Saturday, July 07, 2007

STOP SIGN CAMERAS: Get Ready Springfield!

California: Stop Sign Cameras Installed on Canyon Road
A California park agency will ticket motorists with stop sign cameras July 9. Speed cameras to follow.

The Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority (MRCA) has installed the first-ever automated camera in the US designed to ticket drivers who make "boulevard stops" or slow to a crawl at a stop sign without fully ceasing forward motion. The little-known agency will begin issuing $100 fines next Monday, July 9, at Franklin Canyon in the heart of Los Angeles, located off of Mulholland Drive and at the top of Topanga.

The stop sign devices are based on red light camera platforms, but they differ greatly in use. The more familiar stoplight cameras typically photograph a vehicle entering an intersection if a signal light changes to red between 0.1 and 0.3 seconds after the car crosses a stop bar line (view recent report) With the new stop sign cameras, a machine will make calculations to determine whether a vehicle did not stop for a long enough period and deserves a fine.

The cameras are being installed as a prelude to the agency's expected installation of speed cameras on popular canyon roads, as first reported by TheNewspaper in April. Australian camera vendor Redflex will operate every aspect of the program in return for a $20 cut from every ticket the company is able to issue (view contract). California law explicitly prohibits both speed cameras and per-ticket photo enforcement contract provisions, but the MRCA believes the law does not apply to them.

"Our Park Rangers are California peace officers and will always have traffic enforcement as part of their duty," MRCA Director of Public Affairs Dash Stolarz said in a June statement.

In 2000, the California legislature banned photo radar with a statute clarifying that although it authorized the use of photo ticketing at traffic signals, the legislature, "does not authorize the use of photo radar for speed enforcement purposes by any jurisdiction." (CVC 21455.6) Another provision specifies that, "A contract between a governmental agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated enforcement equipment may not include provision for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated." (CVC 21455.5)


Anonymous said...

I got mine today, from atop Topanga. It's a slimy deal because it just means more of the same and profits going to the makers of these spy cameras. Sure, it's about safety but it's more about profits... everyone knows this.

Anonymous said...

I got one also. I am going to fight it. It is completely outragous.

Anonymous said...

To the anonymous commentor, "Did you fight it and did you win? I just got one as well and want to do the same as you and fight it and also help others fight is as well!" Safety is certainly not the issue here --- it's just about profits and revenues --- essentially, it's just another tax on the 'little' guy. They should put cameras at the desks of each supervisor and administrator and fine them for not being there half the time and possibly pulling off deals that are illegal while they are at their desks!

Anonymous said...

I just got one too. But its odd: The picture doesn't show the driver, just the license plate. I don't deny that the car is mine, but there are 3 drivers in my family and on that date the driver was my daughter. So why should I pay for it if it isn't me driving and the state cant prove it was me driving?

Is it a fluke that they dont have a pic of the driver? Has anyone fought these and won? If so, how?

Greg Prosmushkin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.