RED LIGHT CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net


Email Address
Site Index by Subject

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

City of Lynwood Documents - Closed Sept. 2017
(and Information)

  Lynwood, pop. 66,000, is 5 miles south of downtown Los Angeles.


It may be possible to completely ignore a Lynwood ticket.
1
.  The LA County Superior Court does not report ignored red light camera tickets to the DMV.  More info is in "Countywide Information," which is Docs Set # 2 on the LA County Documents page.
2. 
If your "ticket" does not have the Superior Court's name and address on it, it is a fake ticket, which I call a "Snitch Ticket."  For more details about Snitch Tickets, see the Snitch Ticket section at the top of the Your Ticket page.


2015 - 2017:  Is a Refund Needed?  See Set # 5, below. 

Aug. 15, 2017:  Program Ended - see Set # 4, below.



Vote No on Sheila Kuehl

Do you live in LA County?  Was Zev Yaroslavsky your County Supervisor?  (Until Nov. 2014, 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 Cams" 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.

As an LA County Supervisor, she has a seat on the MTA/Metro board and she will be a vote to continue and expand Metro's huge (101 cameras, so far) red light camera system. 
In 2016 she voted to put an additional LA County-wide sales tax, to go to Metro, on the Nov. 2016 ballot - and it passed.  (See
Measure M on the Action/Legis page, for more about that tax.)

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



Lynwood Docs Set # 1
Ticket Counts


2008 - 2009 Counts

In April 2009 the City sent me some tables showing the money it received from the court, and the disposition of the tickets. 


2004 - 2017 Counts

Total Violations Recorded, Notices Printed, Citations Issued [4]

New 11-30-05, updated 9-25-18

Cam #

IMAT-01
IMLB-01







Imperial
WB @
Atlantic
Imperial
WB @
Long Beach


The City's
Revenue
from Fines
(Thousands)
[8]
Total
Notices
Printed
as % of
Violations
Recorded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed/
Citations
Issued
per

Invoices

[1] [4]

Nov04






136
67

Dec04






137
79
39

2004








Jan05






126
63
45

Feb05






107
60
47

Mar05






136
76
68

Apr05






110
58
39

May05






42

Jun05






16

Jul05






98
52
35

Aug05






40

Sep05








Oct05








Nov05








Dec05








2005








Jan06





43 %
256
111

Feb06








Mar06





47%
289
137

Apr06





35 %
292
102

May06








Jun06








Jul06





23 %
379
87

Aug06








Sep06





27%
350
95

Oct06





24 %
403
96

Nov06








Dec06








2006





32 %
3938
1256
(Proj.)

Jan07





50 %
344
171

Feb07








Mar07
378
144
0
0




378
144

Apr07





27 %
290
79

May07








Jun07





37 %
396
148

Jul07








Aug07








Sep07





23%
480
108

Oct07





33 %
356
118

Nov07








Dec07








2007





33 %
1536
(Proj.)

Jan08





50 %
328
163

Feb08








Mar08
514
96
0
0




514
96

Apr08





20 %
361
73

May08








Jun08








Jul08





27 %
450
122

Aug08








Sep08
251
73
207
95




458
168

Oct08





43 %
442
189

Nov08








Dec08








2008





35 %
1622
(Proj.)

Jan09
226
46
161
43



23 %
387
89

Feb09
301
79
119
41



29 %
420
120

Mar09
349
83
178
45



24 %
527
128

Apr09
393
52
86
4



12 %
479
56

May09
372
33
126
36



14 %
498
69

Jun09
266
44
122
33



20 %
388
77

Jul09
345
109
57
16



31 %
402
125

Aug09
385
144
21
0



35 %
406
144

Sep09





47 %
392
186

Oct09
312
173
123
61



54 %
435
234

Nov09





53 %
362
193

Dec09





56 %
342
190

2009





32 %
5038
1611

Jan10
299
158
89
25



47 %
388
183

Feb10





55 %
399
218

Mar10





56 %
420
234

Apr10
273
115
73
26



41 %
346
141

May10
292
149
123
72


13
53 %
415
221

Jun10




11
46 %
400
182

Jul10
266
109
85
42


10
43 %
351
151

Aug10
307
140
118
52


14
45 %
425
192

Sep10
[5]
287
95
139
48


10
34 %
426
143

Oct10
124
2
102
39


13
18 %
226
41

Nov10




9
37 %
292
107

Dec10




10
44 %
255
113

2010




90
44 %
4343
1926

Jan11
219
85
105
55


10
43 %
324
140

Feb11
211
78
96
55


8
43 %
307
133

Mar11
597
83
109
42


15
18 %
706
125

Apr11
11
5
2
2


11
54 %
13
7

May11
291
42
187
48


11
19 %
478
90

Jun11
307
39
162
25


7
14 %
469
64

Jul11
294
35
117
25


7
15 %
411
60

Aug11
454
90
147
20


4
18 %
601
110

Sep11
417
190
179
102


3
49 %
596
292

Oct11
466
203
207
87


4
43 %
673
290

Nov11
386
111
162
42


7
28 %
548
153

Dec11
335
155
197
68


5
42 %
532
223

2011
[2]
3988
1116
1670
571


92
30 %
5658
1687

Jan12
336
157
160
58


7
43 %
496
215

Feb12
279
141
217
124


12
53 %
496
265

Mar12
354
153
190
107


12
48 %
544
260

Apr12
406
199
212
98


8
48 %
618
297

May12
335
147
189
75


10
42 %
524
222

Jun12
432
239
198
94


10
53 %
630
333

Jul12
456
246
177
97


10
54 %
633
343

Aug12
439
216
180
93


11
50 %
619
309

Sep12
268
165
181
113


10
62 %
449
278

Oct12
249
140
204
133


12
60 %
453
273

Nov12
196
136
222
148


11
68 %
418
284

Dec12
198
125
249
175


9
67 %
447
300

2012
[2]
3948
2064
2379
1315


122
53 %
6327
3379

Jan13
173
116
194
130


10
67 %
367
246

Feb13
193
124
207
136


15
65 %
400
260

Mar13
198
106
163
99


15
57 %
361
205

Apr13
228
113
195
115


13
54 %
423
228

May13
237
143
248
156


12
62 %
485
299

Jun13
186
111
165
103


10
61 %
351
214

Jul13
148
70
193
105


12
51 %
341
175

Aug13
146
61
117
47


8
41 %
263
108

Sep13
150
75
106
41


11
45 %
256
116

Oct13
193
103
183
96


10
53 %
376
199

Nov13
189
105
161
93


8
57 %
350
198

Dec13
146
60
200
86


7
42 %
346
146

2013
[2]
2187
1187
2132
1207


131
55 %
4319
2394

Jan14
129
79
236
152


8
63 %
365
231

Feb14
169
103
192
126


17
63 %
361
229

Mar14
103
65
145
91


13
63 %
248
156

Apr14
174
92
229
122


10
53%
403
214

May14
246
110
243
122


11
47%
489
232

Jun14
227
103
62
22


13
43%
289
125

Jul14
216
87
246
71


8
34%
462
158

Aug14
230
86
250
91


8
37%
480
177

Sep14
296
96
109
18


8
28%
405
114

Oct14
320
104
187
64


8
33%
507
168

Nov14
259
110
112
51


7
43%
371
161

Dec14
269
79
136
41


8
30%
405
120

2014
[2]
2638
1114
2147
971


119
44%
4785
2085

Jan15
256
70
95
57


7
36%
351
127

Feb15
259
109
245
165


9
54%
504
274

Mar15
297
147
227
166


12
60%
524
313

Apr15
338
156
112
80


11
52%
450
236

May15
318
120
174
104


12
46%
492
224

Jun15
445
215
282
177


10
54%
727
392

Jul15
742
392
340
219


10
56%
1082
611

Aug15
800
354
346
215


16
50%
1146
569

Sep15
901
397
312
189


16
48%
1213
586

Oct15
838
424
398
236


23
53%
1236
660

Nov15
585
311
336
208


19
56%
921
519

Dec15
713
371
346
221


24
56%
1059
592

2015
[2]
6492
3066
3213
2037


169
53%
9705
5103

Jan16
640
310
312
190


24
53%
952
500

Feb16
463
236
329
202


25
55%
792
438

Mar16
731
324
437
245


25
49%
1168
569

Apr16
761
320
389
195


25
45%
1150
515

May16
679
342
379
218


25
53%
1058
560

Jun16
734
362
383
215


26
52%
1177
577

Jul16
866
455
418
237


26
54%
1284
692

Aug16
866
374
414
183


32
44%
1280
557

Sep16
874
253
396
135


28
31%
1270
388

Oct16
[9]




25

1250
518

Nov16
[7]




24



Dec16
[7]




26



2016
[1] [10]
8876
4030
4448
2205


311
47%
13324
6235

Jan17
[7]




21



Feb17
[7]




26



Mar17
[11]




31



Apr17
[11]




25



May17
[11]




26



Jun17
[11]




26



Jul17
[11]




23



Aug17




20



Sep17




19



Oct17




12



Nov17




12



Dec17




9



2017 [2]




250

-
3970

Cam #

IMAT-01
IMLB-01








Imperial
WB @
Atlantic
Imperial
WB @
Long Beach


The City's
Revenue
from Fines
(Thousands)
[8]
Total
Notices
Printed
as % of
Violations
Recorded
Total
Violations
Recorded/
Notices
Printed/
Citations
Issued
per

RedFlex CMR

[1] [4]


This table made by highwayrobbery.net, using official documents obtained under the California Public Records Act.

2010 - 2012 official documents (to Feb. 2012)
2009 - 2012 official documents (to Mar. 2012)
2010 - 2012 official documents (to Aug. 2012)
2004 - 2013 official documents (to Feb. 2013)
2006 - 2012 official documents (to Sep. 2012)
2006 - 2013 official documents (to May 2013)
2013 - 2014 official documents (to Mar. 2014)
2006 - 2014 official documents (to Aug. 2014)
2007 - 2015 official documents (to Apr. 2015)
2015 - 2016 official documents (to Sep. 2016)
2015 - 2016 official documents (to Oct. 2016)
2016 official documents (12 months) [10]

[  ] indicates a footnote.
[1]  Totals are as provided by the City.
[2]  These annual totals, or annual projections, are by highwayrobbery.net.  The 2017 citations total was estimated based upon the Jan. - Aug. fine revenue.
[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 RedFlex calls Total Violations, or all incidents recorded by the cameras, and due to time limitations may have been posted 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 RedFlex calls Notices Printed, and 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).  Figures in blue type (or, if you are looking at this table in black and white, in italic type) are total Cites Issued (filed with the court), per RedFlex's monthly invoices to the City.
[5]  Data was received on 9-7-12.  Intersection-by-intersection data will be posted to this table as time permits.  The official documents are available at the link above.
[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]  Data for these months was requested on 2-28-17.  As of 8-11-17 there has been no response.
[8]  The City receives approx. $150 of the (approx.) $500 fine - if it is paid in full.  For source of fine revenue figures, see Set # 6, below.
[9]  In the report for this month, there was a quantity of incidents noted as "in progress," so the eventual total Notices Printed will be higher than the figure entered in the table above.
[10]  The 2016 annual totals were found in the staff report for the 8-15-17 city council meeting, available at link in Set # 4, below.
[11]  Data for these months was requested on on 7-6-17.  As of 8-11-17 there has been no response. 





Lynwood Docs Set # 2
Mickey Mouse Tickets - Mostly Right Turns

An official report showed that in 2014, 83% of the City's tickets were for turns, mostly right turns.




Lynwood Docs Set # 3
"Late Time" Graphs

The City provided bar graphs of Late Times, etcetera, for its camera.
These graphs track violations recorded, not tickets issued.
 Where there is a large number of long Late Time violations in a curb lane, it is believed to indicate heavy ticketing on right turns.
(The curb lane will be the lane with the highest lane number.)

Grand Terrace late times bar chart
The picture above is an example from another city.

Lynwood Bar Graphs, Imperial/Long Beach Bl. 2008 - 2009
Lynwood Bar Graphs, Imperial/Atlantic 2008 - 2009
Lynwood Bar Graphs, Mar. 2012 (starts at pg. 12 of pdf)
Lynwood Bar Graphs, July 2014
Lynwood Bar Graphs, June 2016
Lynwood Bar Graphs, 2016 Full Year

Bar graphs are available for more than fifty other cities - see the list in the expanded version of Defect # 9.




Lynwood Docs Set # 4
The Contract - Paying Too Much, So Issue More Tickets!

Lynwood held the required public hearing on Dec. 16, 2003, considered a staff report, and on Dec. 18 (two weeks before the effective date of CVC 21455.5(g)), signed a pay-per-ticket contract with RedFlex.
Minutes 
The contract provided:
"RedFlex will be paid $89 for the first three Citations issued on a single day from a particular Designated Intersection.  RedFlex will be paid $80 for the fourth and subsequent Citations issued on a single day from a particular Designated Intersection."

On Dec. 18, 2008 the City Council considered a
staff report and then approved a new five-year contract including an illegal "cost neutrality" clause, whereby the city did not have to pay RedFlex the full rent if there wasn't enough fine revenue to cover the cost.  See Subsection B. of Defect # 10.
Minutes
The 2008 contract penalized the City should it choose not to enforce right-hand turn violations.

That contract also said:  "Definitions.  'Warning Period' means a period after the Installation Date of the first intersection approach..."  (Emphasis added.)  See Defect # 6.

The 2008 contract set the monthly fee per existing camera at $5000.

Had the council negotiated a $2900 fee like that in the 2007 contract of the City of Garden Grove, it could have saved $2100 per camera per month, or $252,000 for the two cameras over the 60 months of the contract.

To see what other cities pay, go to FAQ # 17.

2014:  New Contract

On the council agenda for Oct. 1, 2013 there was a staff request for the council to "provide direction" about the possible extension of the contract.
The minutes indicate that accident statistics were presented, but the City lost all copies of those presentations. 
Staff Report and Minutes, 10-1-13
The council asked for the item to be brought back, at a later meeting, with a detailed analysis.

On the council agenda for Mar. 18, 2014 there was a staff report recommending a five-year extension of the camera program.  During the meeting, the sheriff told the council that 77% of all tickets have been going to visitors - and a councilmember proposed that the fine be reduced for City residents.  The council voted to "table" the matter.  Minutes

The staff report also revealed that after some negotiation, RedFlex had provided the City a "Cost Neutrality Clause Repayment" of $28,242.

The staff report prepared for the June 17, 2014 meeting recommended a five year extension and the continuation of Cost Neutrality.  The city council voted 3 - 2 (Ayes:  Castro, Santillan-Beas and Hernandez) to extend the contract, but for only three years (ending June 30, 2017), at a new rent of $3400 per camera per month.  Minutes

In March 2014 the City of Elk Grove, California approved a new contract which specified the following rents for their five RedFlex cameras.


From Exh. D of the Elk Grove Contract

Because Lynwood did not negotiate for a similar schedule of rents, the City will pay 59% too much over the three years, $100,800 extra based on a target price of $2000.  To cover that extra rent, the City will need to issue an extra 3054 tickets (in 2014 the City's fine revenue averaged $33 for each ticket it issued)

Lynwood's
new contract of 2014 does not contain an escape clause - a way for the city council to end the program before the three years is up.


2017:  New Contract?

At their July 5, 2017 meeting the council reviewed a staff report recommending a four-year extension of the program, with no reduction in price, and still no escape clause.  The vote was a 2 - 2 tie (Ayes:  Castro and Santillan-Beas, Nays:  Alatorre and Solache), leaving the item likely to come back at the next council meeting when Councilmember Hernandez is to be present.  Minutes

Problems with the proposed new contract:

1.  Safety is the whole reason to operate red light cameras, but there's no discussion of it in the staff report.  Is the 2017 process to be a repeat of what happened in 2013 - 2014, when the safety presentation was last minute, during the meeting, with all record of it disappearing afterward?    Now - before a new four-year contract is signed - the council should be provided with a report about whether the cameras actually improve safety.  That report should also include details of the engineering changes staff may have made to improve safety - for example, has there been a discussion of using blank out signs to stop the rolling right turns? 
The following information raises further questions about the safety effect of Lynwood's cameras.

a.  Ticketing has tripled since 2014.

b.  Beginning with 2013, California cities having red light cameras have been
required to file an annual report (see Set # 2, above) detailing, among other things, the number
of accidents before the program began, compared to the current year.  Lynwood
has been reporting that it has no "before" accident data.

c.  Consider the comments from officials in other LA area cities.

2.  The July 5 staff report suggests that the City may have collected $619,120 from fines in 2016, while the actual amount was less than $311,000, per the monthly reports published by the court - see Set # 6, below.  Thus, it is important to watch the finances, including the monthly rent to be paid to Redflex which, at $3400 per camera, is too high by double or more.  In the last few years prices have softened, greatly.  Del Mar pays $1578 for each of its three cameras.  Elk Grove's contract provides a rent of $1500 for cameras ten years old or more.  Considering the advanced age of the red light camera equipment in Lynwood and the City's willingness to be locked-in to a four-year contract (no Termination for Convenience), why was Lynwood unable to obtain any price reduction?  If Lynwood agrees to continue to pay the $3400, it will pay $163,200 extra rent over the four years (compared to a feasible target rent of $1700) and will need to issue an extra 2040 tickets in order to cover that extra rent.  (Using staff's figure of $80 received from each ticket.)

Aug. 2017:  Contract Returns for a Second Vote

The proposed contract extension was on the agenda for Aug. 15, 2017 and the vote was 3 - 2 to not renew, with Castro and Santillan-Beas voting for renewal.  Most likely the last day of monitoring will be Aug. 31.
Staff Report


This list of contracts and amendments was up-to-date as of  Aug. 11, 2017.




Lynwood Docs Set # 5
Ticket Refund?


  On June 27, 2017 we wrote to the City:

Due to a statewide rule change, beginning Aug. 1, 2015 the yellow lights at red light camera intersections in California must be set according to the 85th Percentile Speed as determined by an Engineering and Traffic Survey of the street (ETS or, colloquially, a radar speed survey) or, if no ETS is available, according to the posted speed limit plus 7 mph.   [See Defect # 2, on the Home page.]  On July 18, 2016 we sent the City a public records request for "The current radar speed surveys...," and on Feb. 23, 2017 City staff replied, "The City does not possess any... radar speed surveys."  Because there is no current ETS, we used Imperial Highway's posted speed of 40 mph to look up the required yellow in the applicable table in the Caltrans Manual (MUTCD), and it requires a minimum yellow of 4.4 seconds.  Per a "current" signal timing chart City staff sent to us on Feb. 23, 2017, the yellow for westbound traffic on Imperial at Atlantic Avenue has been set at 4.0 seconds since 2013, and on Feb. 28, 2017 we personally made a video of that signal in operation and confirmed it was set at 4.0 seconds.

Please refund the red light camera tickets issued after Aug. 1, 2015 by the Imperial/Atlantic camera.



 
Lynwood Docs Set # 6
The Revenue


The City's monthly ticket revenue from the court is available in the Revenue Spreadsheet on the
LA County Docs page.




Lynwood Docs Set # 7
More Coming


There may be some more 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