Part of the Bay Area News Group

More Union City news: McAllister named new deputy police chief

By Chris DeBenedetti
Tuesday, August 27th, 2013 at 5:13 pm in Uncategorized.

A news release from Union City this afternoon:

The City of Union City has named Darryl McAllister as the new Deputy Police Chief, effectiveSeptember 6.  He will be introduced at the City Council meeting on September 10.

In his new role, McAllister will work closely with Chief Brian Foley, who was appointed in 2012. This newly created position will help relieve Command staff of several administrative tasks and move forward with various planning initiatives and new projects. McAllister will also assume the duties of Acting Police Chief in the Chief’s absence.

McAllister is currently a Captain for the Hayward Police Department.  He has served that department for over 30 years, having started his career as a police cadet.  Darryl is known as a very qualified and experienced police professional who is active in the community and dedicated to the concept and practice of community policing.

According to Chief Foley, “Darryl possesses the skills, knowledge and personality necessary to be very successful in this new position.  He is community oriented, approachable and well respected by his colleagues. The positive relationships he has built with other agencies in our region will prove beneficial as the Union City Police Department works to meet the challenges facing law enforcement today and into the future.”

McAllister holds a Masters of Arts degree in Law Enforcement Administrative Development from Alliant International University (Center for Forensic Studies) and a Bachelors of Science in Occupational Studies from California State University, Long Beach.

[You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.]

  • Sonya

    Poor Hayward.

  • Vinnie Bacon

    It’s been a while since I’ve done a blog post on my campaign website. Maybe this will generate a little conversation on a new topic. :)

    http://www.bacon4fremont.com/blog/?p=291

    My biggest concern in thinking about this issue is that we cannot put revenue concerns over safety concerns. While some have claimed that red light cameras are implemented to create revenue at the expense of safety, I don’t believe that is the case. I believe that red light cameras provide a cost effective way to enforce traffic laws related to red light violations.

    The concerns I’ve heard about red light cameras and my thoughts on these are below.

    Adding time to the yellow phase – One idea I’ve heard is that we could improve safety by adding 0.7 seconds to the yellow phase. I found out from City staff that we employ a one (1.0) second all-red phase at intersections where we have red light cameras instead. This seems to be an even more effective safety measure than extending the yellow time. Our yellow times are in conformance with industry standards (MUTCD). The all-red time is in addition to these standards.

    Decreasing the amount of the fine – Another complaint I’ve heard is that the fine is too steep. It is indeed a very large fine, nearly $500 which is hard on most people. However, the amount of the fine is set at the state level. The City is not at liberty to set the amount of the fine.

    The cameras are a cash cow for the City – The City does make approximately $250,000 a year on the cameras. This is after the cost of paying for the cameras and accounting for staff time involved in reviewing the data provided by the cameras. Officers review all of the evidence before sending out any tickets. While this is a net plus for the City, it is a very small percentage of the City’s budget. The positive revenue we are getting for this is not the main incentive for the program. I would likely be in favor of continuing the program if the revenue dropped to zero or even if it went slightly negative.

    The cameras invade one’s privacy – I don’t believe this is an issue. If you are driving at an intersection the public at large can see you and there is no expectation of privacy. If the information about where you were is somehow used against you (i.e. you told your spouse you were someplace else), that’s not the City’s problem.

    In short, we need to enforce red light laws as a matter of general safety. The cameras provide a cost-effective and objective method for enforcing these laws. Having a police officer manually enforce these will pull them away from other tasks. It is also dangerous as the officer often has to run a red light themselves in order to catch the offender. The Fremont Police Department likes the cameras because they are such an effective enforcement tool.

    Several years ago I got a red light ticket via a camera. The objective evidence captured by the camera made it very clear that I ran the light. That was a few years ago and now there is video evidence making it even more convincing. The good news is that the experience has changed my behavior for the better and I haven’t gotten another ticket since then. The data from the police confirm that my experience is typical of most drivers.

    I’ve learned that if you simply don’t try to “go for it” in those iffy situations, you will not get a ticket.

  • bbox231

    It’s a great topic. Thanks for throwing this on the table.

    I’ll pick my points on this Vinnie but the argument for a singular “standard” yellow time ignores the variability of traffic flow and intersection layout. The notion that there is a single yellow duration that is acceptable for all intersection flies in the face of some pretty basic traffic fundamentals.

    Curiously, when originally asked about Fremont’s ability to extend yellow times, our traffic engineer responded that it “wasn’t possible” – - which has now been moderated to “we comply with mandated minimums”.

    Any traffic engineer worth his or her salary will tell you that proper intersection yellow light duration(s) are a result of average travel speeds (NOT posted speeds) and intersection approach sight lines – unless your aim is to set them as low as legally defensible.

    IN practice, when all factors are considered, a given intersection may require a longer yellow duration than another, simply based on traffic speeds and driver sight lines.

    Managing the “dilemma zone” should be the aim – not, meeting some arbitrary and broadly generalized minimum standard.

    Best approachable and single-source of information in one place I’ve found is here –

    http://www.highwayrobbery.net/TickRedCamArmeysfinalreport.pdf

    P.s. – don’t let the URL fool you – this report was delivered by the House Majority Leader to the House in May 2001.

    Maybe let’s tackle that Residential false alarm response policy next (?)

  • bbox231

    “The data from the police confirm that my experience is typical of most drivers.”

    The data from independent sources is, increasingly, supportive of the notion that red light cameras do not increase the safety of a given intersection, and in some instances, has actually been reported to increase the rate of rear-end collisions. But – in your argument – you choose to ignore this data. Why? What persuades you to embrace the data from those who have an economic incentive in this matter?

    This body of INDEPENDANT evidence is also now being supported by those few municipalities – AND THEIR POLICING UNITS – which are choosing to closely scrutinize the effectiveness of these systems. Why would you imagine that our experience is seemingly different from that of others?

    I find it interesting that in the instance of red light cameras, we argue that enforcement and response is an important determinant in deterrence, while simultaneously we argue that lack of response (in the case of home alarms) is NOT an encouragement to illegal behavior. . . . I’d feel better about the argument if our policies were, at least, consistent in their rationalizations.

  • Bill Spicer

    Vinnie Bacon, I most strongly disagree with you on the Red Light Camera’s.

    Study after Study proves you wrong.

    I am afraid you are now acting like a typical politician and that is not a good thing…

  • bbox231

    The 1-second all red is an interesting variation on a theme, Vinnie. I don’t agree that this response achieves any where near the same result as extending yellow-light timing – for starters, playing with red light timing does nothing to address the driver dilemma zone issue. Which – BTW – is great – if your aim is to play “gotcha” with drivers.

    But let’s put that aside for the moment m- let’s say I agree that 1-second all red achieves a result similar to extended yellow.

    You make the point that the reason you feel we need to maintain these systems comes down to continued enforcement and deterrence. But this position is in complete conflict with our position on the residential alarm issue – where LACK OF ENFORCEMENT is argued to not have any effect on the safety of our community!

    Either enforcement affects criminal behavior or it doesn’t.

    Which way is it?

  • Vinnie Bacon

    BBox,

    I will admit that the timing of the yellow phase is something that I struggled with. You are correct that careful consideration should be give to the observed speed as well as the posted speed. I trust that our traffic engineering team has done the necessary work to determine the correct yellow times.

    I was originally leaning towards recommending that the yellow times be increased. The problem with this is that we’re simply allowing people to make ‘looser’ decisions in the dilemma zone. Deciding to ‘go for it’ when you could have stopped is definitely unsafe behavior that should be discouraged. I believe the 1.0 second all-red phase is better from a safety viewpoint than increasing yellow times.

    I know that when I got caught for my ticket I did make the decision to push it when I could have easily stopped. I don’t think the yellow time being too short was the reason I got ticketed.

    As for the alarm issue, I discussed this on my campaign website a while ago. I don’t think my opinion on this matter is in conflict with what I said about that issue.

    Bill,

    I’m sorry that you feel this way. I don’t know why you think this is being like a ‘typical politician’. I did study the issue and decided that we need to enforce red lights, and that the cameras are an objective, cost-effective method of doing so.

    I would ask what you think the alternative is. If we did away the program then what? Do we take officers away from other tasks to enforce this? Do we simply not enforce the intersections the way the cameras now do?

  • Bill Spicer

    Vinnie, I believe it is a money issue, Red Light Camera’s have little to do with safety as a matter of fact I have seen rear enders because of the red Light Camera’s there is no way of justifying this on a safety issue, it is a revenue generator a hidden tax.
    I am so disappointed that you chose to endorse this Red Light Issue.

  • bbox231

    What I’m finding odd in this is that you’re willing to – in part – rest on the laurels of your personal experiences as evidence of what works and what doesn’t.

    Not the best of scientific methodologies for decision making is it?

    Further – your one-off personal experiences seem to be in conflict with and subordinate a fair amount of work and data by such reputable and independent sources as the FHTSA.

    http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersection/redlight/cameras/rlr_report/chap3.cfm

    While I don’t agree with the methodologies you’ve described thus far for arriving at your conclusion, I have infinite respect for your willingness to engage this topic in this venue in such a constructive way. Thank you.

  • Bill Spicer

    Here is a email Roger sent Chris D.
    Chris.

    Here is the letter I sent to Fremont Council on Apr. 26. Only Raj Salwan acknowledged to me that he had received it. He said he was going to set up a meeting with City Mgr. to discuss these issues (lip service? or ?).

    Trust me, there is virtually no oversight on the program. Why was I the one to point out 4 months after the fact that red light violations at Mission and Mohave were now only 1/2 as many. The reason was that Caltrans lengthened that yellow light from 4.3 seconds to 5.0 seconds. Even the Fremont RLC cop continued to testify in court cases that the yellow light time was 4.3 seconds. (he also usually mentions that he inspects the timings periodically). Pretty embarrassing, huh?

    In the real world, those managing a program costing over $700K per year (including dept overhead) would say “My god! we can reduce red light running by levels never before achieved through massive ticketing by just adding a little time to yellows!
    And just think….we can do this at the other 190 intersections in town for virtually NO MONEY. Thank you! Mr. Jones!

    I was not holding my breath.

    Of course, I relayed this information to Police, Engineering, and the Council. Totally ignored.

    Jim Pierson, Manager of Public Works, even said extending yellow lights might even increase rear end collisions. Chris, I read my “google alerts” feeds on red light cameras daily and for years. I have never heard mention of that before….EVER. These guys just make stuff up.

    If you really write about Fremont’s program, lack of transparency, yellow lights, rear-enders, the courts and such…I would be happy to be “deep background.” I have many contacts who can tell of their tale of woe. I see the possibility of a series. Such a series would be picked up by print and TV media around the country, not to mention the blogosphere.

    Not only do I have a long list of rank-and-file “offenders” I have a list of experts and traffic attys who could provide quotes.

  • Bill Spicer

    Vinnie,
    What the hell did we do before the red light camera’s.
    There is NO evidence that this is a safety issue….

  • Marty

    I was the disgruntled recipient of one of these. There was no contest from me. Like Vinnie, I pushed it a bit to make the yellow. But, what I later found is the one of the shortest yellows in the Bay Area (4.0 seconds). 1/10th of a second and I probably would have been in the clear — i.e, any other intersection and I would likely not have been cited.

    Regardless, the citation was in my opinion teetering on fair. The fine was not, especially considering how this particular light is essentially rigged. ($600 including traffic school and court fees).

    Paying the fine was somewhat a burden. But when I registered for traffic school and found the private entity (the school) charges $15 while the public entity (the court) charges $50 for allowing me the “luxury” of taking traffic school, I felt insulted and taken advantage of by our government. So I decided to take action to recover some of this money.

    1. I cancelled a furniture purchase from a local retailer and purchased the $2,000+ set for a lower price and tax free online. Saved about $300. I understand this should have been claimed on my return, but that yellow light should have been 4.5 seconds long.

    2. Ditto on my new Macbook

    3. I have shopped exclusively at the Hayward Costco ever since, depriving Fremont their cut of about $600 in sales tax so far. I’ll note the route to this Costco is red light cameras free.

    4. Decided to pass on a paid picnic site reservation at Lake Elizabeth as I do every year and instead set up on the lawn for free. The site I rent (for about $350, btw) sat empty during that year’s event.

    5. Contested my property tax the two years following the ticket, saving close to $1000.

    These are all actions I would have not even bothered with had it not been for that $50 court fee.

    You may consider them petty, of frugal. But for those who know money does not grow on trees, there are ways to place the burden of fines back on to the shoulders of the government.

    PS, I also slam the living sh*t out of my brakes at the first sign of a yellow light.

  • Marty

    #8-9, I think most of us understand that extending yellow phases only cuts into fines and not safety. I would like to see more on RL camera impact on rear end collisions. So far people seem to apply the same conjecture and gut feelings Vinnie is basing his position on.

    Time will tell, but I would not invest in Redflex.

  • bbox231

    RedFlex Holdings (RFLXY) market cap has fallen from a high of $2.2B in Mar 2011 to their present $1.0B. This rather epic loss of valuation far exceeds anything that’s occurred for the larger NASDAQ, DJI or S&P. From the perspective of investment opportunities, a lot of folks would appear to agree with Marty’s assessment.

    Re data –

    Both Hayward and San Carlos sited RISING accident rates at cam-controlled intersections as reasons for not renewing their contract(s). I speculate that getting to such a conclusion and public statement is very, very difficult after municipalities have spent years defending their respective position. I give Hayward and San Carlos props for publically stating a difficult truth.

    FHWA completed the most tightly controlled study I’m aware of. They found that RLC’s decreased the numbers of right-angle crashes but increased the numbers of rear-end crashes. They concluded a modest cost/benefit by the introduction of RLC’s but not so much a result of improved safety, rather, there was a cost/benefit which originated from the slightly lower costs associated with rear-end damage, as compared to a slightly higher-cost of right-angle crashes.

    http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/research/safety/05049/

  • Marty

    Box, That summary is informative. Reflex better update their presentation to Vinnie next go around.

  • http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/ Roger Jones

    I would like to respond to Councilman Vinnie Bacon’s comments about Red Light Cameras. His comments are based more on his beliefs rather than on actual evidence. Mine are just the opposite. It is hard to argue against one’s beliefs. However, we hope to have city government be based on reality and not beliefs.

    While it is not a main source of revenue for the city and while no claim was made that revenue was the goal, revenue plays a crucial part. The police never would have presented the proposal to Council in 1999 unless projected revenue exceeded projected expenses. Let’s not kid ourselves. Fremont sends Redflex nearly $600,000 each year for the camera equipment and services. Police Dept. overhead to run the program is about another $100,000 per year. If income does not exceed $700K per year, then the shortfall will be paid from the general fund of the city. This is not going to happen, or if it does, either expenses will be reduced perhaps by a modified rate from Redflex or citations will increase through manipulation of the trigger speeds of cameras or more aggressive enforcement.

    There is a built-in incentive to NOT reduce red light running and to NOT reduce violations/citations. And lo and behold, violations are not being reduced. Massive enforcement has not reduced red light running since 2009. Violations have been increasing. If enforcement achieved even a 25% – 30% reduction in citations, it would put the program into the red.

    Extending the length of yellow lights

    Vinnie, along with police and engineering, have stated their beliefs in the past that this strategy will not work or somehow is not the right thing to do. Better to have motorists run a red than a yellow. Any number of assertions are made but they are made based on suppositions and conjectures and not facts nor data. Vinnie says that employing a 1.0 second all-red phase seems to be an even more effective safety measure than extending yellow lights. Where does that information come from? Cities often use the all-red phase whether they have cameras or not. It is used to increase clearance time especially at very broad intersections. An all-red phase is not or should not be used as justification to keep yellow lights at or near the minimums.

    Vinnie goes on to say Fremont’s yellow lights conform to the state standards (MUTCD). This is kind of half true. The standard specifies a range. Fremont can increase the yellow lights beyond the minimum or beyond current timings and still conform to state standards.

    Here is what we do know. Fremont keeps its yellow lights at the photo enforced locations under its control near the minimums. It arbitrarily adds one tenth or two tenths depending on its own system of rounding. It also uses the minimum according to the speed limit and not the actual average speed of traffic or the 85th percentile speed. This “strategy” if one could call it, actually means a majority of drivers in the dilemma zone at some of its intersections are not give adequate time to come to a stop. However, whenever the length of the yellow light has been extended, there are fewer instances of red light running. Each and every time. Here, there, and everywhere. Witness clear evidence of this in Newark, Oakland, Emeryville, San Carlos, San Diego, Loma Linda, and even right here in Fremont.

    Here is what we know and what actually happened and is still happening right here in Fremont. In Nov. 2010 Caltrans increased the yellow light on Mission Blvd at Mohave Dr. from the legal minimum of 4.3 seconds to 5.0 seconds. There was an immediate and huge reduction in red light violations. Violations of the straight through type which camera proponents say are the types which cause the most damage and produce the most serious injuries dropped by 76%. Whenever and wherever this strategy has been employed violations have come down. In rough numbers, there is a 10% reduction in straight-through violations for each tenth of a second added to the yellow light when the yellow was set at or near the legal minimum.

    Now, this has been totally ignored by Police, Engineering, and City Council. A study of red light violations from reports produced by Redflex, itself, show that 59% of all violations occurring in Fremont occur within one-half second of the red phase. If one-half second were added to even the 3 most offensive cameras, no longer would income exceed expenses over all. Red Light Running will be reduced by such great margins that income from all 10 cameras will not compensate for the reductions at just the 3 most offensive cameras. (Offensive cameras are those where the yellow lights are set lower than the minimum according to approach speed of traffic). Why is this not done? Why not reduce red light running by employing this one engineering countermeasure which costs nothing? Because by doing so will severely impact the revenue stream. Remember, Income MUST exceed expenses. Safety will no longer seem such an important goal. Why is it less safe to reduce red light running?

    The whole issue of the length of yellow lights is not just my claim or the claim of some wild anti-camera folks. The Calif. State Dept. of Transportation has appointed a committee to study the formula which is the “industry standard” to see if has flaws and is in need of revision. More and more it is becoming known that the “camera sweepstakes” are predicated on keeping yellow lights short.

    Do Red Light Cameras reduce red light running?

    The answer is NO. Fremont has not seen any reduction in the number of violations in the last 4 years other than at Mission and Mohave. In fact, had it not been for the change at this one intersection in 2010, overall numbers of violations would have been increasing.

    Do Red Light Cameras actually reduce collisions?

    This is the common belief but Fremont has produced no data; it has conducted no specific study to show this. I have the only 4 reports the City has has ever issued and these reports contain over generalized conclusions on cherry-picked data. City staff continually tell us of their beliefs that safety benefits have accrued, but there is no actual evidence of that.

    Mission and Mohave

    The data base managed and maintained by CHP (SWITRS) lists 50 collisions at Mission and Mohave in 10 year period of 2001-2010. In the one year after the change was made to the yellow light there has not been one collision. Not one. This proves nothing other than it is an indication that fewer violations actually may translate into a significant safety benefit. Note that of the 50 collisions, not all actually occurred in the intersection and certainly the causes were for many reasons and not necessarily attributed to red light running. I include this data only as the sort of data from which good analysis could be conducted. The only analysis I have found being conducted is whether enough shekels are received at month’s end to pay Redflex and such.

    The City of Hayward Police Dept conducted its own collision analysis when it was in their 5th year of photo enforcement and found collisions had increased. Rear enders had increased across the board and broadsides, too, had increased at some photo enforced locations. Is there some reason this seems to have no relevance with our city’s staff and elected officials?

    Right on Red violations.

    We do not set the fine. We do not make the law. We just enforce the law. The vehicle code makes no distinction between the fine for an illegal right on red vs. a straight-through violation. It carries the $500 fine which is a mandatory minimum amount. Whenever complaints arise, you hear that these violations are unsafe. Fremont issues 30% of its citations to these right-on-red violators. An actual ticket for “failure to yield” requires a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist put at risk by the violator. The fine is $258. Have there been any of these types of collisions where the Primary Collision Factor has been a violation of right on red (vehicle code no. 21453)? Have there been more collisions or fewer collisions at intersections where only a Yield and not a Stop is required when turning right? There is no interest by the City to find out. Virtually all violations of right-on-red show in the video of the violation no potential danger to anyone. It is a citeable offense but these tickets are not for safety but for revenue. Fremont is using “gamesmanship” to parlay this expensive ticket for some of the most minor violations.

    Cash Cow

    A constant source of revenue. One which keeps on giving. This is a cash cow. This is the red light camera program. It does not reduce red light running. If it did, then after 10 years why has it not decreased these violations significantly enough to put themselves out of business?

    Impact on the Local Economy

    Fremont pulls in nearly $1 million per year from camera tickets and most of that money goes to the camera vendor, Redflex. However, the money pulled from the pockets of the “offenders” in fines, traffic school fees, and increased insurance premiums is around $4 million per year. $4 million per year for no provable benefit. This what Hayward said. Would leaving $4 million in the pockets of consumers to spend in restaurants, movies, local shops help or hurt the local economy? But, this is not our money. It is money from the offenders, the aggressive drivers. The facts are that many of the tickets go to good drivers trapped in the dilemma zone and who, through no fault of their own, were turned into law-breakers. This discussion can be left to another day. The explanation of how good drivers are being scooped up in the net by the thousands in order to catch the few true offenders will take some time. Simply extend the length of yellow lights by even a fraction of a second and the results will be the reduction of red light running. This is the stated purpose of cameras but which is not being achieved.

  • Howard

    Vinnie,

    I want safer streets in Fremont. Longer yellow lights equals safer streets. Longer yellow lights cuts down on red light running. Less red light running gives us safer streets. The solution is so simple, yet our leaders seem so resistant. What rea$on$ could there be?

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=352411048221423&set=pb.117940085001855.-2207520000.1377800607.&type=3&theater

    https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=352410461554815&set=pb.117940085001855.-2207520000.1377800740.&type=3&theater

  • Howard

    The real people who bring serious risk of injury are those who fly through the intersections when the light has turned red many seconds ago. Those are the people who cause accidents.

    Red light cameras do nothing to stop those people. Yet we cast a huge net and fine our neighbors who are 0.1 second late the same amount as these gross violators.

    Data shows that when you lengthen the yellow, fewer people run the red. And there is no rebound effect where people take more risks to go through on the yellow.

    Longer Yellows = Less Red Light Running

    Less Red Light Running = Safer Streets

    Longer Yellows = Safer Streets!

  • bbox231

    Another thought – it seems like the economic value proposition on this is virtually identical to that of the stadium and which has been presented in this venue as a reason to OPPOSE such a facility.

    Just like the stadium, to the point that Marty makes, this mechanism sucks money from locals as well as individuals traveling thru our community. Eventually it returns a small fraction of those proceeds to a very few. The vast majority of the generated revenue goes into the pockets of outsiders who dont spend it locally.

    If this is deja vu, congratulations – you’ve been paying attention. But, you’ll also recognize that this is the very argument that has been presented herein so many times as a good reason to OPPOSE such a development.

    Millions of miles of roadways and stop signs and accompanying traffic rules. Virtually all of which are unpatrolled at any given instant in time. But – somehow – we’re deciding that it is of ultimate importance that we control THIS particular intersection.

    Like its pro-stadium counterpart, this one doesn’t pass any test of reason IMHO. Interestingly, the proponents of RLC’s also present precious little in the way of *independent* data and also draw on personalized observations and anecdote to rationalize a position.

    For now, I think I’m continuing to conclude that it is clearly about the money and nothing I’ve read in this dialogue has convinced me otherwise.

    I can’t help but wonder if Vinnie isn’t taking one for the team on this one. At the end of the day, politics is about give and take . . .

  • Marty

    I think that analogy is a stretch.

    Re Vinnie – The incumbent council members who were part of the push to bring these to Fremont will probably never own up to their mistake, and the cameras will probably not be removed until there is at least one more replacement member. But in the short term, I do see Vinnie coming around on this one. He has nothing to lose by being right.

    I sure hope I didn’t crash this thread. Vin was all over this. Maybe he’s busy contacting the IRS about my used futon and “new to me” clam shell macbook purchase I made off of Craigslist ;)

  • http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/ Roger Jones

     
    I would like to respond to Councilman Vinnie Bacon’s comments about Red Light Cameras. His comments are based more on his beliefs rather than on actual evidence. Mine are just the opposite. It is hard to argue against one’s beliefs. However, we hope to have city government be based on reality and not beliefs.

    While it is not a main source of revenue for the city and while no claim was made that revenue was the goal, revenue plays a crucial part. The police never would have presented the proposal to Council in 1999 unless projected revenue exceeded projected expenses. Let’s not kid ourselves. Fremont sends Redflex nearly $600,000 each year for the camera equipment and services. Police Dept. overhead to run the program is about another $100,000 per year. If income does not exceed $700K per year, then the shortfall will be paid from the general fund of the city. This is not going to happen, or if it does, either expenses will be reduced perhaps by a modified rate from Redflex or citations will increase through manipulation of the trigger speeds of cameras or more aggressive enforcement.

    There is a built-in incentive to NOT reduce red light running and to NOT reduce violations/citations. And lo and behold, violations are not being reduced. Massive enforcement has not reduced red light running since 2009. Violations have been increasing. If enforcement achieved even a 25% – 30% reduction in citations, it would put the program into the red.

    Extending the length of yellow lights

    Vinnie, along with police and engineering, have stated their beliefs in the past that this strategy will not work or somehow is not the right thing to do. Better to have motorists run a red than a yellow. Any number of assertions are made but they are made based on suppositions and conjectures and not facts nor data. Vinnie says that employing a 1.0 second all-red phase seems to be an even more effective safety measure than extending yellow lights. Where does that information come from? Cities often use the all-red phase whether they have cameras or not. It is used to increase clearance time especially at very broad intersections. An all-red phase is not or should not be used as justification to keep yellow lights at or near the minimums.

    Vinnie goes on to say Fremont’s yellow lights conform to the state standards (MUTCD). This is kind of half true. The standard specifies a range. Fremont can increase the yellow lights beyond the minimum or beyond current timings and still conform to state standards.

    Here is what we do know. Fremont keeps its yellow lights at the photo enforced locations under its control near the minimums. It arbitrarily adds one tenth or two tenths depending on its own system of rounding. It also uses the minimum according to the speed limit and not the actual average speed of traffic or the 85th percentile speed. This “strategy” if one could call it, actually means a majority of drivers in the dilemma zone at some of its intersections are not give adequate time to come to a stop. However, whenever the length of the yellow light has been extended, there are fewer instances of red light running. Each and every time. Here, there, and everywhere. Witness clear evidence of this in Newark, Oakland, Emeryville, San Carlos, San Diego, Loma Linda, and even right here in Fremont.

    Here is what we know and what actually happened and is still happening right here in Fremont. In Nov. 2010 Caltrans increased the yellow light on Mission Blvd at Mohave Dr. from the legal minimum of 4.3 seconds to 5.0 seconds. There was an immediate and huge reduction in red light violations. Violations of the straight through type which camera proponents say are the types which cause the most damage and produce the most serious injuries dropped by 76%. Whenever and wherever this strategy has been employed violations have come down. In rough numbers, there is a 10% reduction in straight-through violations for each tenth of a second added to the yellow light when the yellow was set at or near the legal minimum.

    Now, this has been totally ignored by Police, Engineering, and City Council. A study of red light violations from reports produced by Redflex, itself, show that 59% of all violations occurring in Fremont occur within one-half second of the red phase. If one-half second were added to even the 3 most offensive cameras, no longer would income exceed expenses over all. Red Light Running will be reduced by such great margins that income from all 10 cameras will not compensate for the reductions at just the 3 most offensive cameras. (Offensive cameras are those where the yellow lights are set lower than the minimum according to approach speed of traffic). Why is this not done? Why not reduce red light running by employing this one engineering countermeasure which costs nothing? Because by doing so will severely impact the revenue stream. Remember, Income MUST exceed expenses. Safety will no longer seem such an important goal. Why is it less safe to reduce red light running?

    The whole issue of the length of yellow lights is not just my claim or the claim of some wild anti-camera folks. The Calif. State Dept. of Transportation has appointed a committee to study the formula which is the “industry standard” to see if has flaws and is in need of revision. More and more it is becoming known that the “camera sweepstakes” are predicated on keeping yellow lights short.

    Do Red Light Cameras reduce red light running?

    The answer is NO. Fremont has not seen any reduction in the number of violations in the last 4 years other than at Mission and Mohave. In fact, had it not been for the change at this one intersection in 2010, overall numbers of violations would have been increasing.

    Do Red Light Cameras actually reduce collisions?

    This is the common belief but Fremont has produced no data; it has conducted no specific study to show this. I have the only 4 reports the City has has ever issued and these reports contain over generalized conclusions on cherry-picked data. City staff continually tell us of their beliefs that safety benefits have accrued, but there is no actual evidence of that.

    Mission and Mohave

    The data base managed and maintained by CHP (SWITRS) lists 50 collisions at Mission and Mohave in 10 year period of 2001-2010. In the one year after the change was made to the yellow light there has not been one collision. Not one. This proves nothing other than it is an indication that fewer violations actually may translate into a significant safety benefit. Note that of the 50 collisions, not all actually occurred in the intersection and certainly the causes were for many reasons and not necessarily attributed to red light running. I include this data only as the sort of data from which good analysis could be conducted. The only analysis I have found being conducted is whether enough shekels are received at month’s end to pay Redflex and such.

    The City of Hayward Police Dept conducted its own collision analysis when it was in their 5th year of photo enforcement and found collisions had increased. Rear enders had increased across the board and broadsides, too, had increased at some photo enforced locations. Is there some reason this seems to have no relevance with our city’s staff and elected officials?

    Right on Red violations.

    We do not set the fine. We do not make the law. We just enforce the law. The vehicle code makes no distinction between the fine for an illegal right on red vs. a straight-through violation. It carries the $500 fine which is a mandatory minimum amount. Whenever complaints arise, you hear that these violations are unsafe. Fremont issues 30% of its citations to these right-on-red violators. An actual ticket for “failure to yield” requires a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist put at risk by the violator. The fine is $258. Have there been any of these types of collisions where the Primary Collision Factor has been a violation of right on red (vehicle code no. 21453)? Have there been more collisions or fewer collisions at intersections where only a Yield and not a Stop is required when turning right? There is no interest by the City to find out. Virtually all violations of right-on-red show in the video of the violation no potential danger to anyone. It is a citeable offense but these tickets are not for safety but for revenue. Fremont is using “gamesmanship” to parlay this expensive ticket for some of the most minor violations.

    Cash Cow

    A constant source of revenue. One which keeps on giving. This is a cash cow. This is the red light camera program. It does not reduce red light running. If it did, then after 10 years why has it not decreased these violations significantly enough to put themselves out of business?

    Impact on the Local Economy

    Fremont pulls in nearly $1 million per year from camera tickets and most of that money goes to the camera vendor, Redflex. However, the money pulled from the pockets of the “offenders” in fines, traffic school fees, and increased insurance premiums is around $4 million per year. $4 million per year for no provable benefit. This what Hayward said. Would leaving $4 million in the pockets of consumers to spend in restaurants, movies, local shops help or hurt the local economy? But, this is not our money. It is money from the offenders, the aggressive drivers. The facts are that many of the tickets go to good drivers trapped in the dilemma zone and who, through no fault of their own, were turned into law-breakers. This discussion can be left to another day. The explanation of how good drivers are being scooped up in the net by the thousands in order to catch the few true offenders will take some time. Simply extend the length of yellow lights by even a fraction of a second and the results will be the reduction of red light running. This is the stated purpose of cameras but which is not being achieved.

  • http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/ Roger Jones

    Response Part 1

    I would like to respond to Councilman Vinnie Bacon’s comments about Red Light Cameras. His comments are based more on his beliefs rather than on actual evidence. Mine are just the opposite. It is hard to argue against one’s beliefs. However, we hope to have city government be based on reality and not beliefs.

    While it is not a main source of revenue for the city and while no claim was made that revenue was the goal, revenue plays a crucial part. The police never would have presented the proposal to Council in 1999 unless projected revenue exceeded projected expenses. Let’s not kid ourselves. Fremont sends Redflex nearly $600,000 each year for the camera equipment and services. Police Dept. overhead to run the program is about another $100,000 per year. If income does not exceed $700K per year, then the shortfall will be paid from the general fund of the city. This is not going to happen, or if it does, either expenses will be reduced perhaps by a modified rate from Redflex or citations will increase through manipulation of the trigger speeds of cameras or more aggressive enforcement.

    There is a built-in incentive to NOT reduce red light running and to NOT reduce violations/citations. And lo and behold, violations are not being reduced. Massive enforcement has not reduced red light running since 2009. Violations have been increasing. If enforcement achieved even a 25% – 30% reduction in citations, it would put the program into the red.

  • http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/ Roger Jones

    Response Part 2
    Extending the length of yellow lights

    Vinnie, along with police and engineering, have stated their beliefs in the past that this strategy will not work or somehow is not the right thing to do. Better to have motorists run a red than a yellow. Any number of assertions are made but they are made based on suppositions and conjectures and not facts nor data. Vinnie says that employing a 1.0 second all-red phase seems to be an even more effective safety measure than extending yellow lights. Where does that information come from? Cities often use the all-red phase whether they have cameras or not. It is used to increase clearance time especially at very broad intersections. An all-red phase is not or should not be used as justification to keep yellow lights at or near the minimums.

    Vinnie goes on to say Fremont’s yellow lights conform to the state standards (MUTCD). This is kind of half true. The standard specifies a range. Fremont can increase the yellow lights beyond the minimum or beyond current timings and still conform to state standards.

    Here is what we do know. Fremont keeps its yellow lights at the photo enforced locations under its control near the minimums. It arbitrarily adds one tenth or two tenths depending on its own system of rounding. It also uses the minimum according to the speed limit and not the actual average speed of traffic or the 85th percentile speed. This “strategy” if one could call it, actually means a majority of drivers in the dilemma zone at some of its intersections are not give adequate time to come to a stop. However, whenever the length of the yellow light has been extended, there are fewer instances of red light running. Each and every time. Here, there, and everywhere. Witness clear evidence of this in Newark, Oakland, Emeryville, San Carlos, San Diego, Loma Linda, and even right here in Fremont.

    Here is what we know and what actually happened and is still happening right here in Fremont. In Nov. 2010 Caltrans increased the yellow light on Mission Blvd at Mohave Dr. from the legal minimum of 4.3 seconds to 5.0 seconds. There was an immediate and huge reduction in red light violations. Violations of the straight through type which camera proponents say are the types which cause the most damage and produce the most serious injuries dropped by 76%. Whenever and wherever this strategy has been employed violations have come down. In rough numbers, there is a 10% reduction in straight-through violations for each tenth of a second added to the yellow light when the yellow was set at or near the legal minimum.

    Now, this has been totally ignored by Police, Engineering, and City Council. A study of red light violations from reports produced by Redflex, itself, show that 59% of all violations occurring in Fremont occur within one-half second of the red phase. If one-half second were added to even the 3 most offensive cameras, no longer would income exceed expenses over all. Red Light Running will be reduced by such great margins that income from all 10 cameras will not compensate for the reductions at just the 3 most offensive cameras. (Offensive cameras are those where the yellow lights are set lower than the minimum according to approach speed of traffic). Why is this not done? Why not reduce red light running by employing this one engineering countermeasure which costs nothing? Because by doing so will severely impact the revenue stream. Remember, Income MUST exceed expenses. Safety will no longer seem such an important goal. Why is it less safe to reduce red light running?

    The whole issue of the length of yellow lights is not just my claim or the claim of some wild anti-camera folks. The Calif. State Dept. of Transportation has appointed a committee to study the formula which is the “industry standard” to see if has flaws and is in need of revision. More and more it is becoming known that the “camera sweepstakes” are predicated on keeping yellow lights short.

  • http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/ Roger Jones

    Response Part 3
    Do Red Light Cameras reduce red light running?

    The answer is NO. Fremont has not seen any reduction in the number of violations in the last 4 years other than at Mission and Mohave. In fact, had it not been for the change at this one intersection in 2010, overall numbers of violations would have been increasing.

    Do Red Light Cameras actually reduce collisions?

    This is the common belief but Fremont has produced no data; it has conducted no specific study to show this. I have the only 4 reports the City has has ever issued and these reports contain over generalized conclusions on cherry-picked data. City staff continually tell us of their beliefs that safety benefits have accrued, but there is no actual evidence of that.

    Mission and Mohave

    The data base managed and maintained by CHP (SWITRS) lists 50 collisions at Mission and Mohave in 10 year period of 2001-2010. In the one year after the change was made to the yellow light there has not been one collision. Not one. This proves nothing other than it is an indication that fewer violations actually may translate into a significant safety benefit. Note that of the 50 collisions, not all actually occurred in the intersection and certainly the causes were for many reasons and not necessarily attributed to red light running. I include this data only as the sort of data from which good analysis could be conducted. The only analysis I have found being conducted is whether enough shekels are received at month’s end to pay Redflex and such.

    The City of Hayward Police Dept conducted its own collision analysis when it was in their 5th year of photo enforcement and found collisions had increased. Rear enders had increased across the board and broadsides, too, had increased at some photo enforced locations. Is there some reason this seems to have no relevance with our city’s staff and elected officials?

  • http://www.meetup.com/Red-Light-Camera-Protest-Group-of-Southern-Alameda-County/ Roger Jones

    Response Part 4
    Right on Red violations.

    We do not set the fine. We do not make the law. We just enforce the law. The vehicle code makes no distinction between the fine for an illegal right on red vs. a straight-through violation. It carries the $500 fine which is a mandatory minimum amount. Whenever complaints arise, you hear that these violations are unsafe. Fremont issues 30% of its citations to these right-on-red violators. An actual ticket for “failure to yield” requires a pedestrian, bicyclist, or motorist put at risk by the violator. The fine is $258. Have there been any of these types of collisions where the Primary Collision Factor has been a violation of right on red (vehicle code no. 21453)? Have there been more collisions or fewer collisions at intersections where only a Yield and not a Stop is required when turning right? There is no interest by the City to find out. Virtually all violations of right-on-red show in the video of the violation no potential danger to anyone. It is a citeable offense but these tickets are not for safety but for revenue. Fremont is using “gamesmanship” to parlay this expensive ticket for some of the most minor violations.

    Cash Cow

    A constant source of revenue. One which keeps on giving. This is a cash cow. This is the red light camera program. It does not reduce red light running. If it did, then after 10 years why has it not decreased these violations significantly enough to put themselves out of business?

    Impact on the Local Economy

    Fremont pulls in nearly $1 million per year from camera tickets and most of that money goes to the camera vendor, Redflex. However, the money pulled from the pockets of the “offenders” in fines, traffic school fees, and increased insurance premiums is around $4 million per year. $4 million per year for no provable benefit. This what Hayward said. Would leaving $4 million in the pockets of consumers to spend in restaurants, movies, local shops help or hurt the local economy? But, this is not our money. It is money from the offenders, the aggressive drivers. The facts are that many of the tickets go to good drivers trapped in the dilemma zone and who, through no fault of their own, were turned into law-breakers. This discussion can be left to another day. The explanation of how good drivers are being scooped up in the net by the thousands in order to catch the few true offenders will take some time. Simply extend the length of yellow lights by even a fraction of a second and the results will be the reduction of red light running. This is the stated purpose of cameras but which is not being achieved.

  • http://www.highwayrobbery.net Henry

    To protect themselves from overzealous cops, motorists need to know about Snitch Tickets, the fake/phishing red light camera tickets sent out by the police to bluff registered owners into ID’ing the actual driver of the car. Over 30 California cities use them, and in some cities the fakes are more than half of everything the city mails out. (In Hayward, that figure was 59%.) Snitch Tickets have not been filed with the court, so they don’t say “Notice to Appear,” don’t have the court’s address and phone # on them, and usually say, on the back (in small letters), “Courtesy Notice – This is not a ticket.” Since they have not been filed with the court, they have zero legal weight. You can, and should, ignore a Snitch Ticket. Skeptical? Google: Snitch Ticket.

  • RJones

    I would like to respond to Councilman Vinnie Bacon’s comments about Red Light Cameras. His comments are based more on his beliefs rather than on actual evidence. Mine are just the opposite. It is hard to argue against one’s beliefs. However, we hope to have city government be based on reality and not beliefs.

    While it is not a main source of revenue for the city and while no claim was made that revenue was the goal, revenue plays a crucial part. The police never would have presented the proposal to Council in 1999 unless projected revenue exceeded projected expenses. Let’s not kid ourselves. Fremont sends Redflex nearly $600,000 each year for the camera equipment and services. Police Dept. overhead to run the program is about another $100,000 per year. If income does not exceed $700K per year, then the shortfall will be paid from the general fund of the city. This is not going to happen, or if it does, either expenses will be reduced perhaps by a modified rate from Redflex or citations will increase through manipulation of the trigger speeds of cameras or more aggressive enforcement.

    There is a built-in incentive to NOT reduce red light running and to NOT reduce violations/citations. And lo and behold, violations are not being reduced. Massive enforcement has not reduced red light running since 2009. Violations have been increasing. If enforcement achieved even a 25% – 30% reduction in citations, it would put the program into the red.

  • Vinnie Bacon

    BBox, the FHWA article you cited shows that while the number of rear end accidents increased, the number of right-angle accidents decreased. The latter of these two is the more dangerous and more costly. The article notes an overall cost savings due to red light cameras.

    Yes, my experience is anecdotal but the City has provided data that show the number of repeat offenders is low. This indicates that my experience is not unique. I would also note that I have to abide by the same rules as everybody else and I’m ok with that.

    For me, it comes down to two questions. First, should cities enforce red light violations? I consider this a no-brainer. It’s also clear to me that the cameras do provide an objective, cost-effective method of enforcement vs. officers manually patrolling the intersections.

    Secondly, should cities make money off of tickets? This is the more controversial question. Cities routinely do take in money from tickets and I don’t think anyone is going to be against this in general. For me, the question is are the violations real violations that deserve to be fined. For example, if a city creates a speed trap by setting an artificially low speed limit that’s obviously not ethical.

    With red lights, the issue is whether the yellow phase is being shortened to deliberately increase revenue. There are standards for signal timing (MUTCD) and the City is following those standards. Some, like Marty, are assuming that Fremont is setting these lower than other cities. I haven’t seen evidence of that.

    I’m open to looking into the yellow times and making sure that we’re setting these correctly. I don’t see the rationale in raising these arbitrarily to let more people get away with ‘pushing it’ which is definitely unsafe behavior.

    Some people, like Marty again, assume that they ran the light by only a little bit, and that a slight change in the yellow timing would have prevented their ticket. Marty also admits that he did ‘push it’ which I’ll take as an admission of wrong doing. Instead of owning up to his error, Marty blames the signal timing and is spitefully making the City pay for his mistake.

  • bbox231

    I think you’re splitting hairs, Vinnie. Take a look at Table 3. Look at the averages for damage costs and now do the math on the standard error for each of the figures shown. While the aggregate results show a difference, given the standard error, it is entirely possible that the stated difference may be completely non-existent.

    If this were the ONLY independent data available, I might meet you on this point. BUT – the experiences of Hayward and San Carlos (and a few other brave cities) seem to suggest that the difference may actually favor the other side of the debate. . . .

    But – one good turn deserves another.

    You make a recurring reference to Fremont experiences and data.
    What information does Fremont have as a result of its RLC experience(s)?
    I’d love to understand those details. Are you at liberty to share these?

    Re should we enforce? That’s one of those questions like “When did you stop beating your wife?” – - – the facts are, that we do not PROACTIVELY enforce the overwhelming majority of our traffic laws. We patrol. Why is THIS one traffic law SO important and why ONLY at these very few intersections?? If it’s important that we enforce – then let’s put RLC’s at ALL intersections. We don’t because the economics don’t work. And, once again, I’m back to the same conclusion – it’s about the money.

    And, once again, I need to express my appreciation for your willingness to engage this topic in this venue!!
    Doing so is risky – - – gutsy – - – - and very tangible evidence of your sincere desire to engage your constituency.
    Bill, Anu, Susie – - – are you listening????????

  • charlie C

    #21
    I’ve been away for a week… Does Bacon *STILL* mean business?

  • RJ

    Bacon’s comments are based more on his beliefs rather than on actual evidence. Mine are just the opposite. It is hard to argue against one’s beliefs. However, we hope to have city government be based on reality and not beliefs.

    While it is not a main source of revenue for the city and while no claim was made that revenue was the goal, revenue plays a crucial part. The police never would have presented the proposal to Council in 1999 unless projected revenue exceeded projected expenses. Let’s not kid ourselves. Fremont sends Redflex nearly $600,000 each year for the camera equipment and services. Police Dept. overhead to run the program is about another $100,000 per year. If income does not exceed $700K per year, then the shortfall will be paid from the general fund of the city. This is not going to happen, or if it does, either expenses will be reduced perhaps by a modified rate from Redflex or citations will increase through manipulation of the trigger speeds of cameras or more aggressive enforcement.

    There is a built-in incentive to NOT reduce red light running and to NOT reduce violations/citations. And lo and behold, violations are not being reduced. Massive enforcement has not reduced red light running since 2009. Violations have been increasing. If enforcement achieved even a 25% – 30% reduction in citations, it would put the program into the red.

  • Dan Ondrasek

    …the lack of redundancy has been refreshing.
    But welcome back.

  • Marty

    Some people, like Marty again, assume that they ran the light by only a little bit, and that a slight change in the yellow timing would have prevented their ticket. Marty also admits that he did ‘push it’ which I’ll take as an admission of wrong doing. Instead of owning up to his error, Marty blames the signal timing and is spitefully making the City pay for his mistake.

    I’d like to respond to this. If Vinnie was to actually absorb the words I wrote instead of manufacturing his own, he’d realize that I thought the citation was fair, but the fine was excessive and the court fee was an insult.

    I ran the math. At 40 mph (I was not speeding excessively) I would have been ~6 feet further into the intersection for every 1/10 second of the yellow phase. From the video, I was precisely at the inner crosswalk line at the second the light turned red. By all accounts and references I seen regarding what triggers a citation, a further 6-12 feet in the intersection and I would be in the clear. A 4.5 second yellow would have put me clear across the intersection.

    Regardless, this is water under the bridge for me. As you can see, I more than compensated for the $600 cost and learned some prudent financial practices in the process and the city and state’s sacrifice. I also learned much about these tickets, the suspect nature of Redflex’s business, the concept of snitch tickets, and how cities willingly games yellow phases for no other reason that revenue accumulation.

    I’m sure there’s people who learn no lesson and just pay the fine. Those are who this city relies on.

  • Roger

    Cash Cow defined: A constant source of revenue. One which keeps on giving. This is a cash cow. This is the red light camera program. It does not reduce red light running. If it did, then after 10 years why has it not decreased these violations significantly enough to put themselves out of business?
    Fremont has issued over 125,000 of these tickets. Conservative estimates are $40 million paid in fines. Holy Cow. Holy Cash Cow.

  • Henry

    A previous post-er said:

    “Cash Cow defined: A constant source of revenue. One which keeps on giving. This is a cash cow. This is the red light camera program. It does not reduce red light running. If it did, then after 10 years why has it not decreased these violations significantly enough to put themselves out of business?
    Fremont has issued over 125,000 of these tickets. Conservative estimates are $40 million paid in fines. Holy Cow. Holy Cash Cow.”

    I couldn’t have said it better, except that I would have mentioned that it applies in Oakland and San Leandro too.

  • bbox231

    “The study, which looked at data from existing research on traffic at intersections in counties and states, notes there’s no consensus yet on whether such cameras actually do increase traffic safety …..”

    http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2013/08/13/211723717/a-dilemma-zone-for-red-light-cameras-safety-vs-cash

  • bbox231

    Here’s an example of the kind of half-baked “data” that is frequently cited when local PD’s are looking to substantiate claims of improved safety – - –

    “According to Menlo Park police, the total number of collisions in monitored areas dropped from 141 to 103 after the cameras went into service.”

    But – of course – safety is a function of the number of accidents for a given volume of traffic. So, the frequency of accidents is only 1/2 the answer.

    Merely to emphasize the point, let’s say that – hypothetically – traffic volumes thru the monitored intersections also decrease by 1/2 during the monitoring period. So – while the rate of accidents dropped in Menlo Park by 27%, a good thing, if the total traffic thru those same intersections fell more than the change in accident rates – then the intersections could very well be less safe after having introduced the RLC’s. The point is – just looking at the volume of traffic accidents isn’t a complete answer.

    That we don’t present cogent data – - – suggests that we either don’t fully understand the problem we are hoping to describe – OR – we don’t want to take the time to properly quantify the total answer – OR – we don’t like the answer that comes from the full set of data. IN any case – it’s suspect.

    http://www.sfexaminer.com/sanfrancisco/menlo-park-renews-red-light-cameras/Content?oid=2563004

  • WarbleFly

    Marty #12. You are the man! I love that! Equalizer! I just hot a tix too. Sigh. $500 is ridiculous!
    I’ve dedicated http://youtu.be/el66jnuItYc to Marty!
    Union City Costco is somehow better than Fremont anyway!

  • Roger

    Hello Bbox231 – You certainly understand the issues at hand regarding photo enforcement. I could use your help in getting Fremont City Council to at least ask for a full hearing on the matter. i.e. where is there any evidence of safety benefits and do any perceived benefits outweigh the damage to our economy and to our perceptions of government and the police.
    email me at rlouisj@aol.com

  • box231

    #39 – If I were independently wealthy, or, could just afford a retirement, I’d love to do more in the community, Roger.

    As it stands, I work 5 days a week and pick up side jobs whenever I can on the weekends to permit me to pay my bills. Because my time is limited, I’d be a lousy activist/partner.

    I appreciate the invite.

  • TestingDisqus

    Test

  • TestingDisqus

    Test2

  • TestingDisqus

    Test 3