Camera at the stop sign

L.A. now has the nation's first stop-sign cameras, according to The Times' Bob Pool. They were erected in the Westside by a parks agency, and many residents don't like them. Some say it's illegal to post cameras at stop signs. Expect for this to generate a lot of controversy around L.A. and beyond:

"What they're doing is not legal," said Jack Allen, a retired Beverly Hills city attorney who spent 10 hours at Temescal Gateway Park counting cars exiting the parking lot and measuring speeds on the nearby street with a radar gun. "The first thing I learned as city attorney was that the state vehicle code preempts any local ordinance." The vehicle code allows camera enforcement at rail crossings and intersections with automated traffic signals. It requires "a clear photograph of a vehicle's license plate and the driver of the vehicle." Allen said federal guidelines authorize traffic cameras at "high-crash or other high-risk locations where on-site traffic law enforcement personnel cannot be utilized" and require a traffic-engineering analysis of the site before the surveillance equipment is installed.

Comments

[Kevin]

Except that in almost every country in the world, nobody uses stop signs in the same brainless way as in the US and parts of Canada. Many of these places also have far fewer traffic deaths per capita than the US.

I've driven in South Korea where stop signs don't exist except to warn of a real impending danger - such as a blind intersection with a high speed road. Most intersections don't have any signage, some have a flashing yellow light and some have a speed bump before entering the intersection. Whichever the type, the point is to YIELD to whatever is already there, and slow down and give the right of way, but proceed if you can clearly see that nothing is coming.

It's the same reason why their speed limits are not a blanket 50km/h everywhere, but higher on multi-lane roads (70 or 80km/h) and lower in residential areas. I drove plenty there, and never had any conflicts in intersections nor encountered many rude drivers, certainly not more than in north america.

[Thomas Paine]

Do you realize that one of those cameras is on a stop sign *exiting a parking lot* at the top of Topanga, where failure to look would get you dead? In other words, it has no purpose, because cross traffic clearly has the right of way and visibility is limited.
Being forced to come to a full stop there is pointless, and a distraction from the mortal requirement to watch very carefully for a break in traffic. Being anal is NOT the same as being safe, in fact, it can be the opposite.

Anyone who tells you that they never roll a stop sign or speeds is either lying or causing more danger than the average individual who drives the flow of traffic and operates their vehicle with both due caution and common sense. Undoubtedly both. Anyone who knows how to drive realizes that it's *not looking* that gets people killed, not slowing down to a few miles per hour to make sure the intersection is empty. I've nearly been killed by people that come to a full stop at a 4-way, zone out, then think it's their turn and go without looking. I guess they figured they stopped, what can go wrong?

Who ever got killed from slow-rolling a stop sign, anyway? If you run over a pedestrian, I'm going to bet it was because you didn't look, regardless of whether you fully stopped. The rule about having to come to a full stop is totally arbitrary - the point is that you need time to safely make certain that the intersection is clear, not to go through a superstitious ritual. Has anyone ever proven that being super-anal about stop signs ever prevented an accident? We could all drive 10 miles an hour and stop for 10 seconds at every intersection and that would be "safer" too. The point is not to stop, the point is to yield safely to other cars and pedestrians.

The fact is that most people drive safely, and locations that *are* dangerous are due to dangerous traffic designs, not because people coincidentally turn into scofflaws in certain places. (Not that anyone is even claiming these are dangerous locations.)

And people that do drive dangerously as a habit are not suddenly going to drive safely because of a few stop-sign cameras.

So, the MCRA wants to break state law in order to "enforce" it on everyone else. I guess they know best, and should override the democratically-elected legislature at their whim. The fact that there is a conflict of interest because the company maintaining the devices gets paid per-ticket (and therefore has an incentive to maybe tweak the devices to give more tickets?), and that the state has forbidden this for that very reason is irrelevant of course, because the MCRA is above the law, Godlike in their judgment, and needy in their finances.

Not to mention that unnecessary braking is also a huge waste of energy that helps ruin the environment, but hey, it must be saving thousands of people from tragedy because drivers simply can't be trusted to come to a near-stop safely. It's just beyond their ability.

[alan]

Like traffic light camera's, the real question is the loss of personal rights specifically those related to "being tried by a jury of peers". In traffic cases, court judges provide this function on most tickets, but there is alway's the option on some violations to have a jury.

The real point is that these camera's are operated by 3rd party "for profit" companies, that are obligated to the bottomline $. The presuption of innocent until proven guilt is waved by every single one of us. Based on repeated stories of mis-charges because licence plates are misread, how can we allow this "convience of modern technology". As soon as we address this issue the sooner big brother can be redirected to more important topics, oh I don't know maybe finding Osama or getting control of Russian nuclear materials would be a bit more approprieate

Alternately, a traffic circle would be more in line with "Green" environmentally conscience. Basically, with traffic circles emmissions are greatly reduced and so are accidents. So if the politicians are really interested in public safety (not lining city coffers), then the choice is obvious.

[Wilhelm]

The complaining attorney in the article shouldn't mind. New signs keep him and his kind in a job. If everyone obeyed the vehicle like they are supposed to when they are issued a driver's license, there would be no issue. The people who complain are usually the ones who have been blowing a certain stop sign or red light and have a fit when they get caught. More power to those who erect cameras at red light or stop sign intersections.

[Yield to Me]

Many stop signs are unnecessary and could be replaced with yield signs or no sign at all.

Before cameras are placed at a stop sign, an engineering study should be conducted to see if the stop signs are really warranted.

Is that too much to ask?

[Cathy]

Is anyone concerned about the commuter traffic thru our parks? They should be our refuge from the traffic & congestion. What next? 4 wheel drive SUV's driving across the Santa Monica mountains on trails or thru backyards?

[David in Tarzana]

Hey Jung,

I do come to a complete stop at stop signs. And I see the drivers behind me get pissed. I also drive the speed limit. And I see the drivers behind me get pissed. Was that you behind me on Beverly Glen yesterday?

I have another good use for these cameras. How about putting them at intersections that have a "No right on red" sign. Put one at the intersection of Beverly Glen and Sunset and you can probably pay for the entire "Subway to the Sea".

[jung]

you guys sound like you NEVER break the law... of course it's important to obey the law.. bet some of you run stop signs too probably all the time... I haven't seen anybody who does full 3 second stops at a stop sign.... If there's anyone who does a full 3 second stops...most likey they'll get honked at. Stop and think when was last time you did a 'california roll' at a stop sign... probably did at least a couple everyday

Hey so why not install one of these babies at EVERY stop signs huh? I bet you won't like it

[Ryan]

Mr. Jack Allen -

STOP signs DO serve a purpose.

For some reason, many Californians believe that road rules do not apply to them. They are willing to kill other drivers/pedestrians in order shave a few seconds off of their drive time.

Just one more bit of proof that Los Angelinos are selfish and spoiled. Why are you defending drivers that break the law?

Maybe next time it will be you or one of your family members who are killed by the driver that is too self-centered to obey the traffic laws. That would serve you right.

- RL

[David in Tarzana]

This is great news. I see drivers blow through stops signs multiple times a day. I say put them at every high volume intersection with stops signs. If you can't obey the law, pay the fine. Drivers have a blatant disregard for the traffic code. Something has to be done to restore respect for our laws. This is a very positive step in the right direction. As far as Jack Allen's whining, "where on-site traffic law enforcement personnel cannot be utilized" pretty much covers all of southern California. Until our local governments make a committment to having an adequate number of police officers on the LAPD(and actually follow it up with action), we have to look for alternative ways to enforce our laws and keep our streets as safe as possible.