RED LIGHT CAMERAS

www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index

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

Los Angeles Docs Set # 2
2007 Tickets

Your 2007 Los Angeles ticket may have a number of unusual things about it.

One of those could be that the street address and phone number for the court may be missing.
Like this ticket that gives only a post office box to send the money to.



Leaving the court's phone number and street address off the ticket makes
it harder for defendants to have their day in court.  See Defect # 8 - C on the Home page.

The next unusual thing is that in nearly ever other California city, the red light camera fine
is [was] $340 - $400. 
The $159 fine shown above is because LA chose [until Aug. 2008, see Set # 4, below] to cite right
turns under CVC 21453(b) instead of 21453(a).
The fine for the (b) violation, not usually used for camera tickets, never was 
increased like the fines (a) (straight through violations) and (c) (left turns) were.

For reference, here's all three.

(The "base" fine - before surcharges - for (a) is $100.)

(The base fine for (b) is $35.)

(The base fine for (c) is $100.)

I believe that 21453(b) was written to be used where a motorist makes a full
stop on the red so has not violated (a) - but then he
makes a right turn and gets in the way of someone coming from
the left who has the right-of-way ("ROW") because his signal is green.

Be sure to read Set # 4, below, and the details about AB 909 of 2010.



Los Angeles Docs Set # 3
More Details

April 2004 - LA's Move for More Cameras Provides Some Figures and Statistics

(This item is about LA's first camera system.)

In the LA Times of Apr. 13, 2004 Staff Writer Patrick McGreevy reported that the LA city
council is considering adding more red light cameras. The article said that the city currently
has cameras at sixteen intersections, and that they have issued 48,062 citations in three
years, of which approximately 3600 have been challenged in court, with 159 having been found
 not guilty. The article said that there were another 16,000 violations that did not result in
citations, because the camera failed to capture the necessary photos (mostly cars with
no front license plate). The article quoted Councilmember Cindy Miscikowski (during the April 12
Public Safety Committee meeting) as saying: "Obviously this is a program that is well-received.
Let's really look to accelerate the program."

The article said that there had been a one-year decrease of 9.8% in accidents at
camera-equipped intersections. That claim seemed low compared to the (approx.) 40% reduction
 claimed by many other cities, so I called the LAPD and spoke at length to Sgt.
Steve Foster, who runs [ran] the program. Among many things, he explained that there had been
a 10% decrease the year before, 2001-2002, which was the first year of operation.
He also mentioned figures indicating that at the two intersections where
the red light cameras had been equipped to also generate warning notices for speed
in excess of 65, the one-year (2002-2003) reduction in accidents had been (approximately)
25% and 33%.
That drop indicated to me that the speed warnings are very effective in reducing accidents, perhaps
more effective than even the red light tickets! Despite that effectiveness, there is no plan in
the works to expand the use of the speed warnings.

The dollar amounts mentioned in the Times article didn't depict the true magnitude
of the city's program. In its sole mention of overall operating figures, the article said only:
"In the last three years, the city has collected $490,000."
The article did not specify that that figure was not the gross revenue collected but in actuality
 was a net profit on the program after all salaries, expenses and capital costs (including
start-up) were paid. Here are some figures I derived from information provided in the
article and by the sergeant.

Estimated cost to cited motorists of the 48,062 tickets: $14,400,000.
Estimated gross revenue to the city from those tickets: $4,000,000.
City's net profit as percentage of gross revenue: 12%.
Estimated gross revenue to camera supplier ACS ($60 per ticket): $2,880,000.

On the question of how LA determines its yellow times, Sgt. Foster referred me to the city's
Department of Transportation.  LADOT personnel said that they most often use the posted
speed limit plus 5 mph do the look-up in the CalTrans table. Or, where there is a speed survey
available, they round the 85th percentile speed from that survey to the nearest 5 mph
increment (up or down), and then use the higher of that number or the posted plus 5.
Thus, for example, a Los Angeles camera on street posted 35 mph would have a yellow of at
least 3.9 seconds - compared to the 3.6 seconds provided by Culver City on their cameras.

Update, 5-21-04: On May 11 the LA City Council voted to go out to bid for more cameras.  I
now have tapes of the hearings, and some information from one of the tapes is now
posted under Defect # 9, Churning, on the Home page.



Los Angeles Docs Set # 4
No More Mr. Nice Guy - Rolling Right Discount Ends
(The 21453(a) vs. 21453(b) Controversy)

Until Aug. 2008 the City of LA cited its rolling right turns under Subsection (b) of CVC 21453,
instead of (a), which resulted in a much-lower fine - $159 including all fees.
But an Aug. 16, 2008 LA Times article revealed that LA's fine for rolling rights
would more than double, effective immediately,
to the same fine as for straight-through movements - nearly $400.
The Times article, by Rich Connell, said that police spokesman Lt. John Romero said that raising
cash for the cash-strapped City was not part of the motivation.  The Times estimated
that the change could bring an additional $2 million to the City.
The article also mentioned that the City issued about 30,000 camera tickets in 2007, and
that about eight in 10 of those were for rolling rights.

The Times article also mentioned a "detailed formal opinion" from the city attorney. I wanted to
know more about their decision, so I sent the LAPD an email:

I assume the formal opinion is in writing, and would like to get a copy. But if it was not provided to or shown to the Times or otherwise made public, and cannot be provided to me, then I would like to get all the other correspondence and records from the decision making process and announcement. That would include press releases, tabulations of the number of tickets issued in the City (overall and broken down right turns vs. straights and lefts, and further broken down by location), statistics, analyses and/or projections of the effect of right-turn enforcement upon accidents and/or traffic flow and/or fuel consumption in the City, any explanation or discussion as to why consistency (the higher fine) is necessary, and estimates of the additional revenue from the increase.

Their reply letter, which came promptly, said, in part:

The correspondence from the Office of the City Attorney is confidential attorney-client communication pursuant to Evidence Code Section 950 et seq. and therefore exempt from disclosure.  Staff from the Traffic Coordination Section has indicated that there are no other materials that were utilized in determining the appropriate Vehicle Code Section to cite for failing to stop for a red light prior to making a right turn. Staff from Traffic Coordination Section and Media Relations Section has indicated that no written materials were provided to the Los Angeles Times regarding the aforementioned newspaper article.

If, as Lt. Romero told the Times, the motivation was not money, what was it?

Los Angeles Docs Set # 5
Other Reports Available

To see examples of standard reports generated by Nestor (which would be obtained by making a
request to the City), see the reports received from the City of Fullerton (also a Nestor
customer), Set # 4 on the Fullerton Documents page.

Los Angeles Docs Set # 6
2009 KCBS-2 KCAL-9 Report

Updated 9-16-10 

On Nov. 9, 2009 KCBS-2 and KCAL-9 aired a report in which they compared the number
of accidents before and after the installation of LA's red light cameras.   Those numbers were
available on the stations' websites, via an interactive version of the map displayed below, but now have been taken down.
But you can see them in Set # 1 above (the stats are in the light purple row near the bottom of the big table).

Here is the City's response to the TV report.





Los Angeles Docs Set # 7
No More Mr. Nice Guy, Part II - Sepulveda at Victory, in Van Nuys

Added 9-10-10

The location of the Sepulveda/Victory intersection is nothing unusual.  Two medium-size boulevards cross at a right angle, on flat ground, in the Van Nuys area of the City of LA.  

Southbound Sepulveda traffic has a green light for a while, then a yellow for the legally-required amount of time, then a round red, and then a split second later, a green arrow that allows people in the curb lane to turn right without making a full stop first. 

The problem is that there is a tiny gap - six tenths of a second - between the start of the Southbound round red and the illumination of the green arrow.  During that 0.6 secs., it is technically illegal to make the right turn without stopping.  No live cop would write a ticket to someone rolling the turn during that less-than-one-second interval, but the robot does, day and night - and his human attendants back at LAPD headquarters approve those tickets.

Tickets are supposed to be written to discourage unsafe behavior, but there's no possible way they can claim that rolling the turn during that 0.6 sec. gap is unsafe:
(a) There is no cross traffic during the six-tenths interval, and none after it - the green right-turn arrow comes on only at those times when there also is a left-turn arrow allowing cars to make the left turn from Eastbound Victory onto Northbound Sepulveda and,
(b) the pedestrian "walk" signs are not on during the six-tenths interval, nor are they on after it.

In April 2010 the popular blog TheNewspaper.com published an article about Sepulveda/Victory - including a link to video of an actual violation.  The article should have been enough to get the LAPD to stop the issuance of these Mickey Mouse tickets.  Apparently it was not -  I've now heard about an identical tickets issued in July and December.

If the LAPD feels that these tickets are justified, I encourage them to send me an email explaining why.  I will publish it here.




Los Angeles Docs Set # 8
LA Cops Perjuring Themselves

For some reason, LA doesn't use Snitch Tickets.  Because they do not have the Snitch Ticket tool available to them, the officers processing the tickets have been issuing many tickets even though there is an obvious age and/or gender mismatch between the driver and the person being cited (who most often is the registered owner).   These multiple perjuries inspired the big flow chart in the "It's Not Me" section of the Your Ticket page.  Have a look at that flow chart, as well as item 8 in the "sneaky lies" box you'll find just below the flow chart.

Los Angeles Docs Set # 9
The Contract  (Program Closed)

2006 Nestor Contract

In 2009 ATS took over the contract when it bought Nestor, which had gone into receivership.

The contract did not include a "cost neutrality" clause.
The contract provided for a 30-day warning period upon the installation of each new camera.  See Defect # 6.

On Jul. 27, 2011 the city council voted to end ticketing, effective Jul. 31, 2011.  The issue was hotly contested, right down to the wire:

In late 2010 the City put the contract out to bid, but on Jun. 7, 2011 the Police Commission voted 5 - 0 to recommend to the city council that none of the bids should be accepted (which would end the program).   On June 14 Councilmember Cardenas introduced a motion to continue the red-light camera program.  Cardenas' motion was considered at a special meeting on June 17 where it failed to pass, then it was continued to June 21 for a vote by the full council, where the motion failed to pass by a narrow margin, then on June 22 it failed to pass by one vote and was sent to the Budget Committee.  It then came back for more votes, on Monday July 25, Tuesday July 26, and (finally) on Wednesday July 27.

The fight to get rid of the cameras in LA was led, and organized, by:
http://saferstreetsla.org
LA Weekly Article


Prosecutions Have Ended

  A Mar. 28, 2012 LA Times article indicated that the City would no longer show up in court to prosecute existing tickets.


Will Tickets Remain in Court Records?

On Mar. 29, 2012 the LAPD told me that they had not yet decided whether to ask the court to remove unpaid/ignored tickets from court records.  They said the question was under discussion, and that a decision would come soon and would be announced to the public.

This info does not apply to tickets from Metro/MTA cameras, even though many of those cameras are at intersections inside the city limits of the City of Los Angeles, and it does not apply to cameras in any city other than the City of Los Angeles.

We can't emphasize enough that at issue are red light camera tickets issued to motorists for violations in the City of Los Angeles. Other cities still operate red light camera programs, and, like the City of LA, process cited motorists through the only court system we have, which is the LA County courts. If at any time you have received a red light camera ticket issued by any agency besides the City of Los Angeles (for example, Inglewood, West Hollywood, [or the MTA, which operates cameras near their busways and tracks in LA, and has the sheriff issue the tickets] just to name a couple) the information in this article does NOT apply to you, and you should check with the issuing agency about the currency of their program.

Borrowed from Mar. 29, 2012 LAist article, with a few words added.

This list of contracts and amendments may not be up-to-date - there could be a contract or amendment later than the ones listed above.

Los Angeles Docs Set # 10
City Auditor Criticizes the Program

This article contains a link to the Sept. 2010 audit report.
An independent site analyzed the police department's response to the audit report, and responded to it.

Los Angeles Docs Set # 11
Info on City's Website

There is a red light camera program FAQ page at the police department's website.

One of the FAQs says, incorrectly, that if you were not driving the car, you "must" fill out the affidavit.

Despite what the above info on the LAPD site says, you are not required to fill out the affidavit.

Los Angeles Docs Set # 12
More Coming

There may be some more Los Angeles 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