Measure to Remove and Ban Red Light Cameras in Murrieta
The Intent to put on the ballot a measure to remove red light cameras and all automated traffic enforcement systems has been submitted to the City of Murrieta. The request begins with a Request for Title and Suumary, then an ad in the Californian about the intent to circulated the petition. The first week in march, the actual petition should be ready to circulate.
We need about 6000 qualified signature to get it on the ballot. Anyone wishing to help gather signature, please email:
noredcamsmurrieta@verizon.net
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
National Motorists Association
NMA Objections To Red-Light Cameras
The NMA opposes the use of photographic devices to issue tickets. With properly posted speed limits and properly installed traffic-control devices, there is no need for ticket cameras. They can actually make our roads less safe.
1) Ticket cameras do not improve safety.
Despite the claims of companies that sell ticket cameras and provide related services, there is no independent verification that photo enforcement devices improve highway safety, reduce overall accidents, or improve traffic flow. Believing the claims of companies that sell photo enforcement equipment or municipalities that use this equipment is like believing any commercial produced by a company that is trying to sell you something.
2) There is no certifiable witness to the alleged violation.
A picture may be worth a thousand words, but it may also take a thousand words to explain what the picture really means. Even in those rare instances where a law enforcement officer is overseeing a ticket camera, it is highly unlikely that the officer would recall the supposed violation. For all practical purposes, there is no "accuser" for motorists to confront, which is a constitutional right. There is no one that can personally testify to the circumstances of the alleged violation, and just because a camera unit was operating properly when it was set up does not mean it was operating properly when the picture was taken of any given vehicle.
3) Ticket recipients are not adequately notified.
Most governments using ticket cameras send out tickets via first class mail. There is no guarantee that the accused motorists will even receive the ticket, let alone understands it and know how to respond. However, the government makes the assumption that the ticket was received. If motorists fail to pay, it is assumed that they did so on purpose, and a warrant may be issued for their arrest.
4) The driver of the vehicle is not positively identified.
Typically, the photos taken by these cameras do not identify the driver of the offending vehicle. The owner of the vehicle is mailed the ticket, even if the owner was not driving the vehicle and may not know who was driving at the time. The owner of the vehicle is then forced to prove his or her innocence, often by identifying the actual diver who may be a family member, friend or employee.
5) Ticket recipients are not notified quickly.
People may not receive citations until days or sometimes weeks after the alleged violation. This makes it very difficult to defend oneself because it would be hard to remember the circumstances surrounding the supposed violation. There may have been a reason that someone would be speeding or in an intersection after the light turned red. Even if the photo was taken in error, it may be very hard to recall the day in question.
6) These devices discourage the synchronization of traffic lights.
When red-light cameras are used to make money for local governments, these governments are unlikely to jeopardize this income source. This includes traffic-light synchronization, which is the elimination of unneeded lights and partial deactivation of other traffic lights during periods of low traffic. When properly done, traffic-light synchronization decreases congestion, pollution, and fuel consumption.
7) Cameras do not prevent most intersection accidents.
Intersection accidents are just that, accidents. Motorists do not casually drive through red lights. More likely, they do not see a given traffic light because they are distracted, impaired, or unfamiliar with their surroundings. Even the most flagrant of red-light violators will not drive blithely into a crowded intersection, against the light. Putting cameras on poles and taking pictures will not stop these kinds of accidents.
8) There are better alternatives to cameras.
If intersection controls are properly engineered, installed, and operated, there will be very few red-light violations. From the motorists' perspective, government funds should be used on improving intersections, not on ticket cameras. Even in instances where cameras were shown to decrease certain types of accidents, they increased other accidents. Simple intersection and signal improvements can have lasting positive effects, without negative consequences. Cities can choose to make intersections safer with sound traffic engineering or make money with ticket cameras. Unfortunately, many pick money over safety.
9) Ticket camera systems are designed to inconvenience motorists.
Under the guise of protecting motorist privacy, the court or private contractor that sends out tickets often refuses to send a copy of the photo to the accused vehicle owner. This is really because many of the photos do not clearly depict the driver or the driver is obviously not the vehicle owner. Typically, the vehicle owner is forced to travel to a courthouse or municipal building to even see the photograph, an obvious and deliberate inconvenience meant to discourage ticket challenges.
10) Taking dangerous drivers' pictures doesn't stop them.
Photo enforcement devices do not apprehend seriously impaired, reckless or otherwise dangerous drivers. A fugitive could fly through an intersection at 100 mph and not even get his picture taken, as long as the light was green!
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/objections
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
CA Cities that have banned Red Light Traffic Enforcement Cameras:
Avondale, CA
Burlingame, CA
Costa Mesa, CA
Loma Linda, CA
Monterey Park, CA
Moreno Valley, CA
Redlands, CA
San Carlos, CA
Union City, CA
Yucaipa, CA
Whittier
Cupertino,
Compton,
El Monte, Fairfield,
Fresno,
Fullerton,
Indian Wells,
Irvine,
Maywood,
Montclair,
Paramount,
Rancho Cucamonga,
Redlands,
Roseville,
San Jose (photo radar),
Santa Fe Springs,
Santa Maria,
Santa Rosa,
Upland
Loma Linda
Anaheim
Fresno
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
Court Cases and Opinions about Red Light Cameras (Page 1 of 6)
http://www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/related.asp?S=2&T=0&X=3
1/10/2011
California Appellate Courts Continue to Toss Red Light Camera Tickets
Appellate courts in Kern and Orange Counties, California throw out photo tickets as hearsay.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
12/13/2010
Texas: Federal Judge Lets Houston Defend Camera Referendum
Unelected federal judge blocks referendum authors from defending anti-red light camera vote in Houston, Texas.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
10/11/2010
California Cities Attempt to Depublish Red Light Camera Decision
Santa Ana wants California Supreme Court to depublish red light camera opinion that could force massive refunds.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
9/13/2010
Washington Supreme Court: Anti-Traffic Camera Vote Will Happen
Washington state Supreme Court refuses traffic camera company request to block Mukilteo referendum.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
9/4/2010
Missouri: Federal Judge Likes Red Light Cameras, Denies Class Action Refund
Federal judge who likes red light cameras allows Springfield, Missouri to escape refunds for illegal program.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras RE
8/24/2010
More California Courts Refuse Red Light Camera Evidence
Another consolidated ruling in Orange County, California finds red light camera evidence inadmissible hearsay.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
8/19/2010
California: Another Judge Discards Red Light Camera Evidence
Red light camera companies found to generate hearsay evidence in San Diego, California court trial.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
8/5/2010
Washington: Traffic Camera Opponents Strike Back Against Ticket Company
Proponents of referendum to ban automated ticketing machines in Mukilteo, Washington file brief in county court.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
7/27/2010
California Court of Appeal Publishes Red Light Camera Hearsay Decision
California Court of Appeal declines traffic camera company request to depublish Santa Ana appellate decision.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
6/21/2010
South Dakota Court Rules Against Red Light Cameras
South Dakota circuit court judge rules red light camera program violates procedural due process. Jury to decide whether to fine camera company.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
6/9/2010
California: Court, Grand Jury Bash San Mateo Red Light Cameras
Civil grand jury joins appellate court in slamming red light cameras in San Mateo County, California.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
6/7/2010
California: Appellate Decision Strikes Down Red Light Camera Evidence
Three-judge appellate panel finds a total lack of evidence from Santa Ana, California red light camera program.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
3/23/2010
Federal Court Upholds Illegal Traffic Camera Evidence
Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rules that illegally gathered photo ticketing evidence should not be excluded.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
3/4/2010
Washington: Federal Judge Saves State Camera Program
US District Court judge rescues Washington state traffic cameras from class action challenge.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
3/3/2010
Missouri Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
Missouri Supreme Court strikes down the red light camera program run by city of Springfield.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
2/24/2010
Tennessee Attorney General Embraces Red Light Cameras
Tennessee Attorney General upholds use of red light cameras and speed cameras in the state.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
12/7/09
Texas: Judge Ignores November Vote On Anti-Camera Initiative
Activist judge sides with traffic camera company over the voters of College Station, Texas in referendum dispute.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
10/3/09
California: Another Appellate Court Strikes Down Cost Neutrality
San Mateo County, California appellate court joins Orange County in ruling cost neutral red light camera contracts illegal.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
8/11/09
California Judge Declares Red Light Camera Program Illegal and Void
Superior Court judge declares red light camera tickets issued in Santa Ana, California to be illegal and void.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
7/30/09
Federal Judge Tosses Missouri Red Light Camera Challenge
US magistrate court judge rules that federal due process protections do not apply to red light camera citations.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
5/14/09
Tennessee Appeals Court Reiterates Its Support for Red Light Cameras
Tennessee Court of Appeals issues a second opinion affirming its support for red light camera ticketing.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
2/26/09
California Courts Split on Red Light Camera Contracts
Appellate court in Los Angeles, California rules that red light cameras tickets can be issued by companies with illegal contract arrangements.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
2/3/09
California Appeals Court Rejects Attempt to Unpublish Red Light Camera Decision
Decision overturning California red light camera ticket remains final and could affect cities throughout the state.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
1/28/09
California Appellate Court Publishes Anti-Camera Decision
California appellate court finally publishes decision on red light camera warning periods ignored by California cities.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
1/26/09
Canada: Privacy Commissioner Orders Release of Camera Manuals
Edmonton, Canada police lose a near three-year battle to conceal red light camera manuals from the public.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
1/17/09
Minnesota: $2.6 Million in Red Light Camera Tickets Refunded
Refunds proceed for illegally issued red light camera tickets in Minneapolis, Minnesota.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
1/6/09
Federal Court Upholds Use of Red Light Cameras for Profit
US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit finds no due process problem with Chicago using red light cameras as a source of revenue.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
12/3/08
Tennessee Attorney General Promotes Photo Ticketing
Tennessee Attorney General issues opinion supporting the use of red light cameras and speed cameras.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
12/2/08
Texas Court Busts Camera Company for Operating Without License
Texas district court judge finds red light camera company guilty of operating without a license.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
7/31/08
Tennessee Appeals Court Embraces Red Light Cameras
Tennessee Court of Appeals issues ruling designed to encourage the use of red light cameras.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
6/16/08
California Appeals Court Defends Red Light Cameras
California Court of Appeals ruling defended red light camera programs against a number of legal challenges.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
4/5/07
Minnesota Supreme Court Strikes Down Red Light Cameras
The Minnesota Supreme Court delivers a unanimous decision striking down the legality of red light cameras.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
2/9/07
Oregon Appeals Court Applies Speedy Trial Protection to Photo Tickets
Oregon Court of Appeals applies due process protections to red light camera ticket.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
2/2/07
Michigan Attorney General Says Red Light Cameras Illegal
Michigan Attorney General ruling finds red light camera ordinances in violation of state law.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
9/25/06
Minnesota: Appeals Court Rules Against Cameras
Full text of the Minnesota Court of Appeals decision striking down the Minneapolis red light camera program as illegal.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
5/16/06
North Carolina Appeals Court Rules Against Red Light Cameras
Statewide Court of Appeals ruling could mean the end of red light cameras in North Carolina.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
12/16/05
Courts Act to Protect DC Camera Program
A pair of co-ordinated court decisions ensures Washington, DC is safe from refunding $1.5 million it earned from a faulty red light camera.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
2/28/05
Costa Mesa, CA Red Light Camera Decision
Text of the California Superior Court appeals decision on the need to give 30-day notice for each intersection using cameras:
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
10/3/04
San Diego Motion to Dismiss
The full text of the San Diego Superior Court finding that the city's red light program is unreliable and illegal.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
10/3/04
San Diego Final Court Ruling
The San Diego, California Superior Court ruled red light camera evidence inadmissable after a landmark trial in 2001.
Camera Enforcement / Red Light Cameras
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
Protect our Safety
Stop Taxation by Citation
Get Involved!
|
|
Assemblyman Chuck DeVore endorses the Initiative.
Traffic Light in Murrieta taken January 2011.
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « «
Text of the Initiative
THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF MURRIETA DO ORDAIN:
SECTION 0: This initiative shall be known as the “ MURRIETA PROHIBITION OF AUTOMATED TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT SYSTEMS (TRAFFIC CAMERAS) ACT”.
SECTION 1: The term “red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system” as used in this section shall mean and include any automated traffic enforcement system, as that term is used in California Vehicle Code Section 21455.5, or any successor legislation thereto, which is used to enforce any provision of the California Vehicle Code.
SECTION 2: No ordinance shall be adopted by the City Council which would permit or authorize any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Murrieta. Provisions contrary to those in this initiative included with any city agreements created or renewed after distribution of the Ballot Title and Summary by the City Attorney shall be null and void upon passage of this initiative.
SECTION 3: Neither the City Council, nor any officer or employee of the City when acting in his or her official capacity, shall (i) take any action which would directly or indirectly result in the authorization, approval or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Murrieta; or (ii) acquiesce or concur in any action or decision of any other governmental agency or governmental official having jurisdiction concerning such red light cameras where a protest or objection procedure is available to the City and where failure to so protest or object could result in the authorization, approval, or installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Murrieta; or (iii) approve, authorize, execute or enter into any agreement or understanding, or take any other action of any nature whatsoever, which would authorize, approve, or in any way facilitate or result in the installation of any red light camera or other automated traffic enforcement system in the City of Murrieta, including, but not limited to, any agreement or understanding relating to the installation of any red light camera or automated traffic enforcement system which would result in the receipt by the City of any revenue of any kind from such cameras or automated system.
SECTION 4: Enactment of this petition may require months if not years prior to obtaining final voter approval. Those companies currently under contract with the city to provide such automated traffic enforcement systems must be aware of and take note of this initiative. Any and all automated traffic enforcement system(s) already installed and implemented shall be removed immediately upon passage.
SECTION 5. If any provision of this measure or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions or application, and to this end the provisions of this measure are severable.
SECTION 6. This initiative may not be amended except upon voter approval.
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « « 
Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents
Red-light cameras are touted as devices that increase intersection safety. However, information is quickly surfacing that shows the inaccuracy of that belief.
One source that is highlighting the increase in accidents is the media. Because so many studies are showing an increase in collisions at red-light camera intersections, various news outlets are conducting their own studies in this phenomenon. Below is a small sampling of these reports.
Reports From The Media
Los Angeles | KCAL TV
A local TV station fact-checked the city's claims that their ticket cameras reduced accidents and found that the opposite was true. At 20 of the 32 intersections studied, accidents increased and several intersections tripled their accident rate.
Washington, D.C. | Washington Post
This report showed an overall increase in accidents at red-light camera intersections of 107 percent.
Portland, Oregon | KATU News
KATU News reviewed city statistics and found a 140 percent increase in rear-end crashes at the intersections where red light cameras were installed.
Fort Collins, Colorado | The Coloradoan
Ft. Collins, Colorado has experienced an 83 percent increase in the number of accidents since red light cameras were installed.
Oceanside, California | North County Times
This report showed a 800 percent increase in rear-end accidents.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania | Philadelphia Weekly
This article showed an increase of 10 to 21 percent in accidents in intersections with red-light cameras.
Corpus Christi, Texas | TheNewspaper.com
Data released by the city showed that the total number of accidents in Corpus Christi increased 14 percent, from 310 incidents to 353, at nine locations where automated ticketing machines were stationed. Contrary to the claim that red light cameras reduce the severity of collisions, the number of accidents involving injuries increased 28 percent from 140 to 179. Rear end collisions also increased by nearly a third from 160 to 208.
Winnipeg, Ontario | Winnipeg Sun
The average number of collisions at Winnipeg’s 12 original red-light camera intersections has jumped 18% since the devices were installed in 2003, according to Manitoba Public Insurance data obtained by the Winnipeg Sun. Despite claims by politicians and police brass that intersection cameras are making our streets safer by reducing collisions, the MPI data shows after six years of use, crashes at the intersections are actually going up, not down.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/increase-accidents
Yellow Light Timing
Red Light Citations Drop Below One Per Day
When officials in Fairfax County, Virginia increased the yellow-light time at an intersection with a red-light camera that wasn't reducing accidents, incidents of red-light running dropped 96 percent.
Effect of Yellow-Interval Timing on Red-Light-Violation Frequency at Urban Intersections
This study shows that an increase of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds in yellow-light duration will decrease the frequency of red-light running by at least 50 percent.
92% Reduction In Red Light Violations With Longer Yellow Light Times
Thanks to a simple traffic engineering fix -- increasing the yellow light duration -- the number of left-turn violations in Loma Linda, California dropped 80 to 85 percent from about 240 monthly violations to about 25 or 30 a month immediately after the change. Straight through violations were reduced 92 percent.
California City Dumps Red Light Camera After Increasing Yellow
Engineering solutions and an extra second of yellow duration made red light cameras a money loser in San Carlos, California.
Yellow-Light-Timing Myths
Proponents of red light cameras claim that increasing the yellow light time is not a solution because motorists will adjust to the lengthened yellow light time. These studies prove the proponents are wrong.
Yellow Light Duration Impact On Driver Response
This report from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Journal examines how drivers react to differing yellow light durations.
6 Cities That Were Caught Shortening Yellow Lights For Profit
An article on the NMA blog that highlights six cities that were caught shortening yellow light times to increase ticket camera profits.
Stop Short Yellow Lights
A project, sponsored by the National Motorists Association Foundation, that aims to establish yellow light standards and prevent the shortening of yellow light times.
http://www.motorists.org/red-light-cameras/yellow-lights
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
The pdf file below shows the number of tickets for January and July for each year since the cameras were install. Please note Murrieta Wbd and whitewood right turn tickets have gone up considerable from 2007 to 2010.
The senors in the road were changed to inscrease camera activity. The sensors activate the camera when someone is going 10 mph.
5 Proven Ways To Stop Red-Light Running
While most cities choose to take the easy way out and install red-light ticket cameras to profit from this problem (without solving it), there are several proven ways for communities to stop red-light running at their intersections.
1) Increase the yellow-light time
This is an easy way to reduce red-light violations. It has been effective from Virginia to California in preventing accidents and saving lives.
• A study by researchers at the Texas Transportation Institute illustrates the positive safety impact of even a modestly longer yellow light.
• The Virginia Department of Transportation noted a significant decrease in violations at an intersection in Fairfax County when the yellow light was lengthened by 1.5 seconds.
• Critics of longer yellow lights claim there is no long-term benefit because the public will grow accustomed to the longer lights, but research shows this is not the case.
2) Add an all-red clearance interval
A yellow light allows drivers who cannot safely stop to pass through the intersection before the light turns red. Occasionally, even safe and attentive drivers may misjudge the time it takes to make it completely through an intersection.
Adding an all-red clearance interval (a brief period where the lights in all directions are red) after the yellow-light phase reduces unnecessary accidents. AAA of Michigan and the city of Detroit partnered to make intersections safer and they found an all-red clearance interval to be effective.
3) Make traffic lights more visible
There are a number of reasons motorists might have difficulty seeing traffic lights at intersections. Making traffic lights more visible decreases red-light violations and intersection accidents. Here are three simple things that can be done to help all motorists see traffic lights better:
• Make the lights bigger. With AAA of Michigan’s help, Detroit installed several new lights that were 50 percent larger. This small change helped to decrease both accidents and injuries at problem intersections.
• Add metal backers to lights. This is especially important for lights that face either east or west and can be easily affected by glare from the sun during certain parts of the day.
• Remove any other obstructions. If an intersection has above average red-light violations or accidents, transportation officials should make sure that no signs, trees, transit stops, or buildings obstruct motorists’ view of the traffic lights.
4) Improve intersections for motorists
Anything about an intersection that confuses or frustrates motorists increases red-light violations. Communities can do all of the following to make intersections safer:
• Repaint lane markings at intersections, especially turn lane markings. This alone had a major impact in the Detroit trial project mentioned above.
• Improve signage. Signs should clearly indicate that a signal is ahead and which lane(s), if any, are for turns only.
• Add traffic lights at certain intersections, especially those that rely on only one light suspended in the air to direct all traffic.
• Build new turn lanes, especially on roads where development has added a significant amount of new traffic volume.
• Provide advance warning lights at high-speed intersections to notify motorists of pending light changes.
5) Retime Traffic Signals
Engineers can adjust the timing of traffic lights to reduce the number of red lights a driver encounters. This process of signal optimization reduces congestion, travel time, gas consumption, and driver frustration. It also helps to reduce red-light violations.
Reward the drivers obeying the law by schronizing the signals.
An informational report from the Institute for Transportation Engineers concluded that the process has a benefit to cost ratio of 40:1. Another study in Oakland County, Michigan showed that retiming the traffic signals had a benefit-cost ratio of 175:1 and 55:1 respectively for each of the two phases of the project.
http://blog.motorists.org/5-proven-ways-to-stop-red-light-running/
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
Site for excellant information about Red Light Cameras:
http://www.thenewspaper.com
http://www.highwayrobbery.net/
« « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « « «« « « «
PAY-PER-TICKET ("COST NEUTRAL") CONTRACTS ARE PROHIBITED
Vehicle Code Section 21455.5 prohibits "pay per ticket" contracts. 21455.5(g) says:
(g) A contract [with a red light camera supplier]... may not include... payment... based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated..."
( Full text is in the big box, below. )
The author of 21455.5 wrote:
"Paying red light camera vendors [suppliers] based on the number of tickets issued undermines the public's trust and raises concern that these systems can be manipulated for profit."
(Official comment by Senator - then Assemblywoman - Jenny Oropeza, published in 8/27/03 legislative analysis of AB 1022 of 2003.)
Many cities are ignoring that law. An example is Marysville, where the contract signed Dec. 21, 2004 says:
"Fixed fee of $6,030 Per Month Per Designated Intersection Approach..."
"Payment [to camera supplier RedFlex] will only be made by Customer [the City] up to
the amount of cash received by Customer from Yuba County through the collection
of red light citations up to the amount currently due."
"Cost neutrality is assured to Customer using this methodology as Customer
will never pay RedFlex more than actual cash received." (Bolding added.)
In other words, contrary to the misleading "fixed fee" language, RedFlex will get less money if there are fewer tickets, and more money if there are more.
The known examples of illegal or cost-neutral contracts are Bakersfield‡, Baldwin Park‡, Bell Gardens‡, Capitola‡, Cathedral City‡, Cerritos‡, Citrus Heights‡, Commerce‡, Corona‡, Costa Mesa*‡, Covina‡, Culver City*‡, Daly City‡, Davis*, Emeryville‡, Encinitas*‡, Escondido*‡, Fairfield‡, Fullerton, Gardena‡, Glendale*‡, Grand Terrace, Hawthorne‡, Hemet‡, Highland‡, Inglewood‡, Laguna Woods*‡, Lancaster‡, Loma Linda‡, Long Beach‡, Los Alamitos, Los Angeles County, Lynwood, MRCA*‡, MTA/Metro, Marysville‡, Menlo Park‡, Millbrae*, Modesto‡, Montebello, Moreno Valley, Murrieta‡, Napa‡, Newark*‡, Oceanside‡, Oxnard‡, Paramount‡, Rancho Cucamonga, Redding‡, Redwood City*‡, Redlands, Riverside‡, Rocklin‡, Roseville, San Bernardino*‡, San Juan Capistrano*, San Leandro‡, San Mateo*‡, Santa Ana‡, Santa Clarita‡, Santa Maria, Solana Beach‡, South Gate*, City of South San Francisco‡, Stockton‡, Union City, Upland, Ventura‡, Victorville‡, Walnut‡, Whittier‡, Yuba City‡, and Yucaipa.
* This city recently amended its contract, or signed a new one,
changing the pay to its camera vendor to "flat rate."
For more details, see the city's entry on the Camera Towns page.
‡ This city's contract is available in the city's entry on the Camera Towns page or in the city's Documents page.
|
