BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 612
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 29, 2013
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
AB 612 (Nazarian) - As Amended: March 19, 2013
SUBJECT : Automated enforcement systems
SUMMARY : Requires that yellow light signal change intervals be
increased by one second at intersections with automated traffic
enforcement systems (red light cameras). Specifically, this
bill :
1)Requires yellow light signal change intervals at intersections
with red light cameras be set at one second over the change
interval established using the California Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD) or its successor document.
2)Requires courts to dismiss citations issued at red light
camera intersections where yellow light signal times have not
been lengthened.
EXISTING LAW :
1)Specifies that only a governmental agency, in cooperation with
a law enforcement agency, may operate a red light camera if
specified requirements are met.
2)Requires that, at intersections where red light cameras are in
operation, the minimum yellow light change interval be
established in accordance with procedures set forth in the CA
MUTCD.
3)Requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) to revise
the CA MUTCD, as it read on January 12, 2012, to authorize
Caltrans or a local authority to round speed limits down to
the nearest five mile per hour (mph) increment of the
prevailing traffic speed and prohibits Caltrans or a local
authority from further reducing the speed limit for any reason
if the option to round the speed limit down is exercised.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown.
AB 612
Page 2
COMMENTS : This bill which would require yellow light signal
times at red light camera-controlled intersections to be
lengthened by one second over that calculated using the CA
MUTCD, or its successor document. Additionally, the bill
requires that courts dismiss citations issued at red light
camera intersections if yellow light signal times are not
increased, as required.
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. Later, SB 833 (Kopp), Chapter
922, Statutes of 1995, authorized a three-year demonstration
period to test the use and effectiveness of such cameras in
reducing the incidence of drivers running red lights at roadway
intersections. After reviewing the 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.
With the advent of red light cameras, failure to stop before the
limit line or cross through the intersection before the light
turned red began resulting in costly citations for violators.
Persons issued these citations began to question whether or not
yellow light signal times were being appropriately set to allow
motorists adequate time to stop or completely pass through the
intersection before the onset of the red light. In response to
these concerns, SB 667 (Peace), Chapter 491, Statutes of 2001,
specified that, at intersections where red light cameras are in
operation, the minimum yellow light signal change interval must
be set in accordance with the CA MUTCD.
The exclusive function of the yellow light signal is to warn
traffic of an impending change in the right-of-way assignment.
The primary objective of the yellow light interval is to improve
the safety of the signalized intersection by providing a
temporal separation between conflicting demands for use of the
intersection space. Studies have consistently shown that
increasing the yellow light interval improves safety.
Despite the fact that the CA MUTCD directs a formulaic approach
to establishing yellow light signal intervals, proponents of
this bill remain concerned that yellow light signal intervals
AB 612
Page 3
are still not long enough to allow motorists to either stop or
pass through the intersection before the red light illuminates.
Part of the concern is that cities are opting to use the lowest
allowable yellow light intervals which, proponents believe,
increases red light violations and results in increased
intersection accidents.
The sponsor (Safer Streets LA) has presented many studies
showing that adding one second to yellow light signal times
provides motorists with adequate time to either stop before
reaching the intersection or allows them to pass completely
through the intersection before the light turns red which
drastically reduces red light running and, more importantly,
reduces associated intersection accidents. Specifically, the
sponsor notes that a study performed by the Texas Transportation
Institute (TTI) showed that when yellow light interval durations
were extended by one second, there was a 40% reduction in
intersection accidents. The sponsor has also cited a number of
additional studies showing a significant drop in intersection
accidents when yellow light signal times are increased by
approximately one second and notes that other states, namely
Ohio, Georgia, and New Jersey, have enacted laws mandating
longer yellow light signal intervals which have resulted in a
significant reduction in red light violations and associated
intersection accidents.
Previous legislation : AB 2128 (Cook) of 2012, would have
lengthened the yellow light signal times and required
"rolling-right-on-red" traffic light violations to be subject to
a base fine of $35. That bill died in the Assembly
Appropriations Committee.
SB 667 (Peace) Chapter 491, Statutes of 2002, required yellow
light change intervals at intersections at which there is an
automated enforcement system. The change intervals would be
established in accordance with the Traffic Manual of the
Department of Transportation.
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
AB 612
Page 4
systems at official traffic control signals.
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.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION :
Support
Safer Streets L.A. (sponsor)
Automobile Club of Southern California
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
California Conference Board of the Amalgamated Transit Union
California Conference of Machinists
California Construction Trucking Association
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Opposition
None on file
Analysis Prepared by : Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-
2093