Tag Archives: red light cameras

Walnut: Red Light Camera Ticket Controversy

BY K.P. SANDER

Walnut – It was close, but you ran a red light; or maybe you turned right on a red because you didn’t see the posted sign not to.  The camera above the traffic signal took a glamour photo of your car, your license plate, and possibly you (with that charming look of, “OMG, I hope no one saw that!” captured for all eternity).  Soon after, you receive a ticket in the mail stating, Congratulations!  You owe us $470!  Yay!  But do you really have to pay the fine?  The controversy surrounding this topic is quite prevalent.

Called “Scam Cams”, some say the red light cameras are just a ploy by the government to get your money, and that they have nothing to do with safety.  Some say they are unconstitutional and a violation of our privacy.  There are articles that say you don’t have to pay the “Snitch Ticket” fine, because there is no officer to appear in court to defend the ticket.  Also, photos may be inadmissible in court because the technical calibration of the cameras can be called into question.  Still others report there will be no warrant issued and it won’t go on your DMV record.  Who do you believe?

Privacy violation has been addressed in the U.S. courts, but according to a 2009 ruling, (7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals), “No one has a fundamental right to run a red light or avoid being seen by a camera on a public street.”  The cameras are triggered by sensors only when a vehicle has run a red light, in most cases six seconds before the approach of the intersection, and six seconds after.

If you receive a red light camera citation, a copy is sent to the Superior Court where it remains in their traffic record system.  If you don’t pay the citation by the due date, you’ll receive a letter imposing a civil fine of approximately $300 on top of the original amount, and possible penalties and other legal consequences according to the law.  A collection company will take over an ignored citation, which can appear on a background check.  An additional violation can alert the court’s record system, which could create even more problems.

The City of Walnut has one red light camera installed at the intersection of Grand Avenue and Amar Road.  It is clearly marked with signs, and is in the jurisdiction of the Walnut/Diamond Bar Sheriff’s Station.  It is a fact that police officers cannot be everywhere at any given moment.  So the cameras are another way to enforce safety in intersections.  But is the cost prohibitive?

The City Council in Walnut voted to extend the use of their camera for further testing until Feb. 27, 2014.   It costs the City approximately $141,000 to operate and brings in revenue of about $130,000 stemming from citations issued (5,053 in 2013).  Still, it is less than the cost of an additional patrol, which could exceed $260,000 annually.

Red lights actually mean stop, not try and make the yellow light; and of course, the yellow is a warning to stop, not gun it through the intersection.  Drivers admit to cutting it close all the time, but the accident statistics for signal violation are staggering, and among the most deadly.  The Los Angeles Police Department states that 1,000 people die each year, and another 200,000 are injured nationally as a result of running red lights.  The annual overall costs associated with this violation are $14 billion in the U.S.

Do the cameras help to prevent accidents?  Some claim they cause accidents by scaring drivers into more sudden stops, causing rear-end collisions.  The City of Walnut states that there is another important consideration, that of the potential danger associated with police officers following red light runners through heavily congested intersections; the pursuit of which can pose of serious risk to motorists, pedestrians and police officers.  The camera simply captures the crime.

Whatever controversy surrounds red light cameras, and whatever you believe – scam or safety – the DMV states that if you receive a violation, you shall be permitted to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.  Regardless of the controversy, if you ran a red light – or even came close to it – you are guilty of jeopardizing the safety of those in your vicinity; pay the piper.  If not, contest it.

If you receive a ticket, you have the option to pay the citation or appear before a judge and take your chances.  The City of Walnut’s website has some excellent information on red light cameras.  Visit http://www.ci.walnut.ca.us/general.asp?id=355 to view your violation video, request a copy of your ticket, or just become more informed.

The bottom line is that traffic laws require obedience to traffic control signals and devices.  If you slow down a bit, stop at red lights, and eliminate the “rolling stop”, chances are you won’t ever have to figure out your personal place in the red

Walnut: Red Light Cameras Stay For Three Months

BY ARIEL CARMONA, JR.

Walnut – Faced with the impending expiration of a contract with a company that maintains and operates the red light camera at the intersection at Temple, Grand and Amar, and with a growing trend of other cities taking down their cameras, the City Council voted to extend the City’s contract for another three months to further study the implications of retaining or dismantling the camera.

“I know making a decision about whether to terminate or to continue should be based on safety, whether its cost effective and what is the best for the community,” said Mayor Antonio (Tony) Cartagena as the Council voted 4-0 (Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Tragarz abstained) to extend the contract with RedFlex, set to expire on Feb. 27, 2014.

According to a report made public by the city staff, the City’s photo enforcement program was approved in 2006 and extended for five years in February 2009. The contract does not have a rollover provision, which means if the contract expires, RedFlex would remove the equipment, and the program would terminate.
The annual cost to operate the program is $141,116, with $140,016 going to RedFlex and $1,100 provided for training a Law Enforcement Technician (LET). The LET position is charged to a grant and does not come from the City’s general fund sources, according to a report by Senior Management Analyst, Rosalea Layman.

“It is difficult to determine the exact amount of revenue generated by the program because the City receives a lump sum from the county that includes all traffic violations, fines and fees received,” wrote Layman in the report. She said the City estimates it receives approximately $130,000 with $63,700 of the revenue restricted for public safety purposes.

City staff warned that if the program is eliminated, the City would realize a loss of associated revenue, in addition to a potential increase cost for additional patrol deployment of more than $260,000 per year. Walnut issued 5,053 citations to alleged violators in 2013.

Captain Jeff Scroggin said that he was concerned if the cameras were removed, that there would be an increase of people pushing across that intersection to try to get into Mt. San Antonio College. “The ability to police that area with the normal deployment would be difficult because of all the other calls we are responding to and the patrols we’re doing.”

The council also heard testimonies from residents and the public, some who favored the red light program and others who expressed concerns over possible 6th Amendment violations to pedestrian safety and the safety of Mt. SAC students crossing to reach the bus stop on the south side of the intersection. Others suggested the City install a countdown on the intersection instead of hand symbol.

Council Member Bob Pacheco questioned the efficacy of the camera, quoting the report which showed that accidents increased from 12 to 19 at the intersection between 2005 and 2013, when they were last reported. “I don’t understand, if the traffic light is to prevent injuries, and the cameras are basically to try to deter that from happening, I don’t see a reason why there was an increase,” said Pacheco. “We are always very concerned with the status of the economy and the impact on our revenue, this is a source of revenue for the City, but it should not be just a means for deciding of what we do with it, whether we make or don’t make money is not a question in my mind, it’s a question of is it providing the benefit that we’re supposed to be getting,” he added.

Jay Beeber, Executive Director of Safer Streets L.A., addressed the Council and disputed the City staff’s assertion that the intersection was less safe because there is more traffic flow. That‘s actually contrary to what you would expect with increased traffic flow. “In the five years before the program was started, there was one red light running collision. Since implementation, there have been five, a 400 percent increase. There were 24 rear-end collisions prior, 43 in the five years after, an 80 percent increase”, said Beeber.

In other actions, the Council heard a presentation on fraud and cybercrime prevention from Lt. Mark Stevens from the L.A. County Sheriff’s Department, and also approved the adoption of 2014-2015 Community Development Block Grant Program funds for housing rehabilitation and senior citizen activities.
The next regular meeting of the City Council is scheduled on Wednesday, Jan. 22 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 21201 La Puente Road.