Quantcast Photo Enforced: October 2006

Monday, October 16, 2006

40 Percent Of Red-light Camera Violators Are On The Phone

More than 40 percent of drivers nailed on camera for running red lights in Santa Clarita are freeze-framed, cell phone to ear. Eight intersections in town have red light cameras. In addition to the cell-phone yakkers, 10 percent of the lawbreakers running the red are eating, drinking coffee or reading. Folks in Bakersfield, too, have been snapped by red-light cameras, gabbing away, for the four years cameras have been in place. In Lancaster, red-light cameras went into operation in September at two intersections and in their first 30 days photographed 322 red-light runners. Deputies who reviewed the photos said many of the motorists were talking on cell phones, though they didn't count how many. A California law that goes into effect in July 2008 will make it illegal for drivers to use hand-held wireless phones while driving. Speaker phones and hands-free headsets will be allowed. The fine for first-time offenders will be $20; thereafter, $50.

Tuesday, October 03, 2006

Were You The Driver Of The Vehicle?

IL Wiedermann says he was not driving his company's van when the cameras photographed a right turn on red back in March. But a change in city ordinance says the responsibility of the ticket falls on the registered owner of the vehicle. It's the first serious legal challenge to unmanned red-light cameras in Sioux Falls. A hearing on Wiedermann's appeal is scheduled in circuit court. He says the automated traffic cops violate due-process rights because the cameras don't capture images of those who are actually behind the wheel. In most cities ccross the U.S. the driver is responsible for the ticket even if he or she is not the registered owner of the vehicle. These details are usually verified by police administration before issueing the ticket by verifying drivers license pictures.

Monday, October 02, 2006

Did The Intersection Have A Legal "Photo Enforced" Warning Sign?

A site patron recently wrote an email to me highlighting an intersection in Garden Grove California that did not have the required Caltrans approved photo enforced signs, but had their city designed photo enforcement signs. At Brookhurst Street and Westminster Avenue, the city updated the sign just before September 23. He had gone through the intersection sometime in August, and had seen that they hadn't posted the legal signs yet. There is a chance that motorists who got cited while the old signs were in place can get their tickets reversed, if they show that the old sign was in place at the time they went through. What do the legal signs look like? I will be posting legal Caltrans signs very shortly.

Archive