Automated speeding tickets for CA coming to vote on April 19.

[NotACopOrLawyer]

CA Automated speeding tickets bill on hold, but fine increase bill still alive.

What is the name of your state?CA

Previously I wrote:

There's a new law moving thru the CA legislature, to allow the mailing of speed camera tickets taken from mobile vans or patrol cars. It is Senate Bill 466, sponsored by Sen. Sheila Kuehl of Santa Monica.

If it follows the pattern of tickets for running red lights, the fine will be $366 to $421, depending upon which county you were cited in. (These figures assume the passage of SB 57, which will add $40 beginning 1-1-2006.)

SB 466 will be coming to a vote in the Senate Transportation Committee on April 19.

For more details about it, and how to stop it, have a look at the HOT Legislation section on this web page: http://www.highwayrobbery.net/redlightcamsjoin.htm

Well, as of 4-20, SB 466 is probably on hold until Feb. 2006, when it can be considered again. But there still is SB 57, which will add $40 to many fines. So let your senator know about that one.


NACOL

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

Sometimes I wonder if anyone here in CA is paying any attention. Or is everyone planning to move to Mexico?

NACOL

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

This is next Tuesday, dudes !

If Californians don't BURY their senators in phone calls and faxes in the next few days(email does not work in this situation), we are going to get a New Years 2006 present of speeding tickets in the mail. And we will have only our own inaction to blame.

NACOL

 

[CdwJava]

And slowing people down in areas where they are traveling too fast is a bad idea ... why???

- Carl

 

[wirry1422]

Why? Because laws like this set up a system that is too ripe for government abuse. There are no safe guards in place to prevent municipalities from exploiting this system to the best of their abilities. What part of this bill requires the inspection by an independent auditor on a regular basis the speed calibration equipment used to ascertain the driver's speed? What part of this bill sets standard as to how a driver's speed is measured and in what conditions? It is a scientifically known fact that both the radar and laser units attatched to these cameras are greatly affected by fog, snow, rain, and glare. What aspect of this program insures accuracy? Fairness? What about when roadways have obscenely low speed limits soley for revenue enhancement, not safety? What judgement does a camera have to issue a warning instead of a citation based upon individual circumstances? Where will these units be set up, in the most dangerous places or at the precise point where a speed limit drops? One mile per hour over the limit and bingo? Is this program about safety or is it about money? From every way it is structured, it takes the fairness and accuracy out of law enforcement, meaning safety is simply the guiess by which revenue can be reaped in. When programs like this are inacted, the government is serving its own needs and not the needs of its individual citizens. What about the right of Californians to drive down the roadway in a safe and efficient way without being taxed? Driving safely and above the arbitrarily low posted speed limit (ie. efficiently) can and is done every day. But if this law is passed, it will no longer be possible in California, to use your own individual judgement as to how to operate a motor vehicle in the safest and most efficient manner. That is Why.

 

[CdwJava]

Sorry to say, but you cannot legally use your "own individual judgement as to how to operate a motor vehicle in the safest and most efficient manner", so the bill changes nothing in that regard.

I haven't read the bill in great detail. I don't know if I'm for or against it as it is written. But I'm certainly FOR the general concept of photo radar enforcement.

As for it being government serving it's own needs, I would tend to disagree. Where I have worked, the citizens CLAMOR for speed enforcement in their neighborhoods. Unfortunately, resources are limited and officers cannot always be where everyone wants them. Hence the citizenry tend to get miffed because speed enforcement takes a back seat to other, easier, modes of enforcement. It takes time, money, and manpower to train, equip and operate a radar-equipped vehicle and officer. This sort of enforcement can, in theory, provide a necessary tool to address the needs and wishes of the community.

If the local community doesn't want it, trust me - they won't get it. Politicians aren't going to enact something that will get them tossed out of office. And this is especially true in cities and towns.

- Carl

 

[wirry1422]

Both driving and enforcing the law require individuals to use their own judgement. When one does and the other does not because it is automated, those two interrelated activities are incompatible with one another, and problems result. A machine cannot govern as to when a driver needs to accelerate or decelerate to avoid a collision. And often times in reality to drive safely, one must exceed the posted speed limit. Whether a machine is present or not won't change those roadway dynamics. Traffic enforcement can be successfully legislated, but that legislation cannot be successfully enforced by a mechanism with no judgement of its own. Traffic officers have to use their judgement everyday as to who is a threat on the road and who is not, and whether officers are expensive or not is irrelevent, as good law-enforcement depends on human beings doing human jobs. To enforce the laws any other way is easy and foolish.

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

The Govinator stopped the increase in car registration fees. It was one of his major campaign promises.

This bill to issue speed camera tickets is the legislature's revenge. The state treasury keeps an average $203 on each $350 red light camera ticket fine, and I expect they will get the same amount on the speed camera tickets. It is big money, and they need it and want it. Raising revenue this way (SB 466) is far easier than cutting spending.

NACOL

(The figures given are those applicable to LA County. The fine is $15 lower is some counties, $45 higher in others.)

 

[NotACopOrLawyer]

One bill down, another coming on May 3

The City of LA withdrew their sponsorship of SB 466, so on 4-18 the author (Sen. Kuehl) withdrew the bill from the 4-19 agenda of the Transportation Committee. The Senator's staff says that they will not re-submit it this year, but that it could come back under consideration in February 2006.

However, there is another bill, SB 57, to pay attention to. It will raise traffic fines by 40%, or an additional $40 on a red light camera ticket. It is coming to committee on May 3.

The legislature in intent on getting more money from you, one way or another.

NACOL

 

[ylen13]

cool, time to use a spary that makes it immposible to take a picture of a plate.

 

[sparkwood]

No, it's time to use force and destroy the red light cameras.

 

[racer72]

Dude, this thread is over 3 years old, necroposting is a no-no.

 

[Zigner]

Dude, this thread is over 3 years old, necroposting is a no-no.

Not to mention that advising others to break the law is a no-no too!

 

[Pugilist]

Old post but coincidentally very current -

Here we are 3 years later and the same State senator is trying again, for her 3rd time, to get speed cams approved for California. It's SB 1325 and will be coming up for a vote sometime in May 2008.

The bill says it will be a pilot program just in Beverly Hills, but if you look at the bill info on the legislature's website, you can see another city "waiting in the wings." Bill info is at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1325&sess=CUR&house=B&author=kuehl

Pug

 

[occharge]

Proposal blocked by Senate Transportation Committee

Tuesday 04/30/2008 Los Angeles Times - California Section

SACRAMENTO
Cameras to catch speeders blocked

Lawmakers blocked a proposal Tuesday to allow Beverly Hills police officers to use cameras to catch speeders, saying it would put collecting fines above stopping dangerous drivers.

State Sen. Sheila Kuehl (D-Santa Monica) had written legislation for a test program in which Beverly Hills officers would hold a camera triggered by a radar gun that would record speeders. Tickets would be mailed to violators.

But the Senate Transportation Committee deadlocked 5 to 5 on the bill. Sen. Jenny Oropeza (D-Long Beach) objected that the system would let the driver speed on and not stop his or her dangerous behavior.

She also objected to the fact that the system would rely on a private contractor. "Basically, what it does is it creates revenue for a private company," she said.
-- Patrick McGreevy

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-briefs30apr30,1,1139805,full.story Scroll down to 4th story from top