Back in 2010, about the time I began studying red-light cameras, I posted a critique of the MRCA’s stop sign camera scam on my other blog, The Freedom Minute , entitled The $100 Stop Sign Scam. (It’s now $175) That post generated more comments than all other posts combined and it’s still going. I posted the following two pictures taken at Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd in Tarzana.
Here’s what I wrote back then: “You can plainly see that the stop sign sits pretty much in the middle of the road. There’s no cross street, no crosswalk, no intersection; no chance that any vehicle or pedestrian will cross your path. In fact, there’s absolutely no reason at all to have a stop sign here. And since there’s no common sense reason to stop, other than if you don’t, you’ll get a $175 ticket; many motorists only slow down rather than come to a complete stop.”
Well apparently the MRCA got tired of taking the heat about the placement of this stop sign and camera, so they now moved it up the hill further into the parking area.
As you can see, it’s still pretty much in the middle of the road, not at any intersection. But in order to try to justify ticketing drivers $175 if they slowly roll past the sign, the MRCA painted a crosswalk there. Of course there’s no valid reason to have a crosswalk at that location, other than the MRCA needing an excuse to generate millions of dollars in revenue from unsuspecting park visitors.
But if you are unconvinced that revenue generation is their only motive, just take a look at this series of pictures.
In the first, you can see that the crosswalk really doesn’t lead to anything on the other side of the road.
And for years, there was no need for a crosswalk in this location. The next two pictures show the area in 2010 and how it appears today in 2012.
In this aerial view, you can see the entire stretch of the roadway before the crosswalk and cameras were put in. The red arrow shows the approximate location of where the crosswalk and cameras were installed.
So for decades, up until the time the MRCA decided they needed an excuse to continue running their stop sign camera scam in the parking area of the Marvin Braude Mulholland Gateway Park at the top of Reseda Blvd., the park visitors managed perfectly fine without a crosswalk there. But now they have one. A crosswalk to nowhere. One that will cost you $175 if you’re unlucky enough to get caught slowing rolling past a stop sign that isn’t justified by any traffic engineering protocol.
By the way, contrary to the self serving comments made by MRCA spokeswoman Dash Stolarz in the recent L.A. Weekly Article, if you do happen to get an MRCA camera ticket in the mail, the readers of my Freedom Minute blog have universally stated that when they ignored the ticket, it was sent to a collection agency, but not reported on their credit report. So essentially, there isn’t any consequence if you toss it in the trash. (I can’t advise you to do that, but that’s what people have been doing, although it’s always possible things could change.)
And just a note to those who have made comments on the L.A. Weekly Article that “you should just stop at the stop sign”. This isn’t about whether or not you should or shouldn’t stop. It’s about a rogue governmental agency acting beyond its legal authority and setting traps for park visitors. (I’ll cover the illegality of the MRCA’s actions in a future post.)
There’s a fundamental principle that this country was founded on, and that is that the government isn’t supposed to entrap you into making a mistake just so it can collect its pound of flesh. We have a right to expect that the government, which wields great power over its citizens, will treat them fairly. Slowly rolling a stop sign that is properly placed (the MRCA stop signs aren’t) is very minor technical violation, akin to going 2 or 3 miles over the speed limit. Yes, it’s technically breaking the law, but society doesn’t expend any energy to go after everyone who does it, partially because it truly is everyone, and it doesn’t make any difference in terms of safety. The mere fact that the MRCA has given out tens of thousands of tickets for this minor transgression, yet there has never been an accident or injury either before or after the cameras were installed, should tell you just how dangerous this really isn’t. Granted we don’t want to encourage people to do it, but we also don’t need the government lying in wait just to catch us stepping out of line. That’s not the kind of society I want to live in, do you?
The type of society I want to live in is one where drivers do not believe they are above the laws while operating a motor vehicle. And one where drivers take responsibility for breaking the laws which they are licensed to uphold. I know it is very easy to claim the basic principles of what our founding father saw for this great land, but reasonably speaking, that is all speculation and, generally, used to support whatever opinion one may have. I believe the government is being fair in this matter – if you roll through this stop sign without actually stopping, you will have to pay a fine. This should not be news to anyone who is licensed anywhere.
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs. Many disagree with you. I think it’s more important that the government act responsibly and not try to trick its citizens. That concerns me more than a someone slowly rolling through an intentionally misplaced stop sign. I see you didn’t address the issue of the myriad of violations we all commit (including you) on a regular basis. I’m pretty sure when you make technical violations of the law you don’t “believe (you) are above the laws”.
And in this case, regardless of the fact you choose to ignore all the evidence presented, I don’t think people should be held accountable for violating the stop sign when it isn’t placed according to the proper engineering protocols. I see you clearly have an agenda just like the person who has been posting on the comment boards of the LA Weekly and like them don’t want to acknowledge the wrongdoing by the MRCA.
The kind of society I would like to live in is one where public officials actually “serve” the public that pays their salary. Rather than stalk, harass, abuse and rob the citizenry, I believe “law enforcement” and government officials should allow the people to determine the laws they wish to be enforced and only those traffic laws that are genuinely necessary for safe vehicular travel should be considered.
The “law” is not as important as the people it serves and should never usurp common sense, as it so often does. Safety, not revenue generation, should be the prime directive with regard to traffic law. Laws are resources for the people and shouldn’t be used as slave masters.
I believe stops signs, such as those in the above photos, should be just as illegal as pilfering funds from the county coffers and the organizers who installed them should be held accountable and removed from office.
Interesting. IMO, what this “stop-sign placement issue” comes down to, in essence, is the age-old (and critically important) issue of whether or not a citizen of a state (or of a State) should feel free to — or should feel that it is imperative to — resist or disobey what he/she considers to be an unjustifiable, illegal, or immoral act promulgated by a governing authority.
To transpose a question from Shakespeare, “To obey or not to obey: THAT is the question.”
IMO, the above article’s author makes a strong case for his view that the placement of that stop-sign — in the middle of a long stretch of road where no stop-sign ought reasonably to be placed — has been chosen purely for the sign’s function as a revenue-generating “trap” — a “trap” which (a) would not only cost drivers who “violate” the sign (even by slowing to a crawl and using their own best judgement as to the safety or risk of then driving on) a $175 fine, but which (b) may also potentially INCREASE the dangers of a traffic accident happening as a possible result of the affected drivers suddenly having to decelerate there to a complete stop.
As I see it, that eventuality can indeed heighten the risk of an accident, either due to the fact the fact that (a) the “stopping” driver, who until this moment had been speeding along (within, hopefully, or even above) the speed-limit, may have to suddenly decelerate, or even skid, to a (hoped-for) complete stop; or (b) the risk of accident, due to the placement of this stop-sign, may also be heightened by the possibility of OTHER cars — which until this moment may have been speeding along (hopefully within, but even above) the speed-limit BEHIND the lead-car — suddenly finding that the car AHEAD of them has unexpectedly braked (or skidded) to a stop OR SWERVED to avoid hitting the car ahead, thus causing any of THESE cars to crash into the lead-car or into each other or EVEN SWERVING INTO ONCOMING TRAFFIC and thus truly causing, potentially, untold disaster.
In other words, could the placement of this stop-sign actually be PROMOTING — RATHER THAN REDUCING — the possibility of not just ONE but of MULTIPLE serious accidents happening at that location?
I wonder: Have there been any “official”, or even “unofficial” but well-researched, studies of these issues, and if so, what do those studies say about these points?
And, too, is this a case that calls for some form of “civil disobedience” (Note: which I am not advocating!) or at least “public outcry” and a push to have the state’s legislators or regulatory agencies outlaw any such (allegedly) unsupportable, unreasonable, even safety-diminishing, placement of stop-signs and other such traffic-regulating devices?
Should, in effect, a “stop-sign” be placed ON THE TRAFFIC-REGULATORY AGENCIES INVOLVED in this matter, such that they will be prohibited from putting into place any traffic regulatory devices or systems UNLESS they can first provide clear and convincing documented research and evidence justifying — to the state legislature AND to the public — that these devices and systems (a) are necessitated by driving-related issues and NOT by a need for ways to generate revenue, and (b) will REDUCE rather than HEIGHTEN the risk of traffic-related accidents resulting from those devices or systems?
Solutions?
PROTONIUS recently posted..OF DRONES, TERRORISM, FREEDOM — AND LAZARUS
PROTONIUS HERE AGAIN with a slight correction to my prior post:
If, in what I wrote in that post, I gave the impression that the article’s author was suggesting that the placement of this stop-sign might INCREASE the likelihood of traffic-accidents at that location, I hasten to clarify that the question of that possibility was MY question and not his.
My apologies for that misstatement.
PROTONIUS recently posted..OF DRONES, TERRORISM, FREEDOM — AND LAZARUS
It’s obvious the primary motivation behind any automated camera-based traffic enforcement system is 100% to make money for the government. Anyone who argues they’re for safety is either uninformed or somehow benefiting from the ticket payments. The stop sign in this example is simply unbelievable. When the government starts to think it can push us around like this, it’s time to say enough is enough. Every American citizen should be outraged to see something like this. It doesn’t matter if it affects you personally or not. Government abuse needs to be fought by a united citizenry.