Traffic Camera Tickets: Do You Have To Pay?

Traffic cameras are a contentious issue. Some people refer to them as big brother, while others see them as a necessary safety measure. But what happens if you get a ticket from one of these cameras? Are you legally obligated to pay it?

The answer to this question depends on a few factors, including the location of the camera, the severity of the offence, and whether the ticket is considered a criminal or civil penalty. In some places, traffic camera tickets are considered civil infractions, which means they won't affect your driving record or insurance rates. However, failure to pay these tickets can result in fines and other penalties. On the other hand, if you are pulled over by a police officer and issued a speeding ticket, it is typically considered a criminal offence and can have more serious consequences.

Traffic camera tickets are considered civil infractions, not criminal

In the state of Iowa, traffic camera citations are also considered civil infractions. While these tickets will not impact your driving record or insurance rates, failure to pay them in a timely manner can result in other penalties. For instance, a civil lien can be placed against your license plates, affecting your ability to renew your registration.

It is worth noting that while traffic camera tickets are typically civil matters, they can escalate to criminal charges in certain circumstances. For example, in Texas, multiple traffic violations or more severe offences, such as driving while intoxicated (DWI) or hit-and-run incidents, can result in criminal charges with more severe penalties, including substantial fines, jail time, and the suspension of driving privileges.

The distinction between civil and criminal infractions is important, as it determines the potential consequences and the legal process involved. Civil infractions are generally handled through administrative processes or civil courts, where individuals can contest the ticket and present evidence. Criminal charges, on the other hand, require a higher standard of proof and are adjudicated through the criminal justice system, carrying the possibility of more severe punishments.

While traffic camera tickets may be considered civil infractions, it is always advisable to consult with a legal professional to understand the specific implications and options for your particular situation.

If you don't pay, the worst-case scenario is that they send it to a collection agency

Traffic camera tickets, also known as red light camera tickets, are typically mailed to the owner of the vehicle in question. While these tickets are considered civil infractions, they still need to be paid. If you don't pay a traffic camera ticket, the worst-case scenario is that the issuing authority sends it to a collection agency.

In the case of Iowa, for example, a traffic camera ticket is considered a civil code infraction rather than an Iowa Traffic Code Violation. This means that the ticket won't affect your driving record or license, and your insurance company won't be notified. However, if you don't pay the fine, the city can still pursue the debt. They can place a civil lien against your license plates, so when you try to renew your registration, you'll have to pay the penalty.

Similarly, in California, red light camera tickets are mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle. While these tickets are considered moving violations and can impact your driving record and insurance rates, they are still civil infractions. If you don't pay a red light camera ticket in California, there is a risk that the state could change its policies or submit information to the DMV, resulting in a suspended license or difficulties renewing your license.

While some people choose to ignore traffic camera tickets, this is generally not advisable. In addition to the possibility of the debt being sent to a collection agency, there may be other consequences. For example, in Iowa, there is a chance that the unpaid fine could be taken out of your state tax return. Additionally, ignoring any type of traffic ticket can be risky, as laws and policies can change, and there may be unforeseen repercussions.

If you are unable to pay a traffic camera ticket, there are often alternatives to non-payment. In California, for instance, you can ask the court for more time to pay, set up a payment plan, or request to do community service instead. You can also request that the court consider your ability to pay and provide information about your financial situation. These options may be available in other jurisdictions as well, so it's worth exploring your options before choosing to ignore a traffic camera ticket.

Traffic cameras disproportionately impact people with lower incomes

Traffic cameras are an increasingly common feature of roads in the US, with nearly 200 communities now using them. While some people view them as a legitimate means of traffic control, others see them as a "cash grab" or "Big Brother". But do you have to pay the fines if you're caught by one of these cameras?

Technically, yes. Traffic camera fines are civil infractions, not criminal violations, so they won't go on your driving record or affect your insurance. However, if you don't pay, the city can still come after you. They can place a civil lien against your license plates, for example, so you'll have to pay the fine when you renew your registration.

The impact of traffic cameras is not evenly felt. In places like Chicago, for instance, the tickets and fines they generate disproportionately affect Black and brown residents. This is because traffic cameras are often placed in low-income neighborhoods or communities of color, which tend to have worse infrastructure that encourages speeding. As a result, people in these areas are more likely to get tickets, adding to the financial burden on communities that are already struggling.

To make matters worse, the revenue from these tickets doesn't always go back into the communities that need it the most. In Chicago, for example, the money from traffic camera fines has been used to fill city budgets rather than improve road safety or infrastructure in the areas where the tickets were issued. This has led to criticism that the primary purpose of traffic cameras is to generate revenue, rather than improve public safety.

To address this issue, some have suggested that the revenue from camera programs should be reinvested into road infrastructure and traffic safety projects in the communities where the tickets were issued. Others have proposed that fines should be proportional to the driver's income, as is done in Finland. By taking steps like these, it may be possible to reduce the disproportionate impact of traffic cameras on low-income communities and communities of color.

Some states make out-of-state drivers pay tickets on the spot with a credit card as people don't pay otherwise

Whether or not you have to pay a traffic camera ticket depends on the state in which you received it. In Iowa, for example, traffic camera tickets are considered civil infractions rather than criminal violations. This means that while your insurance should not be affected, failure to pay can result in a civil lien being placed against your license plates, which can affect your ability to renew your registration.

Some states make out-of-state drivers pay tickets on the spot with a credit card, as people don't pay otherwise. This is because the state in which the violation occurred generally doesn't have much influence over the driver to pay the fine. To remedy this, some states are members of the "Nonresident Violator Compact" (NVC), which allows member states to suspend the licenses of drivers who fail to pay out-of-state fines until those fines are paid or the ticket is otherwise resolved. However, Michigan and Wisconsin are not members of the NVC, so they cannot use this mechanism to enforce out-of-state fine payment.

Additionally, most states are members of the "Driver's License Compact" (DLC), which requires member states to report all traffic convictions of out-of-state drivers to the driver's home state. The out-of-state conviction is then treated as if it had occurred in the driver's home state, affecting the driver's record in the same way as an in-state violation. This can include the DMV assessing points to the driver's record, depending on the state's traffic violation point system.

Traffic cameras have been shown to improve safety in some areas

Traffic cameras are a contentious issue, with some people arguing that they are an invasion of privacy and a way for governments to increase revenue via fines. However, others argue that they improve road safety by reducing the number of accidents and deterring dangerous driving.

There is evidence to support the claim that traffic cameras can improve safety in some areas. For example, a study in Barcelona found that speed cameras were effective in reducing the number of road collisions and, consequently, the number of injured people and vehicles involved in collisions. The study used a time-series design with a comparison group and controlled for potential confounders such as trends, seasonality, and traffic volume. The results showed a 27% decrease in collisions and injuries and a 26% decrease in the number of vehicles involved in collisions after the implementation of speed cameras.

Another study in Arizona examined the effects of speed cameras on a 26-mile segment of interstate I-10 in urban Phoenix. The cameras were placed every two miles along the segment, and data was collected for three nine-month periods: before the cameras were installed, during the time the cameras were in place, and after the cameras were removed. The results showed a slight increase in motor vehicle collisions (MVC) when the cameras were installed (1.5%) and a larger increase when the cameras were removed (28%). However, after accounting for MVC increases in the control segment, the study concluded that neither camera placement nor removal had an independent impact on MVCs. In other words, speed cameras did not statistically contribute to an increase or decrease in the number of MVCs in this particular area.

While the Arizona study did not find a significant effect of speed cameras on MVCs, it is important to note that the cameras were only in place for a relatively short period (from October 2008 to July 2010). In contrast, the Barcelona study had a longer intervention period of two years, which may have been a factor in the significant results observed.

In addition to the quantitative studies mentioned above, there are also qualitative arguments supporting the idea that traffic cameras can improve safety. For example, some people argue that the mere presence of cameras can act as a deterrent for speeding, running red lights, or engaging in other dangerous driving behaviors. The knowledge of being caught on camera and receiving a ticket may encourage drivers to be more cautious and comply with traffic laws.

Overall, while the effectiveness of traffic cameras in improving safety may vary depending on the specific context and location, there is some evidence to suggest that they can have a positive impact on reducing collisions and improving road safety in certain areas.

Frequently asked questions