Login or register
Police test out speed enforcement SUV
Starting Dec. 1, warnings become tickets

Jason Auslander | The New Mexican
Posted: Wednesday, November 04, 2009
- 11/5/09
0
Story Tools
Font Size:
Police test out speed enforcement SUV Facebook
Get FREE Daily Headlines by email!

advertisement
If your Maserati — or even your Subaru — does 185, you've got a new enemy on the streets of Santa Fe.

Some drivers may already have noticed the 2008 Ford Escape — painted red, white and blue and conveniently labeled "photo enforcement vehicle" — parked by the side of the road in various locations throughout town. So far, the unmanned sport-utility vehicle has been harmless to those who find the speed limit a mere suggestion. Police and the private company that owns it are still working out the kinks and sending out warnings to the lead-footed.

But come Dec. 1, the warnings become tickets, and those doing more than 11 mph over the limit might find life's not so good when an $86 comeuppance arrives in their mailbox.

"It sits out there so cops don't have to," said Santa Fe police Capt. Anthony Robbin.

In nearly two weeks of using the speed SUV, city police have issued about 1,200 warnings to drivers — including 420 in a 12-hour period on its first day stationed on southbound U.S. 84/285 coming in to the city's north side. That, according to the revenue breakdown supplied by Robbin, translates to nearly $27,000 worth of funds for the city.

The vehicle is actually owned by an Arizona company called Redflex Traffic Systems, which has signed a contract with the city to operate the speed vehicle and several red-light cameras in town. The deal requires no capital investment by the city, though it must pay Redflex a percentage of the fines it collects. In the case of the speed SUV, the city will pay the company 26 percent of the fines, Robbin said.

The red-light cameras have not yet been installed because the city has been waiting for the state to issue a permit for them, Robbin said. The city must split its cut of the revenue from both the speed SUV and the red-light cameras with the state, 50-50, he said.

The SUV is equipped with a radar unit that measures speed and a camera that takes a picture of the speeding vehicle's license plate, Robbin said. A police officer will review the violations and check a box indicating whether they are valid or not, then Redflex will send out the ticket, he said. Motorists who want to dispute the ticket can ask for a hearing with a bar-certified hearing officer the city is in the process of hiring, Robbin said.

The fine is $86 for the first violation over 11 mph, and $100 for each violation after that.

The vehicle will be parked in school zones in the morning and various other locations throughout the city after 8:30 a.m., he said. Initially, police will run the vehicle 24 hours, though it will likely stop around 7 p.m. after a period of time. The vehicle's location will be published daily in The New Mexican's police notes section, Robbin said, "so people have no excuse."

Contact Jason Auslander at 986-3076 or :jauslander@sfnewmexican.com.

WHO GETS WHAT

City police expect to actually collect about 70 percent of the fines ($86 each) generated by the speed SUV that recently went into use around town, said Capt. Anthony Robbin. Out of that amount, Redflex Traffic Systems takes 26 percent. The remainder must be split 50-50 with the state. The following is a breakdown of who gets what based on the 1,200 speed warnings issued by city police in the last 13 days:


$86 x 1,200 = $103,200

70% of $103,200 = $72,240

26% of $72,240 = $18,782 (Redflex cut)

$72,240 minus $18,782 = $53,458 (city and state cut)
50% of $53,458 = $26,729 (city's cut)


You must login to make comments.
Click on the link below to register for a free account. This is a new system and previous accounts are not transferred to this system. You'll be asked for your name and e-mail address. A confirmation e-mail with a password will be sent to you at the address you provide. Once you've logged into the system, you'll be able to view and contribute comments. Please be respectful to your fellow users and post under your own name. Send questions to webeditor@sfnewmexican.com

Email:
Password:
Remember me
Register here for a free username and password

Comments (38)
What do you think? Add your two cents to the conversation by contributing your view on the news. Please, be respectful to the community and your fellow users and use your real name when posting. Inappropriate postings will be removed and your privileges to comment further might be suspended. If you'd prefer to submit a letter to the editor for possible inclusion in The New Mexican's print edition, visit our submissions page.


(not you? logout)

Charlie Crane   (posted on 11/9/2009)
DBP - it doesen't take as picture until you pass the vehicle ... it take a photo of your license plate at the rear of your car. If you stop in front of the vehicle, that is before you pass it, you are home free. BTW you are a jerk.
Charlie Crane   (posted on 11/8/2009)
If you are speeding and see this vehicle, hit the brakes and pull over on the shoulder before getting to the vehicle. Let a few cars go by (one of which will probably get your ticket) and then pull out and be on your merry way.
Derek Durst   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Now the trick, (so i've been told, not that I would know anything about this sort of thing), is to make an exact replica of the "photo enforcement vehicle" license plate on a piece of cardboard, attach that plate to your own car, and drive through the camera trap as many times as you dare at high speed. The camera will notice your speed and take pictures of what will appear to be its own plate and subsequently issue tickets to itself. This is all in theory of course and certainly not anything that I would personally attempt or even endorse. In fact, you never heard it from me.
Mark Lujan   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Just wait until the first accident happens from people slamming their brakes when then see the van too late and then a multi car pile up ensues.
Nancy Richardson   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Vincent, good one. Likewise Paula and Rick. As for red light cameras, I think folks tend to lose sight of the fact that these are NOT monitors, but only go off if you run the red light; and they are aimed at bumper level to photograph your license plate, not at driver level. As for this new vehicle, the idea is ingenious, but let's see how it works before anybody flies off the handle about it. The idea of automated traffic enforcement does sound kind of threatening and depersonalizing, until you realize how much roadway automation is already in place (traffic signals), and that drivers also depend on standardized signage and roadway markings. All of this provides not just a setup for further automation, but opportunities to free up law enforcement personnel to work the situations where automation is impossible or ineffective. If we don't like the automation, we need only behave ourselves on the road. Just don't anybody get me started on those d*** black boxes in cars......
Vincent Vega   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I'm not seeing the controversy in this one. The camera minimizes reckless driving in one area of town, ostensibly minimizes the work a uniformed officer would have to perform, and generates a bit of revenue hopefully for the police or public safety. Why should an officer perform a task that can be so easily automated. The few - and underpaid - officers we are privileged to have should be concentrating their efforts towards reducing drunk driving, home burglaries, drug and gang related activity, and violent crimes. I recall during the discussion of red-light cameras last year that the police were in favor of the lights. I believe all studies show that cameras reduce the running of red lights, and the accidents and injuries that are a function of that particular violation. I've got to assume there is a similar corollary for speed traps. This isn't an invasion of privacy issue. If people can't keep it within 10m/hr of the speed limit they have no one to blame but themselves. We're all adults here.
Paula Lozar   (posted on 11/5/2009)
They'd make big bucks if they'd put the van ANYWHERE on 599. I get on that highway every day and set my cruise control to 55 -- and oftentimes I'm the only person for miles who's going within 11 mph of the speed limit. Rick Salazar's post is one of the few intelligent comments on this story. (I have never figured out why so many people consider speeding to be their Constitutional right and being cited for it is an instance of creeping fascism. Propelling a ton or two of metal down the highway is an inherently dangerous activity. Regulating how fast you can go isn't restricting your liberties, it's protecting public safety.)
Nancy Richardson   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Ambro, I said that with a wink, as you might observe (-:
P Orlando Baca   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I was just noticing the picture of the van. If I was driving around Santa Fe with that much junk blocking my site of vision, I would be given a ticket. How can anyone drive that safely with all the cameras and equipment blocking what they see?
Ambro A   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Nancy Richardson says. "The present format seems more 'civilized,' cutting down on trolling and the more nasty stuff"."And then we'll all be safe from you!" Safe from me? and you call that civilized? I wouldn`t hurt a fly. But I might make you feel real good.
Jim Green   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Fight back: http://www.photoblocker.com/
Jim Green   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I can't understand how the police officers union let this happen. These devices take away from union jobs. If i were a cop, i'd be grieving redflex big time. Oh, and you all realized, on the tip of "facing your accuser in court" that you, the driver, don't get the ticket. your car does. So, my friends, don't ever loan your car to your mom because you'll be paying her tickets. Oh, and another question... Why when i leave my car parked on the side of 285/599 for a whole day, do i come back to find a ticket slapped on the window for "illegal stopping, standing, or parking"? And the whole business about cops who park on the side of the road waiting for traffic violators HAVE to have their lights on after dark?? You know a flash like that (from the camera) out of nowhere in the dark could be enough to startle, distract, and cause accidents.
Adrian McDonald   (posted on 11/5/2009)
This is just another attempt at getting revenue income for our already overburdened NM drivers. Big Brother is putting it mildly. It seems that more and more cities are having to REMOVE these "automatic" enforcement means because they are a clear violation of due process. It's an excuse to hire fewer police as well and also so that our current donut eating crowd can relax more on the job and not have to defend the citizenry against the really bad drivers and other crimes out there that are skyrocketing here in The City Different! STOP MICROMANAGING TRAFFIC idiots! What part of "stop it" don't you City Councilors get??? Speed humps, speed bumps, red light cameras, automatic robotic traffic cops? Where does it stop? Big Brother is alive and well in Santa Fe! And, we all know how bad it was under Bush and company, now this? I don't think this is what the majority of Americans voted for a year ago!!!!!!!!
Rick Salazar   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Simple...if you don't speed, you have nothing to worry about. Same with red light cameras. If you don't run the lights, you have nothing to worry about. The is not Big Brother, it is just enforcing the law. And the citations are civil, not criminal. That's why there's no trial. And these citations will not appear on your driving record. That's why you get a hearing officer, not a judge. Simple.
marie larke   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Where is Fiorina when you need him? Who is the SFPD kidding? This is not about safety it is about revenues for the city. I guess doing a few miles over the limit here is a bigger crime than a burglary which according to them is up 100%! The SFPD needs to revisit their priorities, maybe they should crack down on cellphone users? That is more dangerous than a few miles over the limit! Wait till some drunk smacks into this vehicle, hope nobody gets hurt.
Nancy Richardson   (posted on 11/5/2009)
There's an interactive feature? I'd rather sacrifice that than a firewall! I didn't particularly like Topix (Henry the Web-Ed told me that the SFNM went with it for technological reasons), but still I kinda miss the Judge-it icons. The present format seems more 'civilized,' cutting down on trolling and the more nasty stuff.
marie larke   (posted on 11/5/2009)
This is not about safety, this is a program about generating revenues at the expense of the residents and visitors,instead of wasting time on this stupid idea the SFPD needs to be out there preventing burglaries which according to them are up 100%. I imagine that 10 or 11 miles over the limit is a bigger crime in this city than a burglary is. Where is Fiorina when you need him?
Ryan Flahive   (posted on 11/5/2009)
This is Big Brother at is worst. Cameras are meant to make the streets 'safer', however, studies have shown that they have no affect upon the safety of our traffic corridors--they only slow them down. They are simply another way for a government to raise more revenue through 'Sin Taxes'--I may sound redundant, but if the cameras do work and people slow down, we will end up in owing Redflex and will not generate revenue. There are better ways to use our government monies.
David Martinez   (posted on 11/5/2009)
The interactive boxes don't load if you have a firewall on your site.
Dave Golemon   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I know this isn't the proper forum for my comment but since the front end of online version of the SFNM has changed I frankly don't know where to post anymore. The new online format is baffling to me. The interactive boxes frequently don't load and when they do it does with errors on the page. I miss the true interactive nature of the old online version, in spite of the many rude and inconsiderate comments which I would prefer to suffer than try to wade through the new more-or-less commentless online version. I'm not a luddite but what the hell? Salon's recent "remodeling" is just as baffling. Needless to say, it's not an intuitive makeover.
Dale Deforest   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I'm all for red light cameras. I'm no saint when it comes to failing to beat the red light, but when I have to wait for the fifth truck or SUV making a left turn after my light's turned green, I wanna see some freaking police lights!
Nancy Richardson   (posted on 11/5/2009)
And then we'll all be safe from you! ;-p
Ambro A   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Remember the key word is "incremental". The key question is "How Safe do you want to be"? Safe from slipping in the shower? Safe from choking on a bone? Safe from a lightening strike? Why don`t you all get yourself hermetically sealed, and you`ll be safe from everything. I think I`m going to drink poison so I`m safe from life.
Emiliano Zapata III   (posted on 11/5/2009)
dont forget to show your appreciation for this progrm when it is time to vote. the program sponsor was councilman (redlight Ron Trujillo.
Rita S   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I saw this vehicle yesterday but I was only going 5 mph over the speed limit.
David Martinez   (posted on 11/5/2009)
So far these vans are being used to catch speeders, not red light runners. The only issue I have with them is that due process seems to be forgotten, you can't face your accuser in a courtroom, you face a hearing officer.
P Orlando Baca   (posted on 11/5/2009)
I'll bet this is a safety issue to our City Fathers and Mothers. I'll bet your paychcheck that it is NOT being done to generate revenue--just like in Albuquerque! Although in Albuquerque, they are looking at ending the camera program now that Chavez was not re-elected emperor. You give up your right to be heard before a judge--all you get is a political hack beurocratic hearing officer. It is set up so that police don't have to spend time sitting at intersections doing their jobs. If speeding is such a problem, hire more police. I love computers and technology, but I hate the idea of Big Brother. Goodbye land of the free. Que Dios nos libre.
Richard Beal   (posted on 11/5/2009)
SO this is just a highly controversial red light camera - installed without any public or official discussion. Read today's article in the Washington Post about all the cities that are throwing cameras like this out. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/04/AR2009110404747.html?hpid=topnews
Khal Spencer   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Spare us the histrionics, Ambro, although they make for interesting reading. Speeding is a traffic violation done in plain sight, so there is no Big Brother violation here, just better technology than the radar traps I had to contend with during my misspent youth. If we want to worry about Big Brother, who is alive and well under President Obama, there are much bigger fish to fry. Have you seen this one: http://www.nationalterroralert.com/updates/2009/10/06/recognizing-8-signs-of-terrorism-video-unveiled-by-dhs/ There is a simple solution to speed enforcement. Don't speed.
David Martinez   (posted on 11/5/2009)
'bro, if you don't speed, why would you care if the police state is using this van? This van is good for safety and good for the police state's coffers.
Nancy Richardson   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Ambro, we're saved from your scenario by the tiny little fact that the location of the vehicle is published in the paper every day. Maybe they'll even get around to putting it in a box on the front page, so that it can be seen in the window of a vending machine. So that particular bell tolls for thee only if thou art speeding. Anyway, it sure was nice of them to wait till I had left town before putting this thing into service, hee hee!!
Ambro A   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Step by step. Slowly they turn. Incrementally they move.One inch at a time. Then before you know it,,,,BAMMMMMM!!! SLAMMM!!!KABOOM! The scientific, high tech, police state dictatorship Has got you. Like a cat ready to pounce. Like a snake ready to strike. They got you! You`re dead! Remember for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for thee.
Milon Deemer   (posted on 11/5/2009)
Sounds like a good idea as long as it gets the road racers to slow down. David, Most of what you pay for anything goes out of state so that's not a credible reason to complain. Besides, if you don't like it, don't speed.
Drive By Poster   (posted on 11/4/2009)
hey david.. i was just kidding with you! i have never seen you drive. maybe that's good? LOL :)
David Martinez   (posted on 11/4/2009)
Speaking of, that van would rake in the bucks if it were to park just west of the Pojoaque high school, where it's a double fine safety corridor. I'm the only one who drives 55, everybody passes me doing the old speed limit of 65. I have no reason to speed, I'm in no hurry to get to work.
Drive By Poster   (posted on 11/4/2009)
actually david, i saw you, and you FLEW by me going 63mph. what you didn't realize, was that you were in a DOUBLE FINE construction zone, and it was posted 45mph. soooooo, you were actually going 18 miles per hour OVER the limit, and then of course the DOUBLE FINE? well.. it looks like you owe the state of ARIZONA about 172 BUCKS! have a nice day! :)
Drive By Poster   (posted on 11/4/2009)
this is ridiculous. now some out of state private company is getting into the santa fe code enforcement business and the city will pay them 26% of the fines? screw this. i'm not paying some jerk in arizona 26% of a fine i committed in new mexico. they can sue me.. or bite me... whichever comes first. maybe i'll start driving BACKWARDS everywhere i go, and go really fast. then the city with their little precious redifreddieflex cameras will get a photo of my (_!_) and that's all.
David Martinez   (posted on 11/4/2009)
Today, I had the pleasure of passing the parked van on 84-285. I was driving my usual 63 mph in the 65 mph zone, so no worries, except that a black truck passed me at the moment I went by the van. The truck was going 85 or so. I saw the flash in my rear view, I hope the right person gets the warning.


advertisement
  • JB Yelsky commented on
  • Ambro A commented on
  • P Orlando Baca commented on
  • Truett Collins commented on
  • Ambro A commented on
  • Joe McNabb commented on
  • Ambro A commented on
  • Doreen Saiz-Adler commented on