If you
haven't already done so, please read the San
Jose section on
the Camera
Towns page
City of San Jose
Documents
(and Information)
San Jose Docs Set # 1
Ticket
Counts
Violations Recorded and Notices
Issued
New
10-22-04
| |
[3] |
Total Cites Issued as % of Recorded |
Total Recorded/ Issued [1] |
||||||||||||||||||
|
Jan00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Feb00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Mar00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Apr00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| May00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Aug00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Sep00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Oct00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Nov00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Dec00 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
|
2000 |
[5] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Jan01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Feb01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Mar01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Apr01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| May01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Aug01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Sep01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Oct01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Nov01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Dec01 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| 2001 |
[5] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Jan02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Feb02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Mar02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Apr02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| May02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Aug02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Sep02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Oct02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Nov02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Dec02 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| 2002 |
[5] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Jan03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Feb03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Mar03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Apr03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| May03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Aug03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Sep03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Oct03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Nov03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Dec03 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| 2003 |
[5] | ||||||||||||||||||||
| Jan04 |
265 4 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Feb04 |
1130 672 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Mar04 |
980 664 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Apr04 |
806 545 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| May04 |
784 561 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun04 |
1075 700 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul04 |
843 539 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Aug04 |
977 627 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Sep04 |
779 444 |
||||||||||||||||||||
| Oct04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Nov04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Dec04 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| 2004 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jan05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Feb05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Mar05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Apr05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| May05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jun05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Jul05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Aug05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Sep05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Oct05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Nov05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| Dec05 |
|||||||||||||||||||||
| 2005 |
This table
made by highwayrobbery.net, using official monthly
tabulations of
notices actually issued.
[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] YTD = Year-to-date total.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4] Figures in red type are "raw" violations recorded by the cameras, and may have been posted only for selected months, due to time limitations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are notices issued.
[ ] indicates a footnote.
[1] Totals are as provided by the City.
[2] YTD = Year-to-date total.
[3] Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
[4] Figures in red type are "raw" violations recorded by the cameras, and may have been posted only for selected months, due to time limitations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months will be posted. The figures in black type are notices issued.
[5] Data has
been
requested but has not yet been received.
Docs Set # 2
A Motorist's Comment
In March 2005 I saw this comment on a public traffic ticket forum. It is by a motorist who had received an official-looking notification in the mail, accusing him of speeding in San Jose. To me, it sounds like the Fake Tickets I describe on the Your Ticket page. He wrote:
"It's a letter - on San Jose city letterhead titled 'Photo Radar Notification'.
It does not include the address or phone number of a court - but instead wants me to mail my name, signature and DL image to the City of San Jose, DOT. They have a phone number - but it's a 1800 number that takes me to the company that processes the photos... No copy of the photo was included with the letter.
I'm hesitant to completely ignore the letter - but I agree, it is NOT a traffic citation and I'm unsure as to what action they could effectively take against me. I'd love to call them and ask if I can just deal with the court directly - without sending the city any more information. As I read through this again - it doesn't even claim to be issued by the police anywhere - just the city itself...
Anyway - I'll try calling the photo company tomorrow, to ask them what they claim will happen if I just ignore it. They're closed at the moment."
Note: If a photo radar bill passes (see the Legislation section on the Action page), San Jose's "tickets" could become fully legitimate.
Docs Set # 3
NASCOP Under Fire
The legality of the City's photo radar program was always questionable. In 2005 and 2006 there were bills in the State legislature to make photo radar clearly legal, but they failed to pass. On Feb. 22, 2007, because of pressure from the Santa Clara County District Attorney and a website launched by a San Jose-area resident who won his case at court, the San Jose City Council's Transportation and Environment Committee held a hearing about NASCOP's future.
Staff Report and Minutes
The full City Council heard the item at its meeting of March 6, and shut the program down.
(For more details about the efforts to make speed cameras legal in California, see the Legislation section on the Action page.)
Docs Set # 4
Alice in San Jose Traffic Court - and the Local Media
The local media failed to examine the legality of NASCOP , and I think that is why it took so long for the program to be shut down.
A Motorist's Comment
In March 2005 I saw this comment on a public traffic ticket forum. It is by a motorist who had received an official-looking notification in the mail, accusing him of speeding in San Jose. To me, it sounds like the Fake Tickets I describe on the Your Ticket page. He wrote:
"It's a letter - on San Jose city letterhead titled 'Photo Radar Notification'.
It does not include the address or phone number of a court - but instead wants me to mail my name, signature and DL image to the City of San Jose, DOT. They have a phone number - but it's a 1800 number that takes me to the company that processes the photos... No copy of the photo was included with the letter.
I'm hesitant to completely ignore the letter - but I agree, it is NOT a traffic citation and I'm unsure as to what action they could effectively take against me. I'd love to call them and ask if I can just deal with the court directly - without sending the city any more information. As I read through this again - it doesn't even claim to be issued by the police anywhere - just the city itself...
Anyway - I'll try calling the photo company tomorrow, to ask them what they claim will happen if I just ignore it. They're closed at the moment."
Note: If a photo radar bill passes (see the Legislation section on the Action page), San Jose's "tickets" could become fully legitimate.
Docs Set # 3
NASCOP Under Fire
The legality of the City's photo radar program was always questionable. In 2005 and 2006 there were bills in the State legislature to make photo radar clearly legal, but they failed to pass. On Feb. 22, 2007, because of pressure from the Santa Clara County District Attorney and a website launched by a San Jose-area resident who won his case at court, the San Jose City Council's Transportation and Environment Committee held a hearing about NASCOP's future.
Staff Report and Minutes
The full City Council heard the item at its meeting of March 6, and shut the program down.
(For more details about the efforts to make speed cameras legal in California, see the Legislation section on the Action page.)
Docs Set # 4
Alice in San Jose Traffic Court - and the Local Media
The local media failed to examine the legality of NASCOP , and I think that is why it took so long for the program to be shut down.
Docs Set # 5
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
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