Not one but two signs — one white, the other yellow — tell eastbound drivers about photo enforcement at the intersection of Santiam Road and Geary Street. (Photo Aug. 19, 2025)
A few days ago a reader said in the comments on a traffic-camera story that he was mailed a warning ticket for speeding on Santiam Road near Geary Street. He hadn’t seen any signs about cameras, and what, anyway, is the posted speed?
The bike took me there on a couple of evenings this week. I saw that the posted speed limit on Santiam Road from Main Street to Pacific Boulevard is 25 mph.
I was also looking for signs warning of the new photo enforcement cameras on Santiam at Geary. There are four, two on each approach.
How can anyone not see those signs? Because the major streets in Albany sport a veritable forest of traffic signs. Most of us have seen them so often that we pay little attention to each one.
Meanwhile, elsewhere on the traffic-camera front, City Manager Peter Troedsson told me he hopes to report to the council on Wednesday, Aug. 27, on issues raised about the speed cameras on North Albany Road.
“Suggestions from the dais at the last council meeting that staff incorrectly installed required signage were wrong,” he said in an email. “With respect to the flashing lights warning of photo enforcement in a school zone, as soon as we can get ODOT to clarify some conflicting aspects of the ORS and the MUTCD, we’ll address both the lights issue and the inaccurate signage claims at council. I’m hoping we can get that answer in time for next Wednesday’s meeting.”
(MUTCD stands for Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices.)
One source of confusion is that Oregon has two laws regarding speeding tickets based on photo radar. One law is for red-light cameras, which may use photo radar or any other technology such as pavement sensors. The other is titled just “photo radar,” and it says tickets must be issued by officers in marked cars.
For school-zone tickets to be valid, the “photo radar” law requires signs that have not been provided on North Albany Road, such as a flashing light indicating school is in session, plus a sign telling drivers their current speed. It also says tickets must be mailed within six business days of the alleged violation.
By contrast, the red-light speed enforcement law, passed in 2017 and cosponsored by Albany’s Sen. Gelser and then Rep. Olson, requires only the signs the city did install on North Albany Road. It says nothing about flashing lights and also allows 10 business days, not six, for a ticket to be mailed.
The photo radar law mentions school zones. The red-light law does not. The North Albany situation involves both photo radar and a school one.
The question is: Which law applies? Maybe a court should be asked to answer that. (hh)
Is Albany hoping to continue it’s excessive spending on the backs of motorists paying traffic tickets. Per your column, you don’t get a ticket in a school zone unless you are going 30 MPH yet on the busiest road in Albany, where it is difficult to speed because of large traffic volume, you are now going to get one for going 25 MPH. WOW!
No, drivers risk tickets only if the cameras catch them going 11 mph or more above the posted limit.
Or maybe it is isn’t about the signs at all. Perhaps the citizens of Albany should join together and reject the State’s push to automate basic law enforcement functions, adequately fund our police force, and keep human officers directly engaged in traffic enforcement. Photo enforcement of laws has received its share of controversy around the nation for good reasons, and with rapid adoption of AI, Drones, and robotics, it will certainly get worse before it gets better, so let’s nip it in the bud before it is too late. I see it as a slippery slope where we increasingly trade freedom for safety, and like a frog in a pot of heated water, we won’t know how dire the situation is until it is too late. Benjamin Franklin’s words come to mind: “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” If you agree please speak up and let’s stand together in opposition.
https://ww2.motorists.org/blog/10-reasons-to-oppose-red-light-cameras-2/
https://legalclarity.org/are-red-light-cameras-unconstitutional/
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/red-light-cameras-may-not-make-streets-safer/
Plus one! I think Hasso should put a thumbs up on comments. So we can agree with them.
The issue at North Albany (at least) is that there is no clear, visible, sign when school is in session, or not. This is made more complicated by the two schools — elementary and middle — having different hours and different driveways.
Clear signage and lighting would help end the confusion.
We need a ballot measure to ban ALL the traffic cameras:
States with bans on traffic cameras include Arkansas, Maine, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina (with limitations), South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.
Info about the company that Albany uses;
Verra Mobility, based in Mesa, Arizona—which reported profits of $38 million last quarter—to benefit from this arrangement. Verra Mobility is a publicly traded corporation with ownership distributed among institutional investors, mutual funds, and individuals. Its largest shareholders include BlackRock, Vanguard, and Fidelity
Thanks for the info. Gawd! Leave it to our “esteemed” Council members to hire a traffic camera company who is a private-equity firm supported by billionaire hedge-funds, etc…
the same type of firm that the people who run PERS investment fund for Oregon picked to place investments of hard-working Oregonians retirement withholdings.
I give up. No. I won’t do that, as that would please my detractors too much.
Another issue not yet addressed, of particular relevance to north Albany road, is the school zone signs read “7-5pm school days” . Meaning the enforced speed drops from 40mph to 20mph, but unless you know what days school is in session, it’s unclear when the school speed is being enforced.
The Oregon laws state clear signage is required. The ambiguity of the school zone signs appears to conflict with this legal requirement. And leaves drivers uncertain.