RED LIGHT CAMERAS
you haven't already done so, please read the
Victorville section on the Camera Towns page
City of Victorville Documents
Do you live in LA County? Was Zev
Yaroslavsky your County Supervisor? (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 Kams" 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
We need to watch Kuehl carefully, because as a Supervisor she will have a seat on the MTA/Metro board and she will be a vote to continue and expand their huge (101 cameras, so far) red light camera system.
Kuehl will be up for re-election in Nov. 2018 and Nov. 2022.
In June 2012 CalTrans revoked the encroachment permit they issued to Victorville. Then, under political pressure, they reinstated it. See Docs Set # 4, below.
City of Victorville Docs Set
New 4-24-09, updated 9-9-14
This table made by highwayrobbery.net using 2008-2009 data from a spreadsheet prepared by the sheriff combined with 2008-2012 RedFlex Customer Management Reports.
This table made using reports provided by the sheriff and City under the California Public Records Act.
2008-2009 spreadsheet, by sheriff
Mar. 2008 - Jan. 2012 RedFlex reports:
Feb. 2012 - Oct. 2012 RedFlex reports
Nov. 2012 - Apr. 2013 RedFlex reports
May 2013 - Mar. 2014 RedFlex reports
Mar. 2009 - July 2014 RedFlex reports
[ ] indicates a footnote.
 Except where noted otherwise, totals are as provided by the City.
 YTD = Year-to-date total.
 Un-used columns are to allow for later expansion of City's system.
 Except where noted otherwise, the figures given in the table are for the single calendar month indicated. 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. 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). Due to time limitations data may have been posted to the table only for selected months or locations. If there is sufficient public interest, the remaining months or locations will be posted. Full official data has been received and is available at one of the links given above.
 Monthly data was requested on:
 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.
 Data for this month, and the total for this month, is from a spreadsheet (see link above) created by the sheriff and received by highwayrobbery.net on 4-24-09.
 The total for this month or year (or the projected annual total) was calculated by highwayrobbery.net.
 There is no total shown for this month as data was not requested for all cameras active during the month.
 The title bar has been repeated solely for the convenience of the reader - there is no difference between it and the one at the top of the table.
 Data for this month has not been requested.
 In June 2012 a staff report in another city revealed (see bottom of page 2-3) that CalTrans had revoked an encroachment permit issued to the City of Victorville for a camera at D & 7th. Later, CalTrans withdrew the revocation, and in March 2013 the City restarted the camera.
 The report for this month is available at one of the links above but there is no total posted for this month as the reports for some early months were not requested until 2014 - by which time six of the cameras had been shut down and evidently dropped from the database.
City of Victorville Docs
Set # 2
The City provided bar graphs of Late
Times, etcetera. Or, an equivalent table.
Bar graphs are available for more
than fifty other cities - see the list in
the expanded version of Defect # 9.
City of Victorville Docs Set # 3
This July 2009 article said that some of Victorville's yellows were set too short. The follow-up article mentioned is not available on the 'net, but it said:
"The Daily Press has found that the majority are exactly at the legal limit, while a couple are a fraction of a second below what they should be. The light for drivers heading south on Amargosa Road through Bear Valley Road, for example, repeatedly measures 3.5 seconds when it should be 3.6 seconds."
The Daily Press did not reveal how it measured the length of the yellows, or the identity of any other intersection(s) with short yellows.
City of Victorville Docs Set # 4
Contract is Cost Neutral, City Owes RedFlex $1.6 Million
Like the cities of Baldwin Park, Capitola, Citrus Heights, Highland, South San Francisco and Walnut, Victorville failed to hold the formal public hearing required by CVC 21455.6 before it approved the original contract in Oct. 2007 - see the expanded version of Defect # 6.
The original contract would have expired in Mar. 2013.
On March 16, 2010 the city council approved a contract amendment to remove six low-performing cameras and to extend the term of the contract, making the new expiration occur in (approx.) Mar. 2015. During the extension the City will continue to pay $6000 per month rent for each of the ten remaining cameras - a total of $1.4 million over the (approx.) 24 months added by the amendment.
Other cities which extended their contracts agreed to pay roughly $3000 per month per camera. For example, Ventura renewed their 18 cameras at $1800 per month, Santa Clarita renewed their ten cameras at $4000 per month, Garden Grove renewed their 14 cameras at $2900 per month, South Gate renewed their 14 cameras at $2829 per month, Escondido renewed their 15 cameras at $2833 per month, and Gardena renewed their ten cameras at $3500 per month.
It has been suggested that the City's agreement to
pay the above-market rent during the extension was
necessary to gain Redflex' agreement to remove the six
cameras. In the original contract Section 6.2
(deleted by the 2010 amendment) allowed the City to
terminate for convenience during the first year and
set out a formula for calculating the exact cost of
removal. If we use that formula, the $146,287
payment to Redflex (provided for in the amendment)
should have been enough to compensate Redflex for the
removal, leaving no need to further compensate them by
extending the contract, much less paying the
above-market $6000 rent (an extra $700,000) during the
The contract amendment may include the automatic renewal of the contract, after 2015.
(Contract renewal should never be automatic!)
The listing of contracts and amendments above
was up-to-date as of Aug. 12, 2014.
City of Victorville Docs Set # 5
2011: Possible Class Action
The cameras were discussed (staff report) at the Mar. 1, 2011 Victorville City Council meeting, and private-sector attorney Brandon Wood agreed to work with the City to attempt to find a way for the City to end its contract with Redflex.
By April 27, the city attorney had made multiple attempts to contact Wood, to no avail.
On Dec. 14, 2011 there was an article indicating a possible class action suit by attorney Robert Conaway.
City of Victorville Docs Set # 6
In Dec. 2010 and June 2012 Victorville defendants won appeals on their tickets. For more details, go here and see the Macias and Winters cases.
City of Victorville Docs Set # 7
There may be some more Victorville information posted in the next few weeks. Mark your calendar to remind you to come back here and look!
RED LIGHT CAMERAS