RED LIGHT CAMERAS

www.highwayrobbery.net

Email Address
Site Index

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

This table was provided by the San Bernardino County Sheriff, which operates the system for the City.
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.
Notices Printed is believed to 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/ "phishing" tickets.)

  City of Victorville Docs Set # 2
Short Yellows?

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 # 3
Six Cameras Removed, Contract Extended

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 2015.  During the extension the City will continue to pay $6000 per month rent for each of the ten remaining cameras - a total of $1.8 million over the (approx.) 30 additional months of the extension. 
Other cities which have extended their contracts are paying 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.  However, Section 6.2 of the original contract allows the City to terminate for convenience and sets out a formula for calculating the exact cost of removal. That formula suggests that the $146,287 payment to Redflex provided for in the amendment is enough to compensate Redflex for the removal, leaving no need to further compensate them by extending the contract, much less paying an above-market rent (an extra $900,000) during the extension.

The contract amendment did not remove the cost neutrality clause.

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

City of Victorville Docs Set # 4
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 # 5
Appeal Victory

In Dec. 2010 a Victorville defendant won the appeal on his ticket.  For more details, go here.




City of Victorville Docs Set # 6
More Coming?

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
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net