Subject: [NEXTEL-1] Illegal Red Light Cameras in California - Home

From: [email-masked]
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 18:59:14 -0400

http://www.highwayrobbery.net/

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/uetFAA/61FxlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 

RED LIGHT CAMS

w w w . h i g h w a y r o b b
e r y . n e t

HOME /
INTRO / LAW

CAMERAS

YOUR TICKET

JOIN / ACTION

LINKS / REF / FAQ

Home / Intro /
Law

Welcome
to Red Light Cams!

This site discusses red light
camera defects that are not widely known and that may invalidate a large
number of tickets in Culver City, West Hollywood, East LA, and other
California localities. Also discussed is the recourse available to the
motoring public.

This site is a free-of-charge
public service.

This
website applies primarily to tickets issued in California; the
law in other states is different.

The latest update was made on
May 15, 2003.

What's Really New or Hot?

CHP/LA
County will refund 3000 tickets issued at Whittier / Atlantic in East LA
!

Look for article in LA
Times on Friday 5-16-03.

Also, see the Cameras Page
of this website.

New legislation, sponsored by the law enforcement
lobby, is moving through committees in the State legislature.  It
is Senate Bill 780.   While it  reduces the fine to
$200, keeps the "point" off your DMV record, and raises the minimum
yellow to 4.0 seconds, the proposed new law makes it much easier for
cities to issue tickets, and much harder (and more expensive)  for
you to fight one.

Will camera-issued speeding
tickets be next?

The next hearing on SB 780 will be on May 19.

You can "track" SB
780 and the Auto Club-sponsored AB
1022 on the internet.

Tell your assemblyman or state
senator what you think - See the Proposed
Legislation section on the Join / Action  Page.

Merchants!
If you received a button,

see the Join / Action Page.

A review of Culver City's speed surveys
reveals a possible explanation why just a few of the cameras produce
most of the tickets.

See the 3-28 addition to Defect #3, below.

It's true! Culver City actually reduced the
yellow time at Washington / La Cienega. See the Jan. 17
entry in the Culver City Chronology on the Cameras Page.

During trials in Culver City, the Commisioner keeps
the TV set (used to display driver's photos) turned so that the public
can't see the screen.  I'm trying to find out if courts in other
towns are doing the same.  If you've been to trial, let me know
whether the TV was visible to the public, or not.  See the
FAQ  on the Links Page (Question #1).

Culver City has resumed prosecution of tickets with
Mickey Mouse 0.1 late times.  See the April 17 entry in the
narrative on the Cameras  Page.

Narrative by
the Editor of this Website

Don't run red lights. It is a
dangerous practice - Russian Roulette with a car.

I received my ticket in March of 2002, for
running the red light at Sepulveda Boulevard at Machado Road in Culver
City, California.

I received several extensions of time, and
trial was set for September 19, 2002.

While waiting for trial I scanned the
California Vehicle Code for sections applicable to red light
cameras, and found Code sections that pointed to defects in my
ticket and those of others.

At trial, I argued all my points, and lost.
I am now appealing my case.

More discussion of the defects, and specific camera locations, is on
the Cameras Page.

Defect #1:
Driver's Photo

(Please note that the sequence in which the defects are
listed here is not necessarily their order of significance.)

Is It You in the Picture?

If it's not you in the photo, you're not
required to give the police the identity of the person driving. See
the Ticket Page, and the recent developments about driver's
photos on the Cameras Page, at Nov. 7, and Jan. 9, 23 and 30 in
the Culver City chronology.

Photo Blurry?

Vehicle Code Section 210 reads:

An "automated enforcement system" is any system operated
by a governmental agency, in cooperation with a law enforcement agency,
that photographically records a driver's responses to a rail or rail
transit signal or crossing gate, or both, or to an official traffic
control signal described in Section 21450, and is designed to obtain a clear
photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the vehicle.

(Note the word "clear.")

The driver's photo on the ticket (below,
enlarged 3 times) sent to me was very blurry.

Photo grade: 7. See Photo
Grading Page

The ticket said that I could go to the
police station and be shown the original photo, so I did, and it
was just as blurry. Since Section 210 requires that the photo be
"clear," the lack of the required clear photo was part of my
challenge to the ticket. Read the discussion about driver's
photos on pages 11/32 and 11/33 in the book "Fight Your Ticket"
(see Links Page for details about that book). Unfortunately, a judge
evidently has a lot of latitude as to what "clear" means.
Commissioner Randall F. Pacheco, who heard my case, ruled against me,
saying: "The driver in the picture has remarkably similar coloring and
facial structure."

Defect #2:
Yellow Light Too Short

New Vehicle Code Section 21455.7,
effective January 1, 2002 reads, in its entirety:

At each intersection at which there is an automated
enforcement system in operation, the minimum yellow light change
interval shall be established in accordance with the
Traffic Manual of the Department of Transportation.

The "Traffic Manual" cited in 21455.7 is
available online (see Links Page). It contains the following table of
"yellow change intervals."

9-04.5 Yellow
Change Intervals

The purpose
of the yellow signal indication is to warn traffic
approaching the signal that the related green movement is
ending or that a red indication will be exhibited
immediately thereafter and traffic will be required to
stop when the red signal is exhibited.

The length of the yellow change interval is dependent upon the speed of
approaching traffic. Suggested yellow change intervals are shown below:

Approach

Speed

Yellow

(mph)

(km/h)

Interval

25
or less

40

3.0

30

48

3.2

35

56

3.6

40

64

3.9

45

72

4.3

50

80

4.7

55

89

5.0

60

97

5.4

65

105

5.8

(Website editor's note: the table reproduced above is from an
April 13, 1998 CalTrans memo updating and replacing the circa
1996 "Metric" version of the table, which had been produced in
increments of 5 kilometers per hour. Both versions of the table
are available at the CalTrans site - see my Links Page for
navigation instructions. The Yellow Interval is in seconds.)

Many judges do not know about the table, and
some of the police at red light camera trials have claimed to
not have known about it either. Some admit knowing about the
table, but claim to be unaware that the Metric (circa 1996)
version has been replaced by the 1998 "English" (or MPH)
version. You should take a copy of it with you when you go to court.

The term "Approach Speed" is used in the
table, but the Traffic Manual doesn't define it, so I phoned around and
asked a number of traffic engineers and public works personnel about the
definition. There was no consensus, but the traffic engineer for Culver
City indicated that it is his practice to use the Posted Speed Limit.
(More about the definition of Approach Speed is below, in the section
entitled "Yellow Light Too Short per 85th....")

As part of my preparation for trial, I went
to the court on two occasions and observed a number of Comm.
Pacheco's trials of Culver City red light camera tickets. During
the trial for one ticket at the intersection of Washington
Boulevard and Beethoven I heard Sgt. Paul Wolford say, in
response to cross-examination by the motorist, that the Posted Speed
Limit there was 35 and that the signal's yellow time was programmed at
3.5 seconds, which he said was based on 1/10 of the Posted Speed Limit.
That motorist had entered 0.3 second late, and was found guilty. Later
that same afternoon, another motorist who had entered that intersection
0.1 second after the expiration of the yellow, was found guilty.

After observing those trials I made a public
records request, and on September 12 I received a Signal Timing Chart
(below) which confirmed that the yellow at Washington / Beethoven was
indeed set at 3.5 seconds.

Since the Vehicle Code and the table in the
Manual require a minimum of 3.6 seconds, all of the tickets issued there
between Jan. 1, 2002 and Sept. 26, 2002, including the two tickets
discussed above, are defective and invalid. The Sept. 26 cutoff
is because on Sept. 27, Culver City adjusted the yellow timing
at Washington / Beethoven, Sepulveda / Green Valley, and Jefferson /
Cota up to the legal minimum of 3.6 seconds.

(On that same date, the City reduced the yellow at Washington /
La Cienega, from 4.0 to 3.6 seconds. For more info about that reduction,
see the Jan. 9 and 17 entries in the Culver City chronology on the
Cameras Page.)

The paper, "The Red Light Running Crisis -
Is It Intentional," by (now retired) Congressman Dick Armey, focuses on
the length of the yellow. It's a "must read." A copy is available on the
Links Page of this website.

And be sure to read the chronology on the
Cameras Page, to see how the Culver City court has ruled on this
issue.

Defect #3:
Yellow Light Too Short per 85th Percentile Speed

Revised 3-30-03

The Posted Speed Limit on Washington at
Beethoven is 35, which if used to do a look-up in the table in
the Manual (above), would require a yellow time of at least 3.6
seconds. On Sept. 27, the yellow there was increased to 3.6
seconds, which would seem to satisfy the 21455.7 requirement.
However, the Manual does not define "Approach Speed," and there is one
school of thought that instead of using the Posted Speed Limit, another
figure called the "85th Percentile Speed," which is derived from field
surveys of the actual speed of traffic, should be used as the
Approach Speed. (That way, the actual drivers have enough time to
actually stop!)

The 85th Percentile Speed is determined
through and is used extensively in the radar speed trap law
(Veh. Code Sec. 40802) which requires that wherever a city
wishes to use radar for speed enforcement, they must do a radar
speed survey sampling the speed of 50 to 100 cars. The 85th
Percentile is almost always higher than the Posted Speed Limit.
Per the City's radar speed surveys, the 85th Percentile Speed on
Washington at Beethoven, for westbound traffic, is 45. Eastbound it is
38. The yellow interval for an Approach Speed of 45 would be 4.3
seconds, per the table. The (eastbound) speed of 38 isn't listed in the
table, and there are two ways to calculate the yellow interval. If we
assume that the phrase "or less" found in the table is meant to apply to
all approach speed increments listed there ("or less" was not repeated
at the top of the "km/h" column), the yellow interval for an Approach
Speed of 38 would be 3.9 seconds. If, alternately, we assume that we are
to interpolate and take just a portion of the 0.3 second difference
between the yellow intervals given for 35 and 40 mph, the resulting
yellow interval would be 3.6 seconds plus 3/5 of 0.3 which equals 3.78
seconds (which would have to be programmed as 3.8 to provide the
"minimum" of 3.78). The 3.6 seconds programmed into the signal by the
City is less than any of those minimum figures, 4.3, 3.9, or 3.8.

(Originally, in the
section above, I used Sepulveda / Machado, where I got my
ticket, to illustrate the defect. Now I have substitued
Washington / Beethoven, as that intersection is where most
people get their tickets, and because of the huge difference, for
westbound traffic there, between the posted speed and the 85th
Percentile Speed.)

I made this kind of argument at my trial. I
lost. Comm. Pacheco said that he believed that the Posted Speed Limit,
not the 85th Percentile Speed, should be used in the table. But
The 85th Percentile Speed where I got my ticket is just 3 mph
over the posted. Westbound Washington at Beethoven has an 85th
that is 10 mph over the posted speed. Perhaps the current judge will
agree that the yellow is too short.

Added 3-28-03:

On Mar. 27 and 28 I had a chance to review the speed surveys that
Culver City used to determine what speed limits would be posted on the
streets where camera enforcement is used. These surveys revealed a close
match between high ticket production and Posted Speed Limits
substantially below the 85th Percentile Speed (thereby allowing
the City to set a shorter yellow time). See set #5 of Culver City Documents.

Defect #4:
Signs Too Small, Etc.

There is a Vehicle Code
requirement (VC 21455.5) that warning signs saying "Photo Enforcement"
be posted either at each camera-equipped intersection, or at all the
main entrances to town. Most cities have posted enough signs, but all
signs must also comply with the CalTrans specifications - particularly
as to the minimum size of 30 x 42 inches.

Until March 2003, most of the signs in Culver City were undersized, but
at the time of my trial I wasn't aware of this defect.

More details: See Cameras Page (the Dec. 3, Jan. 14, Jan. 30, Feb. 11,
Mar. 6, Mar. 11, Mar. 27 and Apr. 29 Culver City entries), and Sign Requirements.

Update, 3-11-03:

On my drive home from the Mar. 6 court session, I
noticed that Culver City has put up 42" warning signs at
Washington / Beethoven. I believe that the signs were put up on
the same day I first saw them, the 6th. I then went by and
checked Sepulveda / Green Valley, and that intersection still
had its original 36" signs.

Update, 3-30-03:

On Mar. 27 I noticed that there were new, larger, warning signs at
Sepulveda / Green Valley. It's reasonable to assume that new signs have
been put up at all the other camera sites.

Warnings /
Disclaimers / Notes

Don't run red lights. It is a
dangerous practice - Russian Roulette with a car.

This site is new. I started
it on September 23, 2002. During its first months there will be
a lot of new information added. New material that is not
obviously so will be marked "new," "added," or "update" in large
red letters, until it is at least 2 weeks old. Red will also be
used, sparingly, to highlight especially important information
or questions.

This site is a free-of-charge
public service. I am not selling anything. Donations cannot be accepted.

Contributions of information will be welcomed.

I am not a lawyer, and may
have some erroneous or incomplete materials on this site. You
should double-check any material obtained here, before you use
it.

I do not work for a lawyer,
in any capacity. However, I do hope that in the near future this
site will help to bring together a sufficient number of
defendants in each town having illegal/defective camera
installations, so that either (a) political pressure can be brought on
the local government to reverse/dismiss/refund tickets, or (b), lawyers
can be retained to defeat those tickets, en masse, as occurred last year
in San Diego.

This
website applies primarily to tickets issued in California; the
law in other states is different.

Email: For the email address of the editor of this
website, go to the Join / Action Page.

Onward, to Cameras Page

Back, to Top of This Page

---------------------------------

RED LIGHT CAMS

www.highwayrobbery.net

www.highwayrobbery.net