- I've been watching the construction progress since I live off Laguna. Appears
the fine also has gone up quite a bit.. This intersection is west of
the HWY 99 freeway on ramp where a lot of folks are in a hurry. Guess
this will free up motorcycle cops for other needs. So when your in that
rush heading east bound on Laguna to jump on the freeway (mostly to cut
off other people) watch that light, it may just take your picture!
Another intersection in Elk Grove will have red light cameras in place beginning Monday.
The third red light camera in Elk Grove begins operating Monday morning at the intersection of Laguna Boulevard and Laguna Springs Drive. For the first 30 days, warnings will be issued. But beginning April 24, violators will face fines of up to $426.
The intersection was selected based on number of violations, collisions and traffic flow, according to the Elk Grove Police Department. Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc., an Arizona-based company, administers Elk Grove's traffic red-light camera enforcement program.
Holy Smokes is right! As my son would say "that is hecka lot of money!" I wonder why is it so much? Then I think of the lives lost while running a red light. If I was injured or lost a loved one due to someone who ran a red light I would probably be applauding the high fine. Sad thing is the fine will probably not deter a percentage of people who have no regard of the law or intention to pay any of the fines (those to drunk or high to care).
I tried to look it up but could not find it. Is the fine more for running a red light at intersections with the camera vs. running a red light and being caught by a police officer? Is the fine different based on the city, county or just state?
There are a few bad intersections in East Elk Grove and I since I live in West Elk Grove we shouldn't be the only side that remains safe from red light runners and revenue generation. I'm just trying to be charitble with our neighbors on the other side of 99
The article indicates this is the only the 3rd one in Elk Grove. But I'm sure they will find a few more bad intersections and put them in place eventually. I hope the timing is correct. Anyone remember a few years back when the timing was off (in Sacramento) and it was not recording in the correct millisecond causing people to have their picture taken prematurely fined? BIG money was made off of bad faulty electronic equipment. If you heard about it and contested it you were one of the few lucky ones that got out of it. I think it was Lockheed Martin as the manufacturer then, but not 100% sure. Only reason I recall it is because my spouse at the time got one and I tried to encourage the contesting. Although the pictures clearly showed they were well behind the line before it started snapping pictures.
However depending on where you are in the intersection when you blow the light, if your missing your front plate you could get out of it. Although that will catch up with you eventually since it's required by law to have both front and back plates.
Drive safe! And put on those funny glasses with the nose and mustache and have some fun with it! Deny you don't know anyone like that who drove your car!! :-)
A CHP officer from the North Sac office who is one of the officers who goes to the red light camera court appearances actually said that they are speed triggered (at least the ones in the city of Sacramento) and you could roll through the intersection at less than 15mph and it will not take your picture (straight through, not turning). I thought that was interesting as the units would have to have some sort of radar to detect speed unless it determines speed based on how fast you travel over the magnetic sensors. Either way, even it it was faulty and there was no information at the time supporting it was faulty and you fought it, you would lose.
As for the fine amounts, the Vehicle Code bail schedule increased for 2009 considerably. Assuming due to the budget shortfalls lately.
Funny you mention the disguise. A friend of mine owns a company with 8 company vehicles. All the vehicles are registered to his name and residential address. He is a white male late 30's, heavy set. One of his employees crossed over the limit line at a camera in Sacramento and it snapped his photo. Now the employee was a black male, early 20's and thin build. From what I understand they check the descriptors of the registered owner and issue a citation if the picture matches the RO (registered owner). CLEARLY not the case with this citation. hehe He simply responded that it was not him and recommended they get a vision test for the officer who issues the citations, mailed it off and never heard anything ever again. lol
Here we are again with suggestions as to "how to get out of it".....really now. How about obey the law, and if you do break it, accept responsibility, learn from it, and take the consequences. That's what I've tried to teach my children, how about you?
I sincerely hope those of you who use your little tricks to try to get out of getting caught for a violation are never a victim of that violation.
Traffic light companies has an incentive to rig the cameras so that the greatest possible number of cars are cited. Photo-enforcement is about revenue, not safety. It might seem like the cameras would catch the red-light runners, but in fact this is not the case. San Diego, California, suspended its camera-based enforcement after a judge voided 300 traffic tickets because of faulty cameras. Sacramento, California, suspended its photo-enforcement because the system did not function properly. The Sacramento Superior Court voided the red-light violations. (This was several years back)
Stronger enforcement of traffic lights perversely increases rear-end collisions as drivers screech to a halt when the light turns, making the driver behind crash into the car ahead. The conclusion of a study by the North Carolina Agricultural and State University in 2004 was that red-light cameras do not reduce crashes at intersections, and they increase rear-end accidents. -Source (http://www.phantomplate.com/california_trafficfines.htm)
I knew someone who was pulled over for running a red light because the person behind them was following so close at a high speed that if they stopped they knew they would be hit. When talking to the police officer (Citrus Heights) and explained how they were trying to avoid a most certain accident the cop said that if the person behind them hit them it would have been their fault. So she again stressed that she knew it would have been an accident and she was trying to avoid that. The cop said the right thing to do was to stop regardless if it caused an accident. Maybe he works for the insurance company on the side too!!
I spend most of my time driving in a defensive matter around here in efforts to just avoid accidents. I can't count how many I've prevented with defensive driving here or in S.F or L.A. But apparently traffic enforcement would prefer an accident then a citation action. Too many people don't get the certain car length to follow behind someone and I've seen too many accidents caused by this. Slowing down would be a HUGE help to us all.
The speed triggered thing was interesting to hear about.
Photo-enforcement is about revenue, not safety.
Yeah, ok. Kind of a broad statement, no? We've come a long way since 2004 with technology. What it comes down to is don't run a red light. It causes crashes.*
*Non-scientific study done by me with 20+ years of LE experience and a spouse with 25+ years of LE experience with the majority in traffic enforcement.
If we're doing non scientific studies, then count mine in! I am constantly in the area of the two intersections with red light cameras and in the time we have had them I've seen zero rear end collisions from people throwing the brakes on. What I have seen is no more of the three or fours cars scooting through red lights every time it changes.
I'd love to see some EGPD crash statistics on those two intersections since the lights went in.
I didn't write that statement, I provided the source of it. Sure we've come a long way since 2004. But don't think that greed has nothing to do with it. Safety is not always first in the minds of our lovely leaders or the companies that provide them with the technology!! :-)
I don't disagree however with some people trying to avoid a bad rear end accidents because people don't leave enough space between cars traveling at 40-60 MPH. I'd rather avoid an accident and blow a yellow light any day and contest it. It was not a camera that got her anyways, it was a Cop. My former mother in law was a Cop, friends spouses were Cops. Not once did they agree an accident was a better solution then a traffic violation. (Granted you safely got thru the intersection) Too many uninsured motorists out there, it's just a mess. Heck, my car gets hit just by being parked!
Yes, bottom line, don't run the light & it won't take your picture!
I wish there was a way they could put a camera at a 4 way stop at Jadestone and Emerald Oak. Half blind lady takes her life in her hands every time she crosses the street there. I would say fewer than half the cars stop.
I will not be shopping on these four corners again. Not happy with all these cameras, it's a lazy way to generate money for Elk Grove. The price is outragous and i think they are not needed around this town.
I've noticed a few times recently that the cameras at Laguna & Bruceville are still shooting pictures at people who have a legal green light. I was the 2nd car back and the light darn near blinded me when it went off as it was early a.m. and still dark outside on my way to work. Sure hope they can get this one set better.
With all the revenue they could really up grade the poor looking City Hall...The place looks like it only costed us 10million to build ...We should tear it down and do some much needed upgrades maybe a granite water feature in the center of the place and a Golf club storage area????Elk Grove needs to keep up with the Jones heck The Kardashians....The working class slob will get the ticket and pay for these much needed things