Judge Throws Out Red Light Camera Tickets As Program Declared Illegal And Void
from the revenue,-not-safety dept
Yet again, we find out about a story of a city putting in place red light cameras, and using them not to increase public safety (per the official claim of the city) but to drive revenue -- even by shortening the length of yellow lights to under the legal limit, thereby increasing both ticket revenue and accidents. Luckily, this time, in Santa Ana, California, a judge has declared the whole program illegal and declared all of those who received the tickets under the program as "not guilty" (found via Jeff Nolan). There were a few reasons for this. First, the city broke the law in not clearly announcing which traffic lights would have the cameras with 30 days' notice. In fact, the city actually moved the cameras around with no notice in an attempt to maximize revenue. The city claimed that it gave notice... by stating at a city council meeting that they'd be moving the cameras around, but without indicating where. Also, the city had promised that the lights would have a minimum yellow light of 4.4 seconds, but 17 of 18 lights checked had yellow lights that were less than 4.0 seconds, which makes a huge difference. The judge also specifically ruled that the people who got tickets this way were "not guilty" rather than just dismissing their cases, to avoid having their cases somehow reinstated.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: illegal, red light cameras, santa ana
Companies: redflex
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hopefully there'll be more like him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not so clear
I'm tired of almost dying every time I walk around town. Drivers ignoring stop lines and cruising into crosswalks before stopping. Drivers making right turns on red, but looking left WHILE MOVING to look for other cars while pedestrians are legally crossing from the driver's right side.
And, of course, drivers (yes plural) running red lights. The problem is so 'accepted' now that intersections now have a three second delay after a light turns red before opposing light and crosswalks go green, to allow for 'red light runners' to clear the intersections.
In most states a yellow light means 'stop' (unless you cannot stop). So running a yellow light and even a 'just turned' red light is 'acceptable', people are stretching that to now running stale red lights. Or they are just inattentive and cruise through an intersection because the driver in front of them did (while running a red light) and the second driver was looking at the car in front of them rather than the traffic signal.
So it comes down to cameras at red lights Peds want them because we're tired of close calls at every intersection. Drivers hate them because every driver thinks they 'just made it' and never ever deserve a ticket. This city shortening the yellow light time is sleezy and should not have been done. Cameras are supposed to record how long the light was red when the car ran the light, so they will supposedly not ticket the 'just missed' people. I really have no idea why people need to be notified that they should obey the law in this intersection and don't bother in the others.
There are a lot of privacy/big brother issues when cameras give tickets. But this isn't like going 35 in a 30mph zone. If you've run the red light, chances are you just missed hitting me...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
You can argue for putting in red light cameras to enforce the rules, but it becomes unacceptable when they deliberately make the yellow lights shorter, so people have a harder time stopping and end up "accidently" running the light. That makes things more dangerous for everybody involved, including pedestrians.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not so clear
In chicago where I frequent, for example, pedestrians are DELIBERATELY blind of cars, in fact the only thing worse is bikers (who do not follow any signals, be it red or green).
the only pedestrians who acknowledge cars are the ones that look at them and realize they are there. Plenty do this accidentally, but many don't. When a car has a green pedestrians are not supposed to cross. Meanwhile, guess who is more likely to get tickets for not following the light properly? Is it pedestrians, or cars? Oh right, it's cars.
Red light cameras don't affect pedestrian safety. Sad but true, it's really about more than that.
You should try to pay more attention to the concept of "look before you leap" or you know, looking both ways before crossing? haven't you heard of that as a kid? or did you just assume the millisecond the light is red for the perpendicular direction that you should automatically be safe to walk, without checking if there are cars going by?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
easy sparky
The larger question - which, if any, is more likely to get a driver to change their behavior - a human officer with a ticket on the spot, or a camera which punishes you days/weeks later??
Steelwolf - my opening statement was more addressing the fact that most print and TV reports on red light cameras discuss only drivers and tickets - never pedestrian safety. Even this article (while only just a news update) only talked about cars and fairness to drivers - no mention of ped safety...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Safety
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Cameras could be made to work for safety.
A statute that prevented "revenue roulette" by stating the parameters in which cameras can be used, regulated by the same folks that declare your gas pumps to be accurate, might be acceptable. I, too, agree that running red lights has become way too common.
Also, a statute could be written such that it takes 'n' (n > 1) camera offenses before it becomes "points" on your record. That would take some of the subjectivity out of the debate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Cameras could be made to work for safety.
My personal view is that putting timer at the light that indicates how long it will be legal to pass through the intersection would help tremendously for safety. I have always held that if a department has a line item in their budget for tickets, then they will do whatever they can to beat that revenue goal. Studies have also shown that departments who rely on ticket revenue spend more time devising ways to increase revenue than they do protecting the public they purport to serve...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
cameras at red lights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
my opening statement was more addressing the fact that most print and TV reports on red light cameras discuss only drivers and tickets - never pedestrian safety. Even this article (while only just a news update) only talked about cars and fairness to drivers - no mention of ped safety...
That's because traffic camera's have absolutely nothing to do with safety, pedestrian or otherwise. That's the whole point here.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
running a red light
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: cameras at red lights
everyone, me included, is sick-and-tired of drivers running red lights, not yellow's;
Really? Because I'm not included in this group because I NEVER see anyone run red lights. I can count on one hand the amount of times I've seen someone run a red in my life. Where is it you people live that you make it out to seem like 50% of the drivers are running red lights?!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kudos
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Crosswalk indicators do not turn White (Go) until the parallel light has turned green. How do people running red lights then endanger you as a pedestrian? You shouldn't be in the crosswalk of a street where the lights are ever green or yellow.
Try again...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not so clear
I'm going to go ahead and assume you're not including Chicago cabs in that equation, becaue HOLY SHIT are they psycho. Also, most of the bikers you see acting like cock-gobblers are the messengers, otherwise known as the bike equivalent of taxis.
As to the rest of your point, spot on. There is apparently something wrong with Chicago's populace in that they clearly never were taught how to WALK. It's stunning how people just blindly go about getting from point A to B in whatever way they deem necessary. Jay walking in front of cars? No big deal. Having an entire sidewalk FILLED with people all going west and leaving no room for those going east? Fuck those west-going fucks, I've got to get to the El Dammit.
I've often thought about starting a blog called "New Rules For Chicago" in which me and a few others declare ourselves kings and make a series of decrees that are essentilly just rants about the stupid shit we see people do.
But then I realized: who the hell would want to listen to me just blast random people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
My journey to work is fraught with traffic lights. I mean there are 3 sets in a 1.5mile stretch! The one thing I can note from the multiple thousands of times I've gone through these is that it doesn't matter who you are, pedestrian, car driver, biker, cyclist, squirrel, you don't give a shit.
The general Public, that means you and me, are completely fucking stupid but insist on blaming everyone else, pedestrians step out when they shouldn't, cars run red's, bikers stop in the middle of the walkway, cyclists don't even look...
If the police is going to use the general thick-headedness of the public against them it's their own dumbass thought for refusing to admit responsibility for anything they do!
Now I'm off to do the 90mph I have to to get through all of these lights before they each turn a 5 minute ride in to a 15 minute one, and it's all your fault!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: running a red light
My, what an apt way to begin a bullshit post.
"a car runs a red light, the registered owner gets a ticket"
...yeah, and?
"use cameras at every red light, if needed"
Agreed. Fortunately, based on every measurable statistic, they're not needed. So we agree, there should be no red light cameras.
"no one has posted anything about the violent accidents due to running a red light which cost tons of $$$ for police, EMT's, hospital cost, missed work, etc"
Well, that's because red light cameras, when operated properly, have never been shown to keep any of that from happening. And when the city decreases yellow light time, it actually makes the cameras a HAZARD, increasing the liklihood of the problems you just mentioned. Or haven't you been paying attention?
"oh geez, everyone will have med insurance, so, who cares... I DO"
Well, that's kind of a separate issue, but suffice it to say that Obama's health plan is NOT going to pass as is. Nationalized healthcare ain't gonna happen. Nor should it, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: cameras at red lights
I can't say I've ever seen someone just blow through a red light that hasn't just turned red, but I've seen *a lot* of the two former types..
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: not so clear
But then I realized: who the hell would want to listen to me just blast random people?
I would[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: not so clear
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: cameras at red lights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
If you started walking without looking, and that car hits you, they may get a ticket, but you're dead. Who lost?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not so clear
LMAO, yellow means "Caution" in EVERY state......
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: cameras at red lights
Take a half hour tour of downtown Boston during rush hour, and see how many hands it takes afterwards...
I have to side with the pedestrians on this, for the most part - the shortening of the yellow light time is wrong no matter what side you're on, so that does need to be fixed. Otherwise though, I'd be glad to see cameras at EVERY intersection, or at least have everyone assume they were. For those who think it has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with revenue...how often do you think people would continue running red lights if it was costing them $5k a year in tickets and insurance premiums?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: cameras at red lights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: cameras at red lights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not so clear
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
The difference is, politicians can only encourage officers to write bullshit tickets indirectly, whether by use of an unofficial "quota system", or simply an understanding that "officers who don't write tickets must not be doing their jobs properly." A camera system, on the other hand, obeys orders very well, and politicians can't resist the free spigot of dollars.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: not so clear
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Safety
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: running a red light
When red light cameras get installed, there is a slight decrease in t-bone accidents from cross-traffic, but generally an increase in rear-end collisions when someone unsafely slams on the brakes at a yellow light to avoid a red-light camera induced ticket.
And then when revenues fall from the cameras, politicians/police shorten the length of the yellow lights, thus resulting in an increase in red-light offenses.
That's been the repeated pattern in Texas, North Carolina, now California, and a handful of other mid-west & western states.
If you truly are concerned about reducing accidents, saving all that money you mentioned, then insist that they REMOVE every red-light camera, and institute a mandatory 3-second all-red time where all lights in the intersection are red to allow any lingering cars time to remove themselves from the intersection. If safety is priority #1, then traffic enforcement is a priority >1, and allowing law breakers time to get out of the way of cross-traffic would be a higher priority than giving them a ticket.
Red light cameras put traffic enforcement at a priority greater than safety, placing ticket revenue generation above accident prevention. So, by encouraging red light cameras, particularly at every intersection, you are saying your priorities are #1 traffic violation ticket generation, and #2 or greater is safety.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Safety
That is a very, VERY stupid town.
More to the point, those that choose to live AROUND that town are equally stupid.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not so clear
In most states a yellow light means 'stop' (unless you cannot stop).
There's at least one state where a yellow light doesn't mean anything but a red light is about happen. It is not illegal to enter an intersection on yellow in Texas at all.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: easy sparky
Any police officer could ticket you for any number of moving violations, whether or not you committed them or not, and you'd stand no chance of escaping the fine.
It's easy to get out of tickets if you aren't a jerk to the officer first, the prosecutor second, and the judge third. If you are an ass like you show in your post above then sure you don't stand a change but that's your own fault.
First and foremost if the officer doesn't show up for court then you will automatically be found no guilty. Secondly if you can prove you didn't have a headlight out on your care (or any other random malfunction) at the time you were given a ticket for it then you will be found no guilty. Hell in Texas if your inspection is out you can just go get your car inspected within ten days of getting a ticket then you get found no guilty and pay a few dollars for the paperwork. I admit I don't know much about other stated but here in Houston, TX most judges work with you easily.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: easy sparky
I didn't say anything about having a headlamp out or having an expired tag. I said moving violations. As a police officer I can pull you over, tell you that you were speeding (whether you were or not), write you a ticket, and you will almost certainly have to pay it. Refute that, please.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: easy sparky
Ok, you've lost it. If by "refute that" you mean show you physical evidence that PROVES you wrong, well no, no one can do that. Nor, by the way, can YOU do so for YOUR point. It's sort of like if you said: God exhists, prove he doesn't.
Now, on to why you're retarded.
A. Anyone with half a decent defense lawyer can get their clients out of improper tickets ALL THE TIME. I've personally been one of those people. I had an idiotic donut-muncher who couldn't read my license write me a ticket, amongst others, for curfew violation when I was 19. It got tossed. Why? Because he was a moron and the ticket was improper.
B. There are advocacy groups that exhist, particularly in the poorer neighborhoods, SOLELY to advocate against police abuse. They are THRILLED to saddle up one of their lawyers against police abusing their authority, and they REGULARLY win. For shitty but well-known examples, see Jesse Jackson and/or Al Sharpton.
C. One of the regular comlaints out of the Police sty-...er, Department, is that criminals get off on tickets and arrests on technicalities: the street name wasn't spelled correctly, the wrong box was checked, etc.
I could go on, but I'm tired of writing as to why you're stupid. Are you a police oinker? I can see you being one. Some of the Chicago cops I know are equally misinformed about their power. The real reason that these fucktards OFTEN get away with this shit is that people refuse to fight.
Bring that shit on, corrupt little piggies. This big bad wolf is on extremely friendly terms with several defense lawyers....
[ link to this | view in thread ]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: easy sparky
You almost sound like you've done this before.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not so clear
A] City administrators need to understand that if vehicle operators slam on the vehicle brakes to a full skid and come to a complete stop in the exact middle of the intersection, we can't just STAY right there until the next green light (and usually the middle of an intersection has zero visibility to the traffic lights); we also can't back up to that side of the intersection where we should have stopped because vehicle #2 is sitting there right now, so any cop seeing vehicles come skidding and screeching to a stop in the middle of an intersection will EXPECT the vehicle to move out of the way and not block traffic. Many states have laws regarding exactly this manner of impeding the flow of traffic.
B] Pedestrians - do your part: press the walk button, wait for YOUR light, don't step off the curb, then back up then step off again, turn sideways, and begin to walk parallel to the flow of traffic that you are crossing. Just stand still so we know you won't trip over the curb. Also, have respect for the laws of physics that spell out how most vehicles traveling at 30 MPH simply cannot stop completely within the distance of many intersections, and the vehicles NEVER can stop at the stop line when the brakes are applied at that same stop line.
As a vehicle operator, I've seen short yellow lights and despise them. I feel that ideally, each traffic light should be of a duration that assumes we are behind a tall truck and thus cannot see the lights 30 seconds ahead of time, then, the yellow duration should be 2 times the duration needed for a vehicle traveling at the posted velocity to cross from one stop line to the further stop line, and then MAYBE a tenth or two more because 30 posted is usually 35 on the speedometer. The object is safety for all parties, not just revenues, not just pedestrian rights.
If a car is travelling so fast that the lights need to get beyond that amount of grace time, then get the radar guns out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Red Light
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Safety
I love this. In one post, you do everything you can to insult the police, calling them all "corrupt little piggies" and the like, then in this one, you say that the town which got rid of its cops is very stupid for doing so.
You seem to be one of those types that hates the cops until you suddenly need one, then you can't do without them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
Longer yellows, on the other hand, HAVE been shown to reduce this behavior. So what does this city do? Lengthen the time on yellow lights?
No, eff the peds, it's not about the yellow. It's all about the green.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
not for safety
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not for safety
People are stupid (all of the time or just some of the time, that's the only inconsistency), eventually ALL of us will or will have done a stupid thing (in my case that's plural, at least I'm honest). It is about revenue, but who (meaning the voters) would buy that!? The voters bought the "pitch" of how it's about safety, but the fact of the matter remains the same...
Think about this: Why would any city (in America, excluding socialist nations of course) employ such a program without rendering compensation (i.e. money). It's just a bonus that it's a little safer than the old "wild, wild west" days of blowing red lights. Now, city's with red light camera programs, the people are more conscientious of their "wallet". It really is about money, but it doesn't hurt saving a few lives in the process, huh!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
here
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20090706/0218435453.shtml
(Jul 7th, 2009 @ 10:19pm)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
red light cams
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MPH Reaction Time Stopping Distance Total Distance
40 mph 44 feet 81 feet 125 feet
Where Redflex cameras have shorten the yellow will someday kill if in fact they have not already done so. This is a company that touts safety but in fact many of their actions show that they care a whole lot more about revenue than protecting citizens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Safety
Corrupt cops deserve to get shot on the job, honest cops are heroes.
Got it? That's why I put qualifiers on to whom I'm directing my anger.
I suggest reviewing the rules on English. It's a fun language, with lots of oddities. Qualifiers is probably where I'd suggest you start.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: not so clear
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: not so clear
Also, the all-red pause is a safety feature to ALLOW for the times when it is NOT "safe to do so" and a car proceeds through the light. It's not the same as "accepting" that people are going to run reds deliberately.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: not so clear
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: easy sparky
The reality is the problem is serious and getting far worst in the last couple of years. Thus I really think the only possible solution is behaviour modification, ideally immediately after the incident. Fortunately the cops have the perfect device for this in tazers. Everytime one of these idiots blows through a red light they need to be run downed and immediately tazered to within an inch of their life. If a few die then to hell with them. Either way you are effectively dealling with some of the most ignorant people in the community.
Dave
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: easy sparky
And pedestrians have just as much responsibility crossing a road as drivers do. Everyone is at fault when an accident involving a pedestrian occurs.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sucks...not really sure what to do about it. I am hoping the back camera will show the truck that was in front of me, but here I was trying to do the right thing and it all happens quite fast.
Wish I had been pulled over by a cop so I could have another opinion as opposed to a blind judgment by a camera that can't comprehend circumstances.
I'll probably try to traffic school option, but I do want to at least say sometimes people run reds for circumstances they can control only so much.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Photo ticket in Poway for making right turn
Cameras SUCK!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Photo ticket in Poway for making right turn
Are you trying to say it's legal in CA to make a right turn at a red light without stopping? You absolutely do have to stop completely behind the crosswalk before proceeding
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: cameras at red lights
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: running a red light
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Re: Photo ticket in Poway for making right turn
[ link to this | view in thread ]