Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Stop or they'll shoot! (Quasi-public agency installs stop sign cameras)
LA Times ^ | 7/12/07 | By Bob Pool, Times Staff Writer

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 ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California
KEYWORDS: publicsafety; vigilance
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last
To: Publius6961

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?


21 posted on 07/12/2007 11:11:16 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TWohlford

Thats evidence of the corruption of the fast money these things rob people under color of law.


22 posted on 07/12/2007 11:12:14 AM PDT by Weeedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Weeedley

Looking at their website...they issue $541 tickets for smoking in their parks too!


23 posted on 07/12/2007 11:22:56 AM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

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.


24 posted on 07/12/2007 11:28:11 AM PDT by Weeedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

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.


25 posted on 07/12/2007 11:28:16 AM PDT by Weeedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
Stop or they'll shoot! (Quasi-public agency installs stop sign cameras)

Actually, that is a fairly tame approach to reminding people to
drive in a safe and sane manner.

And having driven Sunset Boulevard for about a decade, I can only
applaud this move.

Every morning and evening, folks try to attain launch velocity by
doing maybe 50-70 mph in a 30 mph posted zone on an "exit"
road from the subdivision I live in.

There have been a couple of collisions, but the hyper-speeders
have benefited from a bad example of how lassez faire policies work.

I won't be crying if somebody clandestinely sets up a spike-strip and
slows traffic to something near reasonable/safe.
They will simply be doing what most cities/police departments
do in their normal role of enforcing public safety.
26 posted on 07/12/2007 11:37:25 AM PDT by VOA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
Cool - some new things to break. The people really need to rise up against the entire surveillance issue. I am in favor of civil disobedience. Screw big brother and those that act in a similar manner.
27 posted on 07/12/2007 11:39:47 AM PDT by meyer (It's the entitlements, stupid!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

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.”


28 posted on 07/12/2007 11:49:21 AM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

“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?


29 posted on 07/12/2007 11:52:53 AM PDT by -YYZ- (Strong like bull, smart like ox.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

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.


30 posted on 07/12/2007 11:54:03 AM PDT by Xenalyte (Lord, I apologize . . . and be with the starving pygmies in New Guinea amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: reagan_fanatic

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.


31 posted on 07/12/2007 11:55:16 AM PDT by Xenalyte (Lord, I apologize . . . and be with the starving pygmies in New Guinea amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: -YYZ-

well, a half mile each way, added to a 5 mile hike


32 posted on 07/12/2007 12:06:59 PM PDT by BurbankKarl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
LOL.

I had to swerve into the other lane a few weeks ago to avoid hitting some chowderhead jogger running in my lane of traffic who apparently considered it beneath himself to use the damn sidewalk.

The same thing happens on occasion with bicyclists who refuse to move to the side of the road or who have no problem riding two and three abreast down the middle of the lane.

I swear, one of these days....
33 posted on 07/12/2007 12:50:33 PM PDT by reagan_fanatic (Press 1 for English, press 2 for deport)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl
""You come here at 4:30 or 5 in the afternoon and it's a steady line of cars avoiding Coldwater Canyon," added her husband, a film composer."

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.

34 posted on 07/12/2007 1:08:14 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Weeedley
The witness is the park officer that reviews the film. The film is evidence. The camera is not the witness.

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.

35 posted on 07/12/2007 1:11:39 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: untrained skeptic

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.


36 posted on 07/12/2007 1:51:40 PM PDT by Weeedley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Weeedley
You said:

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.

37 posted on 07/12/2007 2:04:24 PM PDT by untrained skeptic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: BurbankKarl

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.


38 posted on 07/12/2007 2:10:38 PM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kevmo

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?


39 posted on 07/12/2007 2:13:20 PM PDT by airedale ( XZ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: airedale

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.


40 posted on 07/12/2007 3:42:59 PM PDT by Kevmo (We need to get away from the Kennedy Wing of the Republican Party ~Duncan Hunter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson