Posted on 07/12/2007 9:06:43 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
A few weeks ago, David Bennett turned off Sunset Boulevard in Pacific Palisades and pulled into a nearly vacant parking lot at Temescal Gateway Park to use his cellphone.
When he was finished, he passed a stop sign at Temescal Canyon Road and continued back to Sunset.
Then he heard from the state authority that runs the park and other open spaces along the Santa Monica Mountains.
"They sent me a letter telling me I didn't really stop," said the Malibu contractor. "They said it was a 'courtesy' letter because they weren't collecting the fine yet."
That will change next week when the Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority plans to start issuing $100 tickets to motorists who don't come to a complete stop at five stop signs equipped with cameras. ----
"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."
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
This is the same aholes that charge $10 to park close to the hiking trails in areas of LA County. You half to park half a mile away to avoid the fee.
Personally, if you are ticketed by these clowns, unless you park again on their “private property”, how can they enforce it?
Thats evidence of the corruption of the fast money these things rob people under color of law.
Looking at their website...they issue $541 tickets for smoking in their parks too!
What state is it? remind me to stay the hell out of it. Communist china sounds like a better destination if you bring your own food.
What state is it? remind me to stay the hell out of it. Communist china sounds like a better destination if you bring your own food.
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.”
***Good to know. Also,
.
His radar gun showed that cars on Temescal Canyon Road outside the parking lot traveled an average of only 14 mph, Allen said. “Ironically, I observed five park ranger vehicles use the exit and none of them came to a complete stop,” he said.
“Some lawyer is going to file a class action on behalf of all people cited and the [park agency] will have to refund everyone’s $100,” Allen predicted. “They won’t have the $20 they paid Redflex, and I’m afraid they’ll have to sell off some of their valuable park property to handle the judgment.”
“This is the same aholes that charge $10 to park close to the hiking trails in areas of LA County. You half to park half a mile away to avoid the fee.”
The enquiring mind wonders: If you’re going hiking, what’s an extra half-mile walk?
Here’s a great way to beat those cameras.
STOP AT THE STOP SIGN.
Do not roll it.
Do not slow down to five MPH and assume that qualifies.
Stop.
Boy, that was difficult to come up with.
No, God help the jaywalkers. That’s why He created intersections.
I freakin’ hate jaywalkers. Almost as much as I hate that moron who walks down Wilcrest - and I don’t mean on the esplanade. I mean down Wilcrest, in the center of the lane my car is in.
well, a half mile each way, added to a 5 mile hike
Then have a park ranger sit along the road and ticket people who are speeding or rolling through stop signs.
If necessary, add some speed bumps to slow people down. Put the stop signs right at the front end of the speed bump.
The big brother approach is unnecessary and intrusive.
The accused can challenge the citation.
I really don't see how it violates the Sixth Amendment.
It is unreasonably intrusive. There are better and less intrusive ways of enforcing traffic laws and addressing problems with people speeding down such roads.
I oppose what they are doing, but I don't see how it is unconstitutional.
Drilling down to the crux of the problem: A private company approaches a govt body and pitches a revenue sharing arrangement if the let the private company install cameras on public property. The citations are issued by the private company, and the govt puts its police resources behind enforcement of those tickets. The park officer is taking the evidence generated by a private company and not reviewing it and the ticket is worded in such a way that implies you cannot challenge it in court and its pay up or else. The underlying purpose is not public safety but a money making scheme for both parties. Violates a host of due process issues and amendments.
The park officer is taking the evidence generated by a private company and not reviewing it...
The article says:
One of the mountains authority's 16 sworn park rangers will review the video and authorize the mailing of citations to the vehicles' registered owners.
You said:
...and the ticket is worded in such a way that implies you cannot challenge it in court and its pay up or else.
The article says:
Those receiving tickets will be able to view the video on a home computer by entering the citation number and license plate number at a website. To contest the citation, they can request an administrative hearing before an officer appointed by the authority.
If the information on the ticket misleads people into believing that they cannot contest it, then that wording needs to be addressed. However, from reading the article it seems like the due process issues are addressed.
I got caught by that camera right after it was installed. I did come to a full stop but I was apparently to far forward when I did stop. That stop sign is right before dirt the parking lot and the road is pretty well deserted most of the time.
It is a nice hiking spot.
The intersection in the photo doesn’t meet the requirements you stated: “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.” There are no automated traffic signals nor is there a rail crossing within miles. What section of the traffic code is this from?
What section of the traffic code is this from?
***I got the information by reading the article and I’m not advocating that it did meet the requirements stated, it was obvious that it did not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.