BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1008
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 13, 2011
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Cameron Smyth, Chair
AB 1008 (Cook) - As Amended: April 4, 2011
SUBJECT : Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems.
SUMMARY : Prohibits, starting January 1, 2012, a local agency
from installing an automated traffic enforcement system, and
requires a traffic safety study for those local government
agencies already operating an automated traffic enforcement
system, as specified. Specifically, this bill :
1)Prohibits, notwithstanding any other provision of law, a local
governmental agency, beginning January 1, 2012, from
installing an automated traffic enforcement system.
2)Requires a local governmental agency already operating an
automated traffic enforcement system on or before January 1,
2012, to begin conducting, on or before February 28, 2012,
a traffic safety study at each intersection where an automated
traffic enforcement system
is in use.
3)Requires the traffic safety study to determine whether the use
of the system resulted in a reduction in the number of traffic
accidents at that intersection.
4)Requires the traffic safety study to be conducted according to
standards consistent with the analysis of data approved by the
federal National Highway Traffic Safety Administration for
automated traffic enforcement systems.
5)Requires a local governmental agency to terminate the use of a
system at that intersection no later than January 1, 2015, if
the traffic safety study shows that the use of an automated
traffic enforcement system did not reduce the number of
traffic accidents that occurred at an intersection.
EXISTING LAW authorizes cities and counties to install automated
traffic enforcement systems and requires a city council or
county board of supervisors to conduct a public hearing on the
proposed use of an automated enforcement system prior to
authorizing the city or county to enter into contract for the
AB 1008
Page 2
use of the system.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS :
1)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. SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter 922, Statutes of
1995, authorized a three-year demonstration period to test the
use and effectiveness of these automated rail crossing
enforcement systems (photographic equipment) 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 red light cameras
at intersections.
Since that point, controversy over the validity and integrity
of red light cameras surfaced. With high fines, local
governments began facing accusations that the red light
cameras were being used as revenue generators, rather than
safety tools. Concerns were expressed that some cameras were
being placed in areas not where there were high rates of
accidents, as initially intended, but where more tickets and
subsequent fines could be produced.
A few years after SB 1136, several hearings were held to look
at these and other issues related to privacy of photographic
evidence, reliability and processing of traffic citations. In
2002, the Bureau of State Audits (BSA) conducted a report on
the efficiency of the red light camera programs statewide. In
terms of the effectiveness of the red light cameras, the
auditor noted that "for five local governments (they) visited,
the number of accidents decreased between 3% and 21% after the
implementation of red light cameras." Additionally, after San
Diego suspended the use of the program in June 2001, accidents
caused by red light violations "increased citywide by 14%
based on four months of data."
AB 1008
Page 3
However, while the audit recognized the contribution that red
light cameras have in the reduction of accidents, it concluded
that operational weaknesses at the local level did exist.
Specifically, the audit determined that local governments a)
need to maintain control of their programs; b) generally
select intersections based on traffic safety concerns, but do
not always follow the best practice of reviewing intersections
for engineering problems before installing cameras; and, c)
have allowed retention of the photographs longer than
necessary and with the exception of one city have used them as
evidence in criminal proceedings not associated with the red
light violation.
2)This bill prohibits local agencies, effective January 1, 2012,
from installing these types of traffic enforcement systems.
The bill also requires those local governmental agencies that
already operate such a system to begin conducting traffic
safety studies at each intersection, and if the study shows
that the use of a system does not reduce the number of traffic
accidents, then the local agency must terminate the use of the
system no later than January 1, 2015. The Committee may wish
to ask the author to explain who will receive these reports,
once they are completed by the city or county? The Committee
may also want to ask the author who will make sure that the
city or county takes down the cameras in the event the report
shows that the camera does not reduce the number of traffic
accidents?
The author believes that significant questions have been
raised as to whether red light cameras have reduced traffic
accidents and has introduced the bill in order to place a
moratorium on new systems while requiring cities and counties
with existing systems to review whether the red light cameras
are indeed serving their stated purpose.
3)There are several other bills that have been introduced this
year that deal with red light cameras issues. AB 432 (Hall)
would revise the definition of "automated traffic enforcement
systems" to include digital recordings, digital videos and
digital images. AB 432 has been
referred to the Assembly Transportation Committee. SB 29
(Simitian) would establish new
requirements for local agencies that use automated traffic
AB 1008
Page 4
enforcement systems. SB 29 passed out of the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee on April 4, 2011 on a 9-0
vote.
4)Support Arguments: This bill places a moratorium on the new
installation of red light cameras for local government and
requires jurisdictions already using them to study their
effectiveness, thereby taking a duel approach to limiting the
use of red light cameras.
Opposition Arguments: The League of California Cities, in
opposition, writes that AB 1008 seeks to preempt local
decision-making powers for a one-size-fits-all approach, thus
taking away a safety tool that has been implemented
successfully in many cities.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
None on file
Opposition
CA Police Chiefs Association
League of CA Cities
Analysis Prepared by : Debbie Michel / L. GOV. / (916)
319-3958