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