California Vehicle Code
22526. (a) Notwithstanding any official traffic control signal indication to proceed, a driver of a vehicle shall not enter an intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.

b) A driver of a vehicle which is making a turn at an intersection who is facing a steady circular yellow or yellow arrow signal shall not enter the intersection or marked crosswalk unless there is sufficient space on the other side of the intersection or marked crosswalk to accommodate the vehicle driven without obstructing the through passage of vehicles from either side.


....

(f) This section shall be known and may be cited as the Anti-Gridlock Act of 1987.


I agree with this, and this is another reason why I agree with the cameras. There are a few intersections that it would take about 25 minutes to get through because the intersections were gridlocked due to people sitting in the intersections. Since they put the cameras up, they run so much smoother. At one time they were declared unconstitutional because the public was not given enough warning about the cameras. Either way I see it as a good deterrent. Just because it takes a bit longer is not a justifiable excuse in my books.
Katiesue-If the light is too short, then it is time to get involved locally and petition to have the timing changed at the city council, etc...

To be honest I solved the problem by just going a different way during peak traffic times. Then I didn't have to worry about it. They took the cameras down when they had the whole issue about them a couple years ago and they haven't come back yet.

Hawai'i tried the red light cams and speed cams several years ago. Both programs disappeared when several policemen and suits from the Dept of Transportation got tickets with their pictures on it in the mail.

Huzzah!

It is different. When you're pulled over and given a ticket they are citing the person they know was driving. When given based only on ownership of a license plate they cite the person they assume was driving.

And then, if you contest a ticket you're directly issued you don't have to prove your innocence before the police first prove their case. The assumption by the court is on innocence.

With the camera tickets, if you contest the police don't have to prove their case, you have to prove your innocence (by being able to prove you weren't driving and fingering the person who was; at least in the case linked here). This is a presumption of guilt by the court.

To me they are completely different things.

Okay, I didn't realize they shifted the burden of proof like that. That is a bit troubling.