BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1160
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 20, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 1160
(Harper) - As Amended April 14, 2015
SUBJECT: Vehicles: automated traffic enforcement systems
SUMMARY: Prohibits new red light cameras from being installed
by local jurisdictions after January 1, 2016, and requires the
removal of existing red light cameras unless certain conditions
are met. Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits a local jurisdiction from installing red light
cameras, beginning January 1, 2016.
2)Authorizes a local jurisdiction that operates an existing red
light camera to continue to do so after January 1, 2016 if the
agency begins conducting, on or before February 28, 2016, a
traffic safety study at each red light camera-controlled
intersection to determine if the system has resulted in a
statistically significant reduction in red light running
accidents.
3)Requires the studies conducted at existing red light
camera-controlled intersections to:
AB 1160
Page 2
a) Make a determination as to whether there has been an
increase in rear-end collisions within 100 feet of the
intersection;
b) Account for specified factors, other than red light
camera enforcement, that could have caused any reduction in
red light running collisions;
c) Use a minimum of three years of "before" data and the
entire period of automated enforcement as the "after" data
period and provide an "adjustment" for any differences
between these two periods;
d) Be conducted in accordance with federal National Highway
Traffic Administration-approved (NHTSA-approved) data
analysis methodology for automated traffic enforcement
systems; and,
e) Clearly list all raw and referenced data for peer review
purposes.
4)Requires, if the required study does not show a statistically
significant reduction in the number of accidents caused by red
light running or if the study shows there was an increase in
rear end collisions, that the local jurisdiction to remove a
red light camera by January 1, 2018, and provides that no
violations captured on the system will be valid after that
AB 1160
Page 3
date.
5) Requires local jurisdictions who use red light cameras to
cite motorists for right turn violations at red light
camera-controlled intersections to include in the required
study an analysis of collisions caused by a motorists'
failure to stop before turning right on a red indication.
6)Requires, if the study does not definitively show that the use
of a red light camera system reduced the number of traffic
accidents caused by a motorists' failure to stop before
turning right, by a statistically significant margin, that
red-light camera use be terminated at that intersection no
later than January 1, 2018, and that no violations captured on
the system after that date be valid for prosecution.
7)Makes related clarifying and conforming amendments.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Authorizes the limit line, intersection, or other places where
a driver is required to stop, to be equipped with a red light
camera, if certain requirements are met.
2)Generally authorizes a local jurisdiction to contract out the
operation of red-light camera systems.
3)Requires a local jurisdiction to develop, by January 1, 2014,
uniform guidelines for screening and issued red light camera
violations and for processing and storing confidential
AB 1160
Page 4
information.
4)Requires a local jurisdiction to make a public announcement
that the red light camera will be in use at least 30 days
prior to commencement of use.
5)Requires a local jurisdiction to issue only warning notices
for the first 30 days that the red light camera system is in
effect.
6)Requires a city council or county board of supervisors to
conduct a public hearing on the proposed use of an automated
enforcement system authorized prior to authorizing the city or
county to enter into a contract for the use of the system
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: According to the author, red light cameras have
failed to increase safety and have instead resulted in increased
collisions and staggering costs for Californians. The author
notes that red light cameras have increased driver anxiety to
such an extent that drivers are now reacting by slamming on
their brakes when they see a yellow light at a camera-controlled
intersections and that this results in increased collisions. To
illustrate his point, he notes that at an intersection in
Murrieta, California there was a reported 325% increase in
collisions after a red light camera was installed. The author
also points out that red light cameras can be costly to install,
operate, and maintain. He contends that these costs were
generally "covered" by the increased tickets that were issued,
but now that more of these tickets are being successfully
challenged in court, the costs of operating red light cameras
has begun to outweigh the revenue that is generated, causing
cities and counties in California to remove their red light
AB 1160
Page 5
cameras.
To address this issue, the author has introduced this bill which
would prohibit the installation of new red light cameras,
beginning in January 1, 2016, and require that local
jurisdictions evaluate, through studies, whether their existing
systems are decreasing (or increasing) accidents. For those
intersections where accidents have increased the bill would
require the local jurisdiction to remove the camera.
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. The
installation of these systems was considered justified primarily
because red light running is considered a serious traffic
problem that can result in deadly accidents. 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 being widely deployed, the use of red light cameras has
been, at best, controversial. To help ensure fairness the law
requires that before a red light camera can be installed, a
local jurisdiction must demonstrate the need for the system and
that prior to entering into a contract with a red light camera
system vendor, the legislative body of the local government
(e.g., city council or county board of supervisors) must conduct
a public hearing on the proposed use of the system. Once the
system is installed, the local jurisdiction must operate the
system in accordance with specific requirements which include,
among other things, the prohibition that the local jurisdiction
base vendor payment on the number of citations that are issued
or the amount of revenue that is generated.
AB 1160
Page 6
Despite increased regulation of red light camera operations,
many continued to argue that local jurisdictions and vendors
directly benefit from costly citations that are issued
(typically amounting to $500 or more per violation). This
belief is exacerbated by the fact that many of the violations
being cited included "inadvertent" red light violations such as
failing to completely cross the intersection before the light
turned red, stopping just past the limit line, or performing a
"rolling" right turn.
To address this concern, SB 667 (Peace), Chapter 491, Statutes
of 2001, required that at red light camera-controlled
intersections, the minimum yellow light signal change interval
must be set in accordance with the California Manual of Uniform
Traffic Control Devices (CA MUTCD). Later, following the
introduction of AB 612 (Nazarian), the CA MUTCD was revised to
increase yellow light signal times at various red-light
camera-controlled intersections in accordance with a National
Cooperative Highway Research Program Report entitled Guidelines
for Timing Yellow and All-Red Intervals at Signalized
Intersections. Data collected at red light camera-controlled
intersection after the CA MUTCD revisions took effect showed a
substantial decrease in red light camera violations.
Specifically, at an intersection in Santa Clarita, California
(after the yellow light signal times were increased by 0.5
second), there was a 71% decrease in all red light violations at
the intersection.
Proponents of photo enforcement at intersections point to
studies that demonstrate red light camera do reduce intersection
accidents. Specifically, a 2011 study conducted by the
Insurance Institute for Highway Safety showed a 24% reduction in
fatalities at intersections in 14 cities that utilized red light
AB 1160
Page 7
cameras from 2004 to 2008. Specifically, the report showed that
the presence of red light cameras led to a 62% reduction in
fatal crashes in San Diego, a 53% reduction in Sacramento, and a
44% reduction in Santa Ana, California. The report concluded
that red light cameras provide a proven deterrent that changes
behavior and leads to safer driving habits.
Some, including the California Construction Trucking Association
(CCTA), believe that red light cameras have resulted in an
increase, rather than a decrease in intersection collisions and
claim that the cameras endanger, rather than protect the
motoring public. Specifically, they cite studies showing that
red light camera installation is associated with a 27% increase
in rear-end crashes and a 12% increase in total intersection
crashes, which they believe occurs when drivers slam on their
brakes in an effort to avoid a costly citation when confronted
with a yellow light.
Opponents of AB 1160, including the Association for Los Angeles
Deputy Sheriffs, the California Association of Code Enforcement
Officers, the California College and University Police Chiefs
Association, the California Narcotic Officers Association, the
Los Angeles Police Protective League and the Riverside Sheriffs
Association, all point out that automated traffic enforcement
systems promote traffic safety and are an important technology
in fostering officer safety in the context of traffic
enforcement. They point out that red light cameras have a
long-established utility as a traffic safety technology that
significantly reduce red light violations and has saved
countless lives.
Clearly there is data on both sides of the argument with regard
to the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of red light camera
systems. It is hoped that the recent changes in the CA MUTCD
with regard to yellow light signal timing will end the problem
AB 1160
Page 8
of rear-end accidents and excessive ticketing of inadvertent red
light violators. Given this potential, it would be unwise at
this time react to a problem that may, in fact, resolve itself
by eliminating the ability of local governments and law
enforcement to use an effective tool that improves public
safety.
Related legislation: SB 218 (Huff), among other things, would
prohibit a governmental agency or local authority from utilizing
an automated enforcement system at any place where traffic is
regulated by a stop sign. SB 218 is set for hearing in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee on April 21, 2015.
Previous legislation: AB 612 (Nazarian) of 2013, would have
required that yellow light signal change intervals be increased
by one second at intersections with automated traffic
enforcement systems. AB 612, which was later amended to deal
with charter party carriers, failed passage in the Senate
Transportation and Housing Committee.
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. AB 2128 was
held in the Assembly Appropriations Committee on the suspense
file.
SB 1303 (Simitian), Chapter 735, Statutes of 2012, changed the
laws governing automated traffic enforcement systems to ensure
that red light camera programs maximize traffic safety and are
implemented in a lawful and transparent manner.
SB 29 (Simitian), of 2011, made several changes to the laws
regarding automated traffic enforcement systems to ensure that
red light camera programs are designed to maximize traffic
AB 1160
Page 9
safety and are implemented in a lawful and transparent manner.
SB 29 was vetoed by the Governor Brown on the grounds that the
issues addressed in the bill should be overseen by local elected
officials.
AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, added
conditions and restrictions to the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems.
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
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.
SB 1216 (Rosenthal), Chapter 1216, Statutes of 1994, originally
authorized automated enforcement at rail crossings.
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
Support
California Association of Highway Patrolmen
AB 1160
Page 10
California Construction Trucking Association
National Motorists Association
Safer Streets LA
Opposition
Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Association of Code Enforcement Officers,
California College and University Police Chiefs Association
California Narcotic Officers Association
League of California Cities
Los Angeles Police Protective League
Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc.
Riverside Sheriffs Association
Traffic Safety Coalition
AB 1160
Page 11
Analysis Prepared by:Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093