BajaNomad

Synopsis of New Baja Driving Laws

bajaguy - 10-17-2013 at 11:55 AM

From bajainsider.com

http://www.bajainsider.com/driving-baja/gaspricesmexico.htm#...

1) As of January 1, 2012 Proof of liability insurance is required in Baja California

2) As of January 1, 2011 Talking on a cell phone while driving is illegal in both Baja California and Baja California Sur it is a +$800 pesos fine in BCS.

3) Use of Seatbelts is required in both states.

4) As of October 1, 2013, proof of liability insurance will be required in Baja California Sur. The fine will be about $2600 pesos.

5) Pets must be caged or restrained when in a passenger vehicle. It will be applied as an 'add-on' ticket. The fine is about $2000 pesos.

rts551 - 10-17-2013 at 12:33 PM

does anyone know what restrained means

Wait a minute......

EdZeranski - 10-17-2013 at 03:09 PM

Quote:


5) Pets must be caged or restrained when in a passenger vehicle. It will be applied as an 'add-on' ticket. The fine is about $2000 pesos.


Lets get this straight......Las Mascotas have to be boxed or on a leash or its about $200 but Juan and Juanita can still run stop signs???? How many 'locals' even own a leash or kennel? :?::?:
This must have been ginned up by the Offacina de Mordita
for travelers.
EdZ (who does have a kennel in the EEvil Ess Yew Vee)

SAY WHJAT ???

captkw - 10-17-2013 at 03:40 PM

Did the usa loan some gov guys to mex or what !! give me a Break !!! dogs must be caged ? @##$$%%**& or restrained...such like how...a strip of 2lb trout line...How the Hell is this gonna play out????:fire::fire:

monoloco - 10-17-2013 at 07:15 PM

The liability insurance requirement only applies to federal highways so it will still be perfectly legal to drive in the cities and towns without it, so at least the local transito cops won't be able to use the law as a revenue enhancement program. The rumor is that the Federal de Caminos are planning on setting up checkpoints and impounding cars without insurance. If that's the case, they will be very busy because I can't foresee many of the locals around here shelling out 3000 pesos annually for insurance. I just coughed up almost a thousand dollars last week for insurance on 3 vehicles.

laws for not for me, well, me in general

EdZeranski - 10-17-2013 at 07:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
I can't foresee many of the locals around here shelling out 3000 pesos annually for insurance. I just coughed up almost a thousand dollars last week for insurance on 3 vehicles. [/quote

I've been getting insurance, fishing license, visa etc through Discover Baja for eons ( as opposed to epochs and ages) to go with the Mexican law. I wish Mexicans going to the US had the same courtesy, they don't, instead smug just disrespect.

EdZ

shari - 10-17-2013 at 08:43 PM

whoa....I estimate 95% of the locals dont have insurance and wouldnt be able to afford it...mexicanos dont usually have their pets in the cars except in the back of pick ups once in awhile....that's a big fine!

Riom - 10-17-2013 at 10:08 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
The liability insurance requirement only applies to federal highways so it will still be perfectly legal to drive in the cities and towns without it,


In Baja California (norte) at least it's a state law that applies to all roads (but not to entirely off-road vehicles). In the LEY QUE REGULA LOS SERVICIOS DE CONTROL VEHICULAR EN EL ESTADO DE BAJA CALIFORNIA (pdf, in Spanish, updated to 15 Mar 2013) it's in section 17 IV.

Section 18 bis says that the minimum liability insurance is 4350 minimum wages (about 280,000 pesos). And the requirement for liability insurance can't be enforced if it's not possible to get liability insurance from any company for less than 15 minimum wages (about 975 pesos/year). So there should be companies offering it for less than that, if it's now enforced. Note that you have 30 days to get insurance after a first warning, before any fine. These are state laws, maybe there are federal laws on top.

In San Felipe I needed proof of insurance to be able to renew my plates, in both January 2012 and January 2013, but no vehicle inspections (yet).

So it's fairly easy to see who has valid insurance - they have valid plates.

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 10:26 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by captkw
Did the usa loan some gov guys to mex or what !! give me a Break !!! dogs must be caged ? @##$$%%**& or restrained...such like how...a strip of 2lb trout line...How the Hell is this gonna play out????:fire::fire:





Maybe some of the laws from the nanny State (California) leaked south into Baja.......however

1. Having mandatory insurance is a good idea, even if the other guy doesn't.

2. Talking or texting on a phone while driving is dangerous and causes accidents.

3. Seatbelts save lives....been there, done that.

4. Restrained (doggie seat belts) or caged (travel kennel) pets are a good idea....I like my pets more than some people I know and my dog is my best friend......protect them.

These laws are a good idea, so go with it........at least they have not restricted soda pop to 16 ounces or installed red light cameras.....YET

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by captkw
Did the usa loan some gov guys to mex or what !! give me a Break !!! dogs must be caged ? @##$$%%**& or restrained...such like how...a strip of 2lb trout line...How the Hell is this gonna play out????:fire::fire:





Maybe some of the laws from the nanny State (California) leaked south into Baja.......however

1. Having mandatory insurance is a good idea, even if the other guy doesn't.

2. Talking or texting on a phone while driving is dangerous and causes accidents.

3. Seatbelts save lives....been there, done that.

4. Restrained (doggie seat belts) or caged (travel kennel) pets are a good idea....I like my pets more than some people I know and my dog is my best friend......protect them.

These laws are a good idea, so go with it........at least they have not restricted soda pop to 16 ounces or installed red light cameras.....YET


What is wrong with "red light cameras"?? I think it is a great idea, and a proven revenue-provider for the city!?!?!?!?

NO WAY would I EVER comply with your number 4 tho. :rolleyes: tho I do think that dogs should be restrained in the back of a pickup as many don't have the sense not to jump out----(seen it happen)

Barry

sancho - 10-18-2013 at 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
If that's the case, they will be very busy because I can't foresee many of the locals around here shelling out 3000 pesos annually for insurance




I would think, remember reading some 90% of Mex
Nationals don't have auto ins., by the way, can one
turn right on a red lite in Mex?

jimgrms - 10-18-2013 at 10:46 AM

Quote:
Originally p]
tho I do think that dogs should be restrained in the back of a pickup as many don't have the sense not to jump out----(seen it happen)

Barry
I know people like that

monoloco - 10-18-2013 at 10:50 AM

Red light cameras would be good if they were actually used to make the road safer, but they mostly raise revenue from exorbitant fines for making a right turn on a red without coming to a complete stop, which IMO shouldn't carry the same fine as blasting through an intersection on a red.

Maderita - 10-18-2013 at 11:16 AM

sancho,
In answer to your question, "...can one turn right on a red lite in Mex?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_turn_on_red
In Mexico, right turns on red are generally prohibited unless a sign indicates otherwise, and motorists can be issued a citation for noncompliance.[5] However, right turns on red are allowed in Mexico City.[6]


http://www.rosaritoinfo.com/legal.htm
In Mexico, it is illegal to make a right turn on a red light.

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 11:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Red light cameras would be good if they were actually used to make the road safer, but they mostly raise revenue from exorbitant fines for making a right turn on a red without coming to a complete stop, which IMO shouldn't carry the same fine as blasting through an intersection on a red.


Well, it's hard to argue with you on THAT, but in Redding the intersections with "red light cameras" are so obvious that one would have to be really not paying attention to not notice them. (Alert: when you see a camera, don't act careless or be in a hurry----:light:)

:lol:

Barry

sancho - 10-18-2013 at 11:22 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Maderita
In Mexico, right turns on red are generally prohibited unless a sign indicates otherwise
http://www.rosaritoinfo.com/legal.htm
In Mexico, it is illegal to make a right turn on a red light.





Gracias, I didn't know that

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 11:42 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by monoloco
Red light cameras would be good if they were actually used to make the road safer, but they mostly raise revenue from exorbitant fines for making a right turn on a red without coming to a complete stop, which IMO shouldn't carry the same fine as blasting through an intersection on a red.


Well, it's hard to argue with you on THAT, but in Redding the intersections with "red light cameras" are so obvious that one would have to be really not paying attention to not notice them. (Alert: when you see a camera, don't act careless or be in a hurry----:light:)

:lol:

Barry





Many jurisdictions are doing away with the red light cameras. Problems with the operators (private companies), lost court cases and an increase in rear end accidents. Latest city in this area to dump them is Poway, CA

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 11:48 AM

Hmmmmm, I say better a "rear end accident" than being T-boned in the middle of an intersection--------I have had so many close calls by people in la la land and speeding thru intersections-------I won't even enter any intersection anymore without slowing way down and looking both ways (and in my rear view mirror)-----I am surprised I have not been "rear ended". I keep my head rest up high and touching my head.

Barry

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 12:03 PM

Barry.....get a bigger truck with an aftermarket steel step bumper.......they work wonders :lol:

rts551 - 10-18-2013 at 12:55 PM

If they are in "la la" land, I doubt a camera will help. Tucson is looking at moving theirs around. It became nothing more than a revenue generator and as people get used to them, the revenue goes down.

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 01:44 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rts551
If they are in "la la" land, I doubt a camera will help. Tucson is looking at moving theirs around. It became nothing more than a revenue generator and as people get used to them, the revenue goes down.


Ah Ha!!!!!! You say, "-----as they get used to them, the revenue goes down"--------they are working then! If the "revenue goes down" then there are less and less folks running the red lights at those intersections. Viola------ success!!!!!!! :light::spingrin:

Barry

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 02:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Ah Ha!!!!!! You say, "-----as they get used to them, the revenue goes down"--------they are working then! If the "revenue goes down" then there are less and less folks running the red lights at those intersections. Viola------ success!!!!!!! :light::spingrin:Barry





Many cities are finding that the private contractors are costing them money. Revenue streams guaranteed by the contractor for violations are not what was promised. Photos that do not show the driver clear enough to identify, cities paying overtime for police to testify that the photo/vehicle matched the driver and cases being dismissed in court when a match cannot be made or when the registered owner (not the driver) can prove they were somewhere else....(registered owners do not have to give up the identy of the driver) are a burden to cash strapped cities

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 02:12 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Ah Ha!!!!!! You say, "-----as they get used to them, the revenue goes down"--------they are working then! If the "revenue goes down" then there are less and less folks running the red lights at those intersections. Viola------ success!!!!!!! :light::spingrin:Barry





Many cities are finding that the private contractors are costing them money. Revenue streams guaranteed by the contractor for violations are not what was promised. Photos that do not show the driver clear enough to identify, cities paying overtime for police to testify that the photo/vehicle matched the driver and cases being dismissed in court when a match cannot be made or when the registered owner (not the driver) can prove they were somewhere else....(registered owners do not have to give up the identy of the driver) are a burden to cash strapped cities

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]


I'm confused----------are the cities trying to cure their citizens from running red lights, or are they just greedy? (probably both!?!?!?)

Barry

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 02:38 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Ah Ha!!!!!! You say, "-----as they get used to them, the revenue goes down"--------they are working then! If the "revenue goes down" then there are less and less folks running the red lights at those intersections. Viola------ success!!!!!!! :light::spingrin:Barry





Many cities are finding that the private contractors are costing them money. Revenue streams guaranteed by the contractor for violations are not what was promised. Photos that do not show the driver clear enough to identify, cities paying overtime for police to testify that the photo/vehicle matched the driver and cases being dismissed in court when a match cannot be made or when the registered owner (not the driver) can prove they were somewhere else....(registered owners do not have to give up the identy of the driver) are a burden to cash strapped cities

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]


I'm confused----------are the cities trying to cure their citizens from running red lights, or are they just greedy? (probably both!?!?!?)Barry





The cops I know want to reduce accidents, but the politicians want the revenue

mtgoat666 - 10-18-2013 at 02:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Ah Ha!!!!!! You say, "-----as they get used to them, the revenue goes down"--------they are working then! If the "revenue goes down" then there are less and less folks running the red lights at those intersections. Viola------ success!!!!!!! :light::spingrin:Barry


Many cities are finding that the private contractors are costing them money. Revenue streams guaranteed by the contractor for violations are not what was promised. Photos that do not show the driver clear enough to identify, cities paying overtime for police to testify that the photo/vehicle matched the driver and cases being dismissed in court when a match cannot be made or when the registered owner (not the driver) can prove they were somewhere else....(registered owners do not have to give up the identy of the driver) are a burden to cash strapped cities

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]


I'm confused----------are the cities trying to cure their citizens from running red lights, or are they just greedy? (probably both!?!?!?)Barry


The cops I know want to reduce accidents, but the politicians want the revenue


reducing accidents AND raising revenue from sinners and incompetent drivers - both good ideas!

ya know, if you don't drive like a dufus you won't get a ticket!

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 02:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by mtgoat666
Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Quote:
Originally posted by Barry A.
Ah Ha!!!!!! You say, "-----as they get used to them, the revenue goes down"--------they are working then! If the "revenue goes down" then there are less and less folks running the red lights at those intersections. Viola------ success!!!!!!! :light::spingrin:Barry


Many cities are finding that the private contractors are costing them money. Revenue streams guaranteed by the contractor for violations are not what was promised. Photos that do not show the driver clear enough to identify, cities paying overtime for police to testify that the photo/vehicle matched the driver and cases being dismissed in court when a match cannot be made or when the registered owner (not the driver) can prove they were somewhere else....(registered owners do not have to give up the identy of the driver) are a burden to cash strapped cities

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]


I'm confused----------are the cities trying to cure their citizens from running red lights, or are they just greedy? (probably both!?!?!?)Barry


The cops I know want to reduce accidents, but the politicians want the revenue


reducing accidents AND raising revenue from sinners and incompetent drivers - both good ideas!

ya know, if you don't drive like a dufus you won't get a ticket!





Revenue stream is down, rear end accidents are up

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 03:15 PM

So, BajaGuy-------should we go back to the way it was???? (little revenue, and lots of bad T-bone accidents)

I don't want to.

Barry

bajaguy - 10-18-2013 at 03:46 PM

Don't shoot me, I'm just the messinger.

In my day we used directed enforcement.....that was before the cameras.....never had a problem in reducing accidents, speed enforcement or criminal activity.

Now we have automation and community policing.......touchy-feely.

Most law enforcement I see today have their windows rolled up and a cell phone glued to their ear.

Policework should be about reducing crime and traffic safety, not making money

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]

Barry A. - 10-18-2013 at 04:08 PM

Sorry, I did not mean to come off that way. I largely agree with you, and as an ex-San Diego cop (in the '60's) I know what you mean. I just think the cameras help-----I know that I sure pay attention to them and am extra careful, especially on those "right on red" situations.

Barry

MitchMan - 10-26-2013 at 06:21 PM

I got stabbed in the pocket by those intersection cameras twice. Infuriated me for having to pay so much for a very safe "California" very slow rolling (non stop) right turn on a red light. Very unjust to get capped with a "moving violation" and upping your auto insurance for three years as well.

Those camera things were installed to prevent fast cars going thru red lights, not intended for the slow rolling right turn on a red light. But, they took the low road and went for the money. Money certainly can have a greedy corrupting influence. Not right.

However, the good thing now is that I stop for 3 seconds at all red lights before turning right, no matter what posted signs say, I then look hard and long for the existence of cameras and any signage that prohibits right turns before proceeding. peees the hell out of most all drivers behind me wanting to turn right. But, I'm not getting any more of those dam tickets.

[Edited on 10-27-2013 by MitchMan]

liknbaja127 - 10-26-2013 at 06:50 PM

I think bajaguy is spot on! In your area they are all most all gone!

directed enforcement.....???

durrelllrobert - 10-27-2013 at 08:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by bajaguy
Don't shoot me, I'm just the messinger.

In my day we used directed enforcement.....that was before the cameras.....never had a problem in reducing accidents, speed enforcement or criminal activity.

Now we have automation and community policing.......touchy-feely.

Most law enforcement I see today have their windows rolled up and a cell phone glued to their ear.

Policework should be about reducing crime and traffic safety, not making money

[Edited on 10-18-2013 by bajaguy]
A couple years ago I was on my way to a meeting at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs and came to an intersection where I had to turn left. There was a motorcycle cop parked on the right hand shoulder but the green arrow for turning left was on. There was a box van in front of me and I followed him into the intersection but half way through the truck "stalled" and when the light turned red he took off again and I followed. Sure enough the motorcycle cop put on his lights, pulled me over and issued a ticket for running a red light.

After my meeting Went back the same way and noticed the same cop and the same box van at the intersection. After turning right I parked off the road and witnessed the same "stalled" van, red light ticket scenario with another car. Then a few minutes later the van and cop reappeared and caught another victim.

I called the local court to inform them about what was happening and was told that I either had to plead guilty and pay a $250 fine or come back in 30 days to plead not guilty and explain the situation then. Since an airline ticket/ hotel amounted to a lot more than $250 I went for the guilty plea. :fire::fire:

rts551 - 10-27-2013 at 10:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by MitchMan
I got stabbed in the pocket by those intersection cameras twice. Infuriated me for having to pay so much for a very safe "California" very slow rolling (non stop) right turn on a red light. Very unjust to get capped with a "moving violation" and upping your auto insurance for three years as well.

Those camera things were installed to prevent fast cars going thru red lights, not intended for the slow rolling right turn on a red light. But, they took the low road and went for the money. Money certainly can have a greedy corrupting influence. Not right.

However, the good thing now is that I stop for 3 seconds at all red lights before turning right, no matter what posted signs say, I then look hard and long for the existence of cameras and any signage that prohibits right turns before proceeding. peees the hell out of most all drivers behind me wanting to turn right. But, I'm not getting any more of those dam tickets.

[Edited on 10-27-2013 by MitchMan]


You will also get a ticket if you enter the intersection (pass the white line) and then stop and wait for the green (or back-up). It takes your picture the minute you enter the intersection at anytime during a red.

Ateo - 10-27-2013 at 10:59 AM

My wife got a $500 ticket in Oceanside for not coming to a complete stop before turning right. I saw the video if it. She must've been going .0001 MPH but still - $500. Utter and total BS. Maybe $100, but not $500. I could afford to pay it, but if I was 19 that would've put me in debt.

robert

captkw - 10-27-2013 at 11:03 AM

That is SOO Wrong !! I would have gone to kmart/walmart anywhere close by and got a camara and starting shooting ( not that way !!)

[Edited on 10-27-2013 by captkw]