State Senate gives snitch tickets a facelift Around Town, posted by Editor, The Almanac Online, on Jun 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm
The next time you get a snitch ticket in the mail, you may be able to check off "none of the above" when asked to identify who was driving your car when it ran a red light, if a new bill passes the legislature.
Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, June 4, 2012, 10:59 AM
Posted by Henry, a resident of another community, on Jun 4, 2012 at 2:46 pm
It's good that this article about Simitian's SB 1303 mentions the Snitch Ticket - because most people don't know that there is such a thing. But the article's info needs clarification. A Snitch Ticket is a fake ticket that has not been filed at court. Thus, there is no need to reply to or "challenge" a Snitch Ticket in any way. You just ignore them. (Currently, Snitch Tickets can be recognized by the absence of the address of any court, and many of them will say, in fine print on the back, "Do not contact the court about this notice." If you want to know more about Snitch Tickets, Google the term.)
The article also briefly mentions dueling court rulings about the admissibility of evidence. Simitian's bill now addresses this issue, but in a way very adverse to motorists: Last Tuesday, just before the deadline, Joe amended the bill to add a "hearsay is OK" section, which relieves red light camera companies of their most significant legal liability (defendants' hearsay objections) and saves them the expense of having to fight the two red light camera cases that just got accepted at the Cal. Supreme Court. A big favor for the Industry.
SB 1303 is what's called an "Industry Bill," and it needs to be squashed, again, because this time it is much worse for motorists than was last year's version.
Posted by steppinout, a resident of the Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2012 at 6:09 pm
Really?? God forbid someone should have to pay for their carelessness! People that run red lights could be hazardous to the rest of us, hence the hefty fine. Why should we be so concerned they be "warned" about the cameras? Should we have flashing signs warning us of the presence of a patrol car in the vicinity so that we have time to put down our cell phones, buckle up and go the speed limit? And really just how often is a violent estranged husband driving a wife's car, seems that would not be the norm.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jun 4, 2012 at 6:21 pm
these cameras are not about safety. They are about revenue generation. Do a few Google searches and you will find out exactly what these cameras are about. They routiniely violate our rights to due process and they get away with it because people don't know any better. Think it's ok to violate our civil rights? Go live in Russia.
If this law is passed with the "hearsay is ok" portion, someone will challenge it and it will be found unconstitutional. As it is.
Posted by Menlo Voter, a resident of the Menlo Park: other neighborhood, on Jun 5, 2012 at 6:45 pm
Because Joe Simitian has made his name throught the passage of nanny state laws. They don't actually do anything to make people safer, they just make people FEEL like they're doing something to make them safer. And Joe gets to promote himself as having actually done something besides draw a paycheck.
I've got news for you. It's about distracted driving. That's not just using the cell phone or texting while driving. It's reading the news paper (as I've seen). It's about putting on make up while driving (as we've all probably seen). It's about eating while driving (yep seen that too). It's about eating a bowl of cereal while driving (yes, I've actually seen that - steering with his knees). It's about people smoking while driving (who hasn't seen that?) It's about a hundred other ways people get distracted while driving.
I drive 35,000 miles a year. I can't believe the stuff people do behind the wheel while they are supposed to be driving. If we REALLY want to do something to improve safety we need to outlaw ALL distracted driving. We need to quit picking the easy stuff because it really doesn't address the problem. If Joe wants to REALLY do something of value his next "there oughta be a law" should be outlawing ALL distracted driving.
Posted by Hank Lawrence, a resident of the Menlo Park: Sharon Heights neighborhood, on Jun 6, 2012 at 8:11 am
I have seen 2 malfunctions of the red light camera at Ravenswood and El Camino Real in Menlo Park. The first was when I was stopped at the traffic light on the Menlo Avenue side of El Camino Real on a Tuesday night around 6:50 PM and saw the red light camera take a picture of a car while the light was green.
The second time it took a picture of me making a left hand turn from Ravenswood to El Camino Real heading south on a green light.
The Union City police Department got caught shortening the yellow light which creates a danger to the public with increased rear end collisions. The Union City Police shortened the red light from 4.3 seconds to 3.0 seconds. The speed limit on that road is 45 mph.
"According to a report by the California State Auditor, over 77 percent of tickets are given for violations that happen when the light has been red for less than one second. Motorists who do not have sufficient yellow signal warning are faced with a choice of either running a red light, or slamming on the brakes and risking a rear end collision."
My question: Is the yellow light at Ravenswood and El Camino Real at least 3.6 seconds? 3.6 seonds is the the state law requirement for roads where the speed limit is 35 mph. If it is not then you have a basis for a legal challenge.
Posted by Susan, a resident of another community, on Jun 7, 2012 at 7:35 pm
I think the speed limit on Ravenswood Ave is under 35 mph. Menlo Ave. is 25 mph and El Camino is 35 mph. The length of the yellow will probably be different depending on which roadway traffic is coming from.
Posted by Alan, a resident of the Menlo Park: Belle Haven neighborhood, on Jun 12, 2012 at 10:30 am
If you bothered to read the article, this concerns limiting the power of government - it's not about the nanny state. I haven't followed Simitian closely, so I won't post a general opinion about him. But this law is about making it clear that people don't need to give up their 5th amendment rights.