RED LIGHT CAMERAS
County of San Francisco Documents
In 2014 Sen. Corbett "termed out," and
has been replaced by this person
Please don't vote for him.
Send him back home to his bankruptcy law practice.
In early 2015 some San Francisco
assemblyperson or state senator will agree to sponsor
state legislation to allow speed cameras - see Set # 2,
This space is reserved for a picture of
San Francisco Docs Set # 2
2015 Push for Automated Speed Cameras (Photo Radar)
It looks like there will be another attempt to approve the use of photo radar in California.
The new attempt may come out of San Francisco, where the Vision Zero Coalition is working for changes in state law to allow the automated enforcement of speeding.
There's been six previous attempts, just in the last ten years, some of which came close to being approved by the Legislature in Sacramento. Let your legislators know that you are opposed to photo radar.
Details about the previous photo radar bills is on the Action page.
Francisco Docs Set # 3
To see some of the official reports from which the Ticket Counts table (on the main SF page) was derived, click:
Annual Summaries, 1997 - Sept. 2004
Annual Summary 2004
Annual Summary 2005
Annual Summary 2006
Annual Summary 2007
Annual Summary 2008
Annual Summary 2009
Annual Summary 2010
Annual Summary 2011
Annual Summary 2012
2013 to May
Annual Summary 2013
2014 to Oct.
Annual Summary 2014
2015 to April
San Francisco Docs Set # 4
Some Defendants' Experiences in Court
New 3-25-05, updated 8-7-13
"After failing the trial by declaration, I did the trial de novo in SF traffic court. After roll call, they asked if anyone wanted to take traffic school and a number of people did. Just before the trials started they asked again, strongly implying this was the last chance, but stated, "After the trial, you may not be granted traffic school." Heavy! I don't know if this was so in later cases because mine was the second trial and the first one was tried in absentia.
The commissioner had the officer state her case and show the photos. She ticked off all the vital stats, where, when, etc. but said, "The driver's photo matches the stated age range and characteristics of the registered owner." Curious. She did not say anything like, "The photo of the driver and the owner of the vehicle are the same." The commissioner asked me if I wanted to question the officers statement, or the technician who was also present, or give my version of events (confess?).
I declined and went right to step one, questioning the photo of the driver. I said,"The photo is rather blurry. You must have a clear photo." The color photo original, as you pointed out, was little better than the black and white copy mailed to me. Half the face is obscured by mirror and sunglasses and the rest is so fuzzy you can't even make out what the nose looks like. The commissioner looked at the photo for a minute and said,"The face looks about as clear as a department store mannequin's. Dismissed!"
Another thing I noticed about this photo packet was the traffic light was obscured by the Gatsometer box so you couldn't see if the light was actually red though I didn't have the chance to point this out. So there I was all prepared for a hard slog and I got as far as step one! Thanks for your help. I'm glad this ordeal is finally over.
I noticed your news about automated photo radar [possibly] being on the way. Groan. Unlike the movie, I suspect our Governator will support this Rise of the Machines. [For more info about the speed cameras, see the Legislation section on the Action page.] As for the warning signs in San Francisco, they are a bit hard to measure as they are so high off the ground, often perched high atop a light standard so I guess we'd have to take the sign installers word for it they are the right dimensions.
The moral of this story? Drive carefully because it's the right thing to do and Big Brother is watching."
In San Francisco, the traffic court, and even the Appellate Division, are in a sad state. Read the David case, on highwayrobbery's Library page.
San Francisco Docs Set # 5
The City of San Francisco has, on its website, a history of the program.
highwayrobbery.net has an archive copy of the 2011 version of that history, which has much more information, including how and why the (statewide) fine grew to be so large.
The Superior Court has information at http://www.sfsuperiorcourt.org/index.aspx?page=179
If these pages have gone away, use the archive.
San Francisco Docs Set # 6
The Contract, and the Too High Price
The City has provided the following contract documents.
Contract, Pt. 1
Contract, Pt. 2 (Appendices)
Board of Supervisors Resolution
1st Amendment (adds five cameras)
2nd Amendment (sets min. compensation for ACS' employees)
3rd Amendment (extends term to Dec. 2009)
4th Amendment (makes technical changes)
5th Amendment (extends term to Dec. 2010)
May 2011 Contract (Big File)
The contract signed in May 2011 expires on Apr. 30, 2014, but can be terminated at any time, at the convenience of the City.
In Appendix A of the contract, there is a provision for ten decoy cameras - which will flash and record data but (apparently) not generate tickets.
A defendant requested information about the profitability of the program, and was sent this document:
Invoices from early 2013 and late 2013 showed that the City paid Xerox $100,000 per month for the cameras, or about $2700 per month for each of the 37 cameras which were active throughout 2013.
On the April 15, 2014 agenda of the San Francisco MTA Board was a staff report recommending a contract amendment to extend the red light camera program for another two years, to 2016. The Board approved it, with no discussion.
Unfortunately, that amendment did not
include a reduction of the $2661 rent, and as a result
the City will be paying WAY too much during the
extension. For example: In the previous
month (March 2014) the city council of Elk Grove,
California approved a new contract which specified the
following schedule of rents for their five red light
San Francisco will pay 30% too much (or more -
this is before any adjustment for economies
of scale - compared to the Elk Grove price schedule)
over the two years of the extension, $563,784
extra. To cover that extra rent, the City will
need to issue an extra 5638 tickets (assuming that the
City receives an average of $100 for each ticket
But there is a way out. Section 21 of the 2011 contract allows San Francisco to cancel the program on short notice, giving the City the leverage to negotiate a better price.
For more information about the rents that other cities pay, and how they negotiated, see FAQ # 17.
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.
Docs Set # 7
Judge Meeks retired in 2006, and now
works as a temporary judge. I strongly recommend
doing a Peremptory Challenge to remove him from your
San Francisco Docs Set # 8
Docs Set # 10