BILL ANALYSIS SB 1362 Page 1 Date of Hearing: June 21, 2010 ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair SB 1362 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 25, 2010 SENATE VOTE : 31-1 SUBJECT : Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems SUMMARY : Imposes requirements on the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. Specifically, this bill : 1)Strikes the authority granted to government agencies to provide notice to motorists of the presence of automated traffic enforcement systems by posting signs at all major entrances to the city, leaving in statute a requirement to post signs at each intersection where a system is operating. 2)Sets forth additional requirements, limitations, and procedures for government agencies seeking to use automated traffic enforcement systems, including: a) Guidelines developed for the selection of the location of automated traffic enforcement systems must provide for the placement of these systems based solely on safety, as demonstrated by collision data; b) Guidelines must be made available to the public, including on the government agency's website if applicable; c) Prior to installing an automated traffic enforcement system, a government agency must collect collision data at that location for six months; d) Automated traffic enforcement systems may be used to provide evidence of a right-turn, left-turn, or red light violation only if the data collected indicates a significant number of collisions occurred as a result of one of these specific violations; and, e) Government agencies, or their agents, are prohibited from contacting registered vehicle owners, prior to issuing a notice to appear in court, so as to ascertain the correct SB 1362 Page 2 identity of an alleged traffic violator without first making the vehicle owner aware that he or she is not required to provide the information and will not suffer any adverse action if the information is not provided. 3)Provides that the requirements for changes in guidelines and for data collection prior to installation of automated traffic enforcement systems apply only to systems installed after January 1, 2011. 4)Voids citations in cases where a government agency contracts with a system operator for any part of the system's operation related to advance collision studies, regular inspection and maintenance of warning signs, oversight of signal phases and timing, or advance issuance of a notice to appear for purposes of identifying an alleged violator's correct identity. 5)Directs the court to dismiss any citation issued as a result of an automated traffic enforcement system if the court finds the system was not operated in compliance as prescribed by law; also suspends the authority of the government agency to use an automated traffic enforcement system until the court finds it is in full compliance with applicable laws. 6)Prohibits a government agency from considering revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to operate an automated traffic enforcement system. 7)Requires an automatic traffic enforcement system operator, in cooperation with a government agency, to submit an annual report to the Judicial Council on specific data captured by the system as well as a comparison of safety data before and after installation of the system. 8)Prescribes specific contact information that must be included in a notice to appear; requires any other notice, including a courtesy notice, to be on a form approved by the Judicial Council and to clearly state, in "a clear and prominent fashion" that the registered owner is not required to provide the information and that failure to do so will not result in any adverse action. EXISTING LAW : 9)Provides authority for automated traffic enforcement at places SB 1362 Page 3 where a driver is required to respond to an official traffic control signal, upon condition that certain requirements are met, including those related to: a) Notification to motorists of the presence of the system through the use of signage; b) Specific traffic signal timing and intervals; c) Specific tasks associated with operation of the system; and, d) Confidentiality of data collected by the system. 10)Prohibits a contract between a government agency and a manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement equipment from including provisions for the payment or compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment. FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is intended to ensure that automated traffic enforcement systems are operated for safety, not revenue, and that due process is afforded for citations issued as a result of these systems. Existing law authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems with minimal restrictions on the government agencies using the systems. Automated enforcement systems were originally authorized in California by SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, to enforce rail crossings. Two years later, SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of similar 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. Installation of these systems was justified primarily because motorists running red lights are a serious traffic problem with potentially catastrophic results to other drivers, and it is a difficult violation for a police officer to witness and enforce at the time it is committed. SB 1362 Page 4 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 traffic enforcement systems, or "red light cameras," at intersections. Major modifications were made to the statutory authority by AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, as a result of an audit by the State Auditor that generally concluded local governments needed to exert more control over the operation of the automated traffic enforcement systems. The author seeks further controls on the program to ensure that the systems are used solely for safety purposes, that motorists are given ample notice of their use, and that due process is provided in adjudicating resultant citations. The League of California Cities (League) opposes SB 1362 stating that, while "SB 1362 does not expressly prohibit the use of red light cameras in cities and counties?the proposed surveying, citation process, and reporting requirements would increase operating costs to the point that the red light camera systems would be fiscally unfeasible for local agencies to maintain. The League's specific concerns with SB 1362, including the requirement that only sworn police officers can issue automated traffic enforcement citations, thereby prohibiting qualified law enforcement agency employees, such as retired sworn police officers, from assuming this function at substantially lower cost. The League argues that this requirement will drive program costs so high that the program would no longer be affordable and, as a result, safety benefits of these systems will be lost. The California Police Chiefs Association (Association), also opposed to this bill, raises additional concerns. The Association points out that SB 1362 takes functions associated with operating an automated enforcement system (such as establishing guidelines for selecting intersections to locate such systems, regularly inspecting the equipment, regularly inspecting and maintaining warning signs, and overseeing the timing of the signal lights) and makes them mandatory. SB 1362 also sets up compliance with each of these activities as a defense to the issuance of the citation for running a red light, effectively vitiating red light enforcement. The Association argues that "Conditioning the validity of the ticket on compliance with activities such as regular maintenance of warning signs will result in law violators SB 1362 Page 5 demanding discovery of the local government's compliance with all of the activities and asserting the most minor issue [such as the definition of "regular maintenance"] as a defense to beat the citation." Moreover, SB 1362 will require government agencies to conduct collision studies for at least six months and permit installation of an automated traffic enforcement system only if a "significant need" is demonstrated. The Association asserts that violators will challenge their citations by challenging the study and the conclusion that a "significant need" was established. Committee concerns: 11)Existing law provides authority for automated traffic enforcement at places where a driver is required to respond to an official traffic control signal. Existing law does not identify specific violations for which automated traffic enforcement can be used but implies that automated traffic enforcement is intended for red-light violations. SB 1362, however, specifically authorizes a government agency to use automated traffic enforcement systems "to provide evidence of a violation involving a driver turning right, turning left, or proceeding straight through an intersection during a red light" only if justified by data collected. While seemingly attempting to limit the use of automated traffic enforcement systems, SB 1362 could result in an expansion of their use to include not only red light violations but left- and right-turn violations as well, by specific reference to these other violations. 12)As the author asserts, automated traffic enforcement systems should be operated for safety, not revenue. However, placement of the systems should not be contingent on proven collision data. This after-the-fact approach ignores known potential accident precursors, such as a location's proximity to schools, roadway conditions not readily apparent to a driver, or the presence of a high-volume mix of vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian traffic. These examples all present legitimate safety concerns that government agencies should have the opportunity to address in advance of catastrophic accident data but, under SB 1362, could not. 13)SB 1362 requires manufacturers and suppliers that operate SB 1362 Page 6 automated traffic enforcement systems to submit annual reports to the Judicial Council on specific data captured by the system as well as a comparison of safety data before and after installation of the system. The bill offers no guidance, however, to the Judicial Council about what it is supposed to do with the reports that are submitted. Consequently, the merits of these reporting requirements are unclear. Related legislation : Earlier this year, this Committee heard AB 2729 (Ammiano) that will expand the authority to use automated traffic enforcement systems to include the enforcement of unlawful turns explicitly at one specific location in San Francisco. AB 2729 is currently pending in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. AB 2567 (Bradford) authorizes a local public agency to issue citations based on photo-evidence of parking violations occurring in street-sweeping parking lanes. AB 2567 is pending in Senate Transportation and Housing Committee. AB 1336 (Eng) of 2009 was nearly identical to AB 2567. It was vetoed by the Governor over privacy concerns and fear that the bill could lead to the "unwarranted proliferation of camera enforcement in many other arenas." AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377, Statutes of 2008, authorized the City and County of San Francisco to issue citations based on photo-evidence of transit-only lane parking violations. AB 23 (Ma) of 2007 would have provided the San Francisco with the explicit authority to automatically enforce an illegal right turn violation at the intersection of Market Street and Octavia Boulevard. That bill passed Assembly in 2007 but failed in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and was ultimately gutted and amended to deal with a different subject. AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, added conditions and restrictions to the use of automated traffic enforcement systems. SB 1136 (Kopp), Chapter 54, Statutes of 1998, repealed the January 1, 1999, sunset date, and extended indefinitely provisions that allow the use of automated traffic enforcement systems at official traffic control signals. SB 1362 Page 7 SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the use and effectiveness of automated traffic enforcement systems in reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway intersections. SB 1216 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, originally authorized automated enforcement at rail crossings. REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION: Support None on file Opposition California Police Chiefs Association Inc. League of California Cities Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093