BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    



                                                                  SB 667
                                                                  Page  1

          Date of Hearing:   July 16, 2001

                        ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
                                  John Dutra, Chair
                     SB 667 (Peace) - As Amended:  July 20, 2001

           SENATE VOTE :   40-0
           
          SUBJECT  :   Automated enforcement system

           SUMMARY  :   Requires at each intersection where there is an  
          automated enforcement system that the minimum yellow light  
          change intervals be established in accordance with the Traffic  
          Manual of the Department of Transportation (Caltrans).   
          Specifically,  this bill  :  

          1)Requires that the minimum yellow light intervals at  
            intersections equipped with automated enforcement systems are  
            in accordance with the Traffic Manual of the Department of  
            Transportation.

          2)Authorizes the installation of an automated enforcement system  
            at an intersection or other specified location if the system,  
            among other current requirements, meets the criteria  
            pertaining to minimum yellow light intervals.

          3)Requires that any confidential information obtained from the  
            Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) remain confidential and be  
            used only for the purposes of administration and enforcement  
            of the red light cameras. 

           EXISTING LAW  :

          1)Authorizes governmental agencies, in cooperation with law  
            enforcement agencies, to operate an automated enforcement  
            system.

          2)Authorizes the installation of an automated enforcement system  
            at an intersection or other specified location, if the  
            presence of the system is identified by signs visible to all  
            approaching traffic or posted at all major entrances to the  
            city.

          3)Requires photographic records made by an enforcement system to  
            be confidential and made available only to governmental  








                                                                  SB 667
                                                                  Page  2

            agencies and law enforcement agencies for enforcement purposes  
            related to an automated enforcement system.

          4)Defines an "automated enforcement system" as a system that  
            photographically records a driver's response to a rail or rail  
            transit signal, or crossing gate, or both, or to an official  
            traffic control signal (stoplight), and is designed to obtain  
            a clear photograph of the vehicle's license plate and the  
            driver of the vehicle.

           FISCAL EFFECT  :   According to the Senate Appropriations  
          Committee, costs to the General Fund of more than $200,000 in  
          Fiscal Year 2002-03 and between $30,000 and $170,000 in Fiscal  
          Year 2003-04.

           COMMENTS  :  SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994,  
          authorized the use of automated rail crossing enforcement  
          systems to record violations occurring at rail crossing signals  
          and gates.  Two years later, SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922,  
          Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period  
          to test the use and effectiveness of such systems in reducing  
          the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway  
          intersections and in identifying the drivers committing such  
          violations and the vehicles involved.  After reviewing the  
          operations and effectiveness of the pilot program, the  
          Legislature enacted SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54, Statutes of  
          1998, to indefinitely authorize the use of automated enforcement  
          systems, or "red light cameras," at intersections.

          According to the National Highway Transportation Safety  
          Administration (NHTSA), the objective of red light cameras is to  
          improve enforcement and safety at "high crash or other high-  
          risk locations where on-site traffic enforcement personnel  
          cannot be utilized, either because of insufficient manpower or  
          inherent on-site safety problems that make traditional law  
          enforcement difficult.

          Since the introduction of red light cameras in California,  
          advocates have cited numerous studies and statistics showing a  
          reduction in red light violations and accidents at intersections  
          equipped with such cameras.  The City of West Hollywood  
          established a red light camera program to "assist in the  
          betterment of overall safety of the intersection circulation for  
          pedestrians and vehicles by reducing gridlock in the city."  The  
          city notes that "since the establishment of the program, the  








                                                                  SB 667
                                                                  Page  3

          number of red light violations has been reduced by 36% and  
          right-of-way accidents by 50% in the city.  Only 4% of the photo  
          enforcement citations issued are to West Hollywood residents;  
          therefore, residents recognize the photo enforcement program is  
          a public safety/quality of life benefit and routinely request  
          cameras for intersections in their neighborhoods."

          Additionally, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS)  
          conducted a study in the City of Oxnard (California), a city  
          that recently installed red light cameras at various  
          intersections.  Since the city's use of red light cameras, IIHS  
          announced significant citywide crash reductions.  They noted a  
          29% reduction of injury crashes at intersections with red light  
          cameras, with front-into-side collisions reduced by 32% overall,  
          and front-into-side crashes involving injuries reduced by 68%.

          However, in a report,  The Red Light Running Crisis: Is it  
          intentional,  House Majority Leader Richard Armey claims that the  
          statistics produced in Oxnard were flawed.  His report states  
          that "the 2001 IIHS Oxnard study did not actually study any  
          accidents caused by red light running.  Nor did it even study  
          accidents at intersections that have red light cameras.   
          Instead, the study's author [Richard Retting] merely looked at  
          accident codes from a database over a 2  year period to claim  
          that accidents throughout the Oxnard area dropped by about 30%  
          as a result of the red light cameras.  The connection between  
          area accidents and red light cameras is only an implied  
          connection."   Additionally, Armey contends that the IIHS study  
          "did nothing to document whether signal times, including yellow  
          light times, were held constant throughout the study."

          The bill's author maintains that increased safety is not always  
          the outcome nor is it the motive for the installation of these  
          cameras.  With issues such as privacy and entrapment still a  
          concern, he believes that the implementation and expanded use of  
          red light cameras needs sufficient review. 

          Earlier this year, the Senate Committee on Privacy held a  
          hearing to examine red light cameras and relating issues, such  
          as privacy, the handling of photographic evidence, processing of  
          traffic citations, reliability, etc.  At the hearing, local  
          officials testified that yellow light intervals at intersections  
          equipped with red light cameras are often shorter than those  
          recommended, but still not required by Caltrans.  Caltrans'  
          standards for light intervals, ranging from 3.2 and 5.6 seconds,  








                                                                  SB 667
                                                                  Page  4

          are increased and decreased according to the street or road's  
          speed limit.  Even though Caltrans has determined that longer  
          yellow light intervals at higher speed areas actually decrease  
          intersection accidents, the author contends that some cities  
          still have yellow light intervals less than 3.0 seconds, which  
          makes it difficult for motorists to avoid red light violations  
          and the subsequent fines. 

          Currently, a fine for running a red light in California can  
          equal as much as $270 ($100 for the base fine and up to $170 for  
          penalty assessments).  Thirty percent of the total fine amount  
          is allocated to the city or county general fund.  

          According to the author, local governments have become  
          especially reliant on the revenue generated by the fines  
          resulting from red light violations.  For example, in the 18  
          months of their existence, San Diego's 19 cameras have generated  
          almost $29 million.  The author claims that "red-light cameras  
          now generate nearly half of all traffic ticket revenues to the  
          city" and that instead of expanding their use at dangerous  
          intersections to reduce accidents, "cameras instead are deployed  
          in high-traffic areas with the highest probability of citations  
          to generate fines."   

          The author points out a particular intersection in San Diego  
          that is regarded as one of the busiest in the city.  Even though  
          this intersection has encountered one accident per year in the  
          past several years, a camera was installed in October 1999.   
          According to the author, this camera has since generated over  
          $6.7 million in fine revenue for the city, but has done nothing  
          to reduce the number of red-light accidents.  

          After a review of public records and "more than 5,000  
          documents," a team of criminal defense attorney's, known as the  
          Red Light Camera Defense Team, reported that the red light  
          camera program in San Diego was designed to "generate revenue  
          rather than increase public safety."  They contend that the  
          intersections equipped with red light cameras were selected  
          because they had "extremely short yellow lights and high traffic  
          volume, not because [they] had high accident rates."   

          SB 667 responds to such concerns and requires that all yellow  
          light intervals at intersections equipped with red light cameras  
          are based on uniform standards established by Caltrans.









                                                                  SB 667
                                                                  Page  5

          The California State Automobile Association (AAA) believes that  
          certain safeguards must be in place to ensure due process and  
          privacy rights of vehicle operators.  They state that the  
          safeguards should include the use of automated enforcement  
          systems to "promote traffic safety rather than to generate  
          revenue for government or technology vendors and assurance that  
          traffic signals at AES [automated enforcement systems] sites  
          comply with all applicable traffic-engineering principals and  
          standards."

           What are the current yellow light change intervals specified by  
          Caltrans?   The yellow change intervals detailed in the Traffic  
          Manual of the Department of Transportation is outlined in the  
          following table:

                        ------------------------------------- 
                       |Approachable      |Yellow Intervals  |
                       |Speed (km/h)      |(seconds)         |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |45 or less        |3.1               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |50                |3.3               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |55                |3.5               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |60                |3.7               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |65                |3.9               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |70                |4.2               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |75                |4.4               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |80                |4.7               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |85                |4.9               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |90                |5.1               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |95                |5.3               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |100               |5.5               |
                       |------------------+------------------|
                       |105               |5.8               |
                       |------------------+------------------|








                                                                  SB 667
                                                                  Page  6

                       |110               |6.0               |
                        ------------------------------------- 

           REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION  :

           Support  

          Automobile Club of Southern California
          California State Automobile Association
          Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC)
           
          Opposition  

          None received

           Analysis Prepared by  :    Ryan Spencer / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093