I know it is preaching to the choir... But when in wine (whine?) country...

Be interesting to see the actual report of the grand jury (rather than media comments).

From what was presented, it looks like a way to increase revenue - if the stat of only one right turn accident (over a period of 4 years) at the particular light is true.

Wonder what the speed limit is at that light - 3.8 seconds is low (at least where I live).

Also wonder whether has an "all red" of two seconds between light changes as we do where I live.

http://www.napa.courts.ca.gov/Documents/Final%20ARLE%20Repor...

I found the Grand Jury Report quite interesting. It seemed well thought out and inclusive of pertinent data. It would be easy to argue that Redflex (with perhaps the acquiescence of the police department) had a hand in taking advantage of yellow light timing at one particular intersection - SH 29/12/121. With an approach speed of 60 MPH, it is hard to imagine that the yellow light interval started at 3.2 seconds before being changed to 3.8 seconds. I feel that 3.8 seconds is way too short for such a speed.

Looking at the violations by intersection, it is easy to conclude that something is wrong at SH 29/12/121. There are more "Right Turn" violations there than the total numbers for each of the other three intersections.

Table 2
Intersection.......Through Right Turn Total

Big Ranch/Trancas....801.......0.......801
First/Jefferson.........2181.....538......2719
Soscol/Imola...........1615.......0......1615
SH 29/12/121...........892....3251......4143
Total.......................5489....3789......9278

Looks to me like those ticketed at that intersection should all get their money back – even the ones who were blatant in the speed and timing of when they were caught turning right on red.

The Grand Jury findings are as follows:

FINDINGS

The 2010-2011 Grand Jury finds that:

F1. The City’s ARLE system was established to reduce accidents.

F2. A disproportionate number of the City’s citations are issued for failure to stop on right turns.

F3. Accidents rarely occur on right turn movements.

F4. More severe and frequent accidents occur due to drivers failing to stop when traveling straight through intersections.

F5. The SH 29/12/121 ARLE signal falls under Caltrans’ jurisdiction; the City has no authority to set signal timing at this intersection.

F6. The SH 29/12/121 ARLE system was not studied by a licensed engineer in accordance with Caltrans’ Policy Directive 09-03 prior to the installation of the ARLE system.

F7. The yellow light change interval timing has an effect on the number of citations issued on ARLE intersections.

F8. CVC Section 21455.7 (b) specifically references approach speed as the criteria for setting minimum yellow light interval times.

F9. Caltrans did not use approach speeds to set the SH 29/12/121 right turn yellow light change interval time.

F10. The City and Caltrans recognized deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.

F11. The City made enforcement changes in an attempt to correct these deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.

F12. Caltrans made adjustments to signal timing in an attempt to correct these deficiencies at the SH 29/12/121 ARLE system.

F13. Drivers were cited for illegal right turns at SH 29/12/121 prior to the recognition of deficiencies in the yellow light interval timing and prior to the adjustments of enforcement practices.

really big glass of Cabernet!

I am tempted to post your post on the post that holds one of the cameras in question... Hummmmm, if I mail it to that location, then it would be....