BILL ANALYSIS
SENATE TRANSPORTATION & HOUSING COMMITTEE BILL NO: sb 1325
SENATOR ALAN LOWENTHAL, CHAIRMAN AUTHOR: Keuhl
VERSION: 2/20/08
Analysis by: Jennifer Gress FISCAL: no
Hearing date: April 29, 2008
SUBJECT:
Automated speed enforcement
DESCRIPTION:
This bill authorizes the City of Beverly Hills to utilize an
automated speed enforcement system according to specified
conditions and procedures. This authority sunsets on January 1,
2014.
ANALYSIS:
Existing law authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement
systems (i.e., red light cameras) only at railroad crossings and
intersections to record violations of unlawful grade crossings
and running of red lights. A peace officer or "qualified
employee" of a law enforcement agency reviews the photographs
and issues citations, as appropriate. Under current law, the
use of red light cameras is conditioned on several requirements
and procedures, including:
Only a governmental agency in cooperation with a law
enforcement agency may operate a system.
Intersections equipped with the enforcement systems must be
identified by signs visible to traffic in all directions or by
signs posted at all major entrances to the participating city.
The city council or county board of supervisors must conduct a
public hearing on the proposed use of an automated enforcement
system.
Use of the system must be preceded by public notice by the
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 2
local jurisdiction at least 30 days in advance, and only
warning notices may be issued to violators during the first 30
days of the system's operation, after which citations may be
issued.
All photographic records are confidential and shall be made
available only to the affected governmental agencies for
enforcement purposes.
Any driver alleged to be a violator of the red light
provisions or the vehicle's registered owner is permitted to
review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation.
Citations must be delivered to the driver within 15 days of
the alleged violations, with a certificate of mailing obtained
as evidence of service, and must include specified
information, including how, when, and where the citation may
be challenged.
The use of automated enforcement systems for purposes of speed
enforcement is not permitted under current law.
This bill :
Defines a "mobile automated speed enforcement system" (MASE
system) as a mobile radar system or laser-based unit that
utilizes automated equipment to detect a violation of speeding
laws and is designed to obtain a clear photograph of a
vehicle's license plate and driver.
Authorizes the City of Beverly Hills, with oversight by its
police department, to establish and operate a pilot project
utilizing a MASE system if the city does all of the following:
o Identifies clearly the presence of the MASE system and
its operator by signs that are visible to traffic entering
the roadway on which the MASE system is utilized.
o Identifies, with distinctive markings, the vehicle
containing the MASE equipment.
o Provides notice to drivers that a photographic record
may be taken when the driver passes the vehicle containing
the MASE system.
o Utilizes the system for speed enforcement only on
residential streets that have a speed limit that is no
greater than 25 miles per hour or on streets in a school
zone.
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 3
o Utilizes a trained peace officer present at the time of
an alleged violation.
o Makes a public announcement about the system, which
includes public information regarding the hazards of
excessive speed, at least 30 days following the
installation of the signs, and issues warning notices for
the first 30 days of enforcement under the program.
Prescribes minimum training requirements for peace officers
who may operate the MASE system.
Defines the responsibilities that the city and local law
enforcement agency have with regard to operating the MASE
system, including:
o Developing uniform guidelines for selecting locations,
screening and issuing citations, processing and storing the
photographic evidence and confidential driver information,
and establishing procedures to ensure compliance with the
guidelines.
o Performing daily administrative functions including
certifying that equipment is properly installed and
calibrated, as defined, ensuring equipment is regularly
inspected, inspecting and maintaining warning signs, and
ensuring that all citations delivered to violators have
been reviewed and approved by law enforcement.
Requires that citations issued under the MASE system include a
clear photograph of the driver and license plate of the
vehicle, a description of the alleged violation and the road
and driving conditions present at the time the alleged
violation occurred, and a brief explanation of California
speed laws, including the right to appeal the citation.
Makes the photographic records and Department of Motor
Vehicles information confidential and usable only by
governmental and law enforcement agencies for the bill's
purposes. Records could be retained up to 6 months or until
final disposition of a citation, whichever comes later.
Allows the vehicle's registered owner, or driver identified by
the owner, to review the photographic evidence of the alleged
violation.
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 4
Provides a notice to appear where the alleged speed violator
may enter a plea.
Requires the City of Beverly Hills to hire a contractor to
conduct an evaluation of the system and provide a report of
its findings to the Legislature by July 1, 2013.
Sunsets January 1, 2014.
COMMENTS:
1.Purpose . According to the author, the purpose of this measure
is to create a pilot program that will enable the City of
Beverly Hills to utilize a mobile automated speed enforcement
system as a way to curtail the prevalence of speeding in
residential and school areas.
The author notes that speeding is one of the most prevalent
factors contributing to traffic collisions and traffic-related
fatalities. In California, nearly one in three traffic
fatalities occur as a result of speeding. For the City of
Beverly Hills, the problem is compounded by the fact that the
city is situated in an area where drivers use small
residential streets, often times at freeway speeds, to bypass
rush hour traffic on larger arterials and highways. The
author highlights a study performed by the Insurance Institute
for Highway Safety, which concluded that, within the first six
months of photo radar enforcement in the District of Columbia,
"the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit by more
than 10 mph declined 82 percent."
Unlike other states and cities that have implemented automated
speed enforcement programs, this pilot project protects
drivers by requiring that a trained officer is always present
and that he or she documents the conditions in which an
alleged violation takes place. By establishing a pilot
program, this bill will allow California to assess whether an
automated speed enforcement program can effectively improve
public safety.
2.Policy issues . Two overarching policy issues this bill raises
concern (a) automated enforcement systems in general, and, (b)
the use of automated enforcement for purposes of speed
enforcement in particular.
a. Automation. Several concerns and criticisms have been
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 5
raised with regard to the use of automated enforcement for
any purpose. These include:
Allowing photographs to be taken of motorists may
represent or be perceived to represent an intrusion into
one's privacy.
Automated enforcement systems may be used primarily
to generate revenue (the author seeks to address this
concern with amendments, see comment #8 below).
Automated enforcement hampers officers' efforts to
educate motorists they have stopped regarding their
unsafe driving behavior.
Automated enforcement allows unsafe driving
behaviors to continue at the time they are occurring.
b. Automation for speed enforcement. In addition to those
concerns noted above, automated enforcement for purposes of
speed enforcement raises other potential issues. First,
automated speed enforcement may prevent opportunities for
the enforcement of other traffic offenses such as
aggressive or reckless driving, driving under the
influence, or unlicensed driving.
A second and perhaps more fundamental concern raised by
automated speed enforcement is that determining whether or
not a driver is violating the state's basic speed law
(i.e., driving at an unsafe speed) requires discretion on
the part of a law enforcement officer. Such discretion is
difficult when enforcement is automated and machines are
pre-set with a speed over which a driver is deemed to be
driving at an unsafe speed.
California's basic speed law states: "No person shall drive
a vehicle upon a highway at a speed greater than is
reasonable or prudent having due regard for weather,
visibility, the traffic on, and the surface and width of,
the highway, and in no event at a speed which endangers the
safety of persons or property." Under this law, driving 40
mph in a 25 mph residential area is not necessarily
unlawful if that speed is safe for the conditions.
Similarly, driving 25 mph in a 25 mph zone may be
considered an unsafe speed, if the conditions indicate that
a slower speed is appropriate. If a driver is issued a
ticket for unsafe speed for driving at a speed above the
posted speed limit, then the burden of proof falls on the
driver to demonstrate that his or her speed was indeed safe
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 6
for the conditions. But, if a driver issued a ticket for
unsafe speed was driving at a speed below the posted speed
limit, then the burden of proof falls on the officer to
demonstrate that the speed was unsafe for the conditions.
The bill addresses this issue by requiring a peace officer
to be present in the vehicle with the photo radar equipment
at the time a photo is taken and to document the driving
conditions at the time the alleged violation occurs. This
provision of the bill, however, raises other questions:
If an officer is present, why is automation needed
in the first place?
What are the implications for the police department
and for public safety to have an officer observe what is
allegedly unsafe driving behavior, but not stop the
behavior in progress?
3.Speeding vs. red light running . Violations of the basic speed
law are inherently different from violations of red light
running, which is enforceable using an automated system.
Speed law violations are usually "prima facie" violations.
"Prima facie" means "at first sight," or "upon first
appearance but subject to further evidence." It is this
requirement that the circumstances be evaluated before a
speeding citation can be issued that markedly distinguishes
red light enforcement from speed enforcement.
A red light violation, by contrast, is a "per se" violation.
"Per se" equates to "as a matter of law." Per se laws exist
because society has determined through experience that certain
activities are not warranted under any situation and are
simply not to be condoned. In a safety context, it is never
(or rarely) safe to run a red light. The alleged violator has
no defense to such a violation except mistaken identity.
Violations of "per se" statutes impose liability upon the
perpetrator without the need for further evidence other than
evidence of the violation.
4.Traffic safety or traffic calming ? In adopting guidelines for
automated speed enforcement, the International Association of
Chiefs of Police resolved, in part, that "automated speed
enforcement must be deployed in high-collision locations."
Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration concluded that "Automated enforcement has been
shown to be effective in high crash locations, particularly on
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 7
high-volume roadways and locations where it is unsafe to
conduct traditional enforcement operations." It is unclear
whether there is a high rate of collisions or fatalities
occurring on streets in Beverly Hills where this technology
would be utilized or whether the residential streets of
Beverly Hills experience a higher rate of collisions or
fatalities than occur on similar types of streets in other
cities. As noted above, simply driving at a speed that
exceeds the posted speed limit may not be unsafe, depending on
the driving conditions. What is the safety issue that this
bill seeks to address?
Traffic calming, in contrast to traffic safety, generally
refers to reducing traffic volume or speed and is often
achieved by making engineering improvements to the roadway.
Volume control measures are primarily used to address
cut-through traffic problems by blocking certain movements,
thereby diverting traffic to streets better able to handle the
traffic. Examples of these types of measures include half
closures, diagonal diverters, and median barriers. Speed
control measures are primarily used to address speeding
problems. Examples include speed humps or tables, textured
pavements, and roundabouts.
The City of Beverly Hills did install some speed control
measures (speed humps or tables), however, many of these
features were later removed because residents did not favor
them and because emergency service vehicles would sometimes
avoid streets that had them, which increased their response
times. The City also contemplated implementing a volume
control measure, but concluded that it would divert traffic to
other streets where the city also did not want traffic.
The committee may wish to consider whether it is desirable to
expand the use of automated enforcement to include speed
enforcement in order to address a problem that may be managed
using other measures.
5.Other questions :
a. Minimum training standards. In prescribing the training
standards that peace officers must meet to operate an
automated system, the bill requires "a minimum number of
hours" of speed enforcement training, including in the
operation of the system, but the bill does not specify what
that minimum number is. The author or committee may wish
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 8
to consider an amendment to specify the minimum number of
hours required for this training.
b. Frequency of system calibration. The bill requires that
the automated equipment be calibrated at least once every
three years. In its guidelines adopted in October 2007
regarding the use of automated speed enforcement, the
International Association of Chiefs of Police states that
the technology "is relatively new and there is limited
technical guidance from the National Highway Traffic Safety
Administration (NHTSA) or other authoritative groups?" The
committee may wish to consider whether the automated
enforcement equipment should be tested and calibrated more
frequently than once every three years.
1.Floodgate open ? Speeding is ubiquitous. Without a clear
standard guiding when automated speed enforcement is an
appropriate enforcement tool, any jurisdiction could
legitimately request being included in the pilot program
established by this bill. Indeed, the City/County Association
of Governments of San Mateo County has adopted a support if
amended position on this measure, requesting that the City of
San Mateo be included in the program. The committee may wish
to consider an amendment that would either prohibit the
addition of other jurisdictions to the pilot program or limit
the number of jurisdictions that could participate.
2.Other states . Approximately seven states (Washington, Utah,
Oregon, Maryland, Illinois, Colorado, and Arizona) plus the
District of Columbia allow the use of automated speed
enforcement to some degree, although the conditions under
which it is permitted vary from state to state.
3.Proposed author's amendments . The author intends to offer the
following amendments:
To provide additional assurances that a peace officer
will assess the road and driving conditions at the time of
each alleged violation: A requirement that the issuing
peace officers include their name and identifying number on
their description of the road and driving conditions at the
time an alleged violation takes place.
To ensure that the program will not simply be operated
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 9
to raise revenues for the city: A requirement that any
revenues generated from the program pay for operational
costs of the program and that any excess revenues be
distributed to non-automated traffic enforcement and
traffic safety education programs.
To ensure that the program will not result in a
reduction of current police services: A provision
prohibiting the local jurisdiction and the law enforcement
agency from reducing the existing level of police services.
9.Technical amendments .
After defining "MASE system," replace subsequent
references to "mobile automated speed enforcement system"
with "MASE system."
Because "residence district" is not a street, a
technical amendment is needed to clarify the type of
streets on which the automated enforcement system would be
used.
RELATED LEGISLATION
AB 23 (Ma, 2008) would have authorized the use of an automated
traffic enforcement system (i.e., red light cameras) to enforce
a prohibition against turning at a specified intersection in San
Francisco. Failed passage in this committee on a 4-5 vote.
SB 1300 (Kuehl, 2006) was a similar measure. Failed passage in
this committee on a 3-4 vote.
SB 466 (Kuehl, 2006) was a similar measure. Died in this
committee without being heard.
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY
SB 1802 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, authorized
the use of red light cameras 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 such cameras to reduce the incidence of drivers
SB 1325 (KUEHL) Page 10
running red lights at roadway intersections and to identify 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, which authorized the use of automated
enforcement systems at intersections indefinitely.
AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, refined the
red light camera provisions after a number of legal challenges
arose concerning the operation of the automated systems. These
changes clarified responsibility for operation and maintenance
of the system by local authorities and private contractors, the
involvement of law enforcement personnel in citation issuance,
restrictions on compensation to vendors, and the required
consideration of alternative methods of enforcement.
POSITIONS: (Communicated to the Committee before noon on
Wednesday,
April 23, 2008)
SUPPORT: City of Beverly Hills (sponsor)
Beverly Hills Chamber of Commerce
Beverly Hills Police Officers Association
Beverly Hills Unified School District
San Mateo United Homeowners Association
William Morris Agency, LLC
3 individuals
OPPOSED: Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
Riverside Sheriffs' Association