such as Photo Blocker. Consider, however, that
if sprays really do not work as advertised, why legislatures are going
to great lengths to pass laws banning their sale and use.
< Speeding | Equipment & Mods >