Stop Sign Camera Tickets in L.A. Lead to Demands to See Drivers' Bank Accounts

 @Alex_C 

 “this parks and recs guy isnt actually very important either”

He is a government official and responsible for issuing thousands of illegal tickets, that makes him important.

By the way, if I wanted to attack you personally, I certainly could have done so since I know your name, but 1. I don't attack people just because I disagree with their opinion and 2. Out of respect for you wishes I've kept your name in confidence.  Don't be so paranoid.

 @Alex_C I'm not going to list the person's name here without their permission, just like I'm not going to post your name without your permission.

 @saferstreetsla what's the engineer's name? If he/she confirmed it, then he/she must have a name.

 @saferstreetsla this parks and recs guy isnt actually very important either but you saw to it to have his efforts characterised as sole-y for revenue based on leaving out evidence that shows serious collisions actually did occur. I think you and the author owe the guy an apology.

 @Alex_C The one who is assigned to this roadway. 

 @saferstreetsla which cal trans engineer?

 @Alex_C The stop sign is controlled and was placed by the MRCA.  It is on MRCA property and the CalTrans engineer confirmed it was not placed by them or under their control.

 @Alex_C First, you're really not all that important to be in anyone's "crosshairs", second you're entitied to your point of view, and third, I certainly haven't criticize your or anyone elses "character".  I do, however, criticize people's actions.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske in fact, my guess is that MRCA owns the property that the stop camera sits on and cal trans owns the property that the stop line is painted on. cal trans is worse than the LADOT when it comes to engineering roads that are safe for all users. Unless you cite a CVC that bars the use of stop sign cams I'm inclined not to believe you considering that you missed the SWTRS collisions at this intersection.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske by the way, who do you think engineered this Topanga peak / hwy 27 intersection anyway? a certified traffic engineer - probably someone from cal trans. I highly doubt it was parks and rec since the asphalt isnt seperately graded from hwy 27. It certainly wasnt Joe from parks with a paint brush!

 @saferstreetsla fair enough my initial comments can be construed as a bit nasty.... sometimes I react in kind to words that come off equally as nasty and obnoxious. the fact that you guys are lynching this parks guy makes wanting to engage you on a name to name basis intimidating. I stuck with it and let it be known to you who I am though and sadly I wouldnt be surprised to find myself in your crosshairs at some point with a nasty article lambasting my character and point of view.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske Ok, in my expert opinion, the stop sign at the top of Topanga is placed about as good as can be given the circumstances of Topanga Canyon itself which features speeds in excess of 35mph at that point and the parking lot which is about 200ft in length  AND an obviously well used vista point just beyond the stop sign just beyond a blind spot where people park and walk about to take pictures or back up out of their parking slots in cars. You can see the parking slot just west of the stop sign on this google link: http://goo.gl/maps/MGlLh The biggest hazard in this case is actually cars backing out but also pedestrians walking about but more so cars. If it were me I would place 2 stop signs and I will explain in a minute.. But lets just say the directive is to place a single stop sign (because engineers hate to slow down cars more than anything.) If it were placed inside the parking lot more, it would obscure the driver's view of traffic on Topanga making it difficult to stop, look to the left, and then proceed to ramp up to join in with traffic flow. If it were placed right at the edge of Topanga Canyon Blvd past the blind spot vegetation then it would give drivers up to more than a football field in length to gain speed - right past the blind spot and in direct conflict with and motorists and pedestrians who are using the vista point as overflow parking or who just prefer not to drive into the park. I've been referring completely to the Franklin Canyon Stop sign but I'm glad you snarked me into analyzing the Topanga Canyon stop sign as well because it shows me just how ignorant you actually are in terms of engineered safety. If it were up to me, I would place a second stop sign at the edge of Topanga Canyon Blvd in addition to the one placed exactly where it's at right now. Having cars slow roll that stop sign, breeze past the blind spot looking to their left for Topanga Canyon traffic, there is likely quite a few un-reportable fender benders that happen there. We wont know exactly of course because LAPD traffic division refuses to report fender benders. That park entrance is designed to keep traffic moving on Topanga Canyon at a fairly high rate of speed and in fact, if drivers were encouraged as Jay Beeber advocates, to slow roll that stop sign, anyone backing out of the excess parking at vista point (or walking around the blind spot) would be and stlll is menaced by drivers ramping up to join traffic on Topanga. They should add a second stop sign. But rather than ask me, an engineering expert from a vulnerable user stand point, I'd like to see you ask engineers from Northern European countries to evaluate that intersection. I bet they would have some valuable input. But obviously you've made it clear all you want to do is lynch people who attempt to make drivers accountable rather than consult those who engineer the safest streets in the world.

 @Alex_C  Maybe if you weren’t so nasty and obnoxious to me throughout this thread (especially when you thought you were anonymous to me) I would have been more inclined to do that.

 @saferstreetsla Instead of being all snarky about it, why dont you simply refer to the CVC code specifically. You should have it memorized by now if you've written about it.

 @Alex_C “where in the CVC are stop sign cameras barred?”

This question has been asked and answered, not only here but on my blog.  How about instead of constantly requiring that other people do the work for you, you look up the CVC and try to prove otherwise.

 @Alex_C  @Sarah_Fenske 

“Engineering principles that are decades old and serve cars first pedestrians last? NO THANKS.”

Yes, you’ve made it clear that you think your judgment as to whether or not a stop sign is properly placed is superior to the engineers with all those collective years of training and expertise.  But just for fun, how about you try to justify the placement of the stop sign at the exit to the Top of Topanga overlook based on your superior training and knowledge of proper engineering principles.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske where in the CVC are stop sign cameras barred? I dont doubt it, just curious to read the fine print.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske Engineering principles that are decades old and serve cars first pedestrians last? NO THANKS.

 @Alex_C  @Sarah_Fenske 

All the MRCA has to do is follow the vehicle code (which does not permit the use of ticketing cameras at stop signs) and place the stop signs according to proper engineering principles.  Problem solved.

 @saferstreetsla "If parents are allowing their children to run into traffic there, they are not being responsible parents." c'mon man. kids are kids. it is A PARK. Parents arent always going to be able to dictate what actions their kids are up to. You are not being mindful of that when you suggest removing that stop sign. It's just not worth it. 

@saferstreetsla "that’s not what was characterized as hyperbole." I was pre-emptively addressing your likely retort... 

 @saferstreetsla until you "out" the Cal Trans engineer who claims that stop line (but I suppose not the channelized on ramp to Topanga and the other lines and striping?) was designed and implemented by MRCA then I will have to remain skeptical as to who came up with what parts of the config. I have some calls in to find out though and I certainly will let you know what I find out. Kids are kids dude... you REALLY think it's worth it to just let drivers bull around huh? I'm not talking about the sand lot actually. Like you said, not too many peds will be wandering around there with that bush in the way. The primary reason for that stop sign is to discourage speeding right from the parking lot behind the stop sign right past the sand lot where cars will be backing out. 

 @Alex_C 

“that's one possibility but then it kind of ruins that little trail that leads the people who park on the sand lot to the overlook area... right now the bushes block out the ugliness of the highway and car noise a bit... that's the charm of that spot... “

No it doesn’t ruin the little trail and you wouldn’t have to remove it completely, in my opinion.  Yes, I admit that that is an opinion, but if it’s such a safety hazard (I’m not convinced it is), it is warranted.

“it still doesnt solve the right turn from northbound traffic that could overshoot”

I’m not sure what you are referring to here, but if you are suggesting that cars exiting have to stop at the stop sign because a car entering might hit them in some way, I honestly can’t see how that could happen or how this stop sign could prevent an entering car from veering into the exit lane.  I think what you are suggesting is pure speculation but perhaps I’m misunderstanding what you mean.

“and the football field length ramp up that would get created if the stop sign were replaced with a yield which would be a problem for people walking to their cars...”

What people walking to their cars?  As you state above there’s a path from the dirt area to the overlook behind the bushes you are concerned about.  That’s the route people should take.  They should not be crossing the exit lane.  And the whole purpose of the channelized exit lane is to allow cars to get up to speed so they can safely merge onto Topanga.

“it needs a stop sign there so that drivers are focused on slowing to a stop not ramping up to get on a highway.”

Again, stop signs are not supposed to be used for slowing, but for necessary stopping.  But even if you want to use them that way, apparently cars are slowing as they roll past the stop sign. (Bicyclists too, by the way.)

“kids could be running around there very realistically playing on the trail and running out into traffic.”

If parents are allowing their children to run into traffic there, they are not being responsible parents.  Besides, I don’t think there’s any evidence that this is anything but a fanciful suggestion on your part to somehow suggest that we have to “protect the children”.

“that's not hyperbole thats a real concern to have.”

That’s not what was characterized as hyperbole.

“point is, this article characterizes that stop sign as useless when in fact, upon examination that stop sign is very necessary.”

No, it’s not very necessary.  It does nothing to prevent the one possibly valid concern of a point of conflict with cars exiting the dirt area.  Cars stopping at the stop sign would still potentially have that conflict point and there is a simple solution which is to trim the bushes back a bit.  Barring that, perhaps with a proper engineering evaluation, a stop sign MIGHT be necessary at the point of conflict or some other engineering solution might be in order.  But again, this stop sign, where it is placed, isn’t useful in solving the concern you have.  On top of that, I believe that conflict point is the responsibility of CalTrans.

 @saferstreetsla you'd have to remove the bush completely if the stop sign is to be removed or become a yield sign. knowing that our park and recs and every other agency is broke as a joke, those bushes would grow back and not get trimmed in the future. slow down is the answer. You guys wrote this big old article demonizing Joe Edminston and people will read it and not look into the actual facts.... it's pretty tragic really. 

 @saferstreetsla that's one possibility but then it kind of ruins that little trail that leads the people who park on the sand lot to the overlook area... right now the bushes block out the ugliness of the highway and car noise a bit... that's the charm of that spot... it still doesnt solve the right turn from northbound traffic that could overshoot and the football field length ramp up that would get created if the stop sign were replaced with a yield which would be a problem for people walking to their cars... it needs a stop sign there so that drivers are focused on slowing to a stop not ramping up to get on a highway. kids could be running around there very realistically playing on the trail and running out into traffic. that's not hyperbole thats a real concern to have. point is, this article characterizes that stop sign as useless when in fact, upon examination that stop sign is very necessary.

 @Alex_C How about just trimming the bushes back so there's no blind spot?  Then you don't have to worry if someone is obeying the signage or not.  That's a very basic engineering solution.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske that's why I, in my expert opinion, suggest having a second stop sign at the edge of hwy 27 as a possible solution. Instead of giving the green light to ramp up to speed imediately after the stop sign and just prior to the blind spot, the additional stop sign would have the driver preparing to slow down and REDUCE the potential for a serious collision. Nothing is perfect and this intersection basically sucks. What probably needs to happen is speed reduction on hwy 27 to reduce conflict.

 @saferstreetsla "unsafe" "bad" both subjective terms especially when so many statistics go unreported. In fact my own hit and run collision has yet to make it into the SWTRS database so I KNOW that the stats are under reported.

 @Alex_C  @Sarah_Fenske If someone stops at the stop sign, it does nothing to prevent them from a collision with a driver who migh exit unsafely off that dirt patch.  The stop sign does not control that potential conflict point.

 @saferstreetsla this stop sign camera is at an intersection with a california highway. It has everything to do with speed limits (exceeded on hwy 27) and the menacing of not only pedestrians but also car drivers. The more I study this intersection the more I expose you for not doing your research.

 @Alex_C Another straw man argument about drunk drivers.  And previously you said taxing "unsafe" behavior, now you're saying "bad" behavior which is a purely subjective term.  And criticizing isn't lynching.  I think you should look up the history of that word and the loaded meaning it has.  Using it here and equating it with criticism trivializes what happened to people who really were lynched.

 @Alex_C This article is about the stop sign cameras in the MRCA parks and whether what the MRCA is doing is legal.  Other things like how to set speed limits, whether you feel "menaced" on the streets of the city, the obesity epidemic, etc. are all off topic

 @saferstreetsla your characterization of this stop sign camera is hyperbole. especially in light of the SWITRS data that I'm finding that shows injury collisions at the very intersection you asked me to analyze that you claim had no collision data. hyperbole to the highest degree committed by you, not by me.

 @Alex_C 

“I've been hit from behind by a speeding drunk driver and hospitalized…”

I’m sorry to hear that but the discussion here has nothing to do with drunk drivers.  Drunk drivers should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“and know 11 hit and run victims just this year.”

And I hope they are able to find and prosecute those drivers.  Unfortunately, many hit and runs are caused by impaired drivers and they flee because they don’t want to be caught drinking and driving or having caused a collision.  Probably many are also caused by those without driver’s licenses or insurance. We should do what we can to keep these people off the road.  But again, it has nothing to do with what this article is about.

“You dont have any clue just how intimidating all the idiots who speed from red light to red light can be”

And again you bring up speeding which has nothing to do with what this article was about.   As I said before, not going to debate how to properly set speed limits here because it’s off topic and has been covered already.

“I pay for the streets I have a RIGHT to ride on them free of fear.”

You pay for the highways too and you aren’t allowed to ride a bicycle on them.  There may be some roadways that are configured in such a way as to not be the most conducive to bicycle riding but most of the streets are certainly such that the average person is able to ride a bicycle without feeling “menaced” or “fearful”.  Plus the city is putting in many miles of bicycle lanes that should assist in making the streets more amenable to bicyclists so that situation should improve.  I certainly can’t speak to your personal experience because I’m not you, but I have ridden a bicycle on city streets and haven’t felt “menaced”.  That’s not to say that there aren’t some bonehead drivers out there (as well as bonehead bicyclists) which is why I was taught to be a defensive driver and anticipate what driving errors others might make.

“You running around lynching people for their efforts to keep drivers acountable is not helping the safe streets cause it's hindering it and inspiring people to disrespect the law even more.”

Again, criticizing the actions of a government official who is acting above the law doesn’t translate into “lynching” in my book but I’m not prone to hyperbole like you are.

 @saferstreetsla @Sarah_Fenske LOOK CLOSER. http://goo.gl/maps/o49co There is a No Stopping 9pm - 6am nightly sign posted. Other than that, there are no restrictions that I can see for the dirt lot west of the stop sign to the right (if facing the stop sign) just past the blind spot. Even if there is parking restrictions it's obvious from google street view that the dirt lot is used by people all the time. Barren and with tire tracks all over it . You can even see the dirt patterns on the asphalt. 

 @Alex_C What are you talking about?  Those aren't parking spaces, that's a what's called a painted median.  No cars are supposed to be in that painted off area.  It's there to keep the cars on Topanga separated from the cars exiting from the parking lot. Your analysis is completely wrong because it's based on a misunderstanding of the traffic configuration there.

 @saferstreetsla another thing to look at regarding the Topanga stop sign is valley bound traffic exiting Topanga and entering the park. Without that stop sign where it is, drivers wouldnt slow down to stop creating conflict with traffic entering the parking lot and pedestrians walking to their cars. There could be a better solve, but it would involve more stop signs and of course LA traffic engineers dont like that and I suspect neither would you. I'm not a fan of stop signs myself. I prefer engineered slow speeds but stop signs (despite the MUTCD recommendations) are used in liu of actual engineered safe speeds.

yeah lynch. characterizing a safety device that holds drivers accountable as a revenue scheme. HELLO Taxing bad behavior is how the city makes money. What next we shouldnt fine drunk drivers?

 @saferstreetsla none of what I am addressing is off topic. You just claim it is because you have no real rebuttal.

 @saferstreetsla I've been hit from behind by a speeding drunk driver and hospitalized and know 11 hit and run victims just this year. You dont have any clue just how intimidating all the idiots who speed from red light to red light can be especially to people who dont have my skills or size. I don't ride on nearly as many streets as I should be able to because of it, I still find myself fearful. I pay for the streets I have a RIGHT to ride on them free of fear. You running around lynching people for their efforts to keep drivers acountable is not helping the safe streets cause it's hindering it and inspiring people to disrespect the law even more.

 @saferstreetsla  @Sarah_Fenske In the case of the Topanga stop sign, the issue is cars more than pedestrians. Have a look at this angle: http://goo.gl/maps/MGlLh see the blind spot caused by the vegetation? Imagine a car parked in the (obviously) well used vista point parking spot backing out just as someone heading out of the parking lot slow rolls that stop and ramps up to join Topanga Canyon. That's your conflict and I'll bet if LAPD traffic division were to take reports on fender benders, we'd see quite a few there. In this particular instance the stop sign camera is protecting car drivers more than pedestrians.

 @Alex_C 

“Basically, what YOU DO NOT grasp is that the roads are not just for cars. In fact they are paid for by EVERYONE not just car drivers. It is public space.”

And here you go again with the straw man argument that if you don’t support penalizing people for behavior that isn’t dangerous, if you don’t support a rogue agency flaunting State law and creating traps just to raise revenue through a ticketing scheme, that somehow translates into you believing “roads are just for cars”.  Try focusing on the things that are actually being said rather than making up a fake claim just so you can argue against it.  Oh wait, you don’t want to focus on the things that are actually being said because you have no valid response to them.

“You might imagine that going "1 or 2" mph above the speed limit is safe FOR CARS (it's not according to crash stats)”

Really? Care to provide ANY evidence of the truth of that claim? (knowing full well you won’t)  And let me remind you that earlier you admitted that on highways you regularly speed well past the 1 or 2 miles per hour I used here as an analogy.

“however the reality is that motorists slowly but surely erode the speed limits into 10+mph.”

Irrelevant as to the relative safety of driving a mile or two over the speed limit.  Also not true, but I’m not going to get into a debate about how to properly set speed limits again because it’s been covered and it’s off topic.

“On top of that, speed limits and road engineering principles were focused on cars decades ago when cars were the new thing and people gladly gave up their rights to walk around in the public space.”

So you think that engineering principles haven’t evolved since “cars were the new thing”?  Clearly you know nothing about the subject.

“We need to keep driver behaviour under control”

Even assuming that such a broad and unfocused policy as this is a necessary and desirable goal, your solution is to allow the MRCA to ignore State law and all proper engineering principles in the placement of stop signs just so they can ticket drivers, thereby “keeping their behavior under control”?

“tax unsafe driver behavior”

The operative word here is “unsafe”. I’m totally in favor of penalizing people whose behavior is “unsafe” (and I regularly call the police to report people who act that way) whether they are motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians, etc. but I’m totally against penalizing people who might behave in a way that isn’t necessarily “unsafe” (although it might be considered annoying).  BUT, before the government should have the power to penalize anyone, they should have to follow the rules that we, as citizens, enact directly or through our elected officials (and those rules have to first adhere to principles of “basic rights”).  The MRCA doesn’t follow the basic rules that have been set out so their enforcement scheme is not only unnecessary (because it doesn’t actually target unsafe behavior), it’s legally invalid.

“I dont want your incompetent "cars first" government telling me that my only safe option is to drive a car to get places.”

Again, anyone who doesn’t agree with you is “incompetent”.  And here you present another straw man argument that the government is telling you that your only safe option is to drive a car to get places.  Nonsense.

“These articles where you lynch anyone who tries to tame car drivers…”

Lynch? Really?  Just more hyperbole…

“…are at the same time continuing the decades long assault on pedestrians and cyclists.”

More hyperbole, off topic, and kind of silly to boot.

“It's contributing to the obesity epidemic and it's scaring people off the roads who would otherwise go out and get some exercise…” 

And we’re back to the obesity epidemic arguments… (that have nothing to do with the issues at hand)   I don’t know, but for all you’re claims of feeling “intimidated”, “menaced” and “scared off the road”, you seem to spend a fair amount of time on your bicycle.  Just saying…

 @saferstreetsla  @Alex_C for some reason I dont see my last reply to this message so here goes again. Basically, what YOU DO NOT grasp is that the roads are not just for cars. In fact they are paid for by EVERYONE not just car drivers. It is public space. You might imagine that going "1 or 2" mph above the speed limit is safe FOR CARS (it's not according to crash stats) however the reality is that motorists slowly but surely erode the speed limits into 10+mph. On top of that, speed limits and road engineering principles were focused on cars decades ago when cars were the new thing and people gladly gave up their rights to walk around in the public space. That was the incompetence of yesteryear that led to the incompetent practice of people should be speeding from red light to red light today. That kind of environment is SCARY and UNSAFE for cyclists and pedestrians and it actually works against the interests of the motoring public. The state is BROKE. Gas tax and reg tax don't nearly pay for the wear and tear caused by every car trip on our infrastructure. We need to keep driver behaviour under control and in fact tax unsafe driver behavior so that people who have a RIGHT to be in the public space can be there and travel without fear. It will only help motorists in the long run. This is a liberty issue. I dont want your incompetent "cars first" government telling me that my only safe option is to drive a car to get places. These articles where you lynch anyone who tries to tame car drivers are at the same time continuing the decades long assault on pedestrians and cyclists. It's contributing to the obesity epidemic and it's scaring people off the roads who would otherwise go out and get some exercise AND be one less car in your way. 

 @Alex_C 

Obviously you can't grasp the difference between something that is a "violation" and something that is "dangerous".  They are not the same thing even though you would like people to believe they are.  Millions of people drive a mile or two over the speed limit on a regular basis.  That is not proof of a safety problem.  Collision history is proof of a safety problem.  And please stop inventing statements about what I am advocating.  I've never advocated "for people to sometimes obey stop signs and sometime slow roll them".  I've advocated for the MRCA to follow the law and the proper protocol for placing stop signs.  I've also explained why when those stop signs are not placed according to proper engineering principles, there is a decrease in safety and drivers have a greater tendency to roll through them.  Obviously you also can't grasp the difference between "advocating" and "explaining".  Or maybe you can grasp the difference and you are intentionally distorting my words.

 @saferstreetsla  @Alex_C  @Sarah_Fenske LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Obviously according to this article hundreds and hundreds of drivers roll through stops signs in these parks. That is your proof that there IS a safety issue. Now we've got you advocating for people to sometimes obey stops signs and other times slow roll them... Who decides when stop signs are to be obeyed by those operating 2 ton machines?

 @Alex_C   …  Just for clarity: (rolls his eyes – at the hyperbole you keep employing in you comments here and elsewhere)

 @Alex_C  @Sarah_Fenske 

“Even a car slow rolling a stop sign at 7mph is menacing to pedestrians.”

Oh please…(rolls his eyes)

“It's about providing an environment where pedestrians can walk about a park without having to dodge people operating machines callously.”

And where is there any evidence that pedestrians in these parks are “having to dodge people operating machines callously”?  The stop sign and camera at the Top of Topanga overlook controls a channelized exit onto Topanga Canyon Blvd. northbound.  No chance of a pedestrian crossing the vehicle’s path, no chance that the exiting vehicle will collide with a vehicle on Topanga until they get to the end of the lane where it merges onto Topanga which is WAY past where the stop sign is.  I spoke to the Engineer for Caltans that has jurisdiction over that portion of Topanga and they told me that the correct signage there would be a yield sign.  (But now you’ll discount what the Caltrans engineer has to say because you know better.)

“Still waiting on the answer as to whether this is even something the LAPD reports on / collects data on”

What difference will it make if you get this answer?  You state above that even the lack of collisions wouldn’t matter to you and you state elsewhere that you don’t believe the LAPD collects accurate info.  How about this?  Instead of demanding everyone else prove things to your satisfaction (which evidence and proof you then just discount because it doesn’t fit with what you’d like the answer to be) why don’t you do a little work and try to get some collision statistics that show there was a safety problem that existed in ANY of the places where the stop sign cameras have been installed.  If the MRCA installed the cameras because there was a safety problem, they would certainly have some data that informed that decision.  Still waiting for that…

I thinks it's obvious to anyone reading this thread that having a “discussion” with you is pointless.