City of Fremont Documents
(and Information)

Fremont, pop. 190,000, is in the East Bay, 10 miles north of San Jose and 25 miles southeast of San Francisco.

Fremont is a RedFlex town.  Many RedFlex towns send out "Snitch Tickets," which you can ignore.  A Snitch Ticket will not have the Superior Court's name and address on it.  For more details, see the Snitch Ticket section on the Your Ticket page.

 
  Fremont Docs Set # 1
"Substandard" Warning Signs

The City of Fremont opted to place its warning signs at the entrances to town, rather than at the camera enforced intersections.  During the first years of the program, the signs were not the required minimum size, and they may not have had signs at all the required entrances.  (See Defect # 4 on the Home page.)   On July 14, 2004 I made a public records request to the City of Fremont for information about their warning signs.  On August 6 I received this May 3, 2004 City internal memo directing that 38 "substandard" signs were to be replaced with 30" by 42" signs.  The memo indicated that the signs all were replaced by May 7.

Fremont Docs Set # 2
Ticket Counts

Total Violations Recorded (some months), Notices Printed, and Citations Paid at Court [4]

Updated 12-30-05

Fremont Docs Set # 3
New Contract - Is It Legal?



  The original contract was expiring, so on Sept. 23, 2005 the City signed a new contract with RedFlex.  The new contract includes a new compensation scheme which is so complicated that I am having trouble telling if it complies with the CVC 21455.5 "pay-per-ticket" prohibition.  (See Defect # 10.)  Maybe a judge will have to decide.  But if you are an accounting or contract whiz, have a look at it, let me know what you think.




Fremont Docs Set # 4
Why Do These Intersections Continue To Be So Dangerous?

Despite heavy ticketing for a long time, the cameras at three intersections continue to see unusually high numbers of straight-through violations.  On Dec. 30, 2005 I received documents which may explain why.

All three intersections (Mowry at Blacow, Mowry at Farwell, Decoto at Paseo Padre) have 40 mph posted speed limits and, per the signal control charts received from the City, yellows set at 4.0 seconds, 0.1 above the minimum required in a 40 zone.   However, both Mowry and Decoto are high speed streets, and one explanation for high ticket numbers can be a too-low posted speed limit and the too-short yellows that it allows.

Posted speeds are supposed to be determined, and justified, in an engineering survey done every five to seven years.  Here are the surveys for Mowry and Decoto.








 In these surveys, the "85th Percentile* Speed" for the section of Mowry that has cameras is 47, and the 85th for Decoto is 46.  By law, the traffic engineer (who writes the survey) is supposed to choose a speed limit that is just below the 85th percentile speed. 
However, he can reduce the posted speed by an additional 5 mph increment if he cites, in the survey, a danger that would not be apparent to a driver on the street. That danger could be a hidden driveway, or a higher-than-average accident rate.  Using Mowry's 85th as an example, he could post a 45 without giving any justification for doing so.  But he could only move the limit down to 40 if he said that there is some non-obvious danger or that there was a higher-than-expected number of accidents - as he has done with Mowry (highlighted).  (CVC 22358.5)  (You can see an "informal discussion" of the law, in the Speeding Ticket section of the Links page.)

Examining the Surveys

Decoto

The Decoto survey does not seem to justify the 40 limit posted there - "high pedestrian activity" is something that would be apparent to a driver, and thus is not a legally proper reason to down-rate the speed on a street.  If the speed limit was increased to 45, the yellow at the intersection with Paseo Padre would need to be set at a minimum of 4.3 seconds.  This 0.3 increase would cut the number of violations, dramatically - probably in half - and make it a much safer intersection.  (For those who would argue that violations would return to former levels after local drivers got used to the longer yellow, see FAQ # 6.)

Mowry

The Mowry survey cites the "high number of rear-end accidents" as justification for the down-rating to 40 mph.  That is a factor that would not be apparent to a driver, so , technically, can be used to justify lowering the limit the extra 5 mph increment - and the short yellow that results.  But the survey was based upon data from 1999 and 2000, just before the cameras were installed on Mowry.  In light of the current understanding that red light cameras increase rear-enders, it seems unsafe to maintain short yellows that will cause drivers (those who have had a ticket, or know about the short yellows) to brake abruptly and increase the already-high number of rear-enders.
Additionally, the Mowry survey lists a 50th Percentile Speed of 42 mph.  This tells us that the majority of motorists are exceeding the posted speed limit.  This is significant because of People v. Goulet, in which the court ruled:
"...[T]he general rule [is that speed limits are to be] set at the 85th percentile speed or within 5 mph under that speed.  Some speed limits may be justified because they are set five mph below the general rule, based on higher than expected accident rates or listed hidden hazards.  Some speed limits may appeal to be unjustified because:
... 2.  The speed limit makes violators of a large percentage of drivers."

*The "85th Percentile Speed" is the speed at or below which 85 percent of the motorists travel, according to survey results. 



Fremont Docs Set # 5
More Coming

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




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