RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index

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

Cathedral City Documents
(and Information)


Some of Cathedral City's tickets can possibly be ignored.  If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is what I call a "Snitch Ticket."  For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.




In 2018, Vote No on Sheila Kuehl

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

Zev "termed out," and in the Nov. 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.  In 2016 she voted to put Measure M, a new countywide sales tax, on the Nov. 2016 ballot - and it passed.  Most of the money will go to Metro.

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




  Cathedral City Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts

New 4-14-09, updated 12-27-16

Total Violation Events, Citations Issued [4]


CC 1:
Date Palm Dr.
NB @
Ramon Road


CC 2:
Ramon Road
WB @
Landau Blvd.

CC 3:
Vista Chino
EB @
Date Palm Dr.






[3]

Total
Notices
Printed
as %
of Vio-
lations
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

Lane #
all


all


all












2005 [5]



















2006 [5]



















2007 [5]



















Jan08
235
69


















Feb08
235
65


















Mar08
146
48


















Apr08
179
58


















May08
194
66


















Jun08
108
33


















Jul08
125
44


















Aug08
127
33


















Sep08
146
49


















Oct08
92
30


















Nov08
88
21


















Dec08
71
18


















2008



















Jan09
279
52


736
532
[7]


344
227
[7]










811

Feb09
337
51


717
419


514
255










725

Mar09
[8]
240
33


626
293













326
[8]

Apr09



















May09



















Jun09




















CC 1:
Date Palm Dr.
NB @
Ramon Road


CC 2:
Ramon Road
WB @
Landau Blvd.

CC 3:
Vista Chino
EB @
Date Palm Dr.






[3]

Total
Notices
Printed
as %
of Vio-
lations
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

Lane #
3
4
5
1
2
3
1
2
3
4









Jul09
37
24
52
12
304
42
66
42
74
50
334
187
12
6
76
28
10
0
161
91







1126
482

Aug09



















Sep09



















Oct09

















1168
426

Nov09



















Dec09



















2009



















Jan10

















943
315

Feb10



















Mar10

















738
263

Apr10

















611
307

May10



















Jun10



















Jul10

















1078
373

Aug10



















Sep10

















866
342

Oct10

















724
146

Nov10



















Dec10



















2010
[2]

















3492
(proj.)

Jan11

















2075
295

Feb11



















Mar11

















2034
277

Apr11

















1160
229

May11



















Jun11



















Jul11

















795
146

Aug11



















Sep11

















825
102

Oct11

















1022
144

Nov11



















Dec11



















2011
[2]

















2386
(proj.)

Jan12

















1055
106

Feb12



















Mar12

















683
117

Apr12

















547
225

May12



















Jun12



















Jul12

















528
108

Aug12



















Sep12

















432
105

Oct12
26
2
16
1
53
18
17
8
24
14
43
15
-
-
12
3
355
53







546
114

Nov12

















588
144

Dec12

















528
125

2012
[2]

















1566
(proj.)

Jan13

















432
128

Feb13

















342
103

Mar13

















389
122

Apr13

















378
141

May13





30
18



281
44







453
113

Jun13





-
-



220
37







319
72

Jul13





-
-



385
93







437
111

Aug13





-
-



397
93







425
98

Sep13





-
-



317
95







343
97

Oct13





-
-



276
85







289
85

Nov13
10
4
4
0
75
34
69
4
48
5
36
14


2
0
92
27







336
88

Dec13





73
13



70
21







268
79

2013

















4411
1237

Jan14





725
148



158
35







1088
231

Feb14





817
146



415
93







1499
300

Mar14
12
1
9
2
64
26
37
13
41
18
562
176
11
0
26
3
6
0
395
79







1163
318

Apr14





188
81



437
109







839
276

May14





72
38



544
101







808
218

Jun14





94
59



486
77







743
196

Jul14





80
28



286
60







549
149

Aug14





98
39



316
57







648
181

Sep14





105
50



444
87







807
250

Oct14
10
0
8
2
76
43
19
8
37
29
103
58
24
5
44
17
23
5
566
146







910
313

Nov14
18
4
14
2
64
26
19
10
24
16
121
81
34
3
28
10
6
0
497
81







825
233

Dec14
9
2
12
4
73
39
25
14
36
30
122
73
18
0
27
5
6
3
399
78







727
248

2014

















10606
2919

Jan15
15
1
6
2
58
19
16
7
33
23
112
65
16
0
29
3
13
2
387
69







685
191

Feb15
15
4
9
3
59
21
23
11
25
15
83
48
22
2
49
12
18
5
530
74







833
195

Mar15
4
1

18
1
19
8
40
23
77
41
26
2
39
10
12
5
476
87







711
178

Apr15
6
1
16
1
85
32
30
10
26
15
66
32
43
4
44
17
21
7
467
77







804
196

May15
12
0
14
1
68
28
30
20
39
16
108
47
17
4
37
10
15
2
473
102







813
230

Jun15
11
1
10
1
57
18
32
5
37
10
96
30
15
0
31
13
13
2
350
63







652
143

Jul15
18
5
15
1
60
18
35
12
33
14
93
38
12
2
21
3
13
4
288
65







588
162

Aug15
11
1
14
1
52
19
19
10
46
32
98
46
9
3
16
6
14
2
248
49







527
169

Sep15
16
4
35
9
80
28
23
9
16
12
110
51
16
5
10
5
12
2
218
42







536
169

Oct15
11
4
29
7
148
44
26
6
32
13
129
59
5
2
12
4
7
2
393
61







792
202

Nov15
18
7
36
11
153
49
20
9
30
14
145
67
8
0
20
3
13
2
500
65







943
227

Dec15
9
6
18
7
82
35
22
13
21
14
154
84
11
3
12
8
12
2
404
76







745
248

2015
146
35
202
44
920
312
295
120
378
201
1271
608
200
27
320
96
163
37
4734
830







8629
2310

Jan16
12
5
14
5
114
54
14
8
31
26
131
63
9
4
12
7
7
2
341
65







685
239

Feb16
27
19
23
7
133
56
25
13
33
26
173
91
13
6
23
10
15
5
616
109







1081
342

Mar16
28
11
23
6
128
33
37
15
22
14
168
73
11
7
21
12
12
0
612
79







1062
250

Apr16
21
13
27
8
114
44
20
9

130
61
12
6
21
12
11
2
517
80







873
235

May16
31
19
28
10
127
42
37
25

146
76
13
4
25
16
49
2
565
74







991
268

Jun16
33
14
22
7
72
16
22
15
36
20
178
85
4
3
12
6
15
4
447
18







841
188

Jul16
15
8
23
3
71
28
27
10
55
42
149
74
31
1
7
2
13
2
388
51







751
221

Aug16
22
13
22
7
63
28
34
17
42
32
175
73
7
3
15
9
4
0
447
59







831
241

Sep16
16
6
19
5
87
32
28
2
40
12
132
55
8
4
7
3
13
0
414
53







764
172

Oct16
30
17
31
11
108
47
32
4
37
20
165
74
15
4
25
7
15
0
562
74







1020
258

Nov16
38
16
31
12
156
44
29
7
41
20
186
99
10
0
25
8
11
1
416
34







943
241

Dec16



















2016

















2896
(proj.)


CC 1:
Date Palm Dr.
NB @
Ramon Road


CC 2:
Ramon Road
WB @
Landau Blvd.

CC 3:
Vista Chino
EB @
Date Palm Dr.






[3]

Total
Notices
Printed
as %
of Vio-
lations
Re-
corded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed
[1] [4]

Lane #
3
4
5
Rt. Turns
1
2
3
Rt. Turns
1
2
3
4
Rt. Turns










This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official documents obtained under the California Public Records Act.
[  ] indicates a footnote.

Official reports, 2008 - 2009
Official reports, 2009 - 2012
Official reports, 2012 - 2013
Official reports, 2013 - 2014
Official reports, 2014 early
Official reports, 2013 & 2014 annual
Official reports, 2014 - 2015
Official reports, 2010 - 2015
Official reports, 2015 - 2016
Official reports, 2016 mid
Official reports, 2016 late

[1]
These totals were provided by the City.
[2]  These totals, annual totals, and annual projections, are by highwayrobbery.net
[3]  Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4]  Any figures in red type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, the upper figure when there are two or more figures in a cell) are what ATS calls Violation Events, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted here only for selected months or locations.  If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted.  The figures in black type are what ATS calls Citations Issued, and may represent the sum of genuine citations issued (those filed with the court) plus any Nominations mailed (not filed with the court, a.k.a. Snitch Tickets).
[5]  Data has not yet been requested.
[6]  The camera enforcement is believed to be on traffic on the first-named street, but the direction of enforcement (north, south, east, west, thru, left, right) is not yet available.
[7]  New camera as of this month.
[8]  The official report for this month was generated a few days before the end of the month, or just a few days after the end of the month, so it is likely that not all tickets (for violations which occurred during the month) had been approved and counted by that time.  (The report for the month of --- shows --- violations "still in workflow," so the number of tickets eventually issued could rise as high as ---+---=---.)


Ticketing Highlights

Ticketing doubled between Dec. 2013 and Jan. 2014, and jumped again in Feb. 2016.  Also see Set # 4, below.

In 2015, 76% of Cathedral City's camera tickets were for right turns.  (For most cities we obtain the percentages by movement - straight, right, left - from the
annual reports they file as required by CVC 21455.5(i), but Cathedral City and its camera supplier ATS have been filing annual reports that do not include the breakout by movement.  So, we have made our own estimate.) 





 
Cathedral City Docs Set # 2
Press Release

(From the CCPD Website)

CATHEDRAL CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT

PRESS RELEASE        

Date:                          January 27th, 2009

Written By:               Lieutenant Charles Robinson

Subject:                     Red Light Camera System Results 2008

____________________________________________________________

OVER 500 PHOTO ENFORCEMENT VIOLATORS CITED IN CATHEDRAL CITY

DURING 2008

 Cathedral City, CA (January 27th, 2009) – The City of Cathedral City has issued more than 534 citations to red-light runners in 2008 thanks to Cathedral City’s red light photo-enforcement program. Local and National trends show that the number of violations occurring at photo-enforced intersections decreases the longer a camera-enforced intersection has been active.  There has been a 50% decrease in the number of citations issued since 2007, as well as a 30% decrease in the number of reported traffic collisions in the affected area.

“Our goal is to make Cathedral City roadways safer as drivers modify their driving habits and realize they can no longer run red lights,” said Lieutenant Charles Robinson. “The steady decline in red-light running violations shows our public safety program is succeeding and doing so without using any City money. This program is completely funded from red light violators, not the taxpayers.” 

Cameras operate 24-hours a day and capture images of every vehicle entering an intersection after the traffic signal is already red. The program vendor, American Traffic Solutions, then sends the images and video of each potential violation to Cathedral City Police Department, who then reviews the potential violations and decides if a citation should be mailed to the vehicle owner. The first camera went active in Cathedral City in January 2006.  There have been two additional camera systems installed in January 2009.

The three camera systems are located at the following intersections:

  • Date Palm and Ramon Road
  • Ramon Road and Landau Boulevard
  • Vista Chino and Date Palm            

“We’re very pleased with American Traffic Solutions and the safety results they are helping our program achieve,” concluded Lt. Robinson.  “We look forward to public safety on our local roadways continuing to improve in 2009.”

For more information on the City’s program, visit http://www.cathedralcity.gov/index.aspx?page=111

For information about the red-light camera equipment or American Traffic Solutions, contact:
Josh Weiss, Director of Communications and Public Affairs, American Traffic Solutions
480-596-4613 josh.weiss@atsol.com





Cathedral City Docs Set # 3
The Contracts and Amendments

2005 Contract
Addenda 1 - 3
2012 Extension
Early 2013 invoices show the City was paying $4990 per camera, each month.
Late 2013 invoices show the City still was paying $4990 per camera.

On May 14, 2014 the city council voted 4 - 1 (Toles:  nay) to extend the program for three more years. 
Article
2014 Contract
The new contract reduced the rent to $3500 per camera - still too high, see FAQ # 17 - and allows cancellation so long as the City gives 60 days notice.


June 2015 Council Discussion

A discussion of the cameras was on the agenda for a June 10, 2015 study session.
The
staff report revealed that 69% of the tickets go to visitors.
No action was taken.

This list of contracts and amendments was up-to-date as of Aug. 2, 2016.




Cathedral City Docs Set # 4
Guidelines and Business Rules

CVC 21455.5(c)(1) and CVC 21455.5(c)(2)(f) require a City to have controls and guidelines for the issuance of tickets, and most cities have put theirs in writing.  In Feb. 2015 highwayrobbery.net sent Cathedral City a Public Records Act request asking for the items in blue, below, and in May got the answers in red, indicating that the City has no written procedures - it's all in their heads!  Perhaps that is why the City experiences sudden changes in ticketing, like the New Years doubling between Dec. 2013 and Jan. 2014.

P.  The latest version or revision of the City's and/or sheriff's written controls or guidelines, as required by CVC 21455.5(c)(2)(F). 

"There is no requirement for “written” controls under this section.  The controls are that Sworn Police Officers are the only personnel who can access the system and issue citations based on their training and experience.  Those citations approved by the officers are then processed by ATS and sent to the violators in the legally prescribed manner."

 

Q.  The latest version or revision of the City's manual, guidelines, business rules, orders, memos or documents describing the action(s) to be taken by a City or sheriff employee or agent whose job it is to review violations and approve or disapprove the issuance of a ticket, when he or she observes a clear gender and/or age mismatch between the red light camera photo of the violating driver and the DMV file photo of the registered owner of the vehicle and is not able to identify the violating driver with a sufficient degree of certainty. 

"There is nothing written down to address the issue raised above.  If there are discrepancies with identifying a driver or a vehicle that is not to the satisfaction of the reviewing police officer, the citation is rejected.  Officers are not going to waste their time and reputation with the Court by approving citations that are clearly not conclusive and could be successfully argued in Court." 



Cathedral City Docs Set # 5

Length of Yellow:  Signal Timing and Speed Surveys

Signal Timing and Speed Surveys





Cathedral City Docs Set # 6
More Coming

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




---------------------------------
RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net