New 6-15-10, updated 3-27-18
AB 909 of 2010: The First of Many
Attempts to Reduce the Fine for Rolling Right Turns
(Followed by AB 2128 of 2012, SB 681 of
2015, SB 986 of 2016, SB 493 of 2017 and SB 1132 of
2018)
"All that is necessary
for the triumph of evil is that good men do
nothing."
Edmund Burke 1729 - 1797
AB
909 of 2010 (Hill) was touted as cutting the fine
for a rolling right turn by about half. Also, prior
to a June 14 amendment, the bill would have revised the
law to allow a motorist to turn right without having
to stop, so long as he or she did not interfere with
a pedestrian's or another motorist's right-of-way.
On Sept. 29, 2010 AB 909 was vetoed by
Governor Schwarzenegger.
The latest version of the bill, SB 1132, was
filed in Feb. 2018.
Early History: AB 909
On Mar. 16, 2010 Assemblymember (now Senator) Jerry Hill
(D - San Mateo) made a request
for the Legislative Analyst to study red light cameras. He
asked most of the right questions, such as: "Is the amount
charged... appropriate for the crime committed?" and
"Should red light cameras be used to issue right turn on
red tickets?"
Hill received the analyst's report
on May 14.
On May 27 the first version of AB 909 was published.
There was formal opposition
even before it was published, and more
after it was published, from the California Police Chief's
Association, whose president is the chief from the City of
San Mateo (which in 2019 shut its cameras down).
The idea for AB 909 may have come from the City of Los
Angeles, which until Aug. 2008 cited its rolling right
violations under 21453(b), which resulted in a total fine
of $159 (or about $240 with recent hikes in fees and
surcharges). For more details, see Set # 2 on the
City of LA Docs page.
AB 909 tried to accomplish the fine
reduction by reclassifying a rolling right turn as a
violation of CVC 21453(b), instead of the present
21453(a). The (b) violation, not presently used for
camera tickets, never had its fine increased to $100
(base) like (a) and (c) did.
The Present Law,
and How I Think It Works
Latest edit: 12-30-13
CVC 21453 has
three subsections applicable to motorists.
(a)
A driver facing a steady circular red signal
alone shall stop at a marked limit line, but if
none, before entering the crosswalk on the near
side of the intersection or, if none, then
before entering the intersection, and shall
remain stopped until an indication to proceed is
shown, except as provided in subdivision (b).
Subsection (a) is the one presently used for
all straight-thru violations, and most rolling
right turns. For (a), the "base" fine is
$100 - but then heavy
surcharges bring it up to (approx.) $500.
(b)
Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a
turn, a driver, after stopping as required by
subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red
signal, may turn right, or turn left from a
one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver
making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to
pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent
crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached
or is approaching so closely as to constitute an
immediate hazard to the driver, and shall
continue to yield the right-of-way to that
vehicle until the driver can proceed with
reasonable safety.
The base fine for (b) is $35, so with
surcharges the full fine is (approx.) $240.
(c)
A driver facing a steady red arrow signal shall
not enter the intersection to make the movement
indicated by the arrow and, unless entering the
intersection to make a movement permitted by
another signal, shall stop at a clearly marked
limit line, but if none, before entering the
crosswalk on the near side of the intersection,
or if none, then before entering the
intersection, and shall remain stopped until an
indication permitting movement is shown.
The base fine for (c) is $100, and this
subsection is the one presently used for left
turn violations and those few right turns that
are controlled by a red arrow.
How It Works
I believe that 21453(b)
should be used where a motorist facing a circular
red makes a full stop behind the limit line -
so he has not violated (a) - but then makes a
right turn which blocks a pedestrian or gets
in the way of a motorist coming from the left
who has the right-of-way (ROW) because his
signal is green. And maybe (b)
should also be used if a motorist violates a
posted No Turn on Red sign; even among
traffic cops (archived
copy) there is no general agreement as
to which section to cite for that sign
violation; in addition to 21453(b) they like
to use 21461 and 22101(d) - both of which also
have a base fine of $35. Per CVC
40518, cameras cannot be used to enforce
21461, so we only need to look at 22101(d),
which says:
(c) When
right- or left-hand turns are prohibited at an
intersection notice of such prohibition shall
be given by erection of a sign.
(d) When
official traffic control devices are placed
as required in subdivisions (b) or (c), it
shall be unlawful for any driver of a
vehicle to disobey the directions of such
official traffic control devices.
If there is a red arrow signal (not a
circular red) prohibiting the right turn, I
think 21453(c) can be used.
How It Got This Way
Senator Hill (author of AB
909) wrote that the 1997 fine increase was
meant to apply just to straight-thru
violations, and that its application to right
turns was inadvertent. That needs a little
clarification. In 1997, there wasn't yet a
minimum length for the yellows, so the cities
were able to use short yellows to write lots
of straight-thru tickets. And, due to
technical limitations (back then, red light
cameras captured only "before and after" still
shots - no video), there was no practical way
to ticket for rolling rights. Then in
2001, CVC 21455.7 was enacted and it set
minimum yellows and made many cities lengthen
theirs, causing ticketing - and income - to
drop way off. But technology stepped in
to save the day. Computer memory and video
cameras were getting much cheaper. The camera
companies added video to their camera systems,
and voila, they were able to start
citing for right turns. (Without video, it is
difficult to prove a right turn violation.)
Right turn ticketing increased in 2015, to 47%
of all camera tickets up from 38% in 2014,
after a rule change requiring longer yellows
went into effect. (See Defect # 2 on the
Home Page for more info.)
|
There were five versions of the bill.
The May 27 Version of AB 909
Before May 27, 2010, AB 909 was about a totally
different subject (the Election Code), and the bill was
going nowhere. Then on May 27 Assemblyman Hill
"gutted and amended" it; he removed all the Election Code
language, and changed the subject to traffic fines.
The May 27 language moved rolling right turns to
Subsection (b) - which has a much lower base fine.
But more significantly, the May 27 version of the bill
also would have removed the requirement to make
a full stop.
(b) Except when a sign is in place prohibiting a turn, a driver,
after stopping as required by subdivision (a), facing a steady circular red signal, may turn right, or turn left from a one-way street onto a one-way street. A driver making that turn shall yield the right-of-way to pedestrians lawfully within an adjacent crosswalk and to any vehicle that has approached or is approaching so closely as to constitute an immediate hazard to the driver, and shall continue to yield the right-of-way to that vehicle until the driver can proceed with reasonable safety. CVC 21453(b), as proposed in May 27 Version of AB 909 (Portion)
Subsection (b) of the May 27
version made it a violation only if the driver fails to
yield the right-of way!
This proposed change brought immediate and heavy
opposition, and I heard that an amendment was in the
works, so on June 3 I wrote:
June 3, 2010
To the Office of Assemblymember Jerry Hill -
I could have supported the May 27 version of AB
909, as it would have made rolling right tickets
go only to the few motorists who have been shown
to have violated the right-of-way of another
motorist, a bicyclist, or a pedestrian - thus
justifying the still-heavy (approx.) $250 fine the
bill proposes. But I cannot support a
version which reduces the fine but does not
address the severity of the violation - thus the
quantity of tickets - because even a $250 fine,
plus the accompanying "point" on one's DMV record,
is too heavy a punishment for the typical rolling
right violation. For
sake of comparison, I would mention that New
York City charges $50,
and no point, for the same violation.
A further disadvantage of a bill that does not
address the quantity of rolling right tickets is
that it does nothing about court congestion. In
your district, the court system is collapsing in
upon itself because the cities are pumping out an
(est.) 6000 red light camera tickets each month -
most of which are for rolling right turns. It's
gotten so bad that if you want to see a judge
about your ticket (maybe to ask for a reduction in
the $500 fine, or for a payment plan), you have to
line up outside the court building in the wee
hours of the morning, just to get a seat in the
courtroom. The southern end of Alameda
County
has the same problem.
Even though I cannot
support a reduced-fine-only version of AB 909, I
understand that you will probably move ahead
with such a version, and would like to suggest
that any fine reduction also be applied to left
turns. I suggest
this because we already have some cities (Corona
and Santa Clarita) which have focused their
cameras almost exclusively on left turn lanes,
and it is reasonable to expect that if rolling
right tickets are made less profitable, other
cities will begin to emphasize left-turn
enforcement. (Santa Clarita's data, available at
http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsSantaClaritaMain.html
, shows that for the first quarter of 2010,
95.6% of violations recorded there were left
turns.)
If for any
reason you are not able to reduce the fines for
left turns, an alternative would be to provide
that for a camera-enforced left turn, the length
of the yellow be increased from the present
minimum of 3.0 seconds, up to 4.0 seconds. A one-second increase
has the effect of reducing violations by approx.
2/3, and the effect would be permanent - there
is no "rebound" over time, even after the
passage of several years. Your district
contains an example of the public being abused
by a 3.0[*] second left-turn yellow. At
the left turn from Bayfront to Willow [coming
off the Dumbarton Bridge] the attached official
signal
timing chart says that the yellow for the
left turn is 3.0 while the yellow for the
through movement is 5.0. That disparity,
combined with the high speeds possible in the
very long left turn pocket, generates approx.
100 tickets per month. But if we look at the
"bar charts" for that intersection (available at
http://highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsdocsMenloParkMain.html
), we can see that if the yellow had been
increased by one second, there would have (using
January 2010 as the example) no more than 13
violations. In other words, a one second
longer yellow there would decrease violations by
approx. 90%. Or,
conversely, the present too-short yellow means
that ten-times too many people are getting
tickets. (For further information
about left turn enforcement, and to see an
example of the aforementioned 2/3 reduction with
no rebound, see "Defect # 9 - C at http://highwayrobbery.net/indexExpanded.htm#Def9
.)
Thank you for giving these thoughts your
consideration.
[*Late note: On July 2, 2010, CalTrans
increased the yellow for the Bayfront/Willow left
turn to 3.5 seconds. The extra half second
reduced the number of tickets by 90%. See
the Menlo Park Documents page - linked above - to
see the actual number of tickets, month-by-month.]
|
The June 14 Version
The anticipated amendment was made on June 14. The
"after stopping" requirement was put back in.
The June 16 Version
The bill was amended again - after just two days - on
June 16. While the June 14 version included language
limiting the right turn (base) fine to $35...
(b) Every person convicted of... right turn
violations shall be punished by a fine of thirty-five
dollars ($35)
the June 16 version seems to allow the fine to float
upward...
(b) Every person convicted... shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding one hundred
dollars($100).
A reasonable conclusion would be that the only reason
for the change in the language is that the legislature
anticipates raising the fine!
But even if the proposed base fine of $35 is not raised,
the total fine is going up. There
is the $40 statewide surcharge proposed as part of the
current budget, and there is a new surcharge which went
into effect on June 10, 2010. This
new surcharge, enacted by Executive Session Bill ACX8-3,
is $7 on a $35 base fine, and $20 on a $100 base fine.
The July 15 and August 3 Versions
As of Aug. 3, AB 909 seems to have stabilized:
It appears that a rolling right turn will be a violation
of 21453(b), and that the fine will be whatever is
specified in the general schedule of traffic fines, which
presently sets a $35 base fine but could be amended at any
time.
On Sep. 14, 2010 a letter
in support of AB 909 was written by one of the
Legislature's consultants who had worked on AB 1191 of
1997 (which more than doubled the fine). He wrote:
"...it was always my understanding... that
straight-ahead violations would be subject to the new
higher $100 base fine while right turn on red violations
would be subject to a $35 base fine."
On Sept. 29, 2010 AB 909 was vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger.
For more info about rolling right turns, see FAQ # 15 and the expanded
version of Defect # 9.
---------------------------------
RED LIGHT
CAMERAS
www.highwayrobbery.net
www.highwayrobbery.net
|