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