Will you chip in to support our nonprofit newsroom with a donation today? Yes, I want to support My Edmonds News!
Based on recent social media chatter, the two red-light cameras in Edmonds — one at 220th Street Southwest and Highway 99 and the other at Edmonds Way (SR 104) and 100th Ave West — are working.
The cameras were installed in March 2025 at these high-traffic intersections.
According to the City of Edmonds, 22,652 tickets have been issued this year. The City is discussing, but has not decided on, whether to install more red-light cameras.
Not all tickets have been processed and not every ticket generates the full $145 fine.
A red-light camera snaps a photo if a vehicle enters the intersection after the light turns red. This includes right turns. Based on social media comments, that’s where and how people are getting tickets.
Setting aside the general frustration, several people wanted more detailed information about what constitutes a stop.
My Edmonds News reached out to Edmonds Municipal Court Judge Neil Weiss, the judge who decides these infractions, to get clarity on his interpretation of the law.
“Under Washington law, a “stop” means a complete cessation of movement,” Weiss wrote in an email. A rolling stop is not a stop. A free-right turn on a red light requires a full stop.
“In the context of a red light, drivers are required to come to a full stop at the clearly marked stop line,” Weiss wrote. Stop lines are the white bars painted on the road.
“If there is no stop line, the stop must occur before entering the crosswalk, or if there is no crosswalk, before entering the intersection.”
“Drivers may make a right turn on red light where allowed, but only after first coming to a complete stop and yielding to other vehicles and pedestrians who are lawfully present,” he said.
He sourced the law: It’s RCW 46.61.055, which includes additional detail depending on the specific intersection and signal configuration.
Drivers have several options to address the ticket. Drivers can pay the ticket, request a contested hearing, request a mitigation hearing and/or request an ability-to-pay hearing based on financial circumstances. Drivers can also submit a written declaration of non-responsibility.
The $145 ticket is not a moving violation, does not go on your driving record or and does not get reported to your insurance company.
How do people pass the driving test to get their license without knowing “what constitutes a stop”. More red light cameras please. And speed radar cameras.
Good question!
However, your plea for more ticket generating technology will not fix the mind-set that generates the perception that one is above or the exception to the law. If we are to be believers in the Rule of Law, we need to live that way.
Today, from Top down we see many who have taken the path of law avoidance, claiming to be above the law… the path of Kings and dictators.
Welcome to Edmonds, we can’t budget. Enjoy your souvenir.
Please don’t tell me our electeds envy Lynnwood? We don’t want to become Lynnwood.
Keep your 1 or 2 cameras, but Drop the right on red infractions, not sure of any other city that employs (maybe because I always make a full stop).
As a cyclist, all for traffic safety, but many proactive controls available. Longer yellow lights for example, help cut down on accidents. Larger, brighter, lighted signage, speed humps (not to be confused with bumps).
So, because you are a cyclist, you believe you are above the law? If you think Laws of the road
should not apply to cyclists, change the law, but
follow it until changed.
Sam, you’re making assumptions. Might want to have another read of my comment.
The law says “full stop at the clearly marked stop line.” However, the way it is being enforced is that the car needs to be “BEFORE” the stop line, not at it. If the very front bumper of the car is even a few inches over the line, it is considered to be an infraction, even if it was a complete stop.
I got a ticket for running a red light while doing a right turn on 220th in August. On the ticket the image indicated that the duration for the yellow light is 3.4 seconds. The official Manual on Uniform Traffic Control (MUTCD) general guidelines for speed limit of 40MPH is 4.5 seconds. So the yellow light for that interception was set lower than recommendation. Strangely, when I checked the duration of yellow light at that intersection this month(December) it is now 4.5 seconds. I requested mitigation for my ticket but the judge would not listen to my explanation.
Al, same thing happened to a friend of mine. She went back several times to watch the light and confirm the 3 seconds. She also tried to get her ticket dismissed without success and then asked the judge who would address the malfunctioning light..and she responded “the city will take care of it!” Ha!
Although I do drive very legally, I’ll just make it a point to avoid Edmonds and spend my hard earned $$$ elsewhere. It’s a proven fact that red light cameras increase rear end accidents because ppl are scared to death of getting a ticket and instantaneously slam on the brakes when they probably could have made the light. Make yellow lights longer and post signs how long they are.
If you rear end someone who slams on the brakes to avoid a ticket you are following too close which is also illegal and will get you a ticket and responsibility for paying for any damages to both vehicles and/or people physically harmed. Spend you money wherever you want but don’t use rear end accidents as an excuse to ban red light cameras because that is a totally absurd argument to make, factually speaking.
I agree. Best thing for me to do is take my shopping dollars to cities that don’t use robo cop cash gnerating machines. That means you too, Lynnwood! Ive had zero moving violations since Bill Clinton’s first term. Im a safe driver, but robo cop fined me $145 for turning right on an orange light. The robots don’t do nuance. But hey, 22,000 x 145 is a lot of money. Congrats City of Edmonds! I wonder how much of a cut the camera company gets. I wonder if we want corporations running law enforcement on a revenue maximization model.
Big questions. Either way, I’ll keep my shopping dollars and revenue generating free right turns in Shoreline.
School zones are one thing busy intersections are another. Safety is not the the reason, police officers should be making the most noise about this, its there employment numbers dropping that will be a painful wake up call. Lol I am all for safe driving but this is just the sheriff of Nottingham taking money for evil prince John haha ( Disney reference)
If A Car Enters the Intersection on a green Light, and the Light Changes to Yellow,
The Yellow Light Should Be Long Enough for That Car to Exit that Intersection.
Otherwise It Is Just a Trap.
Did you document the 3.5 light change?
Otherwise it’s your word against no documentation.
In 2024, State HB 2384 repealed RCW 46.63.170 and replaced it with RCW 46.63.210–.260. These new rules expand where cameras can be used, require equity analysis before adding cameras, mandate clear signage and privacy protections, and impose strict reporting and revenue use requirements.
Edmonds’ current code (ECC Chapter 8.10) still references the old state law, RCW 46.63.170, although that law was replaced effective June 30, 2025. Has the Edmonds City Council signaled any intent or scheduled action to update ECC Chapter 8.10? State HB 2384 expected full compliance by June 30, 2025.
I’m unaware if Council has announced any plan to update ECC 8.10, even though the state law changes are already in effect. Are we meeting the new equity and transparency standards? Are we complying with the revenue use and annual reporting requirements?
Shouldn’t updating ECC Chapter 8.10 been made a priority months ago? The public deserves clear rules that are consistent with State Law, privacy safeguards, and assurance that camera programs serve safety, not revenue.
I don’t recall the city council informing the public about ticketing people not coming to a complete stop during the legislative process.
I do recall that staff represented to Edmonds City Council that Lynnwood had experienced a 114% decrease in actions over 10 years. Such is not mathematically possible.
I find codes like RCW 46.63.170, bills like HB 2384 and ordinances like ECC 8.10 to be complicated to follow. This leaves me with questions just as it has for you, Mr Reidy. Mine may reflect my lack of understanding of codes, bills and ordinances. Doesn’t the city ordinance 8.10 allow the city to follow state laws regarding automated traffic safety cameras? How significant is the difference between RCW 46.63.107 and RCW 46.63.210? They look pretty close to the same to me, especially as related to HB 2384. Is this a serious breech of the law that we are talking about, or more a case of the need for the city to “dot its i’s and cross its t’s? I definitely don’t think it is an effort ”to stick it to the common man.” Within the parameters stated in all the laws and codes, I believe the use of the cameras make sense.
Hi Mr. Molly. I think the old statute was narrow and procedural, while the new framework is comprehensive and policy-driven, embedding equity, transparency, and accountability into camera programs and tying the use of ticket revenues to public safety outcomes rather than general funds. Previously, revenue use was largely local discretion, often going into general funds or police budgets.
I believe the new law locks revenue into safety-focused projects and requires public accountability through reporting and equity analysis. I imagine it was in everybody’s best interest to make sure our city code was made consistent with State law effective June 30, 2025. I believe the city had a full year to update our code as State HB 2384 was adopted in mid 2024 and expected full compliance by June 30, 2025.
Mike Molly and Ken Reidy, two of the smartest and best people I’ve ever had the pleasure of knowing (in real life), exchanging thoughts and ideas right here in Comments. MEN – it’s a beautiful thing and a true “Edmonds Community Round table” where everyone belongs and has the opportunity to express our most precious right – freedom of speech.
Thanks, Ken. I think I now have a better understanding of why the city needs to update its code. As you point out it’s not just a clerical issue of dotting i’s and crossing t’s.
Does anyone know what % of the fines collected become actual revenue to the city? Our city must have negotiated a contract with the camera vendor.
The City either owns the cameras,hardware, technology, or it has a vendor’s contract.
Do you own research. If you are a resident,
You have that right.
Thank you for educating me regarding my rights as a resident Sam. Greatly appreciated!
Ken – your familiarity with WA RCWs and WACs is really nothing short of amazing. It’s mind blowing to me that you know the law better than our own elected officials in Edmonds.
Your broader point is the one Council should answer before even talking about “more cameras”: the Legislature overhauled Washington’s camera statutes in 2024 (new RCW 46.63.210–.260). The old framework (RCW 46.63.170) was replaced and then sunsets June 30, 2025. If Edmonds’ code and public-facing materials still cite the old statute, that’s a governance problem, not a driver problem.
So: has Council updated ECC Chapter 8.10 to align with current state law? Are we doing the required equity/location analysis before adding/relocating cameras? Where’s the city’s annual reporting on crashes, citations, and (soon) how net revenue is used?
City Hall should definitely answer Ken—with links, dates, and the required reports—so the public can trust this is about safety, not revenue.
Hope our new council members will take a hard look at some programs being funded by taxpayer dollars and not generating the ROI. We shouldn’t expect anything less with the financial mess that our Mayor and City Council have put us in.
The intersection where cameras are installed should have a large, ornate archway that reads “Edmonds Needs Cash!” . That’ll slow everyone down.
Very good point about the 114% Ken! Sounds like Trump’s math.
If the state got rid of the “free right turn on red”, it would be safer tho it would probably anger impatient folks. It would also eliminate the issue of being ticketed (perhaps wrongly) for turning right on a red light. Many will scream at the idea of not being allowed to turn on a red and claim it isn’t safer. It would eliminate being harassed by the driver behind a driver who has determined it is not safe to make that “free” turn & part of the ticketing issue would disappear.
It is so frustrating to be driving the speed limit, and not being able to stop the car before the yellow light changes to red.
There’s certainly many educated voices on this thread, and more investigative work to be done to assure what’s been happening to us is fair and safe.
As someone else mentioned on this thread “…or else it’s a trap.”
May I ask…do fellow readers experience the same as I do?
This is just another example of hidden taxes. Cameras everywhere! Even though the city does nothing to make traffic better. In fact I’d argue that all of the recent medians and other obstacles are impeding the flow of traffic. That couppled with people who are driving distracted by their phones means sometimes only a few cars get through the intersection, especially at 220th and 99. The revenue from these cameras won’t go to benefit the city. Just another example of sticking it to the common man.
As camera-based traffic ticketing is introduced the announced primary justification is “improved traffic safety” when in reality city councils use it to generate revenue. Reference: discussions at Edmonds City Council meetings. How deceptive!
And somehow the entire enterprise has for me an Orwellian flavor. . . impersonal cameras watching us, judging us, recording our actions.
I don’t like it.
Red light cameras have never been about safety, they’re about generating revenue for the city.
People complain about enforcement while also complaining about disobedience. Why not collect fees for breaking laws and codes? Be responsible for your actions and follow the law. Why is that so offensive?
I got one of these tickets. I tried to review the video, but the website is down for viewing or paying.
If I have evidence I ran the light I should expect to pay. However, since I can’t see any evidence of running a red light on the tiny printed picture and I can’t pay, I guess my only choice the to see the judge.
Edmonds is mismanaged on so many levels. The traffic revisions made on 9th avenue are bound to cause a head-on collision. I no longer turn left onto 15th at the cemetery. So much for traffic safety. Why does the city council do so many wasteful and frankly stupid things? The city should manage money carefully and live within the budget they have – like we all do.
How much of the violation fee actually goes to the city? What’s it being used for? Who makes the most profits, the city or the camera people? What kind of arrangement was made?
I have received 3 of these tickets for the “rolling stop right turn”… 1st one, shame on me and learn my lesson. 2nd and 3rd times? Absolutely did not break the rules and am being ticketed on it anyways with no easy course of dispute. Just want to say thank you to City of Edmonds for now forcing me to drive through the UPS parking lot like a maniac to avoid your idiot camera!
I pretty much agree with Will Magnuson. To Ryan I suggest that you be very careful “driving thru the UPS parking lot like a maniac” for any reason. There you could easily hit with your car a pedestrian and then it will be much worse than a traffic ticket. That I believe is Manslaughter and that charge whether you see jail time or not will affect you for the rest of your life.
What I do and have always done since I received a ticket year back when they had red light cameras at 220th and 99 I went thru on yellow and didn’t make it before it turned red. So, they sent me the photo and yeah they were correct. So now and after that without the signal tickets If I am approaching a light and am back like1-2 cars and I see yellow I STOP. If it turns yellow I stop at that spot on yellow and wait until the next green (my turn. Now if you get rear ended by an overanxious driver they pay the crime is theirs and their insurance goes up or if the person rear ended say gets whiplash etc…then lawsuits that you insurance company handles at their expense…Just slow down. A man was just killed there on 99 somewhere on Saturday. slow, no phone, patience.