RSS
February 12, 2008
Senate Bill Could Bring Speed Cameras to California
Photo by Zach Behrens/LAist
Last Monday, State Senator Bob Dutton, a Republican representing the 31st District (cities East of Los Angeles including Riverside and Rancho Cucamonga), introduced Senate Bill 1142, a bill that would make changes to 21455.5 of the Vehicle Code. You may be more familiar with the law when put this way: it allows enforcement cameras at intersections (don't run a red light or you'll be on candid camera). The Legislative Counsel Digest says this about the bill:
Existing law authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where a driver is required to stop to be equipped with an automated traffic enforcement system, as defined, if the system meets certain requirements. Existing law limits the authority to operate an automated traffic enforcement system to governmental agencies in cooperation with law enforcement agencies.
Highwayrobbery.net, a citizen advocate watchdog site for all things California red light cameras, says that "SB 1142 will remove from VC 21455.5 the requirement that an automated enforcement device be at an intersection, and that will allow the devices to be put on freeways. That change is accomplished by the repositioning of a 7-word phrase in VC 21455.5(a)(2)."
Upon speaking to Larry Venus, Communications Director for the Senator, he explained the recently submitted bill to be a "spot bill." Spot bills are used to circumvent the deadline to get bills in. In theory, SB1142 may be about a change in the vehicle code today, but could be about healthcare tomorrow. And in the end, Dutton may never act upon the bill.
At the moment, it's all very open ended. SB1142 may go away, it may change to something else or it may continue on its path to becoming a law (if voted on by majority) allowing agencies to put cameras on freeways or streets ticketing you for going over the speed limit.
Let's say SB1142 stays as is and continues to be submitted as a law that could enable speed cameras in California, something that is a loss of privacy to some, a gain in road safety to others. What do you think?
| 
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
email this
add to facebook
add to del.icio.us
[ report this ]
I hate those stupid cameras. While I recognize that it does nab a lot of drivers who are irresponsible and poor drivers where human cops can't compete, it creates unsafe environments in the intersections where they are used.
I work right up the street from one at Cahuenga and Vine and I'll be damned if I don't see a car almost cause an accident once a week trying to rush through the intersection to beat the camera light. This includes nearly hitting pedestrians and other cars exercising their legal right of way.
What purpose would these serve on the freeway anyway?
[ report this ]
Ahahahahahah...awesome. How are we going to solve freeway congestion? Slow everyone down! I went to college in Tempe, AZ for two years where they had speed cameras hidden along the roads. At least Tempe would give you a warning a few feet before the camera. Other cities, like Scottsdale, would park a white van loaded with photography equipment on the side of the road and nail one speeder after another. Drivers would be cruising a little over 35 and all of a sudden a flash would go off and scare the crap out of them. And then they'd get a fat ticket mailed home...
In regards to the freeway cameras, AZ also had these. People knew where they were and slowed down accordingly.
What a waste of of tax money. So what do I really think? I think Bob Dutton is an idiot. He should be punished by having to commute from Orange County to LA everyday (anytime from 1:00 - 7:00 pm) for 6 months. Everyone knows you can go LA-OC in 30 mins at 1:00 a.m... I'll let him choose between the 5 and 405. Oh, and when traffic is too congested by the airport and he exits the 405 at Crenshaw or La Tijera, may he get nailed by a hidden speed camera.
[ report this ]
Welcome to The Socialist Wasteland of Cally-phone-ya.
[ report this ]
they have these in place in korea and let me tell you, it acauses some of the most horrific accidents/congested traffic ever...
although that might just be b/c of the high concentration of bad asian drivers in that area...
[ report this ]
It's probably just the militant biker in me but I'm ok with this, in fact I support it. Cops countywide seem to focus on their perceived duty to facilitate traffic flow and enforce civility. That's not their job, they're there to enforce the law, and frankly I'd prefer it if they spent more time on community policing and less on issuing tickets. This is a win-win, people are going to think twice before zooming along city streets at 80mph risking pedestrian and cyclists lives, and cops can return to more substantive work.
[ report this ]
@AlexT
Cops seem to focus on writing traffic tickets because they do have quotas that they have to meet in order to generate tax revenue. These cameras are another way to do this. Even when it finally gets to the point where the cameras have generated enough revenue to pay for the initial installation and upkeep, cops will still have their quotas.
It's just another way for the state to attempt to make money for the city and the state.
[ report this ]
Why would cops still have their quotas? That could easily be changed, particularly since presumably it's policy and not law. Of course there are aspects to safe driving other than speed, but I question whether some of the drivers out there are safe at any speed.
Anyhow, what's wrong with the gov't making money, if it pays for schools and it simultaneously creates additional disincentive to speeding?
[ report this ]
I'm surprised no one recognises this for what it really is-creeping Big Brotherism.
If cameras are ok at lighted interesections, then they should be ok on every high occupancy lane and in your front room, right?
They're already on your local atm, your grocery store, liquor store and who knows where else?
How about some cameras in our state legislators offices?
[ report this ]
Why would cops still have their quotas? Because both the city of LA and the state of California are so far into the red, that they need any form of income they can. Speeding tickets are a major source of income.
Of course this brings to mind a question. Say you're speeding, and the camera catches you. Then a couple miles down the freeway, a CHP unit pulls you over for speeding. Given that it was one instance within oh, a 10 minute time span, would you have to pay both tickets or would one be dismissed?
[ report this ]
Why would cops still have their quotas? Because both the city of LA and the state of California are so far into the red, that they need any form of income they can. Speeding tickets are a major source of income.
Of course this brings to mind a question. Say you're speeding, and the camera catches you. Then a couple miles down the freeway, a CHP unit pulls you over for speeding. Given that it was one instance within oh, a 10 minute time span, would you have to pay both tickets or would one be dismissed?