Posted by dkeith1397 on March 25, 2008 at 3:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A few other details about this operation this morning. When our 7 traffic officers ticketed the 28 people this morning there were basically three excuses given:

1) they wanted to warm up the car engine...this is not necessary these days due to fuel injected engines.

2) they wanted to allow the heater to warm the inside of the vehicle.

3) they start the car and then go back in the residence to get coffee.

The average length of time officers waited for the person to come back to their unattended, running car was 5-7 minutes....plenty of time for a car thief to take off and be miles away before the owner would realize the car was missing.

Please understand we are not doing this to be mean to people but rather to get compliance with the CA vehicle code.

With nearly 200 idling, unattended cars stolen last year in Oxnard alone we are simply trying to change peoples behavior.

David Keith
Spokesperson
Oxnard PD

Posted by SF1943 on March 25, 2008 at 3:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's another example of minimum reporting by The Star! With this modicum of info, who really cares? Are you just trying to fill in space??

Posted by goldcoaster on March 25, 2008 at 3:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

WOW!!!! I am so impressed and proud of our finest. The heck with the number of murders in Oxnard. The heck with gangs ruining our neighborhoods. The heck with Oxnard being more dangerous than Baghdad. Get out there and cite those felonious key leavers.

Let's see; seven traffic officers cruising residential neighborhoods looking for unoccupied running cars and each writes four tickets with a fine of $65.00. This should pay for one half of one traffic officer for the time he/she spent looking or aforementioned cars.

Way to go chief. You should be very proud.

Posted by omie on March 25, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Yup I agree with goldcoaster.. I guess car thefts are more important in xnard since everyone is driving such expensive cars.
Guess we could ignore the muggings, rapes and homicides.

As far as changing people behavoir wait till that useless cell phone law kicks in. I want to see how that is going to be enforced.

Posted by slkrchck on March 25, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

gosh what nastiness........it's only tuesday. i think it's a great idea. i would like to see more enforcement in front of schools and the double parking with the hazards is sooooooooooo ghetto. are traffic officers even authorized to chase down murderers etc? i thought traffic enforcement meant traffic enforcement. crossing guards are also employees of the police department. will they be slammed for crossing our children safely instead of raiding crackhouses? c'mon goldcoaster. you're kidding right?

Posted by SpiderWoman on March 25, 2008 at 3:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Great job Oxnard P.D., love how everyone is down on this story when it's your tax dollars paying for police to track down these "stolen" vehicles due to stupidity. You talk about the murders? Maybe their efforts could be used more efficiently to track down more serious crimes if they didn't have to track down stolen cars that may have well have had a sign in it saying "key are here, engine running - take me!"

Posted by BeReal on March 25, 2008 at 4:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I can't believe so many people leave their cars running!

This will save a lot of time, paperwork, energy, and stress. This is 2008! We cannot leave our cars running and unattended. That's asking for trouble.

What I don't agree with is the fact that these people received a citation and have to pay $65. I think they should have been given a warning only for the first offense. I'm sure most people don't realize there is a "Municipal Code" against that. Is there also a Code against leaving a house key under your mat? I think there's a fine line there. Will you start issuing citations to stores that get robbed because they didn't have a hidden alarm button, or citing banks for getting robbed? What about a citation to beautiful women. How dare they go outside looking like they look. Someone may be tempted to hurt them. These people are being punished for someone elses criminal actions.

Posted by Cherzog on March 25, 2008 at 4:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Has anyone thought that with the large number of people being thoughtless about leaving cars running and unattended... It might attract people that do not live in the area to come there and steal the cars??

Do you think those same types of people would also probably commit other crimes? Like the ones Goldilocks described??? I'm sure our badged friends could enlighten you.

If you don't want to attract bears maybe you should clean up your camp site.

Posted by TINA on March 25, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

good job Oxnard P.D

Posted by dkeith1397 on March 25, 2008 at 4:12 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The last time we did this type of operation was in late 2006 - and it was a bit controversial then - comments similar to those written here by a couple posters - popped up then as well.

I think it is important to realize that having 7 traffic officers working a couple hours in the morning every 12 or 18 months is a small investment in bringing down the car theft rate.

When we first started looking at this phenomenon (unattended, running cars) we had 1,039 stolen vehicles (back in 2004)...today the number of stolen cars in Oxnard has been cut almost in half.

Public education/crime prevention efforts can be hugely successful, and I believe that these occasional efforts pay big dividends in our city.

The 500 or so fewer car theft victims would probably be pleased by our efforts.

David Keith
Spokesperson
Oxnard PD

Posted by RC on March 25, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"These people are being punished for someone elses criminal actions" I totally agree with that statement! So if you leave your door open of your house while you are at home then you should get fined if someone tries to walk in and rob u or rape you because you didn’t lock your front door?

Posted by B8R_N4MD on March 25, 2008 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

The Police Department is charged with enforcing ALL aspects of crime, not just major crime. Good job OPD. For those of you complaining, how about if the crime occurs due to your own negligence, the Police do not have to investigate it? You leave your keys in your car with the car running and it gets stolen, no report, no investigation. If you leave your car unlocked and your purse, stereo or computer gets stolen, no report or investigation. You would be screaming for action. You cant have it both ways people. Prevention works, you should support it.

Posted by pkck on March 25, 2008 at 4:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hopefuly this was the less skilled parking enforcement. Was there any arrests or warrant violations that also may have come with the reason to stop or inspection vehicle/driver. I would hope a couple dead beats get carried off to make it worthwhile.

Posted by BeReal on March 25, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sorry, but there are ways to "educate" people without citing them. How about campaigns by the Police Department, articles in the paper, etc. Help to make people aware of what your goal is. This is educating them!

These citations were not educational. Again, it would be like punishing a student in a classroom for not following a rule that you failed to make known to the classroom. Oh, but now everyone knows it's wrong, at his expense.

It seems like just about everyone knows about the upcoming cell phone/driving law. Hmmmm...How did everyone learn about that? I don't think it was from citing them first!!!

Posted by missing805 on March 25, 2008 at 4:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

People rad the story... These were traffic officers, maybe those officers i the trucks that say "traffic enforcement" plus, by then doing this they minimize the number of cops or detectives that have to work on those "stolen cars cases". Goldcoast are you serious? Boy do you like to exagerate. I really want to see you choose to go to Bagdad instead of living in Oxnard because Bagdad is more dangerous. Take a chill pill pal. GREAT JOB OPD

Posted by toofargone on March 25, 2008 at 4:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If you see what was said earier about the FIRST time they did this kind of sweep was in 2004, then again in 2006 at that time when all the hype was up about this, they told everyone that would listen that there was a rule to this. How many times do people have to be told not to do something, beside like someone said "give them a warning for the first offense" that wouldnt work. They still would do it. Not that giving them a citation will stop them, but take their money and they might think twice about needing the car warmed up, or the heater warmed up or walking out the door in the morning without their cup of coffee. Get over it. Its a law and OPD is doing a fine dang job at doing it!

Posted by skycop57 on March 25, 2008 at 4:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I see lots of vehicles left running at varous businesses in this area. Mostly fast food and stop and robs.

Posted by Cherzog on March 25, 2008 at 4:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Law Enforcements job is not educate.. It's to Enforce the law. If they had to spend time educating everyone that "didn't know that", they'd never be truly doing the job they are supposed to do.

Those persons that got a cite this morning... Probably have LEARNED said lesson. Frankly, it's the only way people learn now-a-days. Hence why many tickets = fine. To make you not do it again.

Sorry for those people who lack common sense and got a ticket which will probably put them in financial despair. *rolling eyes* I am sure that will be the last time of doing something reckless... which ONLY INCREASES CRIME.

Posted by Optimist on March 25, 2008 at 5 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My question is, when are we going to get a break from all these tickets? We spend money on property taxes, we spend money on sales taxes, and now we're having to deal with half cent sales taxes, traffic initatives, and police citations. The people in Oxnard need to wake up!!
All those people working 24/7 in the police department do an excellent job without a doubt in my mind. I just think we can be proactive without having to fine people.

Posted by Cherzog on March 25, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey BeReal..

Goto the DMV and ask for a booklet on vehicle laws. They are there for you to read the classroom rules so you can't cry ignorance..

BTW. Driving is a privilege... not a right.

Posted by goldcoaster on March 25, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK....you can beat me up all you want. I can take it. But...consider this:

You have a flock of traffic cadets that go out on a daily basis writing parking tickets (and that's what these are) and their pay is a fraction of peace officers (traffic officers) who, are full peace officers with all the same powers as those you customarily see. Let them go out and cite these folks.

Granted I was being a bit facetious about Oxnard being more dangerous than Baghdad but look, pay the 15 bucks or so an hour rather than the 50 bucks or so for a peace officer. Let our peace officers do what they do best, enforce REAL laws!

Mr. Keith I know you get your money supporting the chief and being his mouth piece but you have to agree, there are better resources to do the menial tasks and let our highly trained officers go to war with the thugs.

Posted by BeReal on March 25, 2008 at 5:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Hey Cherzog,

Keep your shorts on. I'm not the one leaving my car running. I always lock my car even when I'm in it. I just simply have not heard of this "Code".

Again, there's a new "Cell Phone" law going into effect. Everyone knows about it. We were informed, not cited first!!!

Posted by pfg93003 on March 25, 2008 at 5:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

boringgggg! Yawn. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Posted by santabarbarasand on March 25, 2008 at 5:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

goldcoaster, traffic cops earn their money, whatever it may be. There are a great deal of us who would REFUSE to do their jobs, regardless of the pay. Traffic laws may seem frivolous to you but take a moment and think about all of the vehicles on the roads and imagine there being no traffic laws. Even the little ones are there for a reason. There are investigators that are being taken away from more serious crimes so that they can look for stolen vehicles. Do you think that a person who has had their vehicle stolen is going to be patient with a cop who has other things on his plate as well? No way. Everyone thinks that their problems are the biggest, most important and must be handled first. These officers deserve a bit more respect for doing such a mentally, emotionally and physically demanding job. Instead, they get ridiculed and treated like trash by people like you, self-righteous people like you. It's sad!

I can say that even if I didn't know about the law and I got a ticket that I would pay and NEVER leave my car running unattended again. I believed that if it was in my driveway it is okay but now that I know it's not I will surely tell my family & friends. Such is life, we live and learn. Get off the soapbox and find something real to get angry about.

Posted by calipilot99 on March 25, 2008 at 5:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Seriously, I cannot believe how many people are actually complaining about these tickets. These people deserve the tickets as much as anyone who is caught speeding down the road. You want them to spend time looking for murderers? Well some of these people who have their cars unattended make a great getaway car for these criminals. I think they should do this more often. In the process of looking for these cars, there is police presence in the neighborhoods and that is a good thing. It's not like the officer's stop everything else that they are tasked to do just to give citations to people that leave their keys in the ignition. If you think about it, $65 is a small price to pay for being stupid. How much extra would it cost when the car is stolen, you have say 4-6 officers in pursuit of the car, the car gets wrecked, possibly endagering many lives, officers, pedestrians, we see this everyday on the news. Does somebody have to get killed around here by a stolen car that had the keys in the ignition for you idiots to change your mind about what the police are doing?

You think the cell phone law is useless? I disagree...how many people have died because they were not paying attention to the road because they had their head glued to the cell phone? I would say that there have been thousands of deaths due to cell phone use while driving and many of them were probably preventable.

Posted by Nosmo_King on March 25, 2008 at 6:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

28 (tickets) X $65 (the fine)= $1820 for 2.5 hours of ticket writing. thats over 700 dollars an hour divided by the 7 officers its over a hundred dollar an hour per officer. Time well spent.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on March 25, 2008 at 6:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I really think that doing this every couple of years is worthwhile. TO keep people thinking about it. Is this the day ??? Will I get a ticket? I do agree that those parking ticket people would be good for the job as stated above. I also think that it would be great for the Officers to find more time to go after kids ditching school on a continous basis. A few officers and probation officers and get those kids back in school where they should be.

Posted by wdwinder on March 25, 2008 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

These people should be glad the officers don't turn the car off, lock the doors and take the keys and make these stupid people go down to the station to get them back on top of the $65 instead of having to wait 5-7 minutes each time. This is just plain wasteful behavior. I grew up where it actually got cold in the winter and we didn't even do this back when cars had carburetors.

Posted by pjlove10 on March 25, 2008 at 7:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I never really understood why people leave their car running in the morning. It's pretty annoying. Especially when meatheads rev up their V8's when the sun is coming up. Useless. I'm glad these people were cited, these are the same people that don't put their shopping carts back in the return area, don't put a spacer in between their groceries and yours, and oh yeah probably leave their kids and pets in vehicles to "just grab something really quick.."

Posted by NothingButTheTruth on March 25, 2008 at 7:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Complainers: Enforcement of this ordinance is needed because when someone's car gets stolen MY insurance premiums go up to pay for the multi-thousand dollar car pay-off by the insurance company. Quit whining and lock your car and take your keys. Go OPD!!

Posted by smithjc on March 25, 2008 at 7:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

seems to me i remember that this ordinance was publicized quite heavily before they started enforcing it. additionally, there is a california vehicle code section with similar prohibitions.

people steal these cars for various reasons. some just don't want to walk, others seize the opportunity to get a car that is not related to them to go out "criming".

these people were lucky that they just got tickets and didn't lose their cars. that just drives up insurance costs for the rest of us.

Posted by vrhernandez on March 25, 2008 at 8:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another example that poverty pays!

Posted by lrgvanman on March 25, 2008 at 8:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Not smart to leave anything lockable unlocked anymore, so quit your griping and appreciate OPD's efforts that could have been doing something else other than what they did resulting in comments from the ungrateful!

Posted by lrgvanman on March 25, 2008 at 8:30 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks again for a job well done, OPD!

Posted by techsavy on March 25, 2008 at 11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait a minute, you mean I cannot idle my car unattended in my own driveway?

- I can leave it with expired tags on my driveway
- I can work on it in my driveway
- if my property were big enough I could drive unlicensed on my property.

Did the PD really issue tickets to people idling their cars in their driveways or on the public street?

Posted by techsavy on March 25, 2008 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I should have put this in my last note, could someone please post the CA vehicle code number for this violation?

Posted by sandypants83 on March 26, 2008 at 12:51 a.m. (Suggest removal)

ok, how about people that have a car (like mine) with a remote start (like mine)...my car can be started from inside the house without the keys in the ignition, and only if the doors are locked. you cannot make the car go without unlocking it and putting the key in the ignition, so would i get a ticket for that, when there is no way someone could steal my car??

Posted by santabarbarasand on March 26, 2008 at 6:08 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sandypants, read above again where it says "Oxnard's municipal code allows police to cite motorists who leave ignition keys in unattended vehicles". If your keys aren't in the car and it's not locked, it's not an issue. Although if someone was looking for a car to steal all they would have to do is break the window and take it if you have it already running. Like stated above, do you really live in a cold enough climate that you need to warm up the inside of the car? We know you don't need to warm the engine on a newer vehicle.

They also weren't clear about whether the vehicles were in driveways or on the street but it doesn't really matter if your driveway is close to the street, does it? I can't imagine the cops citing people who have long driveways where they would have to trespass on your property to observe the car running... what about that Officer Keith? Is this law in reference to cars on the street or cars in driveways, or both? If it applies to driveways, what is the distance a car must be to the road in order for officers to be involved?

Posted by techsavy on March 26, 2008 at 7:26 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Santabarbarasand
- it doesn't matter how close to the street your driveway is. Your property line defines what is private and what is public.
- you mention that it is Oxnard's municipal code to cite motorists who leave key in unattended vehicles. If true, that is not a California Vehicle Code violation specifically - it's a city thing.

I do think it is irresponsible for the article and the spokesperson to leave out information like what specific code (number please) is this violation and where the public can view this law.

Last night I went to the California Vehicle Code website and searched for the word 'unattended', 'idling' and found nothing about this law whatsoever. There's something about leaving a car unattended with children in it, but not specifically leaving a car idling. This is why I asked someone to post the section this is in violation of.

VenturaCountyStar reporter and police spokes people - If you're going to educate people on the law could you please post a link to the law? That will answer everyone's "But what if. . .." questions

Posted by dkeith1397 on March 26, 2008 at 8:36 a.m. (Suggest removal)

First off - I am pleased to see so much interest in this topic. It is a serious problem in Oxnard but with efforts like the one undertaken yesterday morning things are getting better - many fewer vehicles are being stolen now than in the past in the city.

To clarify a couple things:

We do publicize this issue - a lot. Through articles in the paper, stories on the TV and radio news, and coverage on the OPD's own TV programs over the years. In fact the LA media has picked up this story and has done numerous stories on it in the past (including yesterday on KABC Channel 7)

We invited more than a dozen reporters to go along with us yesterday but Ch 7 was the only taker. I was disappointed there wasn't more interest, but for the most part the reporters feel they have all done this story many times in the past, so ho-hum, I guess.

It is in violation of Oxnard's City Codes....I misspoke yesterday when I mentioned CA vehicle code...sorry.

No, we cannot cite you if the car is in the driveway - obviously it's still a really bad idea but we cannot cite on private property.

No, we cannot cite you if the car is started remotely - again - probably not a great idea to do that but the code doesn't prohibit that.

Experience (and lots of studies about this) also tells us that warnings do not change behavior - citations do.

Hope that clarifies things.

David Keith
Spokesperson
Oxnard PD

Posted by techsavy on March 26, 2008 at 10:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Thanks so much for the reply Keith.

I kept reading from people posting here that they should know the law, that it's in the CA Vehicle Code. Well I checked and it's not.

Also to those that say "Go get a DMV booklet and it says it in there". The answer is NO again. As far as I know the DMV booklet has state laws in it, not city laws. Correct me if I'm wrong.

So until this 'sweep' it is completely understandable that people would not know that this law existed.

Posted by bluefairy on March 26, 2008 at 1:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This in reply to a comment about the new cell phone law and that no one has been cited - that's because the new law isn't in effect until July 1st. How can you be cited for something not in effect?
Of course, we all have had plenty of warnings - verbal, written whatever - but many people choose to ignore them with the "I won't get caught" mentality.

I can understand a warning the first time or maybe not such a costly fine. Believe me, when I got my parking ticket for parking on the 2nd Tuesday between 9 and 11am for street sweeping - I was peeved because 1) it was a $56 ticket, 2) it was stamped at 9:01am and 3)it was the day after I had moved in. I paid the stupid ticket and have not gotten one again. But I laugh at my neighbors who continuously get them (lived there 6 years and you can't figure out when the 2nd Tuesday is or why the entire street is clear?)

Many people will learn - sign postings, articles, news reports, word of mouth, and possibly never get a ticket/citation. Of course, there are plenty of idiots, oops drivers, that will probably keep getting tickets and not learn.

It's as simple as this - don't do it, don't get a ticket.

Posted by CALA on March 26, 2008 at 4:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Too bad this has to happen but I think it is a good idea.

"Sorry, but there are ways to "educate" people without citing them. How about campaigns by the Police Department, articles in the paper, etc. Help to make people aware of what your goal is. This is educating them!"

This will cost ALL tax payers to pay for. It also costs tax payer to have the police go to investigate when a car is stolen. Why should everyone pay for others not having any common sense?

Posted by BeReal on March 26, 2008 at 4:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Thank you techsavy for asking your question! I appreciate the clarification and the information.

I also appreciate all the input here.

Sure, it's ignorant for people to leave their cars running, especially in this day and age.

All I wanted to know is if people had been informed. I myself not heard about this. I don't
even leave my car unlocked, much less running and unattended. People unfortunately just can't be trusted these days.

If people heard about this "code" and did it anyway, they deserve the ticket. If they hadn't heard, oh well, they're screwed.

I'm sure they won't do it again.

Posted by keepin_it_real on March 26, 2008 at 8:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I would like to invite opd out to Lombard Street. There is someone who parks a truck on the street and leaves it running and unattended and it is very loud!!! He leaves it running 7-8 minutes then reves up the engine 3-4 times before he takes off. This is what I wake up to every day. Very rude. He has to know it bothers people but I don't think he cares.

To those who are complaining about the fines, who will you be calling when your vehicles are stolen?

I can't imagine doing something like this, especially in these days and times. I lock my car too even when I am in it. I also have a car alarm with a beeper on it, so it will alert me when I am inside if anything is happening to my car. It even tells me what is happening to my car.

My car was broken into twice at the apartment complex I used to live in. So I am very sensitive on this issue. I now have an apartment with a garage.

YOU JUST CAN'T BE TOO CAREFUL!!!! THANKS OPD. YOU ARE DOING A GREAT JOB.....

Posted by dkeith1397 on March 26, 2008 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Keepin it real - If you'll call me at 385-7631 and leave for me the address of where the guy in the truck leaves his car unattended, along with the approximate time of day, etc - I'll have a traffic officer pay him a visit.

David Keith
Spokesperson
Oxnard PD

Posted by smithjc on March 27, 2008 at 12:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

techsavvy, in my post i stated that the cvc has a section with SIMILAR prohibitions, not exact. here is the section:
22515. (a) No person driving, or in control of, or in charge of, a motor vehicle shall permit it to stand on any highway unattended without first effectively setting the brakes thereon and stopping the motor thereof.

for the purposes of definition in the vehicle code, highway and street are used interchangebly. note that the section requires one to stop the motor, but does not require the removal of the keys and locking of the vehicle; however, common sense and intelligence require those additional steps.

Posted by YaitsmeJennieG on March 27, 2008 at 7:11 a.m. (Suggest removal)

David Keith keep up the good work I think OPD is doing a great job. Anyone who is willing to go out and protect the citizens of this city for too little pay (as far as I'm concerned) and too much paper work deserves my gratitude Thank You

Posted by techsavy on March 27, 2008 at 7:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SmithJC, Thank you for the info and code #.

Posted by B8R_N4MD on March 27, 2008 at 7:55 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I found this online, its directly from the Oxnard City Code

http://www.amlegal.com/nxt/gateway.dl...

SEC. 8-45. LEAVING IGNITION KEY IN UNATTENDED VEHICLE.
(A) No person driving or in charge of a motor vehicle, except a commercial vehicle, shall permit the vehicle to stand unattended in any public place, used or new vehicle lot, or parking lot without first stopping the engine, locking the ignition and removing the ignition key from the vehicle.

(B) Whenever any police officer finds a motor vehicle standing unattended with the ignition key in the vehicle, in violation of this section, the police officer is authorized to remove the key from the vehicle and deliver the key to the police officer in charge of the nearest police station.

Posted by Ventura22 on March 27, 2008 at 1:47 p.m. (Suggest removal)

What a lame way to deter crime; punish the innocent and make criminals out of law abiding citizens. Way to go Oxnard. How about putting more efforts into cleaning up more of the grafitti by catching the sprayers? How many more serious crimes could be deterred and how much safer could the streets be if the same officers were out doing legitimate traffic patrols, preventing vehicle accidents and enforcing the state vehicle codes instead of wandering around in people's driveways trying to enforce some lame municipal code that an appeals court will probably end-up tossing? Let the vehicle owner use judgement over where to leave the motor running and risk having their car stolen if they wish; there are far more pressing concerns that directly affect public safety.
This municipal code is yet another proof that too many folks in Oxnard don't vote; and allow idiots to flourish at city hall unchecked. Are they going to cite truck drivers who leave their engines idling when doing deliveries or warming up the diesels? Not everyone drives a newer vehicle that doesn't require warm-up time. Many are lucky to have what they do. This is the kind of crap that gives attorneys work to do.
What's next, am I going to get cited for sleeping with my bedroom window open when someone tries to burglarize my house? Cited when someone steals my gas fron an unlockable gas cap? When you start penalizing people, they may become less-likely to report crimes or cooperate with law enforcement. How is this a good community based policing strategy? This lowers my confidence in OPD and the city government. Please redeem yourselves and cut the B.S.

Posted by Ventura22 on March 27, 2008 at 5:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Someone please provide some clarification here:

How does this municipal ordinance apply to vehicles on private property in a private driveway of a single family dwelling (individual residence with no common areas involved)? What provision of the state code is the city using to give itself authority to expand such a state law to include private property?

What law gives a "police cadet" the right to enter private property? Are these people peace officers? If so, to what degree? This seems sketchy to have a non-police officer parking maid type of person trying to write such tickets on private property without permission to enter.

Gated properties, developments?

Newer vehicles equipped with remote controlled starters? Hmmm...they're out there and those systems can be retro-fitted to older vehicles if you want to spend a little $. These are common in colder climates for obvious reasons.

Looks like this code is full of holes and discrepancies, and cannot be applied uniformly throughout the city. This is exactly why the state left the scope of this code to apply to highways (public streets). There's good reasons why they did not write this state code to include private property. This is why poorly thought out municipal codes are the easiest to get thrown-out of court. Wasting a judges time and clogging-up the courts with BS.

As far as the argument goes for keeping insurance costs down; if someone wants to leave the keys in and engine running for warm-up on their 1977 pinto because the carbuerated engine runs poorly when cold, I highly doubt the insurance payoff on such vehicles will have any impact on everyone else's rates. The police can help keep insurance down for the rest of us by enforcing the traffic laws, keeping speeders in check and reducing the overall number of accidents that are the real cause of high insurance rates for the rest of us!

Posted by BeaHappi on March 27, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ventura22 ...read David Keith's explanation of the code above. As stated, they do not cite cars that are on private property (in driveways) and don't cite those that can be turned on with a remote because no keys are in the ignition.

With gas prices as high as they are, I don't know why anyone would have their car turned on a second earlier then needed. As for it being cold in the car in the morning, bring a blanket. That's what I do for my kids when they get in the car in the early AM.

Good job OPD - for all that you do. I'm sure it seems "damned if you do, damned if you don't" but there are people in Oxnard who appreciate the job you do.

Posted by Ventura22 on March 27, 2008 at 8:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If they in fact do not cite cars on private property, they why do they need to make-up a special local ordinance to enforce an existing state law they are already responsible for enforcing?? Hmmm... If that was indeed the scope of their enforcement, all they would have to do is simply have their staff cite the cars on public streets, as the state code already allows them to cite for.

Some vehicles do not perform well when immediately driven cold after starting(most diesels). This increases wear on the engine; ask any qualified mechanic about this. As for cold climates, running an engine in drive with a cold block and transmission will wear-out the parts very quickly and shorten the life of the automobile. Ask someone who lives in a cold region, or in the northeast. Fortunately, this is not so much of an issue here, thus, is why I live here, not in N. Dakota.

I do respect what the local cops do, as I worked in law enforcement many years ago, though not in traffic enforcement. It's very frustrating to those of us who actually understand law and the courts when we see such a poor use of public resources to enforce something that has no definite effects on life and safety of the public at large; whereas enforcing traffic laws on the road does have a direct correlation to reducing behavior that causes lots of deaths, injuries and property damage. I really don't care about someone's car getting swiped if they leave it running with keys. Free will and determination- it's their loss and most likely, not fully insured to cover theft anyway. Stolen vehicles do not occupy as much police resources as do other problems. They take a report, enter it in the system as stolen and wait for it to turn-up somewhere; usually never does. Chop shops and Mexico take care of this. More clerical work gets done than actual policing and investigating.

Posted by smithjc on March 28, 2008 at 2:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

the main reason to pass an ordinance that covers something already in the state law, if not pre-empted by that law, is money. if a municipality or county has an ordinance against something, and they cite under that ordinance rather than the state law, a greater portion of the fine goes back to the city than it would if they cited under the state law. that's why several cities have passed ordinances against parking in handicapped zones and use that, rather than the state law that adequately covers it. they can also set the fine at a higher level than the state law. using the h/c parking statute as example, the basic state parking fine is $280. most city ordinances set it in the 325-350 range. so, not only is the fine higher, the city gets more of the money.

Posted by Ventura22 on March 28, 2008 at 3:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A-ha! so, it is true! They just want the money. Is that what this is all about? To justify someone's job?

Posted by AnnaWhaat on March 31, 2008 at 6:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Different cities and different fines......why is it that if your car is towed in Oxnard you have to pay 294.00 for a release form from the police, yet it its towed in Ventura its 148.00?? Who is out for Money????
Back to the cars my car wont lock if the key is in the ignition. Nor shut off if its not in park.