LAPD panel voices support for red-light cameras despite shortcomings [Updated]

The Los Angeles Police Commission voiced support Tuesday for the city's red-light camera system, despite learning that there is little consequence for violators who ignore the citations.

In a briefing to the civilian panel that oversees the police department, LAPD Assistant Chief Michel Moore said the department considers the red-light cameras effective tools in combating lead-footed drivers.

The cameras installed at 32 intersections in 2006 came under fire in September when City Controller Wendy Greuel questioned in a report whether they reduce accidents.

She also found the city was taking a loss on the cameras because operating costs outweighed revenue from tickets.

The cameras are automatically triggered when a driver runs a red light. The resulting photographs of the car's license plate and driver are reviewed by LAPD officers, who decide whether to issue a citation that typically comes with a fine of more than $450.

On the heels of Greuel's report, the City Council instructed the LAPD to evaluate the program and report back "on possible recommendations to terminate this program."

Moore, who was accompanied by Sgt. Matthew MacWillie, defended the cameras, saying the LAPD's review of the intersections tallied a 63% decrease in red-light-related traffic accidents.

Before the cameras went in, five people died in accidents related to red lights, while there have been no fatalities since, Moore added.

The number of citations issued at the 32 intersections for red-light violations has climbed dramatically, quadrupling from 14,000 to 59,000 annually, the LAPD review concluded.

Moore did not dispute Greuel's finding that the cameras cost more to upkeep than they generate in ticket revenue. But he raised eyebrows when he placed blame for this on the Los Angeles County Superior Court. He said he was told by court officials that violators caught on camera are not aggressively pursued.

Approximately 56,000 red-light citations issued from the city's photo-patrolled intersections remain unresolved by the court, Moore said. The high number is a result of the court's decision to not alert the Department of Motor Vehicles when someone fails to respond to a citation.

The DMV is authorized to place a hold on a person's license in such cases, and many other counties in the state that do pass on drivers' names to the agency have a far lower delinquency rate, Moore said.

The court does send outstanding citations to a private collection agency, but "there's absolutely no consequence" for someone who ignores the letters the agency sends seeking payment. Moore said. The city would receive between $7 million and $11 million if the fines were collected, Moore estimated.

Court officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Moore said the court officials he spoke with expressed concerns that the citations, which are mailed to the registered owner of the photographed car, fall short of what is needed to legally compel someone to appear in court or to pay a fine.

Critics of traffic cameras say there is often no way to prove the car owner actually received the mailed citation or that the owner was the person driving the vehicle at the time.

[Updated, 4:14 p.m.: Mary Hearn, acting director of public information for the court system, defended the cout's decision not to have the DMV put holds on drivers’ licenses, saying the policy “complies with the law” and that it is an “issue of fairness,” since the registered owner of a car may not be the one responsible for running the red light.

Hearn also explained the court’s process in more detail:  Tickets for the red-light violations are $476 or $540 if the driver opts to attend traffic school to avoid increases in car insurance premiums.  When a driver misses the deadline to pay or appear in court, the court mails a notice alerting the driver that they have 10 days to resolve the citation before an additional $300 fine will be assessed. If the driver again fails to handle the citation, the court forwards the name to a collection agency.]

The commission voted unanimously to approve the LAPD's report on the cameras and will now send it on to the council. The department is currently reviewing proposals from companies competing for the contract to operate the cameras for the city for the next several years.

ALSO:

Mayor picks energy consultant to run DWP

FBI indicts 16 in online child pornography ring

Manson follower Beausoleil again denied parole

-- Joel Rubin at LAPD headquarters
Follow Joel Rubin on Twitter @joelrubin

Comments

[Justin]

This LAPD Chief is stupid!He advocates the violation of 5th amendment rights.Red light camera citations are criminal violations. Therefore there is no legal obligation for a defendant to respond unless they are personally served.Furthermore,if the named defendant is not the actual driver, it is not encumbent upon them to come forth and/or identify anyone.Irresponsible comments like this is, in part,why citizens do not trust law enforcement with these cameras.Couple this with the farce behind the right turns proliferation and it won't be long before the cameras are voted out of existence as they were in Houston.

[Justin]

This commission has obviously been bought and payed for. How do they stand behind this program considering the audit report and the obvious revenue machine behind the right turns? STOP USING THE CAMERAS FOR RIGHT TURN ENFORCEMENT!If the cameras were properly used, more people would trust those who use them.

[uncle_vito]

Take the front license plate off of your car. It is then as if the camera is never there. Get a ticket for no front license plate? It is a fix it ticket: Cost $0. A camera fine: $450.

Doesn't take a genious to know what to do in this case.

[USC Trojan Fan]

More Big Brother watching our every move.

[Tam]

What do you expect when the Pint Size Mayor picks the commission? These people do not want to cut their income. We need to vote out the cameras, since we the tax payers are paying out more money for them. The company is the only one making the money.

[Andrew]

It's just a revenue stream for the city, nothing more. Red Light camera's don't prevent accidents in LA, they increase them.

[Jerry Girley]

Civil Rights Attorney in Orlando, Florida. Grew up in Long Beach California

[Jerry Girley]

Cities around the country are putting these cameras in place ostensibly to protect the public. However, the more likely reason is that it is a source of easy money. As tax revenues decline, due to the falling property values, cities are looking to alternative sources to replace the lost income. The concern that I have is that red light cameras unconstitutionally shift the burden to citizens to prove their innocence. One of the key requirements of due process is that the state must prove the accusation that it makes against citizens beyond a reasonable doubt. With red light cameras this burden is shifted in that it is the citizens who must establish their innocence . What's more alarming, citizens often have to prove their innocence to a fact finder that works for the governmental entity that stands to gain financially. This too violates the basic demands of due process. Due process also requires that citizens have their grievances heard by a impartial fact finder. I know that these are difficult economic times for all, but if citizens sit by passively while the government erodes their constitutional rights then we have not seen the worst of it yet. That's my view. What do you think?

[Denise]

To Uncle_vito
I dont have a license plate on the front of my car. Got a ticket few weeks ago and looking at it now. The cams take a pic of the rear car plate as well.

[steve rodriguez]

Those citations are all over $500 dollars each. For a city that cares about their immigrant population, doesn't the LA City Council know that they're taking food off the table of those families with each citation? Hypocrites! Jan Brewer cares more about immigrants than the LA City Council!

[Whitman Nanny]

Am I supposed to be surprised that law enforcement is in favor of enforcing our traffic laws? Cameras do the same job as cops on the street, but are far more effective (and efficient), so it allows the humans to do things cameras can't, so lets let them do their job and keep the cameras doing theirs!

[Karl Ropert]

@Justin
Imprudent right turns on red are one of the leading causes of accidents that involve pedestrians. And, not to mention it is the law to stop before you turn. Nothing wrong with enforcing it.

[RobertM]

The 63% decline in red-light related collisions seems very significant to me, especially since many of these avoided collisions probably resulted in avoidance of injuries. But 59,000 violations at 32 intersections is a lot. Drivers need to be more cautious.

[Justin]

@ Karl Robert
I am sure you are correct with your data. But how often does it happen? According to statistics, not very often. Also, I am not suggesting that right turn violators should never be given citations; I just don’t think that the data supports the use of cameras for right turns.Not one agency has produced any data that shows any degree of signficant accident hazards to pedestrians. Furthermore the manner in which they are implemented is worrisome: they begin issuing these citations when the violators speed is somewhere around 4-5mph. I’m sorry, but this could not possibly be hazardous. If the minimum speed was at least 20-25mph, then I could believe that they were actually concerned about safety.

[Tony]

i'll take shortcomings any day over a misgiving of an accident

[Bryant]

It is really unfortunate that people don't take the tickets seriously and pay them...but the good news is the decrease in accidents as people slowly learn to pay a bit more attention when approaching a light or face the consequences of a ticket if they ignore the light.

[YC]

The cameras are a tool for police to use to enforce laws. I absolutely agree with them in that they help make streets safer.

[Karl Ropert]

@Justin
I understand that you don't agree with the enforcement, and I think I understand your issues with it. Overall though, I think while the system may need some tweaking, its a good way to enforce traffic laws because it frees police officers up to do their real jobs (not nanny bad drivers). Maybe changing the speed ceiling for right on red tickets would be a good way to tweak it.

[BarneyT]

LA needs these cameras more than any other city in this country!! Hopefully the accidents and fatalities will go down and the dumb people that think running red lights is cool will be fined heavily.

[s washington]

Sounds like the court is taking liberties that should be reviewed. If the intent is to pay for the system, improve bad driving habits and reduce accidents then the courts should either report them to DMV or send the really egregious drivers to a claims agency. I kind of like the fact that we went from 5 fatalities to 0. Something is working.

[BigNDfan]

$476 for a right turn on red is outrageous. If they differentiated between such an infraction and running a red light and speeding through an entire intersection, I would have no problem with that.
Earlier in 2010 in Sacramento, the AAA supported AB909 which would have done just that, lowering the fine for those who fail to stop completely when making a right hand turn to $210, which is more consistent with other traffic violations, including failure to stop at a stop sign.
Fines of over $400 are meant for the much more dangerous violation of running a red light.