L.A. council delays decision on red light

 

L.A. council delays decision on red light traffic camera program
The Los Angeles City Council voted Friday to delay ruling on whether to keep the city's red light traffic camera program alive for another year in order to assess its public safety value and how to make it work financially.

The motion by Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Bernard Parks asks the police commission to keep the program's operator, American Traffic Solutions, on a month-to-month contract for up to one year. The council will continue the debate June 21.

Parks, a former Los Angeles police chief, also asked the city attorney for more information about the legality of creating a revenue-generating traffic ticket system within the Police Department. A deputy city attorney said state law makes such a system illegal.

"I don't understand why there are people quibbling about revenue," Parks said, adding that very few city operations generate revenue. "This is about saving lives."

City Controller Wendy Greuel had issued a report showing the cameras cost $2.6 million more than they generate in revenue from the tickets. Tickets cost $471, but studies have found many motorists have refused to pay the fines.

In its vote last week to end the program, the police commission cited concerns about the deficit it runs, which is partly because state law does not mandate that judges actively enforce traffic tickets generated by the cameras.

"What we really have here is a voluntary citation program, and it's voluntary because there are no teeth in it. There's no enforcement mechanism," Commission Vice President Alan Skobin said last week. "So it relies, in large part, on the goodwill of people who receive these citations in the mail."
In their 5-0 vote, police commissioners also questioned the program's safety value.

However, Cardenas said a recent Los Angeles Police Department study found that collisions at the 32 city intersections with cameras decreased by 64 percent from 2004 to 2009.

Cardenas called for the Police Department to study the public safety risk of turning the cameras off. The motion also asks the city administrative officer and chief legislative analyst to jointly look at the holes in the program's fee structure and to meet with Los Angeles Superior Court judges regarding their refusal to impose penalties for red light camera violations.

The police commission has until July 31, when the program is set to expire, to extend the photo red light program.

Councilmen Paul Koretz and Bill Rosendahl made it clear that they would vote next week to oppose keeping the cameras operating.

"I don't know why we have to continue fooling around with this," Koretz said. "Our police commission looked at this carefully. ... These cameras give us nothing except expense. There are other things we can do to change signal timing. And when those have been done in other cities, most of the violations have disappeared."

Councilman Richard Alarcon said he wanted more information from the city attorney about whether the council has the authority to direct the Board of Police Commissioners to take a certain action.

Alarcon supports the red light cameras.

"This is a personal issue to me," Alarcon said. "I lost a son to someone who ran a red light. Anything that can improve public safety, I am for."

The debate was partly delayed because four of the 15 council members - President Eric Garcetti and Councilmen Ed Reyes, Dennis Zine and Tom LaBonge - were absent Friday.

http://www.khou.com/video/yahoo-video/Federal-judge-Houstons...

Cool for LA

jgermann wrote:

"I don't understand why there are people quibbling about revenue," Parks said, adding that very few city operations generate revenue. "This is about saving lives."

City Controller Wendy Greuel had issued a report showing the cameras cost $2.6 million more than they generate in revenue from the tickets. Tickets cost $471, but studies have found many motorists have refused to pay the fines.

In its vote last week to end the program, the police commission cited concerns about the deficit it runs, which is partly because state law does not mandate that judges actively enforce traffic tickets generated by the cameras.

"What we really have here is a voluntary citation program, and it's voluntary because there are no teeth in it. There's no enforcement mechanism," Commission Vice President Alan Skobin said last week. "So it relies, in large part, on the goodwill of people who receive these citations in the mail."
In their 5-0 vote, police commissioners also questioned the program's safety value.

This is cool for the residents of LA. They can choose not to pay the ticket mailed to them and know the city's authorities are concerned about their safety razz

--
Garmin nuvi 1300LM with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 200W with 4GB SD card Garmin nuvi 260W with 4GB SD card r.i.p.

Some one wrote the wrong contract.

IF ONE READS CAREFULLY THEY WOULD SEE MANY DEFICIENCIES.
First is that the city is paying a straight fee for those cameras. The ones installed in DSM were free and the company makes money on "paid tickets" only so it is in their interest to see tickets paid.
It has been on the law books for many years that in Iowa if you do not pay your traffic speeding fines it will come out of your state tax refund until it is paid. Obviously this is not the case in California. Their mistake. If this does not work then there is the collection agency. That means your credit rating will go kaput if it has not already. They make money only if they collect so they would be sure to find a way to get the money. judges not enforcing the laws on the books tells me that there should be a better way to replace them.
They have shown that accidents have dropped at the sites but they have failed in punishing the law breakers so I can only suggest a change in their proceedure.