Voters Will Decide Fate of Red-Light Cameras

After a successful citizen petition drive to ban red-light cameras in Murrieta, City Council votes to send the initiative to the November 2012 ballot.

The Murrieta City Council voted 4-0 to send a citizento the November 2012 ballot.

Councilwoman Kelly Bennett was absent, but the council members present decided on the ballot option over the other two choices of putting the initiative in effect immediately or commissioning a staff report within 30 days.

"...Until the vast majority of the registered voters in this community say we do not want them, until I am told otherwise on election day, I will stand by that," said Mayor Randon Lane, referring to his belief that the red-light cameras increase safety.

The decision came after a nearly two-hour discussion that included public comments from camera supporters and opponents, as well as reports from the Murrieta Police Department about the effectiveness of the red-light cameras.

Murrieta Police Chief Mike Baray provided statistics that showed less broadside traffic accidents at the intersections where cameras are installed versus others nearby where they aren't.

"As we look at our city's fiscal year 2010-2011, we did not have any murders, but at the same time we had five traffic-related fatalities in our city; traffic is an issue in our city," Baray said.

According to Baray, there have been 15 broadside accidents at the three intersections since 2006. At comparable intersections, there have been 45, he said.

Additionally, he said red-light violations have decreased at all three intersections where cameras are installed: Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita roads, Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood roads and Clinton Keith Road and Nutmeg Street.

At Murrieta Hot Springs and Whitewood, Baray said violations have dropped from 3,150 a month to 85 since 2005, when the cameras were installed. At Clinton Keith and Nutmeg, he said they've dropped from 750 to 16, and at Murrieta Hot Springs and Margarita, from 1,200 to 20.

Murrieta police Cpl. Jay Froboese, who oversaw the implementation of the cameras in 2005 after getting direction from the Traffic Commission, said those who gathered the petition signatures used information against the cameras that did not pertain to Murrieta, but other cities.

"All their information comes off these websites...and all this gets rehashed but it is not Murrieta’s program, it is not how we run our program," Froboese said.

Out of 13 public speakers, eight supported the cameras and seven opposed.

One anti-camera speaker called videos shown at the meeting by the Murrieta Police Department of two recent near-miss accidents "propaganda."

"Why don't we add cameras in all banks and businesses, we can eliminate robberies," said another resident, Donald Parsley, who opposes the cameras. "Oh wait, we already have cameras in all the banks and businesses and that doesn’t eliminate robberies, neither will cameras solve the problem of people running red lights.

"You saw that it doesn't work to provide cameras there, those two pictures proved it."

Murrieta resident Carol Carson spoke in favor of red-light cameras.

"I am a recipient of a red-light camera ticket and it has made me a better driver, more cautious," Carson said. "And if people are better drivers they don’t have to worry about getting a ticket."

Those who want the cameras removed finished a months-long petition drive, coming up with 4,502 signatures, 32 over the required amount.

Mayor Pro Tem Doug McAllister said out of an estimated 104,000 Murrieta residents, there were 44,691 registered voters.

"It was only 32 signatures, that is why we are here tonight," McAllister said.

"I have to believe 33 of those people would not have signed" had they had different information.

"I think it is important that the citizens of Murrieta hear all the information."

McAllister compared red-light camera enforcement to another enforcement mechanism used by Murrieta police: DUI checkpoints.

"Most of the times the violations on red-light cameras unintentional...and those folks who are driving drunk...I don’t think many of them thought 'I am going to go out and kill someone while driving drunk.'

"Sometimes you run a light and there is not a victim; sometime you can drive home drunk and there is no victim. And sadly, with drunk driving there are many victims.

"Red-light cameras don’t stop everyone; DUI checkpoints don’t stop every drunk driver."

Michelle Deskin November 02, 2011 at 02:33 PM
Cameras, whether good or bad are a violation of ourright to question the one giving the ticket! Just like the seat belt law, the helmet law, etc... Yes, we should drive responsibly, however it should not be up to the government to decide this. By far, drunk drivers are the #1 killer of people. Why not crack down on bars tha allow drunk people to drive home after they got drunk at their establishment? Oh yeah, they bring in revenue to the city... Crack down on things that are the biggest killers & leave some decisions up to the people!!.
Jenna November 02, 2011 at 03:01 PM
On Sunday morning I got plowed in to at the intersection of Nutmeg and Clinton Keith when a guy didn't stop at a red light on West Bound Clinton Keith - the red light camera caught him running the light, which made it much easier for me to get his insurance to pay up! I used to be against the cameras, too, but in this case I was glad to have them there.
Stephen November 02, 2011 at 03:14 PM
The problem with the vendors (and cities) claim of safety is that too many other towns have been busted playing games to hide the truth. http://www.banthecams.org/Blogs/six-examples-of-misleading-the-public-qsafetyq-claims-by-towns-who-use-ats.html Also see here on Fake post by one Scamera vendor VP of ATS claiming to be a "local". http://heraldnet.com/article/20110525/BLOG48/705259809 also see: http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/35/3553.asp Fight the SCAM! Ban the Cams! www.motorists.org www.banthecams.org www.camerafraud.com www.bhspi.org
Jack November 02, 2011 at 03:34 PM
Use the cameras for people using their cell phones while driving. That violation has to be by fay more prevalent than red light runners.
JJ Mclure November 02, 2011 at 05:36 PM
use for people driving naked
Popeye November 02, 2011 at 06:38 PM
Red light cameras saves money. Now if they can add a sensor to your car if you speed, it will punch out a ticket.
Steve Newman November 02, 2011 at 08:36 PM
I think it is great that the Council in all their combined wisdom, have decided to let the voters decide. Now if only we were certain they would abide by the voters wishes, not like with the other initiative passed by the people. The way the Mayor and Protem are defending this, maybe they are cutting into the action. Just my opinion, I could be wrong.
Jenna November 02, 2011 at 09:36 PM
JJ Do you sit around all day thinking of ridiculous comments to put on every patch story?
Steve Newman November 02, 2011 at 09:47 PM
Jenna- JJ has to be doing something right- he got your attention didn't he? He could be down at the occupy Temecula sight instead.
Jim November 03, 2011 at 01:52 AM
Aside from dreams of revenue, why do politicians buy cameras? 1. They think we like cameras! A blogger addressed Astroturf Lobbying by the red light cam Industry. (To read the blog, Google Rynski and Astroturf.) Astroturf Lobbying is when a PR firm creates an artificial grassroots movement via comments their employees or cohorts post on newspaper articles like this one. The politicians read the columns and, sensing strong "community" support, give the OK for cameras. 2. They're immune to the tickets - and so's their family. Two years ago the OC Register revealed that in California 1.5 million private cars have plate numbers protected from easy look up, thus effectively invisible to agencies trying to process red light camera violations. The "protected" list includes the private vehicles (cars and boats) of local politicians, bureaucrats, retired cops, other govt. employees, and their families and adult children! Someone should check to see how many, and who, are protected in Murrieta, Corona, and Riverside.
JJ Mclure November 03, 2011 at 01:27 PM
I think of Jenna all day
JJ Mclure November 03, 2011 at 01:28 PM
I work Newman. You're too hung up on being PC.
JJ Mclure November 03, 2011 at 01:28 PM
cameras watch the illegals
Kim Auer November 03, 2011 at 04:07 PM
I rec'd a ticket at that same intersection for taking a yellow that turned to a REALLY quick red (left turn on to Nutmeg), because the guy behind had no plans of stopping. For fear of get rear-ended with my 1 year old in the back, I had to pay over $500 when all was said and done. They are dangerous. Those who will run reds will do so regardless of cameras. They cause more accidents than they prevent. And I took the time to fight my case and because it's revenue driven, they don't care. Time the yellows at all three in Murrieta, they are one full second shorter than other yellows in town.
Rob November 03, 2011 at 07:13 PM
The Mayor discounts the other 4000 of us who signed the petition by pointing out he could have convinced 33 of them not to sign?! (Pssst, Mayor, count those as votes for the opponent in the next election.) WE are not hear because of 33 members of the community, we are hear because The LEGAL requirement to gain a VOTE was MET. The same will be true upon your election campaign when we place you back into the private sector. Stats on websites - aahhhhhh, where would you like us to get the stats, from your staff? Murrieta is not like other cities - How so? If not, why did the private company and the police use other city stats to SUPPORT the cameras being placed into the community? How is Murrieta different than LA? Why not take the Loma Linda lead and simply extend the length of time the light stays yellow?!?!?!?! < What was the reduction in violations and accidents there, good mayor? Can you call that mayor or should we provide the stats from the evil internet? Why no audit of where the money goes and who works for the private company? Why no audit of the police dept pay and benes? Anyone seen the former police chief at Hennesey's in Hermosa? OK, that was a rant. LOL!
Rob November 03, 2011 at 07:21 PM
Statistics, good Mayor, often lead to deductive reasoning. Please tell the people why we need cameras over longer yellow lights. Please speak to us about our civil rights. What ARE you protecting.. EXACTLY with your position? http://banthecams.org/Red-Light-Camera-News/example-of-a-rlc-fraud-analysis-loma-linda-yellow-lights-were-illegally-short.html LA does away with the red light cams because of increased accidents and no additional revenue < this is the scam. That is why the people need to DEMAND an investigation of the company to see if any board members, former board members (or cops) had/have a financial interest. http://laist.com/2011/09/15/can_longer_yellow_lights_make_inter.php
D November 04, 2011 at 02:45 AM
I am always frustrated with slow motion / clueless drivers. Cameras may help in cajoling these types as well as the cell phone morons to DRIVE and leave the rest to another part of their day.
Rob November 04, 2011 at 03:03 AM
D - If you want to see slow motion head down Clinton Keith toward Nutmeg. Anyone who knows how short the light is, always slows down. Better yet, just puill over and watch the brake jamming that goes on when the light goes yellow. Cameras will not protect you from idiots. For that we need to improve the educational system. Hard to do today. The end product well represents the instructors/unions.
Rob June 03, 2012 at 01:08 AM
LA has now ENDED their red light program. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/03/los-angeles-red-light-camera-program-to-end-.html


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something