Stout, Stout, Get it Worked Out!
Box Office Review: American Teens Are Morons
'Kick a Ginger Day' Spawned At Least 5 Attacks on Redheaded Kids
Books for L.A. Nerds: Saints of California
Intrepid L.A. Foodies Tackle 11-in-11 Nocturnal Challenge
Photo by Zach Behrens/LAist
A few weeks ago, we reported on Senate Bill 1142, which would widen the use of enforcement cameras in California from intersections to roadways where photos and video could capture speeding cars on streets, ultimately sending the violator a ticket in the mail. Senator Dutton's office said it was a spot bill and later released a statement to highwayrobbery.net, an enforcement camera advocacy site:
"Senator Dutton will not move any bill that expands the use of red light cameras. He has voted against them... as a state legislator. [That's true - he helped to stop SB 1300 (see below).] SB 1142... is available for use by any member of the Republican caucus who would like to limit or restrict the use of red light cameras."
While that may relieve some anti-camera folks, the heat is on once again with SB1325. This bill, submitted by Senator Sheila Kuehl, who represents parts of Ventura County, San Fernando Valley and some cities 'over the hill' such as Beverly Hills, is an attempt to allow what 1142 tries to do, but with more focus -- a pilot program in Beverly Hills.
When asked what Kuehl's motivation was, legislative aide to the Senator, Jonathan Tran, said it was a constituent request. It was Beverly Hills who wanted the bill that would allow them to initiate the state's first pilot program with speed cameras. It's been tried before too... twice, in fact. Both SB466, which the city of Los Angeles lobbied behind, and SB1300 of Beverly Hills' desire, failed up in Sacramento.
One group behind the two previous bills' failure was law enforcement. Who wants their job replaced by robots? Not rank and file cops. According to Tran, The International Association of Chiefs of Police wanted the bill to include interaction between the individual and the violator. If passed, the pilot program would allow Beverly Hills Police to place a clearly marked mobile unit with officer on the street that's been given public notice for at least 30 days and has signs warning motorists that this area could be monitored. The officer stays with the camera and marks down violators. Instead of pulling a car over, the offender gets a ticket in the mail. From one perspective, it works to get speeding decreased on streets. An officer on a motorcycle can pull three or four people over while other speeders blow by. Now with a camera, everyone gets "pulled over."
Some figures say, where used, the cameras have reduced speeding by 85-90%. With Beverly Hills being in the middle of Los Angeles, pass through traffic to avoid major arteries such as Wilshire Blvd. bleed onto local residential streets where speed surveys find an overwhelming amount of cars going 50 mph or more. Beverly Hills ensures this is not a measure to get people off their streets but to slow people down.
If passed, the bill would allow the program to exist until January 1, 2014 where an evaluation on the program would determine its future to either be law that was or law of the state.
Is this a good thing or a terrible idea? Chime in the comments section below.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I'm not a fan of Speed Cameras - not because I think people should speed, but because remote policing is notorious for mistakes that are next to impossible to correct. I'd prefer lawbreakers be caught in the act by a human being, rather than policed by Robocop. Even though Robocop is cool.
Plus, what about the needs of celebrities who want to have anonoymous trysts in Beverly Hills bathrooms! Where will they go now?
Ugh, have you tried driving down Wilshire around Rodeo? It's gridlocked during commute hours. As a resident, I'd certainly prefer not to have to deal with even more traffic. People don't really speed much in that area anyway. The perception that there are more cops in Beverly Hills generally results in slower drivers. Install the cameras on Venice and Olympic if you want to catch speeders.
I can't help but take the economic position on the "Photo Finish" cameras. More violations and fines issued, more revenue obtained for the city/county they are in.
Don't get me wrong I hate being caught flying through an intersection as much as the next guy, but in a city like LA where everyone is in a rush, having cameras slowing the a--hole drivers down isn't so horrible.
I think they would have best use on those tricky 5, 6, 7, 8 point intersections where crashes happen all too frequently due to people blowing lights. Strangly enough a threat of a $300+ fine and/or having to attend a court date is more likeyl to get someone to stop at a red light than the thought that they might KILL SOMEONE!
Something needs to be done about this intersection -- six approaches and too many California stops:
View Larger Map
After witnessing a speeding-related death last year first hand, my entire stand on red light cameras and speed cameras changed. I think about it all the time.
Bring them on. Put them everywhere.
cstraw, they aren't talking about more intersection cameras. They're talking about putting cameras in the streets, so that anyone going above the limit down Wilshire gets a ticket.
Zach, I totally agree. That intersection is a death trap. They need lights there.
qwerty, I'm going to clarify for a moment here because I did not publish this fact from the bill:
And can anyone go over 25 mph on Wilshire in Beverly Hills anyway? That's the worst stretch of the whole street. We should be ticketing the city for making it go too slow :)Intersection or speeding on residential streets, my primary arguement is still valid though. slow the a--holes down. Just cause your benz can go Zero to 60 in 3 nanoseconds, doesn't mean you should.
Yeah but IMO, 35 is a perfectly normal and responsible speed to be driving at on a major blvd. Try driving at a strict 25 mph. It'll drive you insane.
I also shudder at the thought of how clogged the surrounding streets will become with people trying to avoid Wilshire. Santa Monica and Olympic will become even more ridiculous, assuming those streets wont have cameras on them. Meanwhile, cars will be zooming down the side streets in an attempt to bypass the major thoroughfares. And Wilshire will crawl along at 25mph. Isn't the goal to IMPROVE traffic flow?
gwerty Isn't the goal to IMPROVE traffic flow?
No, the goal is to improve revenue. How many constituents of these senators and congressmen do you really think asked for this crap? The system, it's brok'd.
bigbadjon, one agency asked the senator for this: the city of Beverly Hills (the municipality, but not the people as a whole)
A couple very late comments.
1. highwayrobbery.net (mentioned in the article as advocating cameras) is actually AGAINST both speed and red light cameras.
2. As of today, July 26, the proposed speed camera legislation has not passed - yet. It is dormant, but could come back to life in August. Because the state treasury needs the $1 billion the tickets would provide.
A couple very late comments.
1. highwayrobbery.net (mentioned in the article as advocating cameras) is actually AGAINST both speed and red light cameras.
2. As of today, July 26, the proposed speed camera legislation has not passed - yet. It is dormant, but could come back to life in August. Because the state treasury needs the $1 billion the tickets would provide.