Florida Red Light Camera Law Doesn't Care Who's Driving: Car Owner Fined
from the as-long-as-the-city-gets-paid,-who-cares? dept
There are an awful lot of problems with red light cameras -- starting with the fact that they don't actually decrease accidents or make the roads any safer. Most evidence suggests the only thing they're really good for is increasing the revenue for a city -- which is why a bunch of cities have broken the laws over the years and shortened the length of the yellow light to "catch" more red light runners -- while also actively ignoring any actual data around the cameras. Reader Gabriel Tane points us to a newly proposed law in Florida for red light cameras that, on top of everything else, would automatically fine the owner of the car even if he or she wasn't driving. It's difficult to see how this is reasonable... unless of course this law has nothing to do with making drivers safer, and is, instead, a way to raise extra money for a city.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: florida, liability, red light cameras
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
This would be the only exception I know to the general rule that the criminal is the person committing the crime. Never, that I know of, has owning property made a person criminally liable for what someone else does with it. What if we extended this to houses? Should we arrest landlords when a tenant builds a meth lab in the basement of their rental property?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In Maryland, the owner of the vehicle is fined, HOWEVER not given any points on their license. It's not a matter of "due process" because the fact is that the car was caught speeding and the owner is financially responsible without legal consequences to their reckless driving.
And yes, if someone (even a door-to-door salesman you haven't invited) slips on a step on your doorway, they are your liability.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
How does that make any sense?
when you own a piece of land you are expected to maintain them, just like checking the air pressure of your tires, but if someone threw a party on your front lawn while you were on vacation they would get fined for the noise violations, not the home-owner.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You are more than welcome to 'fight' the ticket with proof of who you lent *your* car to. Moral of the story don't lend your vehicle out to anyone you don't trust to take responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guilty until proven innocent. Sounds about right for Maryland.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Civilly, yes. But not criminally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Legality
> responsible with what someone else does
> with it?
Since forever.
Have you not noticed that if you lend your car to someone and they park it at a meter and get a ticket, you're responsible for the ticket even though you weren't driving? It's been that way for decades and the government is just porting this concept over to other traffic violations.
Granted, the state has to decriminalize the offense of running a red light in order to hold the car owner vicariously liable but that's happening all over these days. Nothing unique about it.
Used to be, running a red light was criminal offense. If a cop caught you and gave you a ticket for it, and you failed to pay the fine or show up in court, the judge could issue a bench warrant for your arrest and the cops could actually lead you away in handcuffs and put you in jail when they found you. Your license could also be suspended for it.
With a criminal offense, per the Constitution, the state has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you and you alone committed the offense in question. However, with a civil administrative non-criminal fine, no such constitutional protections exist. Just like that parking ticket, you can be held liable civilly for what is done with your vehicle even if you are not present.
The trade-off is that the state has to decrminalize things like running red lights, which means if you fail to pay the fine and/or show up in court, they can no longer issue warrants for your arrest, nor can they suspend your driver's license (or put points on it) for the offense. All they can do is assess a fine and send it to a debt collection agency if you don't pay-- which will blacken your credit rating. They can also refuse to renew your license and registration when it expires until you pay the debt.
But for all those screaming "This is unconstitutional!", think again. It's not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> the general rule that the criminal is the
> person committing the crime.
That's the key. These violations are no longer criminal. They're civil administrative violations now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We can do this, if we all put it together.
Thanks you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We can do this, if we all put it together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We can do this, if we all put it together.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I got the perfect idea!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got the perfect idea!!
Or steal a politician's car. Maybe that's what Vin Diesel's character was doing in the first scene from XXX.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I got the perfect idea!!
I believe they made cardboard license plates and covered up there's with one from a teacher or principal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got the perfect idea!!
> light in the city, and by the time the rental
> company gets the ticket in the mail, you're
> back home.
And then the rental company sends you a notice of all the fines that are due and tells you that if you don't pay, they'll charge the full amount to the credit card they have on file for you, per the rental agreement you signed.
Sure, you could cancel the card, but then they'll just turn the debt over to a collection agency, which will ruin your credit rating.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got the perfect idea!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I got the perfect idea!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Please don't step in the puddles of sarcasm as you leave....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's assuming, without evidence, that you "had" someone commit a crime for you rather than them committing the crime on their own accord. Again, that's "guilty until proven innocent."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
It is YOUR vehicle, take responsibility for what is done with it.
There are really only three cases here:
1. YOU are driving and deserve the ticket
2. YOU lent it to someone and THEY deserve the ticket.
3. it was STOLEN and obviously you shouldn't be liable.
case 2 & 3 are the same thing. Someone else was operating the vehicle. In the last case, without your knowledge or approval. Simply provide your police report and they will rescind your fine.
Case #2, just let them know who *was* driving your vehicle. If the person won't accept the responsibility, I suggest you don't loan your car to them anymore.
If you don't want the responsibility, don't own a car or don't lend it to anyone...problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Why should someone take responsibility for someone else's actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Think before posting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No improvements in safety? Really?
http://www.iihs.org/research/qanda/rlr.html#cite9
The article certainly appears to be saying that the increase in rear-end accidents is more than offset by the reduction in right angle crashes, which tends to cause greater damage and more injuries. The article even has estimated dollar savings.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
http://www.leftlanenews.com/six-us-cities-tamper-with-traffic-cameras-for-profit.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm
I also wonder whether the Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center is yet another insurance industry shill. They too found that red light cameras were a net benefit.
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/05049.pdf
It appears that the insurance industry shills have infiltrated Wikipedia, because the studies they cite (at least one of which is above) also point out the benefits of the cameras.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_camera#Issues_of_effectiveness
Insurance industry shills are obviously everywhere...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
Second, I am guessing you looked at the IIHS references for those that you just added. The link to the FHWA study was one of the only references on the original IIHS page actually regarding the effectiveness of red-light cameras in increasing safety. The second link is an executive summary of the first study, thus being completely redundant. Now, you don't have to actually read everything you reference, but the fact that they are hosted on the same site should have tipped you off...maybe?
So...you have the FHWA study that was already referenced in your IIHS link to add to the discussion.
http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/22/2267.asp
This is an actual study of whether red light cameras would be effective in Florida, relevant to the task at hand. Unsurprisingly, they suggest "no".
http://hsc.usf.edu/nr/rdonlyres/c1702850-8716-4c2d-8eeb-15a2a741061a/0/2008pp001008orbanetalr edlightpapermarch72008formatted.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
I also point out that I provided links to multiple sources that laid out exactly why your two sources (that you attempted to portray as more than two by duplicating them and citing an inconclusive wikipedia excerpt to boot) used faulty studies. In response, you called my sources (that argued logically) biased while providing no evidence whatsoever, and completely failed to answer the original questions of the credibility of your two "studies".
Additionally, another user made comments as to the conflict of interest of sources you cited that actually were citing other sources of yours themselves, and you did not respond to these either. You did not even specify how these "people" are biased with "axes to grind with monitoring and who are generally anti-government". One of them (USF) is a government entity itself, and I would love to hear you explain how Car and Driver either "has an axe to grind with monitoring" or is "generally anti-government".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
#2Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center is a federally owned and operated entity. As such, not only are they influenced by the insurance lobbyists, but they are also part of the federal/state system that is making money off of this operation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
I am struggling with your logic on the first one. Since Battelle is not involved in the actual monitoring, why should they care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
Take fluoridation for instance. Dismiss all of the crazy conspiracy theories about it and boil it down to one simple fact: Sodium-Fluoride is derived from the process of making iron. It is a byproduct that was previously tossed out. Fluoridation advocates have largely centered around national health think tanks and lobbyists, groups whose leadership and substational funding came from Rockefeller owned metals companies, who had found a way to make money off of this byproduct.
Whether you believe they had any further malicious intent is irrelevant to this argument. What's important is that these people advocate three steps ahead, and the slippery slope argument needs to kept top of mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm is the same as http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/05049.pdf
The Wikipedia entry notes that one study "also notably found that red-light violations decreased by 94% at one Fairfax County intersection, after the advent of a 1.5 second longer yellow-light cycle." It also states that one UK report "urges caution in drawing too strong conclusions from a small data set."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
http://hscweb3.hsc.usf.edu/health/now/?p=404
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05049/05049.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: No improvements in safety? Really?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not criminal, civil, decent friends, no problem.
I still have no problem with red light cameras. I got one ticket from one a few years ago, right turn on red when there was a sign that said no turn on red that I didn't see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cha Ching
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Thumbs Up From Me
I think it's a good idea myself. In Auckland, New Zealand, when a light goes green, you sit and wait an extra second before going, because it's almost guaranteed SOMEONE will shoot the red light. Thankfully I'd been warned about this, or my first green light I'd have been totalled.
And if they can idenfity that it's your car, then why not fine you for it. As Joseph pointed out - loan your car to people you trust and it's not a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thumbs Up From Me
Wow some people will let the government do anything "as long as its for safety" or "think of the children"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thumbs Up From Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Thumbs Up From Me
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Thumbs Up From Me
> to be fixed and the mechanic, taking it for
> a test drive, takes it through a red light?
> Are you saying that it's still your fault?
They're not saying it's your fault. They're saying it's your responsibility.
If the mechanic cost you money, then you go back to the mechanic with the ticket and demand he reimburse you. If he refuses, then sue him in small claims court and have a judge order him to. Should be a simple case to prove.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The rental companies have an agreement with a 3rd party collection agency that will charge a 50-100% premium over the fine, and will aggressively come after it. The whole thing is one big market.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Readlight Camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Readlight Camera
Red light cameras are a scam and do NOT decease safety. That is what the companies who sell the product claim. On the surface it would make sense. But it is a load of bull.
Here is a link to FIVE different studies showing cameras do not descrease accidents. http://www.motorists.org/blog/red-light-cameras-increase-accidents-5-studies-that-prove-it/
This website is not backed by an insurance lobby.
Please open your eyes people and demand your city councils do not allow the red light companies to install an ATM at your down town intersection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Readlight Camera
The issue is driver training as you note in your post. Implementing a new rule (red light cameras) without any re-training of the population is going to take *years* before you see any significant results.
That said, the implementation of Red light cameras has been rightfully maligned in many places. It was instituted in illegal ways, giving financial incentives to issue more fines, etc.
That doesn't make the device bad, it means that how it is used is important too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Readlight Camera
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/05048/index.htm
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pubs/0 5049/05049.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_camera#Issues_of_effectiveness
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Readlight Camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If somebody is driving your car and gets a red light ticket, sue them. That's what small claims court is for.
As for people complaining about their rights - I am totally tired of having to watch for people running red lights. They are endangering everyone's safety for a few seconds saved - and they have the nerve to complain about _their_ rights. Pfaw.
Oh - and for those complaining about due process - you _can_ have your day in court. That is your right. And at that day in court, a photograph will be presented with your car (probably with you at the wheel) easily visible running a red light. Fight it if you want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hell yeah!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Elsewhere? WHERE elsewhere? If someone is driving your car and uses it in a crime, are you held responsible? No. If someone is in on your property and starts firing a gun at the neighbors, are you responsible? No.
Hell your argument falls apart with the scenario presented here.
If your friend is driving your car and runs a red light... and a cop catches him (not a red light camera), HE gets a ticket, not you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just like a landlord is responsible for anything that occurs on their property.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What happens when you lend your car to a friend and they park it illegally? Around here the fine/fees go to the car and its owner.
I have no problem with red light cameras. Owning a car is a responsibility, and people need to be aware of who they let drive their car. If you're letting someone drive your car and they run red lights, maybe you should be fined for your stupidity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
What happens if you lend your friend your car and a cop pulls your friend over for running a red light? Do you get a ticket?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The quick way to think of how they do it is the difference between getting a ticket for speeding (person charged with a moving violation) and parking your car too long in a spot with a parking meter (owner gets the non-moving civil violation).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sheesh. I don't trust the government as much as the next guy, but I can't beleive all the righteous indignation and chicken littles running around.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
To the contrary, you sound pretty fascist to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
safety?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not that different
The article itself says you can appeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not that different
You may own the car, but objects do not break laws, people do using objects. So fining the owner of a vehicle for the actions of another is definitely unconstitutional. The The Eighth Amendment reads as follows:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
I would call any fine for the actions of another excessive, especially when the test for the fine is whether you are the owner of a piece of property. Several have suggested that you still get a day in court, but a court that rubber stamps it's verdict on things before hearing the case, or renders judgment without actually weighing the merits of a case is hardly a matter of Due Process. That unfortunately is something that AZ courts are all too guilty of, but that is a separate topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a work around
Now my proposal: Install high power Infrared lights or infrared LED's around you licence plate. To the naked eye, nothing unusual. To the traffice cam, a bid bright beam of light. No way for them to read the plate, to way for them to mail the ticket. Just a thought.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: a work around
should read: "no way for them to read the plate, no way for them tomail the ticket.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comments like "get better friends" and "don't own a car" have got to be some of the most asinine things being uttered in here. What if your friend did turn out to be a jerk and you're not friends anymore or whatever....the innocent person is just supposed to eat the fine or better yet, take off work and go to court, which would probably cost more than the ticket in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
victem of toll cams
The notice of Violation comes with an affadavit so you may swear that someone else was driving the car at the time of the violation, but you have to give that persons name and address and phone. Then they can send the civil violation notice to them.
So, basically the bottom line is that the toll authority, in leu of a ticket, is suing you and must settle for $25. Oh, by the way, if it goes to the point of a UTC, and you get the $100 fine, $25 dollars of that fine goes to the toll authority.
Further, the MDX toll authority (all of Miami-Dade county, mdxway.com) makes it as simple as possible to pay the fine, and as difficult as possible to correct a mistake.
Like you all say, this is not about obeying traffic laws. This is about a revenue stream for the toll authorities and therefore the municipalities and the State.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A few comments
To those who made comments about affecting insurance rates. I recently received a red light camera ticket in Delaware. Not only did they have multiple pictures in the letter that I received, but they also had video I could watch online. The fine was about $100 and 0 points on the driving record. No points means no increase in insurance rates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Winter
Having lived in WI my entire life, this is exactly how people act as well. It is common to allow people stuck in snow to get through the intersection during huge snow storms.
I ask this because WI is considering adding red light cameras a second time. The first time the law was struck down as unconstitutional to the state. They are trying again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Winter
That's why you're not supposed to enter an intersection until your way through is clear.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red light camera
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why did I have to prove my innocence? What happened to me being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? What happened to my right to meet my accuser? Are they going to dismount the camera and have it testify in court? The evidence produced only showed that a vehicle matching the description of mine with a plate number that matched mine crossed a lane of traffic while it was red.
How far are we willing to let the government go before "we the people" take a stand?
By the way I had to pay the fine. I was found guilty because I refused to identify and locate the driver of the car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Legality
> happened to me being innocent until proven
> guilty in a court of law? What happened to
> my right to meet my accuser?
All of those constitutional guarantees only apply in criminal cases. These tickets are civil administrative fines, so the Constitution doesn't apply.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Politicians
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A legitimate question
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
BTW: Car rental companies imprint your credit card and apply ticket charges against it. They're not that stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Canada and Ontario
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here, in Australia, the owner of the vehicle is sent any fines from red-light/speed cameras automatically. On the back of the fine there is a section to declare who the actual driver was at the time, or even if the driver is unknown.
If this is what REALLY happens in florida, then fine. If not, I agree it's a screwed system.
Either way, I agree with everyones opinion on these cameras being nothing more than a revenue raising mechanism.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
please don't steal my $200 car
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's BRILLIANT - YOU WANT THIS
Then when the owner gets the ticket, you get it thrown out because of a gender mis-match. BTDT, perfect.
Not that you should run red lights, but the ticket I fought was for a right turn on red....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was like this since the very beginning in Winnipeg, Canada
Rental companies always apply all charges to the customer credit card. Before getting the car, each customer signs the preapproved payment for at least $500 and agrees to pay all possible charges for violating rules, running on red-light cameras, etc… I guess the only way to avoid charges is to cancel your credit card right away after the trip. Still, the credit card company will be after you later.
Around six years ago I got an invoice by mail from overseas with $180 charge on my credit card. I hit the speed limit. :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Lights
The lights have been up for a couple of months now. I wish they would start handing out the tickets instead of threatening to do so.
Word of wisdom. If you do not like the way someone drives, don't give them your car. It is a very simple concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
SAFETY AT INTERSECTIONS - RED LIGHT
SmartSensor Advance uses radar to monitor individual vehicles as they approach an intersection. It uses a vehicle’s speed to determine its estimated time of arrival at the intersection, increasing efficiency by allowing traffic to continue moving until a safe gap is detected in the traffic flow; and increasing safety by reducing the chance that a driver will get caught in a 2.5 to 5.5 second decision dilemma zone, something red light cameras alone cannot do. The benefits can be dramatic: a 10-year study of systems like ours found a 75 percent reduction in rear-end collisions; a 31 percent reduction in right-angle collisions; and a 65 percent reduction in incidents of red-light running.
A study conducted by the Federal Highway Administration evaluated the effectiveness of red light cameras. This study found RLC systems decreased right-angle crashes but increased rear-end collisions. Researchers noted, “The economic analysis examined the extent to which the increase in rear end crashes negates the benefits for decreased right-angle crashes."
If safety is a priority, then it would benefit all agencies to look into the SmartSensor Advance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More on safety
Bottom line - it makes us safer. And if you are not breaking the law, why would you care?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Ticket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Light Ticket
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Lights don't solve anything
Also, there is an infamous road called Randolph Rd in Maryland that installed speed cameras. Originally a lot of us, self-included, felt that was just a revenue generator (the project did generate over 40 million US dollars in 2007 alone), but there has not been a devastating accident on that road during rush hour since a month after the cameras came online.
I still maintain that it is the people driving slow where others have a tendency to drive fast that cause accidents, but the speed cameras in this instance have helped more than it has harmed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red light cam rip off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cool and the american way!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red light cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
red light cameras
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
beat cameras
THEY WERE AND EVENTUALLY GOT IT DISMISSED, SAVING ME $135.00. GO TO WEB SITE ABOVE OR EMAIL ME FOR MORE INFO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: beat cameras
Dennis
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nationwide
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]