Ok, so those of you in the Abq area, WATCH OUT. Did you know that the "Red Light" cameras also issue speeding tickets? I had no idea. We just got two in the mail, for speeding, on the same street, at two consecutive intersections. Now that never would have happened if I'd been stopped by a cop. I say "we" because I'm not sure who was driving, and they don't care, the penalty is assessed against the vehicle, and the registered owner is responsible no matter who was driving. The pic and video are taken from an angle such that you can't even see a driver at all, but I'm guilty because I registered the car. That's a constitutional abomination. I never liked the big brother camera idea in the first place, and I certainly don't like it any better now.

They just voted to put up a bunch of those effin' things here in Austin too

"Your" government in action.

I'm not for the camers but if people didnt speed, they wouldnt put them in. Same thing with red light camers here. People complain about them but intersection T bones are way down.

Seems to work to me.

They cause more accidents then they prevent. It is a revenue tool plain and simple.

Im not a fan of them either, but I dont see how you think they cause more accidents?

Some people slam on the brakes when they shouldn't to avoid going through a questionable light... t bones go down - rear enders go up. I can't say if one effect is greater than the other, though.

It's true. The intersections with the cameras are outright dangerous because people behave very unpredictably. Everybody's so scared of getting tickets (because you can not contest them in court or get any sense of justice, and they cost twice as much as a ticket from a cop for the same offence) that they do weird things to avoid it. As soon as the light turns yellow, people lock up the brakes. I have literally seen cars come to a screeching halt in a puff of smoke. This happens frequently at those intersections.

The thing is, the red light cameras came about because too many people were trying to sneak through the end of the green turn arrows. Knowing that a red arrow will prevent them from turning when the opposing traffic clears, being stuck there for a LONG time if they don't get through. Pushing the yellow/red is not the right thing to do on their part, but the city didn't do the right thing either. There seem to be two much better solutions. If it's not long enough then make the green arrow longer, or take away the red arrow so people can turn when it's clear. Either or both of those solutions would have solved the problem with no need for taxing the public to the tune of six million dollars.

There's about 100 red light cams in Chicago...

Can you say revenue generators? BS but what can you do....

Absolutely, Albuquerque has made over $6 million in profits off it so far. As for what we can do? I like the idea of vigilante justice en masse, everyone with a paintball gun shoots the camera lens covers. Keep them covered with paint so they are unable to exploit people. Stand up as a population and say to those who we elect to lead us: "You have gone too far, we will not allow you to do this to us." Ok, maybe not, but it's not a crime to dream... yet. Or maybe it is, I haven't read the latest from the white house.

Just drive like a normal person. Dont push your luck at red lights. Dont wait till its been yellow for 2-3 seconds before deciding to stop for the light.

If rear enders have gone up its because people are too damn impatient. Once they adjust to the lights and learn to slow down on a yellow, not when its red, the problem will go away.

Dont want the cameras to generate revenue? Want them to be a useless tool? DONT RUN THE DAMN LIGHTS. If they dont make $ they will stop putting them up. Shooting them with paint balls only costs the rest of us $.

It isn't all that hard if you can focus your brain power for a few seconds.

I think that they may not be perfect, but you can see how the traffic at these intersections has changed. Before you could see there may be 5-10 cars running the light so that they wouldn't have to wait for the next light. I can see how the may reduce the number of accidents within the intersection but may cause more before the actually intersection. The intention is there. The money from the program was to be put back in the program and therefore be self-running. It is currently being looked at by the Mayor to see if he wants to keep it, based on the idea that there is not any data to show that they have reduced accidents. Shooting it will paint does not solve the problem but makes me think that the cameras are created for the people that want to do things like this.
I am not saying that I am any better than them, just that I know where the cameras are and know that I must watch he way that I am driving. Do I sound like a parent, or what?

I am not actually going to go shoot cameras with a paint gun, didn't you catch the part where I admitted that as a FANTASY? The point was, that if the people don't like how they're being governed, they can fix it if motivated.

Anyway, I don't run red lights. I don't advocate running red lights. I don't push yellow lights, and I don't drive around like I'm in a hurry. In fact my other car is a hybrid through which I have adapted to driving more passively than anyone I've ever seen.

What I do mind is not knowing they check speed too, then getting two speeding tickets with no knowledge of it, when I am driving the same speed as everyone else (which is the safest speed, by the way, proven in many studies). At 9 o'clock on a sunday morning, with very light traffic on an 8-lane roadway, I was driving a perfectly safe speed, albeit over the limit. If we'd known we had been caught at the first one, obviously we would not have been speeding at the second. They obviously take advantage of the fact that you have no idea you've been caught. So enough sanctimony from you folks who think it's so simple to not get caught by big brother. The most momentary lapse of attention to speed can result in a $100 ticket for going ONE mph over the limit. That has absolutely nothing to do with safety.

Add to that the complete violation of the constitution by concluding a guilty party with absolutely no proof whatsoever who was driving. In the case of "my" two tickets, I was driving in the first, and my wife and I honestly can not remember who was driving in the second offense. They have no proof to pin it on me, and according to the 5th ammendment, I don't have to incriminate myself or anyone else. It should be up to them to prove either of us committed a crime. In the pictures they have, no driver can be seen at all. Plus the fines from cameras are significantly more expensive than police tickets, which actually require the time and energy of a salaried officer who isn't working for a commission like the cameras are. This all adds up to a very unfair system.

As for the benefits at those particular intersections, yes fewer people push the yellow arrow at intersections with cameras. That is nice, and it is still a problem at the lights without cameras. But I still advocate fixing that problem the right way, by eliminating the problem. Make the green arrow longer and/or eliminate the red arrow. Problem solved, no fleecing the public, everybody's happy except the money grubbers and control freaks. That's perfectly fine with me.

WTF does it matter who was driving? Do you not know where your car is when your not in it? YOU are responsible for YOUR vehicle. If it takes off on its own like Herbie the Love Bug you should get pictures, your gonna be rich.

I'm not so self righteous to say I dont speed or that I dont push my luck at a yellow light now and again but I'm also not gonna belly ache when I get caught.

Oh and lets be real, you weren't going 1 MPH over, likely at least 5 if not more. And the moving with traffic excuse is old. What lane were you in? Far left or far right?

Where I live, they put up cameras in two intersections about 1/2 mile apart. They issued warnings only for the first 30 days. In that time period, for just those two corners, over 1,000 warnings were sent out.

Do you guys understand fully how it works? The red light camera only documents a violation if a vehicle enters the intersection after the light has turned red. If you make it into the intersection on the yellow, no ticket.

If it only tickets those who enter the intersection after the light is red, and you get a ticket from a red light camera, guess what? You deserve it, so accept responsibility and move on.

In this country, in order to convict someone of a crime, it must be proven that the person committed it. In typical traffic tickets, the officer is a witness to the offense and the driver's identity. The cameras provide no such evidence. A car can not commit a crime.

And it DOES matter who was driving because they keep track of repeat offenses for escalating fines, and the insurance company certainly cares too. No matter who is driving my car, I am guilty, even if I loan it to someone, which I am obviously going to have to stop doing. And there's no recourse. It's not a 'legal' ticket. It doesn't come from the court, it comes from the city administration. In order to defend yourself, you can only request a hearing where they simply tell you that they have pictures of your car and because you own it you're guilty. If you wish to appeal after that then you must pay court costs to set up a writ. The system has been completely flipped to 'guilty until proven innocent' and put all the onus on the 'guilty' to prove otherwise. That is bass ackward. That is not the way our legal system is supposed to work. Don't any of you have a problem with that? I certainly do. And so do many other states who have outlawed the practice on a constitutional basis.

And it's not just about the fine. I am fine with paying that (though it's not right that the camera fines are double the cop fines). Any of you ever had a speeding ticket come back to haunt you in insurance costs? With those kinds of compounded penalties, I deserve the chance to defend myself legally. It is my RIGHT to do so.

So by your own statement, if I were to steal your vehicle and speed through 100 red lights (hey, double the fine, running a red light and speeding), you should be the one responsible for paying the fines associated with my driving. That makes a lot of sense. :rolleyes:

By the same logic, if your kids are driving your car and hit and kill someone, you should be charged with vehicular homicide/manslaughter, not your kids. :rolleyes:

The operator, not the owner, is resposible for how the vehicle is operated.

Rock - If someone steals my car I can PROVE it was stolen at the time and I wont pay a dime. Its happened here and courts have reversed fines.

If my kid has the car then I know they have it and I'm going to see the damage when they get home. Thats really a stupid example.

If you've loaned you car out don't you ask why they need it? Where they are going? And if you suddenly get a mystery ticket aren't you going to ask that person 'hey, when you had my car, where'd you go?'

I cant help it that the original poster didn't go back to the 'mystery driver' to get them to take responsibility for their actions. If I cant trust a friend or family member to own up to a traffic light ticket they get while they have my car why am I loaning it to them?!

Take some fucking personal responsibility folks. Sounds more to me like your using the 'mystery driver' as an excuse to get out of it. Good luck.

And if your insurance goes up cause you get tickets, so be it. Why should I pay more cause you cant drive responsibly.

I choose not to argue the technical points - I'd like the reports of increased accidents etc to be true, but ultimately I believe the cameras probably do increase compliance and raise money doing it.

My argument against the cameras is about personal rights and freedom from electronic surveillance.
The speed cameras will come next, followed by general purpose cameras to watch for 'crime', followed by audio nets to listen for gunshots etc. I'm not sure what the next level is after that - but I'm sure there will be one. This may sound like tinfoil-hat talk - but it's already happened in England. London is covered in cameras constantly monitoring everything. I'm supremely confident that it will happen here, too.

It's not about wanting carte blanche to ignore the laws, it's about keeping the government's eyes and fingers out of my life wherever possible.

BTW - they've already decided that in Washington people can no longer go to court to contest parking tickets because it is too time consuming and expensive - the only recourse is email or snail mail now - which makes it soooo easy for them to deny appeals en masse. How long before this happens with the red light cameras.

Oh - another tidbit - one of the major concessions that got people to vote for this in Texas was that 1/2 of the money would go to hospitals.... they've already screwed that up with the lack of an appropriations bill (the money is collecting in an account - but nobody is authorized to withdraw money from it). I'm sure they'll find another way to screw it up in the future, too (remember how the lottery money was supposed to go to education? It didn't.).

I'll stop now before I get on too big a rant...

A couple items that came up in the last few posts.

1. Yes, according to the ordinance, no matter who uses your car and commits the offense, the fine belongs to the owner of the vehicle. As the owner, you have the opportunity to tell them who was driving if it wasn't you, but that does not release you from responsibility. YOU are still responsible if the other party does not pay. Yes, ostensibly you know who you loan a vehicle to, and expect them to be responsible with it otherwise you wouldn't do it. But when a ticket arrives in the mail two weeks later, it is not always easy to determine who was driving and who is really responsible. It's also possible that the person didn't know they were incurring these tickets and can rack up a lot of them in a short time. Stories abound. In the case of an actual traffic stop, this can not happen because the actual driver is issued the ticket at the time of the infraction, in that case it is abundantly clear who committed the offense and there are no surprises. This creates a genuinely unfair predicament.

2. If you prove the car was stolen I believe you can get out of the ticket, but I am not sure about that from a reliable source.

3. I agree that the operator should be responsible not the owner.

4. I agree also that this is primarily an argument about freedom from living under surveilance by the government. I was against it before I got a ticket, and am still against it now.

5. Let's not forget my original intent for this post, which was to warn people that they are using these cameras for speeding tickets as well as stop violations, something they don't advertise and was a surprise to me. All other debates aside, this was my main intent, to get the word out.

Because Burg obviously didn't get the point of my post... it does matter who was driving. Hey, stating that the courts have revoked tickets due to the vehcile being stolen is proof that the owner is not always responsible for the actions of the person operating their vehicle.

Zimbop - I'd consider arguing the legality of the 2 tickets, especially if you have some sort of time proof. Thinking about this, you stated you got speeding tickets on the same street at consecutive lights - so essentially the city/state is fining you twice for one offense. Unless the city/state has officers in the habit of issuing multpile tickets for drivers they pull over who pass through multiple intersections, you should be able to get at least one of those tickets thrown out.

Additionally, if the city/state has not been advertising the use of speed cameras, you can argue entrapment - especially with the consecutive tickets at consecutive lights.

At first I thought the two tickets were on the same trip, but I hadn't noticed that the dates were different. It turns out they were at nearly the same time on two consecutive days, so it looked like it was two tickets on the same trip, just a few minutes apart, but in actuality the second one came 24 hours and a few minutes later. Still though, had we known about the first offense, the reminder would have worked, we would have been more attentive to speed and not gotten the second ticket. After all, they're claiming to do this for safety reasons and to get people to be more attentive to these things, the first one would have done the job. I am not too optimistic that they'll see it my way, but I plan to try anyway. $250 is a lot of money but that's nothing compared to what insurance hikes can cost.

It's still not clear to me whether the insurance companies have access to these files. The city says "No record of this violation will be sent to your insurance company or the division of motor vehicles." Most people assume that means the insurance company can't find out. But I don't see that. What I see is that they don't report it to the insurance company. Nowhere do they actually claim that the insurance company can't get the info by some other means. As the city calls it a "nusiance ordinance violation" technically it's not a conviction of a traffic crime, so maybe the insurance companies can't call it a conviction. Though it's then just a matter of time before they redefine what it takes to get an insurance hike, all they have to do is decide that vehicle-related nuisance violation constitute dangerous driving habits, and there we go.

As for the entrapment defense, it won't be that easy. The city, on their web site does mention that they enforce speed with the cameras. However, in all the news, including TV and Newspaper, they refer to them almost exclusively as "red light cameras". Since that was their original intent that's how they got named. Then the city, without much fanfare, added the speed capability and nobody updated the terminology. That's what I figure anyway. I searched the newspaper database and a few articles mention speed enforcement, though they still call them by the same "red light" name in every article I found. Perhaps I could have known, but not by watching or reading the news, I would have had to search the city web page to know it. And that's really why I posted it here, so that people might find out now the easy way, instead of the hard way like I did.

If you cant fight it can you ask for 'diversion'? Here that means traffic school or a warning from the judge that if it happens again in 90 days you pay for ALL the fines plus court costs. Otherwise you just pay court cost. Thats more then the ticket but nothing goes to your record.

With your insurance most companies don't actively check but if you switch a new company will look into your history.

As far as cameras and sensors go, come to Atlanta. Inside the I285 perimeter all interstates are covered in camera's with speed sensors. Or as they call it, traffic congestion monitors. In downtown Atlanta on Capitol Hill alone theres over 500 cameras in a 6 block area. And all those cameras and sensors are feeding into multiple command center stations.

But do those cameras and monitors in Atlanta issue tickets? They have those all over albuquere and minneapolis/st paul, but here those are used to monitor traffic conditions. In the case of MSP they have a full time radio dj in the control center broadcasting constant traffic info. There it's not used to issue tickets, in fact Minnesota is one of the states that has declared traffic camera tickets unconstitutional and outlawed the practice on principle.

As for the question about asking for a "diversion." What may not be totally clear to those outside Albuquerque is that this is not a legal process. It's not state law being enforced, it's a city ordinance. They have built a separate system, independent of the state legal system, to prosecute these infractions as nuisance violations. Many believe this is in violation of state law and as such there is a class action lawsuit trying to make them stop.

There is no court, no judge, no plea to enter. It is a hearing in front of a city administrator. An attorney friend of mine went to argue her ticket and witnessed them routinely reject every arguement on the basis that there's absolute proof the vehicle committed the crime and the owner is responsible no matter what. If you want to contest the result of the hearing, you can, but you basically have to sue the city to do so. It's not really an appeal, it's a writ that you have to initiate at your own expense which, not surprisingly, is at minimum very close to the cost of the fine (and that's just the court fees). Thereby they discourage people from legally defending themselves by making it more expensive.