Contact/Email Address
Fake/Snitch Tickets/Nominations
No Ticket Yet? Be Prepared
FAQ Frequently Asked Questions
Popular links from this page:
Journalists/Bloggers/Webmasters
Speed Cameras Coming/Hot Legislation
Please start by reading the What's Hot box on the Home page.
On this Action page - scroll down, or click on these links:
1. An Initiative
2. You Don't Have to Shop There...
3. Help & Info Needed, Info for Journalists
4. No $ Donations Accepted
5. HOT Legislation
6. The Guru Club
7. Ticket Questionnaire and Email Address
highwayrobbery.net is a free-of-charge public service.
The Action Page:
1. An
Initiative
The State gets
more than half of the fine from your ticket - and it is BIG money. But they need more money, so the
writing is on the wall. Tickets will become more frequent - and if SB 1325 or something similar
passes (see Hot Legislation section, below), there
will be automated speeding and stop sign tickets, too.
Cities also need more money, beyond what they get from camera tickets, so they are raising the cost of parking
tickets to amounts that resemble the moving violation fines of a few
years ago.
The AAA Auto Clubs, which we formerly could rely upon to oppose
anti-motorist laws, have not spoken out about these exorbitant
fines. In fact, they have been the sponsors of some of the
legislation that will increase them.
It appears that the citizens of California will have to do a
grass-roots initiative to control the cost of tickets - just as they
created Prop. 13 to control property taxes.
If you would
be interested in helping pass an initiative, please send an email to the
editor of this website.
The Action Page:
2. You
Don't Have to Shop There...
...and You Don't Have to Vote for these Legislators
Let your Vote Count
California cities would not be able to run ticket mills without enabling legislation from Sacramento. See the AB 1022 section in Hot Legislation, below.
Vote with your Wallet, Too
When you spend $100 at the mall, the government of the city in which the mall is located gets $1 of the sales tax. If you buy a $20,000 car, the government of the city in which the dealer is located gets $200. And then there is "bed tax." If you rent a $100 hotel room there, City Hall gets $10. If you feel that the city that gave you your ticket has taken advantage of you, there's not much you can do about it - except that you don't have to shop there. You can spend your money in other towns that value your business and don't guard their malls with red light cameras having short yellows and undersized warning signs.
If you're taking your business elsewhere, I think that it is important (and only fair) to let the city council and the merchants in the "red light town" know that. Toward that end, on the Links page of this website you will find contact information, so that you can send them a short email, a postcard, or leave them a voicemail.
Here is an article showing that economic action can work.
Seidler said for most members of council, the bad impact on business is the deciding factor in not
supporting a potential comeback of the camera. He said business owners complained about the device.
"They felt it was hurting their business. Many were told by people that they would no longer patronize their business because of the camera," he said. "It is hard to attract new business when no one is willing to come in and do business."
Seidler and Councilman Mike Costarella both said the camera also generated unnecessary bad publicity for the city. (Youngstown Vindicator, Aug. 2, 2006.)
Buttons
Why
These Cities?
Hawthorne
was chosen because they have short
yellows on their left turns (3.0) and because of the State
record-holding Hindry and Rosecrans intersection (record is for the
highest number of tickets per month anywhere in
California). See the Hawthorne section on the Camera
Towns page for more information.
Inglewood was chosen because of their refusal to reverse or dismiss the
(estimated 6000) tickets they issued at Crenshaw / 108th and Prairie /
111th, both of which are confusing double intersections. See the Inglewood section on the Camera Towns page for
more information.
Culver City was chosen because: they employ short yellows (3.6 in Culver City vs. 3.8 in Beverly Hills or 3.9 in Los Angeles), they prosecute 0.1 tickets (no "grace period"), they did not reverse or dismiss tickets they issued when their yellows were too short and their warning signs were undersized, and they shortened the yellow at two intersections.
Are They in It for Safety, or Money?
The public, and the Press, should question the motives of any city that -
| (a)
Targets motorists who are turning right or left - a practice which is primarily about ticket volume
and money. While many cities set their left turn yellows at the State minimum of three seconds, I believe that
the yellows for lefts should be set at four seconds. But it's well understood that if you set them at three
seconds, tickets increase
three-fold, making enforcement on left turns very lucrative. (See Defect # 9 and the second part of Defect # 2 on the
Home page, and the Mesa, Arizona section on the Camera Towns page.) (b) Employs the minimum legal yellows for thru traffic - for example, 3.6 seconds in a 35 - not adjusted for the actual speed of traffic (see Defect # 3 on the Home page). (c) Has no grace period, so issues tickets for a late time of as little as 0.1 second. The State Auditor's report (page 45, see Links page) says: "Although the law does not mandate them to do so, five of the seven local governments we visited employ grace periods of up to five-tenths of a second before their red light cameras will begin taking photographs." (d) Ignores the safety implications of allowing red light running to continue at camera locations that generate disproportionate numbers of tickets - a condition easily cured by engineering countermeasures such as lengthening the yellows and improving the marking of the intersection (but which would also dramatically reduce revenue from tickets). Federal guidelines (See the big box in Defect # 9 on the Home page) say: "The installation of a red light camera system at a signalized intersection identified as having a red light running problem should be done when an engineering study of the intersection determines photo enforcement is an appropriate countermeasure to reduce the incidence of red light running." (See also FAQ # 6.) |
The Action Page:
3. Help
& Info Needed
(Journalists, Bloggers, Webmasters, Activists - Scroll
Down a Little!)
I would like to know about illegal red light cameras in any town.
If you would like some advice on your ticket, you can use the
form found at the bottom of this page.
Please call your State legislators about the changes described in the Hot Legislation section, below. And, if you could help
with an initiative, see The Initiative, above.
If your ticket was for a right turn and you are an auto club member, call your club's legislative affairs office and complain
about the heavy right turn ticketing. (For more info about
right turns, see Churning Right Turn$, a subsection of Defect # 9 on the Home page.) Legislators' and auto club phone numbers
are in the purple box, way below.
When you go to your courthouse to handle your case, you could offer valuable assistance to other
defendants there by telling them how to fight their tickets, and about this website. If you are going to hand out any
kind of written materials (such as the flyers noted in the next paragraph), you should do it outside the courthouse, at least ten
feet away from the
entrance. Also see The Guru Club section, below.
Another valuable contribution would be to suggest to the editors of
your favorite websites or newspapers that they write about the illegal contracts (Defect # 10 - B), publish a
link to highwayrobbery.net or, if they are really daring, write
about Snitch Tickets - see info on the Your Ticket page, and Snitch
Ticket flyers here.
Or, you could post information on your favorite forums.
And if you drive a tow truck or an ambulance and know of a red light
camera intersection that has an unusual number of rear-end accidents,
please let me know about it.
I would like to make some parts of this website available in Spanish - beginning with the Entry page. If you
could help with the translation, please contact me.
Journalists/Bloggers/Webmasters/Activists
Hot Topics
If you're writing or taking action about cameras, here's what I think are the hottest topics.
1. Snitch Tickets (see Section 1 on the Your Ticket page)
2. The shift away from ticketing people who run straight thru intersections, towards the much more lucrative ticketing of people
who make rolling right turns. (See Churning Right Turn$, a subsection of Defect # 9 on the Home page.)
3. 2008 State legislation to legalize the use of cameras for speed and stop sign enforcement. See Hot Legislation,
below.
4. The illegal speed and stop sign cameras being installed in parks near Los Angeles - see the MRCA section on the Camera Towns page.
5. Cost Neutrality clauses (see Subsection B of Defect # 10, on the Home page)
6. The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (see 2005 - 2006 Legislation, below)
6. The General [gag] Order for LA County Superior Courts.
California's Photo Enforcement vs. Elsewhere
California's programs are different, in several significant ways, from most other states.
1. California is a "driver responsibility" state; a red light camera ticket is handled in the State
courts, just like any other moving violation. And a conviction goes on one's driving record. In most other states (especially those on the East coast),
the camera tickets are "owner responsibility," and are handled like a parking ticket - they do not go on one's driving record.
2. The fines on California camera tickets range from (approx.) $326.00 to $400.00, depending upon which county the violation occurred in.
In most other states the fines are $50.00 to $100.00.
3. Because of 1. and 2. above, many California cities issue fake tickets (that have not been filed with the court), in an
effort to bluff the registered
owner into revealing who was driving the car (see Section 1, Snitch Tickets, on the Your Ticket page).
4. California has law specifically prohibiting cities from paying the camera companies on a
incentive basis - although many cities are ignoring it! (See Subsection B of Defect # 10, on the Home page.)
5. A large proportion of California red light camera tickets are for rolling right turns. (For more info about
right turns, see Churning Right Turn$, a subsection of Defect # 9 on the Home page.)
6. California does not have photo enforcement of speed, also known as photo radar - except for an illegal
new (Summer 2007) program in parks near Los Angeles and, until recently, in San Jose. (For more
info on photo radar, see SB 1325 in the Hot Legislation section, below, and the MRCA and San Jose sections on the Camera Towns page.)
And More...
You might also be interested in this page about industry / police PR.
And please also look at the red box at the bottom of Section 2, above.
The Action Page:
4. No $ Donations
I can't personally take money since I'm
not a lawyer.
But I do ask each person who uses this website to call their legislators about the pending anti-motorist
legislation. See the Hot Legislation section, below. (You could even reward those legislators who voted no, or
abstained, with a small
check, or even just a nice thank you note.)
Another contribution you can make is of information to go on this website (see above).
If you could help with an initiative, see The Initiative, above.
The Action Page:
5. Legislation
You are on the Action page.
2008 (Current) HOT Legislation
California Senate Bill 1325 -
Photo Enforcement of Speed Limits
Added 2-21-08, updated 4-29-08
" Now cut that out ! "
State Senator Sheila James Kuehl (D) - Santa Monica - as Zelda Gilroy in the 60's TV series "The Many Loves of Dobie Gillis"
If it passes,
SB 1325 (Kuehl, Santa Monica), will legalize automated speeding ticket cameras, also known
as photo radar.
It was introduced in Feb. 2008,
and had its first committee hearing on Apr. 29. At that hearing it narrowly failed to get
enough votes - it needed seven "ayes" and got five - but it may be allowed to come back
to a later meeting (date presently unknown), for another vote. If we all phone
our legislators and auto clubs, we may be able to stop it.
SB 1325 is the successor to Kuehl's earlier unsuccessful speed camera
bills, SB 1300 of 2006 and SB 466 of 2005 - which are discussed in their own sections, below.
Speed cameras are an idea that won't go away!
As presently drafted, SB 1325 is restricted to a pilot
program in only one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph and school zones - making it very similar to Kuehl's SB 1300 of 2006. But
if it is able to move onward through the legislature, SB 1325 will likely be amended to include other
cities - per the
Legislative Analysis dated Apr. 24, the City/County Association
of Governments of San Mateo County has asked to be included in the program. And, according
to the LA Times, the bill "is being
closely watched in San Jose."
In 2006, when Kuehl's SB 1300 was in the legislature, Burbank, Carson, Culver City, Pasadena and LA County came on board as
supporters.
SB 1325 could also be amended to enforce higher speeds - there is no technical bar to the use of the cameras for
enforcement on freeways. Nor is the use of speed cameras on freeways unprecedented.
Scottsdale, Arizona is an example of the use of cameras on freeways, and it is also an example of a pilot
program rapidly spreading statewide. In early 2006, the City of Scottsdale installed cameras on an 8-mile section of the 101 freeway
loop, for a 9-month pilot program. At the end of the pilot program, the East Valley Tribune
reported that there had been an astonishing 130,992 tickets issued. Now, in 2008, the Governor of Arizona has taken control of the camera programs (and their revenue), and is rapidly installing cameras statewide.
What to Do...
Call your local State legislators and the
members of both the Senate Transportation
Committee and the Assembly Transportation
Committee.
Calling is much more effective than email.
I recommend calling their office at the Capitol, not in the district.
The two AAA auto clubs in California stayed "neutral" on this bill. They explained that they did not oppose it because the author
had accepted amendments that the clubs proposed. If you are an auto club member, call your
club. Tell them that you don't want speed cams, no matter which bill or which party they
come from, and that you're not fooled by a so-called
"pilot" program. I believe that if the
auto clubs strongly oppose speed camera bills, they will not pass. I recommend
using the club phone numbers in the purple SB 1900 box, below,
and reminding the club representative
that you have a wide choice of auto insurance companies.
If you are a professional driver, call your union or your trade association.
Is this about money for the state budget? Read this box.
|
Kuehl Kam® Kash
At the time I composed this, the California State budget shortfall was estimated to be $16 billion. The author of SB 1325 has not published an estimate of how much a statewide implementation of her photo radar cameras - let's call them Kuehl Kams® - could bring to Sacramento. But it is easy to make an estimate, by looking at Arizona's program, and scaling-up the figures:  From Arizona Gov. Napolitano's FY 2009 Budget, page 147
California has six times the population of Arizona, so should be able to produce six times as much ticket revenue - $720 million. Is this a significant amount of money to our legislators, enough that they would consider selling us down the river? To gauge that, we need to look at their past behavior when similar sums were dangled in front of them. Indian gaming is a good example. With the expansion voters approved on Feb. 5, Indian gaming is expected to bring in $430 million:  From Revenue Estimates, Gov. Schwarzenegger's Budget Summary 2008-09, page 44
Kuehl Kams® could bring in nearly twice as much as Indian gaming. |
Another "foot in the door" is a 2007 project by the MRCA, a
State agency which manages parks in
the Los Angeles area, to install speed cameras on park roads - despite the fact that speed cameras are
illegal in California. For more info about the MRCA, see its entry on the Camera Towns page.
Previous Legislation
2007 Legislation
California Assembly Bill 117 - $20 Fine Increase in Santa Clara County (Failed)
Added 1-24-07, updated 1-11-08
This bill failed to get out of committee, but if it had been passed, AB 117 (Beall, San Jose) would have added 20% to the base fine ($20 on a red light ticket) on tickets in Santa Clara County. Originally, it was to fund traffic safety programs and courthouse construction statewide (basically another tax increase, similar to SB 1773, which Gov. Schwarzenegger signed in Sept. 2006. See the SB 1773 info, below), but on March 22, 2007 AB 117 was amended so that the increase would have applied only in Santa Clara County.
California Senate Bill 848 - An Attack on the Speed Trap Law (Failed)
Added 4-16-07, updated 5-24-07
SB
848 (Corbett, San Leandro) would have removed some of
the protections provided drivers by the Speed Trap Law. The bill was sponsored by the California State Sheriffs
Association and the Alameda County Sheriff. It was opposed by the
auto clubs and the Teamsters.
This bill died in May 2007. The opposition by the auto clubs is probably what stopped
it. If you would like to thank your auto club for opposing this bill, you can find
the appropriate phone number in the large purple box, below. (When you call your club, also ask them to oppose the speed camera bill, SB 1325, described above.) And, if you would still
like to let the legislature know your feelings about similar bills they might try to cook up in the future), I recommend
using the phone or fax, not email, and contacting the following:
(A) First, call or fax the senate members who are based closest to
where you live, work, or shop, and are on the committee currently considering
the bill. A list of those committee members is here. I do not
recommend email as they get inundated with it, just as you do.
(B) Also call or fax the senate [and/or assembly] members who represent the districts in
which you live, work, or shop, even if he or she is not on the committee currently
considering the bill. You can find their phone numbers in the government section
of your phone book, or at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html.
For more information on the Speed Trap Law, see Section 7, Speeding Tickets, on the Links/Ref/FAQ page.
2005 - 2006 Legislation
Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC)
Added 11-25-05, updated 3-19-06
The California Traffic Control Devices Committee (CTCDC) is the body responsible for the January 2005 shortening of the legal minimum
length for yellow lights. The January 2005 action included a recommendation that the Committee re-visit the decision after
one year; that review was scheduled for Feb. 23, 2006, in West Sacramento.
A new review would have been a chance for motorists to get longer yellows, but it did
not happen. The Committee decided that there would be no review! Part of the
problem is that of the CTCDC's eight voting members, two work full time for
insurance companies (the auto clubs), and two work for cities (Modesto and LA) that operate red light cameras. Please
call your legislators
and ask them to require CalTrans (which operates the Committee) to replace the members having financial conflicts.
While you are talking to your legislator's office, please also ask them to vote against
any new version of SB 1300 (speeding ticket cameras - see below).
You can get more info about the CTCDC, and its shortening of the yellows, by following the "Defining Approach
Speed" link in Defect # 2 on the Home page.
California Senate Bill 1300 -
Photo Enforcement of Speed (Failed - but is Back - See SB 1325, Above)
Updated 7-6-07
Highwayrobbery.net provided the info below during 2006, when SB 1300 - now failed and replaced by SB 1325 (discussed above) - was under active consideration.
SB 1300 of 2006 (Kuehl, Santa Monica) would have legalized automated speeding ticket cameras, also known
as photo radar. It was created in Feb. 2006 after Sen. Kuehl was unable to revive her nearly identical
2005 bill (SB 466). SB 1300 was to come to a Senate committee
vote on May 9, but the author pulled it just before the meeting date, and it died. However, it is likely
to come back - speed cameras are an idea that won't go away!
As first drafted, SB 1300 was restricted to a pilot program in only one town, Beverly Hills, and only in 25 mph zones. But
it could easily have been amended to include other
cities (as of May 2, Burbank, Carson, Culver City, Pasadena and LA County were listed as additional supporters of the bill), and
higher speeds - there is no technical
bar to the use of the cameras for
the enforcement of higher speed limits, such as on freeways. Nor is the use of speed cameras on freeways unprecedented.
A current example is Scottsdale, Arizona, which recently installed cameras on an 8-mile section of the 101 freeway
loop. Even though there was a 30 day period during which warning tickets were mailed
out (Jan. 22 to Feb. 22, 2006), the Mar. 31 East Valley Tribune reported that in the five weeks after
Feb. 22, Scottsdale issued more than 6500 REAL tickets! And on Oct. 23 - at the end of the test period - the Tribune
reported that the total had risen to an
astonishing 130,992 tickets issued.
The use of a "pilot
program" as a way of getting their foot in the door may be part of a nationwide scheme by the
industry - very similar legislation has just been
passed by the Maryland legislature.
Late note: Another "foot in the door" is a 2007 project by the MRCA, a
State agency which manages parks in
the Los Angeles area, to install speed cameras on park roads - despite the fact that speed cameras are
illegal in California. For more info about the MRCA, see its entries above and on the Camera Towns page.
The Auto Clubs' (Lack of) Position
On March 20, 2006 I called the auto clubs to inquire as to their positions on SB 1300. Neither club
called me back, so I called them again, on the 22nd. Again, neither club called me back, so I called them
again on the 23rd. I was able to reach ACSC's Vice President of Legislative Affairs, who told me that her
club was taking a neutral position
on the bill. On the 24th I got a call from CSAA's Director of Corporate Affairs, who told me that
his club was neutral on the bill. If you are an auto club member, call your
club and register your opinion about speed cameras - maybe they will change their position, and oppose all
future speed camera bills. I believe that if the
auto clubs strongly oppose such bills, they will not pass. I recommend
using the club phone numbers in the purple SB 1900 box, below. Please also let
them know that you are concerned about the CTCDC's action (above).
Auto Clubs - Are They Fish, or Fowl (Foul)?
Automated enforcement is mostly about money - BIG money for the state-run courts (see FAQ # 16), a little bit of money (or maybe a loss) for the city, and an opportunity for insurance
companies to charge higher rates
to motorists who have received a "point" due to a camera ticket. So, are the auto clubs benevolent organizations, operating
in motorists' best interests, or are they really just insurance companies in disguise? Here's some information, so you can
decide for yourself. In 2005, ACSC, the AAA auto club for
southern California, had $252 million net revenue from its insurance operations, almost fourteen times that from its "club" operations and membership
dues ($18.2 milliion net revenue). (Figures are from financial statements published in May/June 2006 Westways magazine.)
One
legislator has gone public with
his criticism of the
California AAA clubs.
Thanks go out to the readers of highwayrobbery.net who called their legislators and asked them
to vote "no" on SB 1300.
The bill was also opposed by the California Association of Highway Patrolmen.
For a book about speeding camera tickets, see the Speeding Ticket section on the Links page.
|
[In this box is the info
highwayrobbery.net provided during the time SB 466 - now
failed and replaced by SB 1300 (which also failed and has been replaced by SB 1325, discussed above) - was under active consideration.] The bill (SB 466) of 2005 is in the Senate Transportation Committee, and needs to get that Committee's approval, and approval by the full Senate, by Jan. 31, 2006. Brief history of the bill: This bill started in early 2005, but the City of LA withdrew their sponsorship, so on April 18 Sen. Kuehl temporarily withdrew the bill from consideration. On Sept. 14, 2005, I called the auto clubs to ask their positions on the then-current bill, SB 466. ACSC said they opposed it, and had, back in April 2005, lobbied the City of LA to drop their sponsorship. CSAA said they opposed it, too. Now, in early 2006, it is coming back under consideration as a "two-year bill." [The clubs may have changed their positions - see SB 1300 materials, above.] The bill began life as a statewide program, but to make it more acceptable to those who opposed it before, Sen. Kuehl has reduced it to a pilot program in Beverly Hills, only. I suspect that this is a "get your foot in the door" maneuver, and that the bill will be further amended, in the next few months, to add other cities. [The info in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time SB 466 - now failed and replaced by SB 1300 (which also failed) - was under active consideration.] |
California Senate Bill 57 - Vetoed Once by Governor but Back as SB 1773 - and No Veto This Time!
Added 2-3-05, updated 10-4-06
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (916) 445-2841
SB 1773
was
created in Feb. 2006 because SB 57 was "terminated" (vetoed) by the governor
in Oct. 2005 and its sponsors
were unable to get the 2/3 vote necessary to override his veto
by the Jan. 26, 2006 deadline to do so. SB 1773 adds 20% to the base fine on moving violations. Even
though he vetoed the previous version, SB 57, Gov. Schwarzenegger approved SB 1773 on Sept. 30, 2006.
|
[In this box is the info
highwayrobbery.net provided during the time SB 57 - now
vetoed and replaced by SB 1773, which has passed - was under active consideration.] SB 57 (Alarcon, San Fernando) will add $20 to the fine for many traffic tickets. It was introduced on Jan. 12, 2005 and on Sept. 7 was adopted by the Legislature. It is now on Gov. Schwarzenegger's desk for signature (or veto). In the legislature the votes were along party lines, with Republicans strongly opposing the bill. Please call the governor and ask him to veto SB 57 (and SB 466 when it comes back in 2006 - see [SB 1300] above). Tell him you regard SB 57 as a tax increase, and remind him that his fellow Republicans are against it. Gov. Schwarzenegger's phone is 916 445-2841 (be prepared to wait on the phone for a while). I also suggest calling local newspapers, trying to get them to write something about the two bills. On Sept. 14 I called the auto clubs to ask their positions on SB 57. Both ACSC and CSAA said they oppose it, and planned to lobby the governor to veto it. I suggest that if you are a member of either club, call them and register your opinion on SB 57 [now SB 1773] and SB 466 [now SB 1300]. Use the club phone numbers in the purple SB 1900 box, below. [The info in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time SB 57 - now vetoed and replaced by SB 1773 - was under active consideration.] |
2004 Legislation
Assembly Bill 517 (Vetoed)
Added 7-8-05
AB 517, a failed attempt by the author of AB 1022 to fix one of its provisions, is discussed in confidentiality and shredding issues in AB 1022, and in the AB 1022 section, below.
Senate Bill 1900 (Failed)
Updated 11-18-04
|
[In this box is the info
highwayrobbery.net provided during the time SB 1900 - now
failed - was under consideration.] SB 1900 will [would have] add 15% to the penalty assessment on criminal violations ($15 extra on a red light camera ticket), to pay for forensic DNA programs. 80% of the money collected will go to Sacramento; 20% will stay in the county where it was collected, to be used by local law enforcement agencies for DNA programs. SB 1900 has passed in the Senate and now is before an Assembly Committee, which will vote on it on August 11. You can view it at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html. highwayrobbery.net does not have anything against DNA programs, but is opposing this bill because it continues the trend of milking motorists to pay for the operation of State government departments having nothing to do with transportation. The State is already reaping a huge windfall from motorists this year - the sales tax on the big increase in gas prices. One estimate is that the sales tax windfall will be over $450 million, enough to pay for the SB 1900 program 15 times over! Please Call Your Legislators. [Note: SB 1900 has failed.] I recommend using the phone, not email, and calling the following: (A) First, call the assembly [and/or senate] members who are based closest to where you live, work, or shop, and are on the committee currently considering the bill. A list of those committee members is at committee members. I do not recommend email as they get inundated with it, just as you do. (B) Also call the assembly [and/or senate] members who represent the districts in which you live, work, or shop, even if he or she is not on the committee currently considering the bill. You can find their phone numbers in the government section of your phone book, or at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/yourleg.html. Other Actions You Can Take About Bills CSAA - Northern California: CEO Jim Pouliot (415) 565-2005 Board's fax: (415) 552-5017 Director of Corporate Affairs Bob Brown (415) 565-7902 Legislative Affairs Manager Richard Shrader (916) 443-2577 CSAA email addresses: Robert_Brown@csaa.com, Don_Patton@csaa.com, letters to editor to viamail@csaa.com ACSC - Southern California: CEO Thomas McKernan (714) 885-1222 Board's fax: (714) 885-1280 and 885-1888 VP Legislative Affairs Alice Bisno (714) 885-1253 Legislative Counsel Tim Chang (916) 443-2577. ACSC email addresses: Lenzi.Stephen@aaa-calif.com, letters to editor to westways@aaa-calif.com One legislator has gone public with his criticism of the California AAA clubs. AAA National Headquarters: CEO Bob Darbelnet (407) 444-7000 Board's fax: (407) 444-8416 VP Public Affairs Susan Pikraillidas (202) 942-2050. [The info in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time SB 1900 - now failed - was under consideration.] |
Senate Bill 1800 (Murray) (Failed)
On June 21, 2004, SB 1800 failed to pass out of
the Assembly Committee on Transportation, and wasn't
resurrected during the 2004 legislative session. But it, or
something like it, may be back sometime later, so you may want to read the
info in the box below.
The reason why SB 1800 failed to pass out
of the committee is interesting. The vote was 5 - 2 in favor
of the bill, but since the committee has 13 members, the bill needed at
least seven "ayes" in order to pass. It could have received the
necessary number of yes votes, but there were four committee members
who, while they were present, chose not to vote.
|
[In this box is the info highwayrobbery.net provided during the time
SB 1800 - now failed - was under consideration.]
SB 1800 may [would have] allow the police to add an expensive additional charge to your red light camera citation. Here is a legislative alert I received from the National Motorists Association.
Please call your
legislators and ask them to vote against both SB 1800 and
SB 1900. If you would like to contact
the AAA
Clubs to express your displeasure about their sponsorship of SB 1800,
there is an extensive list of their phone numbers in the AB 1022
section, above. Here is an interesting
breakdown of how the legislature has voted, so far, on SB 1800.
[The info
in this box (above) was provided by highwayrobbery.net during the time
SB 1800 - now failed - was under consideration.]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
We interrupt this serious discussion for
The Humor Items du Jour
(Even
though we got a *&@#!! ticket,
we think we still have our twisted sense of humor. So, for your
entertainment, we now provide "The Humor Items du Jour.") Humor, I.
Humor, II.
Humor, III.
Buzzword Bingo New, 2-9-08 You probably know what Buzzword Bingo is, but if you
don't, have a look at this Wikipedia article. (Yes, I
am aware that Buzzword Bingo is mostly known by another, catchier, name.
I just can't use that name here, because this is a "G" rated website.) It occurred to me that we need to do a Buzzword Bingo card for the words found in: a. The typical speeches heard when city councils are being sold a camera system, and So
here is the Bingo card,
which is nearly blank right now - I have provided a phrase for the
center
square. Send me your suggested word(s) and if they're really
good, I will post them here. By the way, I won't feel too bad if
you happen to suggest a better word for the center square!
|
2003 Legislation
Two red light
camera bills were introduced in the 2003
California legislative session. Both of them were anti-motorist,
pro-industry (police, camera companies, insurance companies). One of them, SB
780, was "killed" in July 2003. The
other, AB 1022, passed, was signed by [then exiting] Gov. Davis on Sept. 25, and went
into effect on Jan. 1, 2004.
Assembly Bill 1022 (Oropeza) [Adopted]
Assemblywoman (now Senator) Jenny Oropeza
Assemblywoman (now Senator)
Jenny Oropeza (Long Beach), the California AAA "auto clubs" and the
California State Sheriff's Association sponsored and supported
new legislation,
Assembly Bill 1022
which was signed by outgoing Gov. Davis on
Sept. 25 and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2004.
It was another anti-motorist bill.
AB 1022 looked good, at first -
| AB 1022*: (1) Prohibits camera corporations from being paid on a per-conviction basis, (2) prohibits camera corporations from selecting the location for cameras, (3) prohibits camera corporations from changing the timing of signal phases, (4) prohibits camera corporations from reviewing and approving tickets, (5) continues the present confidential treatment for the photos, so that only the police, the registered owner, and an identified driver of the car, can look at them, (6) requires shredding of the photos after 6 months (A late note: A year later, Ms. Oropeza tried, but failed, to fix her mistake and lengthen this to 13 months**), and (7) attempts to make mandatory the existing requirement that CalTrans' minimum yellows (3.0 in a 25, 3.2 in a 30, 3.6 in a 35, etc.), must be complied with. This provision was added in a July 8 amendment because of a West Hollywood judge's highly publicized [then] recent decision to ignore the CalTrans chart and OK ticketing so long as the yellow is at least 3.0, no matter the speed limit on the street (see the WeHo section on the Camera Towns page). *You can read AB 1022 on the Internet. **A detailed discussion of that failed "fix" and of the confidentiality and shredding issues in AB 1022 is on another page. |
Provisions (1) - (4) above are grandfathered; two grandfather clauses contained in AB 1022 make sure those four provisions will not apply to cities that have a system in operation (or have signed a contract to have one installed) prior to Jan. 1, 2004. Why is it that the very cities whose actions have demonstrated the need for tighter regulation of camera operations, are to be immune from the new regulations? The authors won't admit it, but the probable reason is that the State doesn't want to create an "unfunded mandate," a situation where the State treasury would have to reimburse cities for the expense of actually having to make the changes the bill pretends to require. Provisions (5) and (6), confidentiality and shredding, will make it impossible for the media, a citizens' group, or a website editor, to investigate improperly-run camera systems and get refunds, as occurred recently with nearly 3000 East LA tickets going back 2-1/2 years (see East LA section on Cameras Page). A much more detailed discussion of the confidentiality and shredding issues in AB 1022 is on another page. Provision (7), the attempt to make the existing minimum yellows "mandatory," is toothless because California's "Truth in Evidence" rule (part of the Constitution) prohibits judges from excluding evidence simply because authorities failed to follow a procedure specified in a State law - unless: (a) that law has been passed by a 2/3 vote in both houses of the legislature, and (b) that law explicitly states that evidence shall be excluded if the authorities haven't followed the procedures specified therein. The Speed Trap Law (Vehicle Code Sections 40801 - 3) is a good example of a law that requires exclusion of evidence if authorities haven't followed its procedures. AB 1022 is not. It has not been written to require a 2/3 vote, nor does it state that evidence shall be excluded. Absent the explicit language and the 2/3 vote, "Truth in Evidence" (Prop. 8 of 1982, Cal. Constitution Article 1, Section 28(d)) prevails, and the camera evidence must stay in. (This isn't speculation. In 2003 I saw three different judges repeatedly cite "Truth in Evidence" when refusing to exclude camera evidence in localities where citizens had discovered that the yellow was shorter than the minimums provided in the previous, very similar, law (CVC 21455.7 effective Jan. 1, 2002)). |
The police-sponsored SB 780 (see SB 780 section below) would have
been in some ways a much better deal
for motorists than is AB 1022. SB 780 would have kept the "point"
off your driving record, and (before it was amended) included a minimum 4.0
yellow and a reduced fine ($200).
Back to AB 1022. There are many provisions that should have been in AB 1022, but weren't there - because they were stripped, or not included despite an official recommendation, or overlooked. Here are the most important ones.
I. Stripped from bill - consider alternative strategies,
demonstrate safety need.
On July 8 the author amended the bill, removing a
200-word section which
required cities, prior to installing a camera, to consider
alternative traffic safety strategies, improve
the physical environment, and demonstrate a safety need. The stripping of this language came four days after the League of California
Cities took the position reflected
by this item from their newsletter.
II. Not included despite official recommendation - posted speed limit, or 85th Percentile?
The author of AB 1022 (Assemblywoman - now Senator - Jenny Oropeza, Long Beach) tries to justify AB 1022 by saying it
"codif(ies) recommendations made by the state auditor."
Indeed, her bill addresses (albeit inadequately, and in a contorted manner) almost
every official recommendation made by the state auditor (Auditor's Report, pages 45-46
- see Links Page) except for the following (which is the basis of
Defect # 3 on the Home Page). "To
avoid the risk of legal
challenges, local governments should petition Caltrans to clarify its
traffic manual to explain when local governments should use either
posted speeds or the results from speed surveys to establish yellow
light time intervals at intersections equipped with red light cameras." III. Not included despite discussion by auditor - a mandatory grace period. The
Auditor's Report says:
"Although the law does not mandate them to do so, five of the seven
local governments we visited employ grace periods of up to five-tenths
of a second before their red light cameras will begin taking
photographs." "The FHWA indicates that a grace period of three-tenths of
a second is commonly used and that five-tenths of a second is the
international standard." (Auditor's Report, page 45.) IV. Overlooked: clarify the 30 day warning
requirement. Existing Vehicle Code Section
21455.5 requires that warning notices be issued for 30 days, but
doesn't make it clear whether a city having a pre-existing system is required to issue
warning notices when it installs a new camera. AB 1022 re-enacts the same
vague language. (This is the basis of Defect # 6 on the Home
page.)
|
The new
shredding requirement, and the total
absence from AB 1022 of any provisions such as an
adequate minimum yellow that judges can't
ignore, a reduction or graduation of
the onerous fines, or a mandatory grace period, signaled us that AB 1022
was not a pro-motorist bill.
The
California AAA "auto clubs" should be ashamed of having lent their heretofore-good names to this
sheriff-supported, anti-motorist, bill.
AB 1022's bottom
line is about money - including for insurance companies that can charge higher rates
to motorists who have gotten a "point" due to a red light camera ticket. In 2005, ACSC, the AAA auto club for
southern California, had $252 million net revenue from its insurance operations, more than ten times the revenue from its "club" operations and membership
dues
($18 million). One
legislator has gone public with
his criticism of the
California AAA clubs. Now that cities have
Sacramento's permission, they will shred their camera
records, relieving themselves and their camera vendors
of significant liabilities. And, in
the weeks before January 1, 2004 cities rushed to sign contracts
for cameras, or update existing contracts, so that they would be able to use AB
1022's grandfather clauses to evade the bill's meager pro-motorist
requirements.
If you'd like to join an auto club that actually stands up for motorists, I recommend the National Motorists Association. See their link on the Link page for more information.
A late
note, 1-4-04, updated
6-9-04 -
The following cities are among those that signed contracts just before the Jan. 1,
2004 deadline:
Del Mar, Encinitas, Escondido, Lynwood, Maywood, Oceanside, Poway,
Ridgecrest, Santa Clarita, and Vista. And
Solana Beach has voted for cameras, subject to approval by the vendor.
In the Los Angeles area, in late 2003 the City of Upland signed a
10-year extension to a contract it first signed in July of 2003.
Let Ms. Oropeza know
what you think about her "yes" vote on SB 1800,
her sponsorship of AB 1022, and her embarrassing attempt, the following year (AB 517 - see above), to fix part of her little Frankenstein!
A detailed discussion of that failed "fix" and of
the confidentiality
and shredding issues in AB 1022 is
on another page.
You can read the legislative history of
AB
1022 on the legislature's website.
Senate Bill 780 (Failed)
History: In early 2003 the California
Police Officers' Association (CPOA President's Message) sponsored
a red light camera bill in the
State legislature. It was Senate Bill 780. It
was approved by two Senate committees (see table of votes, below) but
in June 2003 it stalled in the
Senate Appropriations Committee. It could have come back under
consideration in 2004 as a "two-year" bill, but did not receive the
Senate approval needed (to be carried-over) prior to the January 31,
2004 cut-off date.
While the bill would have kept
the "point" off your DMV record, it also would have made it
much easier for cities to issue tickets, and much harder (and more
expensive) for you to fight one.
According to the legislature's website, SB 780's only officially-listed opponents were the AAA auto clubs. A possible
explanation for their position may be
the fact that the Clubs' main cash flow is from
car insurance premiums, and SB 780's lack of "points" would have prevented insurance companies from raising your insurance rates.
Here are details on the last amendments to SB 780, made
on May 13, 2003, by the bill's author, Senator Tom Torlakson:
The May 13 amendments raised the originally proposed (reduced) fine of $200 up to $341, and dropped the provision
that would have clearly specified a minimum yellow time of 4.0 seconds.
There does not seem to have been a strong rationale for those amendments.
The fine was increased because a state agency (The Commission on Peace
Officer Standards and Training,
or "POST," http://www.post.ca.gov/ ) complained that the
proposed reduction in the fine would reduce monies coming to their
agency. The 4.0 minimum was dropped because the City of Santa
Ana, which had just installed its first camera, complained of the expense of
potentially having to adjust the yellow time in their camera(s), and
questioned why camera-equipped intersections should be required to have
longer yellows than non camera-equipped intersections.
Here is a breakdown of
how the senators voted on SB 780.
| SB
780 |
Transportation
Committee May 6, 2003 |
Judiciary
Committee April 22, 2003 |
||
| Yes |
No |
Yes |
No |
|
| Dems |
7 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
| Reps |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
| Female |
4 |
0 | 3 |
0 |
| Male |
3 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
You can
read the legislative history of
SB 780 on the legislature's website.
The Action Page:
6. The Guru Club
You are on the Action page.
If you have been researching a red light camera ticket, you are now a red light camera ticket Guru.
Welcome to The Guru Club.
2. (g[=oo]"r[=oo]) one who has expert knowledge of a
technical area and serves as an advisor to others; an
expert and teacher. Usually written guru.
Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.44
You may not think you are a
Guru, but that is what your family and friends think. Very soon
they will be coming to you crying,
"O Guru, I got a red light camera ticket, what shall I do?"
Here's what to tell them.
1. Tell them to bring the ticket to you, before they do anything about
it, so you can check to see if it is a Snitch Ticket - see the Your Ticket page for what to do with Snitch Tickets.
2. If it is a real
ticket and the face photo is blurry or is not them, tell them that there
needs to be a good photo, of the person cited - not just the license
plates - and that the lack of a suitable face photo is a good
defense.
3. If they want to
fight it, tell them about this website. Don't tell them
it's free - they probably won't believe you. Or, if they do
believe you, they may decide not to visit, assuming that since it's
free there's nothing of value. And watch them when they write
down the website address - they'll probably write ".com" even though
you just told them
".net." Everyone does.
4. If they don't
want to fight it, tell them to be sure to get traffic school or, if they need it, Second
Offender traffic school (a lot of people haven't heard about Second
Offender school).
5. Warn them about the legislators who are trying to pass bills to allow
speed cameras in California. (See the
Legislation section on this page, above).
6. Tell them that THEY are now a Guru, too.
7. Questionnaire, Email Address
(Scroll down a little for the Ticket
Information Questionnaire)
(Scroll all the way down for the email address)
