This story was big news today. Seems that almost half of red light
camera fines go unpaid, thanks to people who drive around in
unregistered cars. I guess it makes sense that the kind of scofflaw
who would run a red light is also the kind of scofflaw who would not
bother to register their car or buy insurance.
http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6999033
45% of drivers caught by Valley's red-light cameras aren't cited
BY RACHEL URANGA, Staff Writer
Article Last Updated: 09/26/2007 08:53:27 AM PDT
Los Angeles' $15 million, high-tech camera system designed to catch
red-light runners let nearly half of all violators in the San Fernando
Valley off the hook last year because the drivers couldn't be
identified, according to police data.
While officials had hoped the cameras would result in a citation rate
as high as 80 percent, in the Valley that was running at only
55percent last year.
While the rate citywide is slightly better at 60 percent, critics
question the gaps and note that the project is now nearly five months
behind schedule with only 26 of 32 cameras in place.
And as of April, the unissued citations have meant the city has lost
at least $1.1 million.
By far the biggest obstacle to ticketing violators, they say, has been
outdated or unidentifiable car registrations.
Last year in the Valley, where three of eight projected cameras were
up and running, 2,928 violations were recorded, but just 1,608 tickets
were handed out, police said.
Citywide between May 2006 and April 30 of this year, police were able
to cite just 60 percent of violators - or 10,882 of the 18,035 caught
on tape, according to a report released last week by the civilian Los
Angeles Police Commission.
Police say the bulk of violators who weren't ticketed have cars
registered to drivers who no longer own the vehicles.
Under state law, car owners are required to have insurance when they
register the car. But police suspect that some owners fail to register
because they can't afford - or didn't want to buy - sometimes
expensive insurance.
Perched atop signal poles at some of the city's most dangerous
intersections, the multiple cameras take three seconds to four seconds
of video at 30 frames a second.
One camera zooms in on the front license plate and the driver, then
turns as the car zooms off. Another camera catches the entire car
speeding through the intersection.
Violators receive a ticket in the mail, and they can view the evidence
online.
Once a plate is captured, the LAPD contacts the last recorded
registered owner. But the department can't cite them for another
driver's offense.
For each $381 red-light ticket given, the city coffers add $157.19,
according to the LAPD.

Signature
MFFYCam Videos Galore:
http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/
http://slothkills.blip.tv/
> "Scott in SoCal" <scottenaztlan@yahoo.com> wrote
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> who would run a red light is also the kind of scofflaw who would not
> bother to register their car or buy insurance.
I guess the evidence supports that theory. I would have thunk that anyone
driving around in an unregistered vehicle would be extra careful not to
attract the attention of the law. But what do I know...

Signature
Ciao, Paul D. DeRocco
Paul mailto:pderocco@ix.netcom.com
> This story was big news today. Seems that almost half of red light
> camera fines go unpaid, thanks to people who drive around in
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_6999033
As you know, the city of chicago's biggest RLC ticket generator is the
CTA. Those fines have gone unpaid because the city 'cannot find' the CTA,
the registered owner of the buses and other vehicles. I would imagine a
significant portion of that 45% are government vehicles of one sort or
another.
Now for key article portions:
> By far the biggest obstacle to ticketing violators, they say, has been
> outdated or unidentifiable car registrations.
This means the camera couldn't read the plate. So another big percentage
is just because their equipment took a crappy picture.
> Last year in the Valley, where three of eight projected cameras were
> up and running, 2,928 violations were recorded, but just 1,608 tickets
> were handed out, police said.
Now they include errors where they snapped a picture of someone who
didn't run the red light.
> Police say the bulk of violators who weren't ticketed have cars
> registered to drivers who no longer own the vehicles.
> Under state law, car owners are required to have insurance when they
> register the car. But police suspect that some owners fail to register
> because they can't afford - or didn't want to buy - sometimes
> expensive insurance.
Why didn't the previous owners keep their license plates? Or do plates
stay with the car in CA?
> Perched atop signal poles at some of the city's most dangerous
> intersections,
intersections dangerous because they have short yellows or other defects
required to keep a camera profitable.
gpsman - 27 Sep 2007 05:26 GMT
On Sep 26, 11:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> Now for key article portions:
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> This means the camera couldn't read the plate. So another big percentage
> is just because their equipment took a crappy picture.
Spurious conclusion. Logical Fallacy. The problem might be
retrieving the digital data.
How would they determine registrations were "outdated" without
referencing the plate?
Lastly, you have no idea what leads the registrations to be
"unidentifiable".
> > Last year in the Valley, where three of eight projected cameras were
> > up and running, 2,928 violations were recorded, but just 1,608 tickets
> > were handed out, police said.
>
> Now they include errors where they snapped a picture of someone who
> didn't run the red light.
<spit take> What percentage of 2928 is 1608?
-----
- gpsman
Scott in SoCal - 27 Sep 2007 06:31 GMT
tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com (Brent P) said in
rec.autos.driving:
>Why didn't the previous owners keep their license plates? Or do plates
>stay with the car in CA?
Normal plates stay with the car. Only vanity plates can be transferred
from car to car when you trade up.

Signature
MFFYCam Videos Galore:
http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/
http://slothkills.blip.tv/
websurf1@cox.net - 28 Sep 2007 04:15 GMT
On Sep 26, 8:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
wrote:
> > By far the biggest obstacle to ticketing violators, they say, has been
> > outdated or unidentifiable car registrations.
>
> This means the camera couldn't read the plate. So another big percentage
> is just because their equipment took a crappy picture.
OR the plates were blurred. Here, I see a noticeable number of plates
with clear covers over them, obviously with the intent of reducing
identifiability.
I've also wondered about the huge number of advertising plate frames,
that cover up at least the state and sometimes some other items. This
might also make it difficult to identify an out-of-state plate.
> > Police say the bulk of violators who weren't ticketed have cars
> > registered to drivers who no longer own the vehicles.
Why in the WORLD would a seller allow this to happen??????? When I
sell, I take the plates the second I leave the car!
> intersections dangerous because they have short yellows or other defects
> required to keep a camera profitable.
Maybe. Maybe not.
Scott in SoCal - 28 Sep 2007 05:40 GMT
websurf1@cox.net said in rec.autos.driving:
>On Sep 26, 8:02 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P)
>wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
>with clear covers over them, obviously with the intent of reducing
>identifiability.
I see even more with smoked plastic covers, some so dark that you
can't even read the license plate.
>I've also wondered about the huge number of advertising plate frames,
>that cover up at least the state and sometimes some other items. This
>might also make it difficult to identify an out-of-state plate.
Another very clever yet subtle technique is to have the plate frame
cover the bottom parts of the letters, for example making an 'E' look
like an 'F'. It wouldn't fool a human being who got a good up-close
look at the plate, but would give cameras and OCR software LOTS of
problems.

Signature
MFFYCam Videos Galore:
http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/
http://slothkills.blip.tv/
Ralph Herman - 28 Sep 2007 15:50 GMT
> websu...@cox.net said in rec.autos.driving:
>
[quoted text clipped - 25 lines]
> --
> MFFYCam Videos Galore:http://www.geocities.com/mffycam/http://slothkills.blip.tv/
Problem can be eliminated with a law similar to NYS V&T law Section
402(b) which prohibits any covering of the license plates.... plastic,
glass, spray-on materials. I believe anything within the license plate
border that obscures any text can result in a ticket. In NYS, and
parking enforcement agent can write the summons and fines can range
from 25-200 dollars.
And to answer you question, yes NY police and parking agents do write
tickets if your out of state car violates these provisions.
California can adopt a similar law, but I believe it will not be
sponsered here because of the strength of the auto dealer lobby who
wants their free advertising surrounding your license plate.
Ralph
Brent P - 28 Sep 2007 16:09 GMT
> Problem can be eliminated with a law similar to NYS V&T law Section
> 402(b) which prohibits any covering of the license plates.... plastic,
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> sponsered here because of the strength of the auto dealer lobby who
> wants their free advertising surrounding your license plate.
A license plate cover law is just another selectively enforced law used
only when a cop wanted to hassle somebody or had a performance objective
to meet. In a large city like chicago such laws of the ticky-tacky or
selectively enforced variety are used by the department of revenue employees
that patrol looking for ways to do meet the mission of their department,
to raise revenue.
> Seems that almost half of red light
> camera fines go unpaid, thanks to people who drive around in
> unregistered cars.
Whoda thunk it?
> Once a plate is captured, the LAPD contacts the last recorded
> registered owner. But the department can't cite them for another
> driver's offense.
Who sells their car, to whom, including the license plate...?
-----
- gpsman
Steve Sobol - 27 Sep 2007 04:18 GMT
["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
>> registered owner. But the department can't cite them for another
>> driver's offense.
>
> Who sells their car, to whom, including the license plate...?
It's the law in California; the plate stays with the car, not the owner,
unless it's a personalized plate.

Signature
Steve Sobol, Victorville, California PGP:0xE3AE35ED
"Drench yourself in words unspoken / Live your life with arms wide open
Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
- Natasha Beddingfield
Ralph Herman - 27 Sep 2007 20:22 GMT
> ["Followup-To:" header set to ca.driving.]
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Today is where your book begins / The rest is still unwritten"
> - Natasha Beddingfield
Rhetorical questions...
Why aren't the Califonia Legislature/DMV requiring registered owners
to surrender their license plates when insurance lapses? Wouldn't
make sense that is you have no insurance, the vehicle cannot be driven
on any street or highway?
Why does the plate stay with the vehicle? Arizona recently adopted
the "plate stays with the owner" method which generally means the
vehicle has a license plate immediately. This system is already used
in California, since vanity plates stay with the owner. To me, it
isn't the vehicle that is in violation, it is the operator of the
vehicle, and the plate should stay with the owner or operator.
And my personal favorite, how does the camera photograph the tiny
little number on the CA registration that is placed on the lower light
corner of the windshield when you buy a new car? Basically, new car
owners are "immune" from RLC's, since the license plate is not
displayed. My neighbor has an expensive new Mercedes convertible, and
for at least 2 years kept is permanent license plates in the trunk,
with only his "dealer name and logo" plate where the CA plates should
go and the paper registration application on the winshield. Till this
day, he has not been stopped by the police or CHP. It is also
interesting to note that their is no expiration date displayed on
these temporary registration forms displayed on the windshields... it
might be on the actual form, but the forms are always folded over and
are not visible.
Although I generally support RLC's deployment I think they are
unfairly used in California, since to me it seems that only the "law
abiding drivers" are getting the tickets in the mail, and the social
deviants are immune from RLC fines.
Ralph
> This story was big news today. Seems that almost half of red light
> camera fines go unpaid, thanks to people who drive around in
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> because they can't afford - or didn't want to buy - sometimes
> expensive insurance.
Sounds bogus to me. If there really are 40% of people
driving around without valid registration, the revenue
gathering brigade would have a field day. Is that an
offence for which the car can be impounded?