A committee of the California General Assembly last month began consideration of legislation that would make minor changes in the way red light cameras are used in the state. State Senator Joe Simitian (D-Palo Alto) introduced a bill that he believes will increase the fairness in the administration of automated citations. Simitian is a supporter of photo ticketing who nevertheless believes the existing system suffers from significant flaws.
“[The cameras] raise issues of accuracy, privacy and due process,” Simitian said in a statement. “I’m strongly of the view that traffic tickets should only be issued to improve public safety, not to raise revenue.”
Simitian’s measure requires signs posted at each individual photo enforcement locations in addition to a city’s main entrances. Current law gives cities a choice of entrance point or individual location signs. Simitian would also require that cities come up with a “safety” justification, posted on the Internet,for each location where red light cameras are installed. The only significant change to existing practice, however, is a provision of Simitian’s proposal that puts teeth into the existing law that sets out requirements for cities to follow in their ticketing programs but fails to include any enforcement mechanism.
“Any citation issued by a governmental agency is null and void if it violates or engages in a contract that violates any of the activities described,” Senate Bill 1362 states.
The prohibited conduct under Simitian’s measure includes: Failure to create uniform operational guidelines; failure to post “safety” criteria for intersection selection; failure to post warning signs; failure to establish proper signal timing; and failure to have law enforcement review each citation.
Simitian said that his idea for the legislation came from a constituent, Vera Gil, who faced significant problems in trying to clear her name after a private firm mailed her a red light camera ticket for an offense she did not commit.
“I was frustrated,” Gil said in a statement. “Their license plate is one letter different than mine. It’s a mistake I expect to happen, but it took weeks and weeks to clear up. There was no information on who to talk to if you believed the ticket had been assigned to the wrong car. I think that the cameras are helpful, but it can be a real thorn in the side of the person who receives it accidentally.”
While Simitian offered sympathy for victims like Gil, his legislation offers no new procedural protection.
A copy of the bill is available in a 150k PDF file at the source link below.
Source: 
Senate Bill 1362 (California General Assembly, 4/6/2010)
[Courtesy: thenewspaper.com]
So basically with a couple of strategically placed, background matching pieces of tape, one can alter a letter on a license plate and avoid an automated ticket?
Sorry to nitpick, but this bill was introduced in the California State Senate. A California General Assembly doesn’t exist, though the State Assembly is the other side of the Legislature.
They haven’t really looked at the bill yet, though it is referred to the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. The committee analysis will appear here, sometime before May 7:
http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=sb_1362&sess=CUR&house=B&author=simitian
As of now, you can only see the language (3/23 version).
Comrade Gil, it is occasionally necessary that you take one in the shorts for the organic health of the State.
This is an attitude emblematic of the much larger problems than this small one that we face with overreaching government.
Bob – some states have state assemblies, some have general assemblies. Why not use the generic term for them – confederacies of dunces? Or maybe that should be RICO conspiracies?
The guys said it all: the purpose of enforcement is not to generate revenue. Hence all robotic ticketing machines should be banned everywhere.
I’m surprised that scameras have not been banned by the initiative in CA.