Red-light tickets veer off course
 |
  17 years
|
Red-light tickets veer off course
By Danny Westneat
Seattle Times staff columnist
If you are one of the tens of thousands of local drivers to get a ticket from a photo camera system, it might interest you — or irk you — to hear what the law intended you to pay.
Twenty bucks. Not $124, as Seattle, Bellevue, Auburn and 15 other cities charge for getting caught by red-light cameras. Not $189, typical for being photo-nabbed by a speed camera.
Twenty bucks. About what you would pay for a parking ticket.
"The cities have absolutely run wild with these cameras. The proof is all there, for anyone willing to look."
That's Bruce Haigh, of Kirkland, who, like me, has never gotten a photo ticket. He's a reader — a "troublemaker," he says — who wrote me after I suggested last week the "camera cops" might be making a Seattle intersection near my office more dangerous.
He also happens to be a former federal investigator for the Defense Department who's got time on his hands. So he spent some of it digging.
To see just how off-track the camera cop programs have veered, go back to the beginning, Haigh said. He guided me to March 14, 2005 — the day the state Senate approved the automated-traffic-safety-camera law.
Some senators had been trying for years to let cities do camera enforcement. Since 2001, though, the bill had died. The chief worries were that the state might be denied a cut of money it currently gets from moving-violation tickets, and that local cities might milk the cameras as money-generating bonanzas.
So in 2005, senators came up with a clever solution. Make the photo tickets equivalent to parking tickets. So legally they aren't moving violations. And financially they wouldn't be "cash cows" for the cities.
Here's what the law's prime sponsor, Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, said in the Senate in 2005 when she offered the key amendment to make any camera ticket, red-light or speeding, no costlier than what cities typically charge for a parking ticket.
"I know that some people would perceive that a local government would use this as a cash cow," she said. "That is not our intention at all ... What this amendment does is it restricts them, so that they cannot have a fine higher than their parking violations.
"Which is about — the state recommends $20. The idea is to change behavior, not collect a lot of money."
Got that Seattle, Tacoma, Federal Way, Lynnwood, Issaquah, Renton and every other city around here lighting up the streets like pinball machines with these automated ticketing machines (ATMs)? She said around $20.
"This bill is very limited," Haugen soothed.
It didn't turn out that way. Seattle's cameras have churned out more than 75,000 red-light tickets since the program began three years ago. At $124 a pop. Seattle currently charges $38 for a parking ticket.
It's clear from listening to this old debate in the state Legislature, through TVW's archives, that traffic cameras never would have passed without these restrictions.
None of the cities are paying heed. Despite what Haugen said and other legislators echoed, the cities say there is one $250 parking fine on the books — for illegally parking in a disabled spot. So that gives them carte blanche to charge anything up to that amount.
In other words, they're playing the senators for suckers. Us, too.
Who is right will be decided in a federal court, probably next year. Forty-nine drivers are suing the cities and two private traffic-camera companies, arguing the excessive fines break state law.
The suit also shows how the cities are using contracts that tie a portion of the private companies' proceeds to how many tickets they issue, which the state also tried to outlaw in that 2005 bill.
Legally I have no idea who will win. I also respect that this mess has a worthwhile goal — safer streets — which some readers said I should be ashamed of for trivializing.
But practically, what's going on here is obvious. It's a little thing, but the kind that can turn big and bad if people end up resenting their local government.
In the name of safety, we're being nickel and dimed.
I mean $124 and $189'ed.
Danny Westneat's column appears Wednesday and Sunday. Reach him at 206-464-2086 or dwestneat@seattletimes.com.
A typical 'story of
A typical 'story of g'ment'....
Say one thing..do another...
Geee..can't wait till they take over health care huh?
(If they do..there WILL be a revolution...)
Nuvi 350 Born Oct 07 - Nuvi 660 Unit #2 (re)Born Sept 08 - Nuvi 360(Gift to 'the chick' yet maintained by myself) Born July 08
Excellent Article
Absolutely EXCELLENT article. Concise, to the point, no rhetoric (ok, maybe a tiny bit), and a perfect modern example of government's M.O.
IMO every government whether it be Federal, State, or Local should make it easy to reference current law to the debate & issues that surrounded it's enactment. It would be enlightening to subsequent generations and a reminder of how much we need to watch our governing bodies.
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.
aMEN
A typical 'story of g'ment'....
Say one thing..do another...
Geee..can't wait till they take over health care huh?
(If they do..there WILL be a revolution...)
Amen
Bob: My toys: Nüvi 1390T, Droid X2, Nook Color (rooted), Motorola Xoom, Kindle 2, a Yo-Yo and a Slinky. Gotta have toys.
Great article. That is
Great article. That is Washington State. Wonder if there is any similar information about other states. I would think that this is a state (not federal) matter.
Just ridiculous.
Just ridiculous.
Tough one
Great article. That is Washington State. Wonder if there is any similar information about other states. I would think that this is a state (not federal) matter.
By similar info, I assume you were referring to the original intent, language, etc. of the authorizing legislation in other states? It's tough to dig that deep even in States that have good web presence. Hence my other comment. Unless someone has already done the research for your area I'm afraid you're on your own.
Here's a starting point for Maryland (my State). I'm retired & have time but my "honey-do" list is a bit restrictive these days.
http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/html/mmtoc.html
and
http://www.dsd.state.md.us/MDRegister/
It's about the Line- If a line can be drawn between the powers granted and the rights retained, it would seem to be the same thing, whether the latter be secured by declaring that they shall not be abridged, or that the former shall not be extended.
Not VT
I seriously doubt if there will ever be camera enforcement in Vermont. I am not in favor of it, thats for sure !!!
Great Article!
As it becomes more and more obvious to Joe American that all these "safety measures" are really about generating money, hopefully more people will stand up and fight against this insidious effort by local governments to line their pockets.
Lest anyone still think that it really IS about public safety, let me recount to you the story of Coburg, Oregon.
Coburg is a town of roughly 960 residents just North of Eugene, Or. In the late 90's the city leaders decided to send Coburg city cops out on to the neighboring I-5 interstate and set up speed traps to make the city some money. In 2001, Coburg city cops handed out nearly $700,000 in speeding tickets to drivers on I-5, this representing about 60% of the city's entire annual budget.
Travelers on I-5 became so irate and complained so much that the Oregon legislature passed a law (aptly named "The Coburg Law") that stated that cities and municipalities could not keep the money from tickets that their police officers issued outside of the city limits--the idea being that this would reduce the incentive to run speed traps. That next year the city of Coburg nearly went broke, and in a clever (but insidious!) legal move they annexed all of the land around I-5 to the city boundary line for the express purpose of continuing to set up speed traps on I-5.
Over the Thanksgiving holiday I drove through that area, and, sure enough there were 4 City of Coburg cop cars (2 N. bound, 2 S. bound) and all 4 had people pulled over and they were writing tickets (Coburg cops are NOTORIOUS for issuing tickets even when you're only 2-3 miles an hour over the limit......)!!!
It IS all about revenue and THAT's why I use a radar-detector and a GPS with the red/speed light databases..........
NP
In times of profound change, the learners will inherit the earth while the "learned" find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists...
This is what you call life
This is what you call life
Wow
Wow. That is really interesting. I hope the people challenging the cameras win. The outrageous fines are clearly well beyond the point of a simple safety concern and indicate greed.
Jeff
The Road to Hell...
Is paved with the best intensions.
When you write legislation, you have to state what the law intends to do.
When another group tries to do something diametrical opposite from what the legislative intent was, all hell breaks loose.
I say that the legislative intent has been broken, so they ought to resend the laws. Write something tighter and more restrictive on use and fines, or forbid the cameras altogether.
If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there.
It is a revenue generator.
It is a revenue generator. Plain and simple.
In Arizona, our previous Gubner Napolitano, (now head of Homeland Security), publicly stated here that the cameras would "generate revenue" to help offset Arizona's budget deficit. The average cost of a speeding ticket from a camera is about $176. But to help passify drivers, the ticket will not go on your driving record. They don't want you to fight the ticket (tying up the courts + additional costs). Just pay the ticket...or just give us your money and don't complain.
Hopefully, the redlight/speeding camera issue will be on next November's voting ballot to let the "citizens" decide if redlight/speeding cameras are needed.
OK.....so where the heck am I?
Light tickets in CA
It cost much more in CA than $176-- My daughter was cited for making a right turn at 2 AM. The fine was $400, and goes on the driver's record. She went to traffic school for additional $$ to keep it off her record.
Punishment did not fit the crime!
If it would have been an real officer she could explain that she was going to help her sister that was just admitted to ER. He might have let her off. The camera does not!
NUVI 680, NUVI 5000, MS S&T,
same as seat belts
seat belt tickets did the same, when they found out they could make money from it they separated the ticket from other tickets and raised the price.
curious
"making a right turn at 2 AM" I assume it was a right turn on red, why didn't she fight the ticket?
wow..
you think technology would be more helpful then that.
Again....another way for
Again....another way for "our" government to take more of "our" money. Government= how to make more money without doing anything.
OK.....so where the heck am I?
It just goes to show these
It just goes to show these devices have nothing to do with safety. If one runs a red light they either cause and accident or could cause an accident. This is what the cities should be concerned about. But their not, it's for $$$ only. If the purpose was safety they'd take more points away from your license or they'd do something else related to our so-called privilege of driving.
Bob
Money for
I read all the comments and as I read it struck me that this revenue generation concept is just the idea congress needs. A fed tax on top of the ticket cost, what way to pay for the bank and auto bailouts.
Nuvi 750 and 755T
Great Story
I live in NYC and there are so many red light cameras. Just another form of taxation.
Indiana
Good thing it isn't passed yet for Indiana.
You Spoke Too Soon
rusted10:
Gotcha!
http://www.poi-factory.com/node/26314
OK.....so where the heck am I?
Red Light Camers
There are no Red Light Cameras in Idaho.
If you ain't got pictures, I wasn't there.