California
First LA, Now Houston…No More Red Light Camera Enforcement Thursday, August 25th, 2011
Houston is the most recent city to say no to red-light camera enforcement, ending it’s program yesterday.
Opponents of the red-light cameras claim they did not make intersections more safe, were an invasion of privacy and that this is the beginning of a nationwide trend to abandon the devices.
Supporters claim that these cameras do indeed save lives and that more than 500 municipalities, including Washington DC and New York, are still successfully employing camera programs.
Houston residents voted nine months ago to end the camera enforcement program. After months of legal challenges to this vote, the Houston City Council voted to end the program, even though cancellation could cost the city as much as $25 million.
Several on the council who voted to end the program still maintain that they support the cameras but indicated the importance of respecting “the will of the people.”
Los Angeles saw it’s camera program come to an end after the City Council voted on July 31 7-5 to allow their contract to expire without renewal.
LAPD claims these cameras did increase safety, citing a 62% decrease in red-light traffic collisions. However, it’s worth noting that opponents have always questioned the safety related “evidence” in support of red light cameras. For example, does this 62% number take into account the number of rear end accidents caused by people slamming on their brakes in fear of a camera summons or the number of accidents caused by people cutting corners or traveling residential roadways to avoid major camera enforced intersections?
The main issue in LA was that the program was ineffective because fines were not always collected. One Councilman cited the courts failure to use the tools at their disposal to hold people responsible and force them to pay their fines. Instead, too many fines went uncollected and what would have been a profitable venture became a losing one.
Houston and Los Angeles have spoken but this isn’t the last we’ll hear of this issue around the country.
Los Angeles Carmageddon Not As Bad As Expected Tuesday, July 19th, 2011
“Carmageddon” is the name Los Angeles residents are gave to what they figured would be a traffic jam for the ages due to a construction closure of a very busy 10-mile stretch of the 405 Freeway from Friday night to Monday.
As a bridge was demolished as part of a $1 billion freeway-widening project, motorists expect hours of delays and ripple effects on about a dozen other highways.
Celebrities such as Ashton Kutcher and Erik Estrada were recruited to help spread the message. For one weekend at least, please stay off the roadways in question if at all possible.
The weekend has come and gone. Everyone has had a chance to reflect and most are coming to the same conclusion–this was an incredibly successful operation. Nothing close to the dire predictions came to fruition.
Streets and freeways were generally clear. California Department of Transportation statistics show significantly fewer cars on some freeways and significantly less traffic in general, even in areas far from the 405.
Now some mass-transportation advocates are using this as an example to show that with some eduction, cooperation and small sacrifices we can really reduce the number of vehicles on the road, number of accidents, hours lost to traffic, vehicular emissions, etc.
Others argue that it’s one thing to ask people to make a small sacrifice in one are over one short, finite time period. It’s a whole other thing to get people to make the kind of permanent sacrifices necessary to drive less and carpool/use public transportation more.
New California Driving School Law Friday, July 1st, 2011
Under the current California regulations, a driver can attend traffic school multiple times as a means to erase a traffic violation from the driving record. Attend traffic school and the charge will show on one’s record as “dismissed”.
Now, the new law AB 2499 changes this in a substantial way. A dismissal via traffic school attendance will be available to drivers only once every 18 months. Attend traffic school for a second or third or fourth time within the 18 month period and the driving record will now show a conviction, not a dismissed traffic citation.
The primary purpose behind the law is to let judges who are adjudicating a traffic ticket have better insight and more information concerning the quality of the defendant’s driving record. Before the law, the system in place was allowing persistent violators to have tickets dismissed without the courts knowing that they were indeed persistent violators.
Courts will now know, for example, if you are attending court in Los Angeles just a few weeks after you had a violation in San Diego County dismissed by attending traffic school.
Essentially, the days of beating the system by attending traffic school multiple times within an 18 month period are over. “This new law creates serious consequences for repeat offenders,” DMV Director George Valverde said in a statement.
Multiple States Introducing Consumer Protecting Legislation on Camera Enforcement Tickets Friday, June 17th, 2011
Concern about ticket cameras as revenue generators that has spurred protective action for consumers in a few states. California and Tennessee are two such examples. These are typical of the issues and battles we’re likely to see for years to come with the still relatively new use of photo enforcement throughout the county.
California
A bill has been introduced and is intended to help ensure that communities use red light cameras to improve safety, not to raise revenue. One vote away from moving to the Governor, the bill would regulate use of the ticket cameras by establishing statewide standards for installation and operation. Included in the bill is the requirement that communities show that the cameras are needed at a particular location for reasons related to safety as well as requirements that drivers are given better warning that cameras are in use.
Tennessee:
A new law also addresses concern about the photo enforcement red light cameras being used as revenue generators. The law requires studies showing the system is necessary from a safety standpoint and the law prevents the issuance of camera tickets for failing to come to a complete stop before turning right on red where a right on red is otherwise permitted.
South Carolina:
This legislation doesn’t refer necessarily to concerns about revenue generation, but a recently signed South Carolina law is a good example of the variety of the checks on photo enforcement starting to emerge. Here, Governor Nikki Haley signed a bill barring towns from mailing photo speeding tickets and requiring all summonses to be hand-delivered at the scene.
Washington:
It’s a court ruling, not a law. A Superior Court Judge has ruled that there is a problem with officers electronically attaching their signature to a camera summons. This type of ruling essentially puts a stop to camera enforcement altogether as the officer is obviously not present and writing red light tickets at a camera patrolled intersection.
Fight Los Angeles Citations With The “Gold Card” Friday, May 20th, 2011
Los Angeles residents were not happy to learn of the existence of the “Gold Card,” a plastic parking bureau card distributed to city offices that included a special phone number. The Gold Card Services Desk allowed for an expedited parking citation review.
According to language on the card, holders are invited to “immediately connect to our Gold Card Specialist” if there is an “urgent need to resolve any parking citation matter which requires special attention.”
A report released yesterday revealed that about 1,000 Los Angeles city parking citations were dismissed over a two year period–some without justification–as part of the Gold Card operation.
The program was started about 20 years ago to permit officials and their staff to expedite constituents’ appeals of parking tickets and possibly have fines reduced or eliminated.
Those who were upset to learn of this program are mostly concerned by the thought that the program was used by elected officials to get special treatment for friends and family.
The skepticism comes from the fact that the program was kept quiet and never publicized and the fact that records of summonses handled via this program simply don’t exist or accurately reflect how the summonses were handled.
Any questions about traffic tickets in this area? TicketHELP.com can connect you with a local traffic ticket attorney for a free consultation.
California traffic ticket lawyers
Los Angeles traffic ticket lawyers
Sacramento County traffic tickets getting dismissed Thursday, December 9th, 2010
Traffic tickets and “happy people” are not phrases that go hand in hand too often.
In Sacramento recently, many who are fighting traffic tickets have indeed walked away quite happy.
Dozens of violations have been dismissed recently because issuing police officers failed to show up for traffic court.
The no-shows stem from a dispute between the District Attorney’s Office and the Sacramento, Elk Grove and Folsom police departments over who is financially responsible for the prosecutor’s traffic court services.
All parties have an interest in fixing the situation as quickly as possible and expect this to be settled within a month or two. Until then, however, many more drivers than usual with red light tickets and speeding tickets and other California moving violations issued in the Sacramento area will walk away happy, satisfied motorists.
Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/
Alameda County issuing a “better” traffic ticket Thursday, May 6th, 2010
Alameda County Sheriffs have been issuing a different kind of traffic ticket lately.
Instead of traditional California traffic tickets written under California state traffic laws, officers have been issuing “local” traffic tickets under a local ordinance. About half of Alameda County traffic tickets issued are currently issued under local ordinance.
The difference? Typical California state traffic violations carry points, come with relatively high fines that are split between the local county and the state and will appear on a driving record and potentially affect auto insurance rates. These local traffic summonses do not carry points, the fines are generally less, they don’t appear on a driving record and the local county gets to keep all the fine money collected.
The person who gets the traffic ticket wins. Alameda County wins. The losers? Insurance companies which never know these drivers have received tickets and the state of California which loses it’s piece of the fine money collected.
State officials claim this is a loophole that will eventually be closed.
If you have questions about any type of California traffic ticket, please contact an Alameda traffic ticket attorney or other California traffic ticket lawyer.
More California red light camera ticket issues. Monday, April 26th, 2010
The city of South San Francisco, California, failed to properly ratify its contract with American Traffic Solutions, the company in charge of automated red light camera traffic tickets. Thus, the 6800 tickets issued between August 14, 2009 and February 28, 2010 were declared invalid by the court.
The city council just agreed to pay the $250,000 bill submitted by the San Mateo County Superior Court to cover the administrative costs of processing $3 million worth of red light camera citation refunds.
The $250,000 bill is just an estimate. Refunds include the $446 cost of the ticket, plus interest calculated at a 7-percent annual rate, and the full cost of traffic school that any driver may have taken to avoid points on his license.
In California, the superior court system is responsible for dividing up the profit from each citation among a number of city, state and county agencies. Thus, they city will need to supply $1.5 million to begin the refunds. Court administrators will negotiate with the state for the return of its portion of the citation revenue. If the state fails to send a check, the court will withhold the correct amount from future traffic ticket payments.
Clearly it’s a messy situation no city wants to deal with.
For questions about this or similar situations in California, please contact a San Mateo traffic ticket attorney or other California traffic ticket lawyer.
Relief coming to the Riverside County Superior Court of California in Moreno Valley Tuesday, April 13th, 2010
The Riverside County Superior Court of California is working on easing their most overburdened court–the Superior Court building in Moreno Valley.
This court, located at 13800 Heacock St., will soon add an indoor 2,600 sq. ft. waiting area. The area will have both a cashier window and computer stations to make online payments or obtain case information.
The additional space also enables people to wait inside when they do need to wait. Every day prior to opening, this court currently has a line of people–most there to deal with a California traffic ticket–snaking down the stairs and into the parking lot.
Additional fees on California traffic tickets Friday, March 19th, 2010
Traffic tickets in California are a little more expensive than they used to be.
Hikes in fines went into effect in January 2009 and many people, having since received tickets and disposed of them, are now first noticing the increased cost.
The typical ticket, from California speeding ticket to parking ticket, now costs an additional $35 on average statewide.
Fix-it tickets cost an extra $15.
You’ll pay a $25 hike for the processing fee to request traffic school.
In Sacramento city limits, you’ll find an extra fee of $9.50 added to parking fines. That means if you park where it’s posted “no parking” that will cost you $40 plus $9.50.
The hike authorized by SB 1407 will generate an estimated $280 million a year.
The money is used to help repair/update courts in need throughout the state.
Note that Judges can choose to reduce or adjust fines for hardship cases.
If you think you may need the assistance of a Sacramento traffic ticket attorney or a California traffic ticket attorney elsewhere in the state, please follow the links to connect with a local attorney for a free consultation.
