spurfan15

http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14281068?source=rss

The controversial plan to use cameras to nab speeders and help California close a $21 billion deficit got an early green light Wednesday, when the nonpartisan Legislative Analyst's Office concluded it's an idea worth pursuing.

"It merits legislative consideration," wrote analyst Drew Soderborg, saying Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's "proposal would provide local governments with an additional option to further improve traffic safety while potentially providing a fiscal benefit to the state and local governments."

The report is critical to those backing the governor's plan. It has received mixed reviews from traffic engineers, police officers and motorists, mostly because it's seen as a way to raise cash, not necessarily to improve safety. But the LAO zeroed in on safety benefits, saying other areas that use cameras for speed enforcement have seen a significant drop in crashes — from a 45 percent decline in England, to 40 percent in Paradise Valley, Ariz., to 20 percent in Norway. Now, with the LAO's backing, legislation will likely be introduced this year in Sacramento to approve using cameras to catch speeders.

"The safety aspect has to be the key, not revenue," said Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D-San Mateo, who initially was skeptical the plan would move through the Legislature but now thinks it will.

"If cameras make an intersection safer," Hill said, "then doggone, it's reason to do it."

Camera enforcement is expected to raise $398 million a year, though that figure would fall if tickets decline over time as motorists get wise to the cameras. According to the Schwarzenegger administration, each red-light camera system in California generally results in 100 violations each month. Studies in other states suggest that four times as many speeding tickets would be issued. The LAO report also focused on three issues that could make the system more acceptable. It recommends the state return 25 percent instead of 15 percent of each fine to the city or county where a citation is issued. San Jose officials say the city would need about 30 percent to cover installation and maintenance expenses.

The plan would not be restricted to busy intersections with red-light cameras as first proposed, the LAO said. Cameras could be installed elsewhere — including around school zones and on residential streets with speed limits of 25-30 mph, where city officials say they receive the most complaints.
And the LAO endorses making this a volunteer system and not forcing cities with red-light cameras to join the speeding program.

California's move toward using cameras is unpopular with some. Jim Thomas, a National Motorists Association spokesman in California, called raising money in this fashion "unethical and rotten public policy."

"While it may generate revenue, it will shred what little respect the public has for government in general, and for law enforcement in particular," he said.
But mostly, the report drew cheers. "This is fantastic, a no-brainer," said San Jose Councilman Pierluigi Oliverio, who headed a committee on street safety in the city. "In every neighborhood we went, the biggest concern was about speeding and safety."

There are red-light cameras at about 600 locations in California, with 17 cities in the Bay Area using this tool.

No red-light cameras are in use in Santa Clara County, but later this year San Jose will install cameras at six locations in a pilot project.

The state estimates that 80 percent of red-light cameras would be converted to track speeders.

Many cities don't cite drivers unless they are traveling well over the speed limit — often by 10 mph or more.

A photo would be snapped and reviewed by a police officer.

Then a citation would be mailed to the owner of the car.

Where: On city streets, using existing red-light cameras, or installing new cameras at other city locations.

Fines: $225 for drivers who exceed the speed limit by 15 mph or less; $325 for those who exceed the speed limit by more than 15 mph.

Revenue: An estimated $398 million in 2010"“11 and $477 million upon full implementation in future years.

Where money would go: 85 percent, or $338 million, to the state; 15 percent, or $60 million, to cities and counties.

Number of tickets: An estimated 2.4 million a year.

Next step: Legislation must be introduced to make this legal.

thisaznboi88

iTrader: (7)

wow CA is soo stupid now. Sooo instead of creating job so that Taxs can be generated they are making people go more in to debt. Geeee 2012 won't come fast enough for some people.. lol

Anyways time to drive slowwww...

princelybug

iTrader: (16)

:thumbsdow

v6cord2k5

iTrader: (1)

I nearly never do over 10mph the posted speed limit on surface streets but I occasionally float 5 over, will I still be cited? If so the basic speed law in Ca allows it too.

...and if they put these on the highway, I'm gonna

princelybug

iTrader: (16)

Well...who knows if this will ever get passed into law? Hopefully not, but it's going to cost $$$ to even get this started, so we'll wait and see.

Darn the Governator.

fsttyms1

But what is the estimated cost in putting this system in place? How about getting a hold of the stupid spending first.

Costco

lol, in the name of safety my nutsack. I'm sure behind closed doors all they heard was that it would generate revenue, so ultimately that was the deciding factor

spurfan15

This is another tool to let transit agencies drive speed limits artificially lower. First those signs that display your speed popped up everywhere and lowered the average speed on the road. Then they run a traffic survey and since the average speed is lower, they can get away with pushing down the speed limit. With the addition of these speed cameras it'll get even worse. Greedy cities will try pushing speed limits down to ridiculous levels to bring in more revenue.

It would be one thing if speeds were actually reasonable. But they aren't, at all. There are plenty of roads in cities that should be 45 or 50 mph limits and the cities use this tactic to drive it down to 30 or 35.

Then there's the obvious cost of implementation aspect to this. And it's hard to stomach when the state has the worst road conditions in the country that the CA government's first priority is punishing and taxing drivers rather than fixing unsafe roads.

And I'd much rather see stricter enforcement of tailgating laws and left lane blocking laws. I think tailgating and forcing people to pass on the right are way more dangerous than speed. The Germans closely follow these rules (no tailgating, no passing on the right, left lane is passing only) and their roads are safer than ours, even though 1/2 of the autobahn is still unrestricted in speed.

subinf

You mean 2010

PortlandRL

It has been proven over and over again that these cameras have absolutely NOTHING to do with safety. They are a money-making machine disguised as a safety device; nothing more, nothing less.

subinf

^ - Yeah, revenue generation is kind of the point. Even those proposing the idea suggest that is the case, more or less

Costco

I've read that they actually are more dangerous in some cases. A person going on yellow may remember that a camera's there and stomp on the brakes, potentially causing an accident.

subinf

Wasn't the main focus of the post about speed cameras, and not red light cameras, which are already used widely throughout CA?

Costco

reading is fundamental

subinf

They are converting a lot of cameras though, so red light ones were mentioned. I had to go through twice to make sure I didn't type out something completely off base.

SuperTrooper169

iTrader: (2)

Welcome to our world. They suck, but once you get to know their exact locations, you just slow down for them and then resume normal crusing speed in between them.

JS + XES

iTrader: (1)

gay

alexSU

iTrader: (3)

I hope NC will not be pulling this kinda shit. But I'm sure if it catches on in CA, more and more states will be putting up speed cameras.

Btw, anyone know how many states have these already?

ifirahse

iTrader: (6)

So let me get this straight:

Not only does California have the highest fines for traffic violations ($350 for speeding vs. <$100 in many states).

Not only have fees gone up for almost EVERYTHING gov't related. i.e. fix-it ticket fines have increased from $10 flat to $25 per citation, parking fines increasing from $40 to $60 and above. Fees fees fees for almost everything a person does wrong.

Not only have tuition fees at public colleges gone up 30% alongside cuts in funding and classes. (50% reduction in Winter classes here at SMC).

And these are only three things that I can think of off the top of my head...

But now they want to do this? I'm really starting to grow a solid hatred for our state government.

spurfan15

Pretty much. One must wonder where the hell that money goes. We've reached a point where we get all of the bad aspects of state government and none of the good. They just take and take and take... fees are constantly going up and the price of tickets is insane. But we get almost nothing in return. The roads suck, the schools get practically no funding, state programs are being cut, etc.

They just keep getting sleazier in the ways they make money. Speed cameras are a new low for what is already a terrible vehicle code that already screws drivers. It's just one big money making scam.

Moog-Type-S

No need to wonder:
It goes to the state workers....ie 80% of the deficit is cause by this.

You get shafted by extra fines/taxes, you loose your job in the private sector....meanwhile state workers get fat pensions and outlandish insurance benefits....and lifetime jobs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...BA2V1BBGHH.DTL

subinf

Vallejo is a pretty bad example. City council didn't know what the fuck they were doing.

Gfaze

By the way, I had the pleasure of getting a photo taken by one of these damn cameras doing about 61 in a 55 going through Phoenix. Will they issue a ticket and if so, how much is the fine?

It was a trap. The limit was 65, I saw the warning sign about photo enforcement, then out of nowhere the limit drops to 55 and before I could adjust my speed.....*FLASH*!

FutureBagdA4

^ Arizona photo radar is for 11 miles over and above...

Yeah, photo radar sucks...

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

There used to be speeding cameras on Billy Graham over by the airport all of the time. They were un-manned vans with photo equipment in them, and it did the same thing.... snapped a picture of speeding cars. Funny thing was that when the vans were out, there were signs out stating Photo Radar in use. So you could just slow down. Not sure why they did that, but I appreciated the heads-up. Haven't seen them in a while though... then again, I have been taking I485 to the airport for the last 3 years or so...

Moog-Type-S

...and you think the state legislature does?!?

chill_dog

Actually, the vans were manned. They were set up on BGP, South Blvd, Harris Blvd, Monroe Rd, and other "speed zones" (ie. where they have the speed limit set ridiculously low and no one obeys). Those, along with the red light cameras were removed/halted because they were deemed to be unconstitutional. Don't get too excited...it was an amendment in the state constitution that 80%, or something like that, of the money raised had to go to the schools. But, because 80% was going to the company that ran the lights/vans, they were deemed unconstitutional and the programs were halted.


For the record, I don't support speed cameras or red light cameras.

juniorbean

iTrader: (5)

Ahh, I thought they were un-manned. Always saw the camera stuff in the window... never saw any people.

subinf

No. But there were some seriously stupid people on Vallejo's city council when all of their financial trouble went down. Not saying the state level is any better

mitch14

we have both here, red light cameras, maybe 20ish or so around the city (with signs before them to indicate)
and also those camera vans, maybe 10 or so, only used in school zones and construction zones, no markings on the vans except says "photo enforcement" on the side window, barely noticeable when driving by
and they've been using different kinds of vehicles to hide themselves better (astro vans, windstar's, taurus's, jeep compass's, Jimmy's) almost always the windows are tinted aswell do you can't really tell there is camera equipment inside
i don't like the vans, but they are put up in only important places
but the red light cameras don't bother me as i know where most are, and all you have to do is not speed or run the red light

PortlandRL

Why do they try to sell it as a safety aspect when they keep doing criminal shit like that? That is not a safety act...that is revenue generation, pure and simple. I don't know why California is going for this while Arizona's program is falling apart in front of their eyes.

See here and notice they used the word 'profits'.

TommySalami

$225 for <15 over is butt fucking insane

Gfaze

It's a conspiracy.

AnthraciteAspec

iTrader: (6)

Heres hoping the legislation won't pass, however knowing the rationale of our state legislature, it probably will.

PortlandRL

spurfan15

http://www.saccourt.ca.gov/traffic/fine-breakdown.aspx

I'm surprised the state hasn't just made speeding tickets a million bucks a pop. Clearly we all have the money to spend on that sort of thing.

moeronn

I have mixed feelings about this.

On one hand, if the speed cameras are only used at stationary locations where red light cameras are already in operation, it shouldn't be very difficult to reduce your speed at those locations, especially when you know they are there. Also, many GPS units identify these locations for times you are in unfamiliar areas.

On the other hand, I despise the fact that they are disgusing this revenue generator as a safety improvement. Also, not only are the fine excessive, but they pale in comparison to the affect the tickets will have on your insurance costs. I could see a lot of people racking up enough points to lose their licenses fairly quickly.

Sarlacc

Yeah except they keep trying to get rid of them as quick as they possibly can.

At the end of every fucking school year we have to worry that my wife is gonna get chopped. And now we have to worry more because they chopped so far back in to the hiring years...its kinda like, whats next?

But who cares, teachers arent important anyway. But that govt official who spent 700k to redo his offices...that was a pressing matter by far.

This state is so mismanaged they should force ALL the hire ups to take massive pay cuts until they can find REAL solutions.

PortlandRL

Dayum...and I thought Oregon had steep fines.

mrmako

I would have no issue with them at intersections. But in Germany, running a yellow will not get you a ticket. In the US it might. The German system will get you once the light is red and you cross the front stop line. (yes, I got a ticket or two)

Fair or not, I think it would help people from getting T-boned.

In Japan, speed cameras are set up in various places, and they generally take a good 15 - 20Km/h or more over to set them off. (no, I missed them here. They have books that tell you where they are)