A brand new red light camera on California’s historic Route 66 is already generating thousands in revenue for San Bernardino, but the biggest lawbreaker in these cases may turn out to be the city itself. Since September 25, a photo ticketing device has watched over the intersection of Mount Vernon Avenue and 9th Street, trapping motorists caught by a yellow light that is so short it violates state law.

Truck driver Raymond Chacon discovered this last month while taking a training course to help him upgrade his commercial driver’s license. Under the supervision of an instructor, he came to the intersection behind the wheel of a big-rig tractor trailer. He entered just a split-second after the light had turned red. After successfully completing the course and passing the Department of Motor Vehicles Class A license test “with flying colors,” Chacon received a $400 red light camera ticket in the mail. Chacon immediately began investigating what might have happened at that location. He turned to the highwayrobbery.net website, which encouraged him to check whether the city used yellow signal timing that conformed with state guidelines.

Video from the intersection in question confirms that drivers are given only 3.0 seconds of yellow, even though the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) insists that 35 MPH intersections have a yellow of no less than 3.6 seconds. While this 0.6 second shortage appears insignificant, it can represent the difference between a ticket and no ticket for thousands of motorists. This is even more true for truck drivers like Chacon.

Most drivers faced with a quick-changing yellow can simply slam on their brakes to avoid the citation. For Chacon’s 53-foot-long rig, however, the compressed-air braking system requires an extra 0.5 seconds to activate. Beyond the usual risk of causing a rear end collision in this situation, slamming the brakes with an unladen trailer risks jack-knifing the truck. With a properly timed signal, Chacon would have had enough time to clear the intersection.

Studies show that shorter yellow times can increase the number of citations generated. According to the Texas Transportation Institute, when the yellow light timing is one second shorter than the bare minimum recommended amount, violations increase by 110 percent (view study). Confidential documents uncovered in a San Diego court trial prove that the city and its private vendor, now Affiliated Computer Services (ACS), colluded to install red light cameras only at intersections with short yellow times, thereby maximizing profits.

San Bernardino may be aware of the importance of this signal timing. It is one of only a handful of cities across the country that deliberately conceals signal timing information — including the “time into red” or “late time” — on its citations. In 2002, a Baltimore, Maryland judge had used this information to find tickets issued at locations where the signal timing was illegally short. As a result of the judge’s investigation, Baltimore was forced to refund thousands in citation revenue (Read court memo). Chacon insists that San Bernardino similarly provide refunds from those caught by the illegal signal timing on Mount Vernon Avenue.

“It is a cash cow for a financially strapped San Bernardino city,” Chacon told TheNewspaper. “The fact that they knew the yellows were too short shows that public safety is not a sole concern for the red light cameras.”

Earlier this month, the National Motorists Association Foundation announced that it had begun a nationwide search to track down intersections with short yellow times and force cities to comply with proper engineering practices. Visit the Short Yellow Lights Project website.

Source: theNewspaper.com

Following San Jose, California’s recent decision to reject red light cameras, the Los Angeles suburb of El Monte yesterday decided to put an end to photo ticketing after five years of use proved disappointing. With a unanimous vote, the city council declined to renew its contract with Australian camera vendor Redflex because, according to police, the cameras failed to produce any reduction in the number of intersection accidents. More importantly, however, the devices failed to produce revenue.

“We’re spending a lot of staff time on this just to gain $2000 a month,” City Manager James W. Mussenden explained.

“It doesn’t reduce accidents — that’s what our studies and results have come back.”

Data obtained by highwayrobbery.net suggest the loss in revenue could be related to changes in intersection signal timing. On April 12, 2004 the city increased the yellow warning time to 3.5 seconds for the left turn movements at the intersection of Peck Road and Ramona Boulevard. The results were immediately felt. In March 2004, before the increase, Redflex mailed 665 tickets. In May, the first full month after the increase, citations dropped to 265. This small engineering improvement cut the photo enforcement system’s total profit by $1.4 million.

This result is also consistent with the Texas Transportation Institute finding that increasing the yellow signal time beyond the bare minimum amount can decrease violations by 53 percent (view report). The disappointing lack of violations gave the police department a green light to announce that the program had failed to save lives.

“A comparison of traffic collisions at Redflex monitored intersections vs. non-Redflex monitored intersections revealed that there is no statistical difference in the number of traffic collisions because of Redflex monitoring,” Police Chief Ken Weldon wrote in a memo to the council.

As a result of the council’s action, the city’s two red light cameras will be disconnected by November 30. A copy of the police memo is available in a 43k PDF file at the source link below.

Source: PDF File Redflex Update (City of El Monte, California, 10/22/2008)

Because of the amount of time a traffic ticket case requires, we’re often asked if there is any way to fight a traffic ticket without the hassle of driving to the courthouse. The good news is that in certain states, through something called “trial by declaration” or “trial by affidavit,” it’s possible. The bad news is that those states are in the minority.

Trial by declaration allows a defendant to state their case in writing, send it to the judge, and have the judge make a decision based on the facts presented in the letter.

Although this may sound appealing, there are few things to consider before fighting a traffic ticket in this way:

1. 1. When you fight your traffic ticket using trial by declaration, you give up the right to directly ask the officer questions.
   2. Any chance of dismissal due to the absence of the ticketing officer disappears.
   3. Because you’re not there in person it becomes much easier for the judge to find you guilty — all it takes is a rubber stamp.
   4. In some states you give up your right to a regular trial when opting for trial by declaration.
   5. As mentioned previously, it’s not available in the vast majority of states.

States where trial by declaration is not allowed include:

Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

However, these nine states do allow trial by declaration to some degree:

1) California
Here is the California Law (Vehicle Code Section 40902) that allows trial by declaration:

40902. (a) (1) The court , pursuant to this section, shall, by rule, provide that the defendant may elect to have a trial by written declaration upon any alleged infraction, as charged by the citing officer, involving a violation of this code or any local ordinance adopted pursuant to this code, other than an infraction cited pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section 23152) of Chapter 12 of Division 11.

(2) The Judicial Council may adopt rules and forms governing trials by declaration in accordance with this section. Any rule or form adopted by the Judicial Council pursuant to this paragraph shall supersede any local rule of a court adopted pursuant to paragraph (1).

(b) If the defendant elects to have a trial by written declaration, the defendant shall, at the time of submitting that declaration, submit bail in the amount established in the uniform traffic penalty schedule pursuant to Section 40310. If the defendant is found not guilty or if the charges are otherwise dismissed, the amount of the bail shall be promptly refunded to the defendant.

(c) Notwithstanding Division 10 (commencing with Section 1200) of the Evidence Code, the rules governing trials by written declaration may provide for testimony and other relevant evidence to be introduced in the form of a notice to appear issued pursuant to Section 40500, a business record or receipt, a sworn declaration of the arresting officer, or a written statement or letter signed by the defendant.

(d) If the defendant is dissatisfied with a decision of the court in a proceeding pursuant to this section, the defendant shall be granted a trial de novo.

As the law states, defendants are required to prepay their ticket (which acts as bail) and are refunded their money if found not guilty. Also, it’s important to note that if a defendant is found guilty they can request a “trial de novo” or new trial. This wipes the slate clean and allows the defendant a second chance to prove his or her case, this time in court.

Here are two documents that are used in California in San Mateo county. Other states have similar forms.

Trial by declaration information.pdf • Trial by declaration request.pdf

2) Florida
In Florida, in order to bypass a court appearance you must file an “Affidavit of Defense”. Here is an excerpt from the Florida Rules of Traffic Court:

RULE 6.340. AFFIDAVIT OF DEFENSE OR ADMISSION AND WAIVER OF APPEARANCE

(a) Appearance in Court. Any defendant charged with an infraction may, in lieu of a personal appearance at trial, file an affidavit of defense or an admission that the infraction was committed as provided in this rule.

(b) Posting of Bond. The trial court may require a bond to be posted before the court will accept an affidavit in lieu of appearance at trial. The defendant shall be given reasonable notice if required to post a bond.

(c) Attorney Representation. If a defendant is represented by an attorney in an infraction case, said attorney may represent the defendant in the absence of the defendant at a hearing or trial without the defendant being required to file an affidavit of defense. The attorney shall file a written notice of appearance. The attorney may enter any plea, proceed to trial, present evidence other than the defendant’s statements, and examine and cross examine witnesses without the defendant being required to file an affidavit of defense. Nonetheless, a defendant represented by an attorney may file an affidavit of defense. If a represented defendant files such an affidavit, the affidavit must be signed and properly notarized, subjecting the affiant to perjury prosecution for false statements.

A sample Affidavit of Defense can be found here:
Florida Rules of Traffic Court 2008 Edition (PDF, pgs 15,16)

3) Hawaii
Here is the law allowing trial by declaration in Hawaii:

§291D-6 Answer required.

(a) A person who receives a notice of traffic infraction shall answer the notice within twenty-one days of the date of issuance of the notice. There shall be included with the notice of traffic infraction a preaddressed envelope directed to the traffic violations bureau of the applicable district court.

(b) Provided that the notice of traffic infraction does not require an appearance in person at [a] hearing as set forth in section [291D-5(d)(10)], in answering a notice of traffic infraction, a person shall have the following options:

(1) Admit the commission of the infraction in one of the following ways:

(A) By mail or in person, by completing the appropriate portion of the notice of traffic infraction or preaddressed envelope and submitting it to the authority specified on the notice together with payment of the total amount stated on the notice of traffic infraction. Payment by mail shall be in the form of a check, money order, or by an approved credit or debit card. Payment in person shall be in the form of United States currency, check, money order, or by an approved credit or debit card; or

(B) Via the Internet or by telephone, by submitting payment of the total amount stated on the notice of traffic infraction. Payment via the Internet or by telephone shall be by an approved credit or debit card;

(2) Deny the commission of the infraction and request a hearing to contest the infraction by completing the appropriate portion of the notice of traffic infraction or preaddressed envelope and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the authority specified on the notice. In lieu of appearing in person at a hearing, the person may submit a written statement of grounds on which the person contests the notice of traffic infraction, which shall be considered by the court as a statement given in court pursuant to section 291D-8(a); or

(3) Admit the commission of the infraction and request a hearing to explain circumstances mitigating the infraction by completing the appropriate portion of the notice of traffic infraction or preaddressed envelope and submitting it, either by mail or in person, to the authority specified on the notice. In lieu of appearing in person at a hearing, the person may submit a written explanation of the mitigating circumstances, which shall be considered by the court as a statement given in court pursuant to section 291D-8(b).

Section (2) has the specific phrasing which allows the defendant to avoid going to court for his or her ticket.

4) Indiana
In Indiana, in order to bypass a court appearance you must opt for a “Trial by Affidavit.” Contact the court for the rules and regulations involved.

5) Louisiana
Contact the court for the rules and regulations involved.

6) Nebraska
Contact the court for the rules and regulations involved.

7) Ohio
Trial by declaration is available only at the discretion of each court. Contact the court to find out if it’s available where you received your ticket.

8 ) Oregon
Here is the law (ORS 153.08) that allows trial by affidavit in Oregon:

153.080 Testimony by affidavit. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the court may admit as evidence in any trial in a violation proceeding the affidavit of a witness in lieu of taking the testimony of the witness orally and in court. The authority granted under this section is subject to all of the following:

(1) Testimony may not be presented by affidavit under the provisions of this section unless the court has adopted rules authorizing the use of affidavits and providing procedures for the introduction and use of the testimony.

(2) The court shall allow testimony by affidavit under this section only upon receiving a signed statement from the defendant waiving the right to have the testimony presented orally in court.

(3) Testimony by affidavit under this section is not subject to objection as hearsay.

(4) A statement signed by the defendant under subsection (2) of this section does not constitute a waiver of trial unless the affidavit specifically so provides.

(5) Nothing in this section requires that the defendant or any other witness waive the right to appear if other testimony is introduced by affidavit as provided in this section.

As stated in the law, if requesting a trial by affidavit, the court must receive a signed statement from the defendant waiving the right to have the testimony presented orally in court.

9) Wyoming
Trial by declaration is available only in certain courts. To find out if trial by declaration is available, contact the court you’re scheduled to appear in.

(Source: National Motorists Association)

Kerns and her husband, Bill, weren’t working for the town, however, when they parked their car, calibrated their radar gun and measured the speed of motorists on two occasions in March. They were challenging speed-control practices in their town.

The Kernses’ goal: prove that the posted 25 mph speed limit on Moody and El Monte roads doesn’t reflect the average speed of traffic – or an appropriate speed – for the main roads through Los Altos Hills.

“Everybody is going over 25,” Kerns said of the two sections they patrolled along El Monte and Moody. The Kernses, who have both received speeding tickets on El Monte, argue that the town should not be targeting those who are safely driving more than 25 mph on that road or Moody. They base their claims in part on the state’s anti-speed-trap law, known as the 85th percentile speed rule. To be enforced with radar, speed limits should be set within 5 mph of the observed critical speed of 85 percent of drivers.

After conducting their own speed survey, the Kernses observed approximately 85 percent of the cars were driving at least 43 mph westbound on El Monte, between Interstate 280 and Moody.
In the straightaway, El Monte can look like an arterial, but as it climbs into the Hills and its name changes to Moody, it begins to wind. Cars share the circuitous two-lane road on Moody with bicycle, pedestrian and horse traffic.

Third-party contractor Traffic Data Service surveyed the speed limits on town roads by dividing the roads into 34 sections. The survey, completed in March 2007, indicated that Los Altos Hills speeds are in conformity with state law. Town engineer Richard Chiu said he has no reason to believe the survey is invalid.

But Betty believes the town’s survey failed to measure sufficiently this stretch and hopes to question the survey’s validity when her husband goes to court May 14 for driving 40 mph last November.

Kerns, caught speeding last year, had her ticket dismissed when the citing sheriff’s deputy didn’t appear in court.

To gather speed statistics, the Kernses purchased a reconditioned and calibrated police radar gun to measure the speed of hundreds of cars passing along El Monte and Moody.

“This isn’t the (town’s) highest priority, with issues like Westwind Barn and Bullis … but it affects the lives of all normal citizens,” Kerns said.

Because the characteristics of the town roads change drastically within short distances, Kerns doesn’t think the sectioned surveys are representative of the road as a whole.

But Chiu said that if the surveyed distances were too short, it would be confusing for drivers if the posted speed kept changing.

“The number of sections is determined so we can get a representative (reading) for that location,” Chiu said.

The town is working to present current information in a user-friendly, readable format with a summary of the 85th percentile and posted speed that officers can present in court. Chiu said he was unsure when the reformatting will be complete.