Let me get the headline out of the way. I hate speed cameras. I think they are unconstitutional. I think they deny due process. The courts disagree with me. That is the world we live in today, so I have to operate in it like an adult. Also true at the same time. Speed on County Road 49 is not a social construct. It is a real problem with real consequences, and I am not interested in body counts for the sake of a political point.
If you read yesterday’s post, you know I called the photo radar game what it too often is: a cash grab dressed up as safety. Then 9NEWS dropped their piece about Kersey writing some camera tickets for $340 when state law caps camera fines at forty bucks. Their report even tallied how much those bigger tickets had already generated, which raised eyebrows for all the obvious reasons.
So today I dug deeper. Here is what actually changed for me after a long day with statutes, old votes, and staff memory. This entire circus hinges on two pieces of Colorado law. First is C.R.S. 43-2-110(1.5). That is the 2016 change that let large counties designate a controlled-access, four-lane county road as a primary county road. Weld used that to stand up CR 49 as our county highway. Second is C.R.S. 42-4-110.5. That is the automated vehicle identification system statute, the one that governs cameras, warning periods, and the fine caps. Put those together and you get our current mess.
A year ago, our Public Works team came to the board with Kersey’s request to place the required AVIS signs in our CR 49 right of way. I remember being very apprehensive. We debated it. I still abhor the concept. But our duty is to follow the law as written, not as I wish it were. The county’s role on the annexed stretches of a county primary road is unique. The municipality enforces traffic on its side of the curb. The county installs and controls the traffic control devices in that corridor. That includes the “photo enforced” signs the statute requires. So yes, we allowed Kersey to place the signs in our right of way to match the statute and the structure the legislature created. That is the county doing its job under 43-2-110.5’s sibling statute, not endorsing every ticket the town might write later.
Now the sticking point. The camera law caps fines. For speeding detected by an automated system, the maximum civil penalty is forty dollars, or eighty in a school zone. That cap is not a suggestion. It is the law. And Kersey’s own ordinance that adopted AVIS this spring repeats the cap in black and white. Yet the 9NEWS reporting shows the town issuing $340 camera tickets once a driver is 25 over. That is a problem of practice, not a problem of statute.
Let me say two things at once, because both are true. One, speed on CR 49 is a problem. The road is a spine. It moves trucks and commuters and the folks who think every straightaway is a racetrack. If you do not want a ticket, do not speed. It really is that simple. Two, the $340 camera ticket does not look square with 42-4-110.5. You cannot get around the cap by calling an automated ticket something else, keeping it camera-only, and skipping points. If you want the bigger penalty, you use a traditional stop with an officer, and you go to court as a traffic offense. That is how due process works.
Here is where the jurisdiction lines matter. On unincorporated stretches of CR 49, a town has no authority to enforce anything. On annexed stretches inside town limits, the town can enforce speed, including with AVIS, if it follows the statute’s limits and its own ordinance. The county still controls the signs, lane lines, and the right of way. That is the split the legislature wrote when they created this county primary road tool to build CR 49. Weld’s engineering criteria document spells that designation out plainly. None of that gives a municipality a magic wand to ignore the camera caps.
So where does that leave us. First, with honesty. The towns complied with House Bill 16-1155’s framework when it comes to the relationship on CR 49. They came to us. We handled the devices and the right of way. On that count, they are square with the county. The question is whether they are square with motorists when a camera spits out a $340 number. On the face of the statute and their own ordinance, I do not believe so. That is not for a county commissioner to adjudicate. That is for the courts and for the town’s leadership to correct. My job is to lay out the law, protect the county’s lane, and say out loud when something smells off. Yesterday’s post did that. Today’s follow-up sharpens where the line actually sits.
Second, with responsibility. If you were one of the folks featured in the TV piece who got hit with a stack of three hundred forty dollar notices, you have every right to push back. Read the statute. Read the ordinance. Ask for a hearing. Ask the town to reconcile its practice with its own law. None of this requires you to be a lawyer. It requires basic literacy and the courage to say no when a process jumps the guardrails.
Third, with clarity on safety. CR 49 is fast for a reason. It is designed as a controlled access county highway that connects I 76 and US 34. We built it to move people and goods. That design demands discipline from drivers and consistent enforcement from law enforcement. You can believe speed cameras are the wrong tool and still admit that speed is a risk multiplier. Both can be true. The difference between safety work and revenue work is whether the enforcement follows the rules that build trust. Cameras that obey the cap, sit in legally justified corridors, give clear warnings, and publish data are defensible. Cameras that leap to $340 because a vendor found a loophole are not.
A brief steelman for the other side. Towns will say the forty dollar cap is toothless for the worst offenders. They will argue that 25 over needs a bigger hammer to change behavior and protect residents. I get it. Nobody wants to get T boned on their way to the grocery store. The problem is not the goal. The problem is the method. If you need a stiffer penalty, you can write a traditional citation with an officer, points, and a day in court. Or you can take your case to the legislature and make your argument in the open. What you cannot do is smuggle the bigger number in through the camera door and pretend the cap does not exist.
So what happens next. From the county seat, two things. One, we will keep doing our job under 43-2-110.5’s companion statute and run the devices, striping, and access control so CR 49 continues to work as the county highway it was built to be. Two, we have asked our county attorney for additional guidance so everyone has the same reference sheet. That memo will not be a press release. It will be a tool to get the law right and calm this down.
From the town side, I would advise a simple course correction. Hit the pause button on any camera tickets above the cap. Review the vendor contract. Reconcile the ordinance with practice. If corrections are owed, make them. If the town genuinely believes the cap should not apply in certain cases, then bring that to the legislature and make the case in the light. The statute is not a buffet. You do not get to skip the parts that are inconvenient.
From the driver’s seat, here is my blunt advice. Do not speed on CR 49. It is not worth it. You are driving a two-ton machine near people I represent and roads my team stewards. If you get a camera ticket for forty dollars, that is on you. If you get one for three hundred forty and it came from a camera on an AVIS corridor, push back. Be polite and firm. The law is on your side.
The last word goes to balance. Government has a duty to write rules people can understand and then enforce them as written. Citizens have a duty to drive like their neighbors live here, because they do. CR 49 can be safe and efficient without turning every milepost into a vending machine. Follow the statute. Respect the designation of the road. Fix the practice where it is out of bounds. None of that is partisan. It is just honest work.
Here is my promise. I will always tell you where I stand. I will always separate what I personally dislike from what the law actually says. And I will always aim at behavior, not people. That is how we keep faith with the folks who pay the bills and drive these roads every day.
