BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 2360
Page 1
Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Jim Frazier, Chair
AB 2360
(Alejo) - As Amended April 13, 2016
SUBJECT: School buses: passing violations: automated video
enforcement
SUMMARY: Authorizes automated video enforcement of school bus
passing violations. Specifically, this bill:
1)Authorizes a school district to install and operate school bus
video enforcement systems as a means of enforcing the
requirement that drivers stop when a school bus displays a
flashing red light signal and a deploy stop signal arm.
2)Defines an "automated school bus video enforcement system" as
a video system that monitors and records motor vehicles
overtaking or passing a school bus when the school bus is
stopped and displaying a flashing red signal system and a
deployed stop signal arm, if so equipped.
3)Requires a county to transfer, on a monthly basis, to the
school district whose school bus was involved in the
violation, the base fines paid for violations captured by the
automated school bus video enforcement system if the image is
used to convict the offender.
AB 2360
Page 2
4)Provides that a school district may assess a civil penalty of
$150 for passing a bus with red lights flashing and a deployed
stop arm if the violation was captured by the automated school
bus video enforcement system and the driver is not prosecuted
for a criminal violation for the same violation.
5)Authorizes a school district to establish a civil penalty
program required to issue non-binding warning letters to
drivers for a violation for the first six months of the school
bus video enforcement program.
6)Requires that a school district that assesses civil penalties
for a violation must provide:
a) An administrative appeal process that includes, at a
minimum, notice provisions, a neutral hearing officer, an
opportunity to appeal, and any other due process
procedures;
b) A process whereby the camera system vendor is required
to fund the cost of the hearing officer; and,
c) That persons challenging the assessment of the civil
penalty be provided access to the images or data evidencing
the persons violation without charge.
1)Requires that a school bus equipped with a video enforcement
system also be equipped with highly visible signage on the
rear of the bus notifying motorists of the requirement to stop
when red lights are flashing and that the video enforcement
system is in effect.
AB 2360
Page 3
2)Requires that the school bus video enforcement system not be
activated until at least six seconds after the stop arm is
deployed or, if no stop arm is available, at least 6 seconds
after the school bus has stopped and red lights are flashing.
3)Requires that the video enforcement vendor provide required
signage at the vendor's expense.
4)Provides that images captured by the video enforcement system
are confidential and must be encrypted and, unless demanded by
subpoena, be available only to the school district,
contractor, law enforcement, or the offender for the purposes
of appeal and that images captured not be used for purposes
other than enforcement.
5)Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office prepare and submit a
report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019, and
every two years thereafter regarding the effectiveness of the
school bus video enforcement systems used by school districts
in the state.
6)Makes findings and declarations regarding the right of public
access to the meetings and writings of local public bodies and
officials and state agencies as well as the protection of
privacy of a person whose image is captured by a school bus
video enforcement system.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Requires school bus drivers to operate flashing red warning
signals and stop arm signs when a school bus is approaching a
stop or is stopped to unload pupils.
2)Requires a driver to stop when a school bus displays a
flashing red signal and the stop signal arm is deployed and to
remain stopped until the flashing red light signal and stop
arm turned off by the school bus driver.
AB 2360
Page 4
3)Authorizes a school bus driver who witnesses a vehicle
violating the stop warnings to report the violation within 24
hours and furnish the vehicle license plate number, vehicle
description, and time and place of the violation to law
enforcement.
4)Requires local law enforcement, upon receiving notification
from a school bus driver of a vehicle failing to stop when
stop warning signals are deployed, to issue a warning letter
to the registered owner of the vehicle as identified by the
bus driver.
5)Prohibits local law enforcement, when issuing a letter of
warning, from entering the alleged violation on the registered
owners driving record.
6)Sets the penalties for overtaking a school bus when signals
are displayed at $150 base fine (about $600 after surcharges
and penalties are assessed) and one point on the driver's
record.
7)Authorizes local jurisdictions to apply increased penalties
for school bus passing violations. Some jurisdictions, such
as Los Angeles County, set second violations for this offense
at $500 (exceeding $1,000 with penalty assessments) and a
point on the driver's record and third violations, occurring
within three years of two or more separate violations, is
punishable by suspension of driving privileges for one year.
8)Specifies that automated enforcement systems may be operated
by a governmental agency, in cooperation with law enforcement,
at the a limit line of an intersection, or other authorized
AB 2360
Page 5
location, if the government agency utilizing the system meets
the following requirements:
a) That signs are used to identify the presence of the
system;
b) That public announcements are made noticing the
installation of the system at least 30 days prior to the
commencement of the enforcement program;
c) That prior to issuing citations, warning notices are
issued for 30 days;
d) That uniform guidelines for the operation of the system;
e) That only those citations that have been reviewed and
approved by law enforcement may be delivered to violators;
f) That automated enforcement may be contracted out to a
manufacturer or supplier;
g) That the registered owner or any individual identified
by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the
time of the alleged violation be allowed to review the
photographic evidence of the alleged violation;
h) That a governmental agency installing an automated
traffic enforcement system not consider revenue generation,
beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system,
as a factor when considering whether or not to install or
operate the system; and,
AB 2360
Page 6
i) That the system operator submit an annual report to the
Judicial Council that includes information on the number of
violations captured, the number of citations issued, the
type of violation, the number and percentage of citations
that are dismissed in court, and the number of traffic
collisions at each intersection prior to and after
installation of the system.
FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown
COMMENTS: According to the author, school children are placed
at significant risk when drivers fail to stop, as required by
law, when school buses display designated stop signals (flashing
lights and a deployed stop arm). He notes that according to
national statistics, this offense is a common occurrence as
evidenced by national surveys conducted by the National
Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation (NASDPT).
For California specifically, NASDPT reports that approximately
21,040 school bus stop sign violations go unenforced in
California daily. The author adds that, in most cases, these
offenses are not observed by peace officers.
To address this problem, the author has introduced AB 2360,
modeled after legislation in other states, to authorize the use
of automated video enforcement devices on school buses.
Specifically, this bill would authorize a school district to
install and operate video enforcement systems on school buses as
a means of identifying and citing drivers who fail to stop when
a school bus is displaying a flashing red light signal and
deployed stop signal arm, where applicable. This bill goes on
to specify that the school districts that operate the video
AB 2360
Page 7
enforcement systems would receive, on a monthly basis, the base
fine amount of $150 per violation captured by the system if the
image is used to convict the offender.
To protect the safety of school children, existing law requires
that school bus drivers illuminate red flashing lights and lower
the stop arm on buses, if so equipped, when the bus is stopped
to load or unload pupils. Drivers traveling in both directions
are required to stop when the signal lights are illuminated and
remain stopped until the warning system is turned off by the bus
driver. As required by AB 1297 (Morrow), Chapter 739, Statutes
of 1997, school bus drivers are required to activate the warning
system beginning 200 feet before the bus stop, regardless of
whether or not the pupils are crossing the street.
Existing law provides that the penalty for failing to stop when
a school bus is displaying flashing signals lights and a lowered
stop arm is a $150 base fine and one point on the driver's DMV
record for a first offense. With court costs and penalty
assessments, the actual out-of-pocket cost of the ticket is
$695. Local jurisdictions are also authorized to add increased
penalties for this offense. For example, a second offense for
this violation in Los Angeles County is punishable by a fine of
$500 (with out-of-pocket costs exceeding reaching nearly $1,500)
and third violations, occurring within three years of two or
more separate violations, is punishable by suspension of driving
privileges for one year.
Red light cameras are the most common form of photo enforcement
used in California to cite moving violations. Red light cameras
were first installed to address what was a growing problem of
AB 2360
Page 8
catastrophic right angle accidents resulting from rampant red
light running. For intersection enforcement, red light cameras
capture an image of the vehicle as it enters the intersection
after the red signal is displayed. Photographs are taken of the
vehicle and the driver as it passes the intersection stop bar
(pavement marking) after the red signal is illuminated. The
photo evidence is then reviewed by a law enforcement officer,
and if the photographic evidence demonstrates that the vehicle
passed the stop bar after the red light was displayed and if the
driver can be clearly identified as the owner of the vehicle, a
citation is issued.
Red light cameras have spurred substantial debate and
legislative action since they were first allowed nearly two
decades ago. Some argue that the cameras violate privacy and,
as a result, numerous privacy protections have been added in
statute. Many others contend that the systems are being used
less to reduce catastrophic accidents and more for the financial
gain of the local jurisdictions and contracted red light camera
vendors. For this reason, numerous laws have been enacted to
prohibit local jurisdictions from profiting from red light
camera installation and to clearly document the need for the
systems prior to installation. Still others contend that,
rather than increasing safety, the cameras instead increase the
number of intersection accidents as evidenced by the increase in
rear-end collision-type accidents that occur after the systems
are installed.
Writing in support of this bill, WALK San Francisco contends
that video enforcement systems on school buses would serve to
hold drivers accountable and reinforce the law that drivers need
AB 2360
Page 9
to stop when reds are flashing and the stop signal arm is
deployed. Also writing in support, the California School
Employees Association notes that AB 2360 offers an innovative
way to increase student safety while also providing added
revenue for California's public school system.
Writing in opposition to AB 2360, California Association of
Counties asserts that this bill fails to set the standard that
local jurisdictions demonstrate the need for the system prior to
installations. Also writing in opposition, the New Way of Life
Re-Entry Project (ANWOL) points out that using automated
ticketing to enforce this violation creates a system ripe for
abuse. They also note that these costly tickets would be
especially difficult for low-income individuals due to their
inability to pay the fines and loss of the driving privilege,
which is a penalty associated with this violation, could affect
an individual's ability to work, therefore keeping the
individual in poverty. ANWOL notes this bill would add another
unnecessary burden on lower income families.
Committee comments: The data generated by NASDPTS, that bus
drivers observe over 21,000 drivers unlawfully passing stopped
school buses daily, does not seem to correlate with accident
data provided by law enforcement. For example, the California
Highway Patrol (CHP) reports that since 2010, a total of 4,930
citations were issued for this violation and that there have
been only 28 collisions for this violation since 2013. Of these
28 incidents, fortunately only three involved injuries and none
were fatalities.
AB 2360
Page 10
Aside from these issues, the committee has a number of concerns
related to the practical application of the use of video
enforcement systems on school buses. First, it is unclear how
schoolbus mounted video enforcement system could function fairly
given the mobile setting. For example, for red light cameras
installed at intersections, the "stop bar" pavement marking is
used to clearly delineate the location before which a car is
required to stop and beyond which the vehicle is considered to
have "run" the red light. With regard to passing school buses,
there would be no clear pavement markings available for
motorists to know exactly where they are required to stop or at
what point they will have "passed" the bus. Additionally, given
that the bus driver controls when the flashing lights
illuminated, the systems inherently lacks regulated "timing"
that motorists rely upon to know when to begin braking in order
to make a safe stop. While the author has attempted to address
this issue by placing specified times at which the photo
enforcement system would be deployed after the signal lights are
illuminated, there is no way to ensure that motorists receive
ample notification. The result is likely to be what is observed
at camera controlled intersections where motorists slam on their
brakes resulting in rear end collisions that could, ultimately,
result in greater risk of injury to schoolchildren.
This bill carries over many of the same practices and protocols
that tainted the original red light camera enforcement at
intersections. Those systems were originally justified on the
honorable premise that automated enforcement was critical to
deterring catastrophic broadside collisions caused by drivers
running red lights. In that same vein, this bill seeks to
protect children from serious injury by impatient drivers
ignoring warning indicators as school buses are loading and
AB 2360
Page 11
unloading. Red light cameras, however, soon faced
well-substantiated criticisms that local jurisdictions were
increasingly installing them for revenue-generation purposes,
rather than based on safety needs. As a result, significant
restrictions were imposed on their use, such as safety need for
the cameras had to be well-documented, police officials were
required to review photos, and vendors were not allowed to
receive financial compensation based on the number of citations
issued. Unfortunately, these same protections that were imposed
to ensure the integrity of red light camera installations are
not included in this bill.
Related legislation: SB 681 (Hill) reduces the base fine for
"rolling right turn" violations.
SB 681 is on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations
Committee.
Previous legislation: AB 666 (Wieckowski) of 2013 would have,
among other things, required violations recorded by an automated
traffic enforcement system to be cited as civil violations,
subject to a civil penalty, administrative process, and appeal
in superior court. AB 666 was returned to the Chief Clerk by
the Assembly Judiciary Committee pursuant to Joint Rule 56.
AB 1287 (Chiu), Chapter 485, Statutes of 2015, deletes the
sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's authority to do
automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only
traffic lanes, otherwise known as the Transit-Only Lane
Enforcement (TOLE) program
REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:
AB 2360
Page 12
Support
California Bicycle Coalition
California School Employees Association
California Walks
Community Now
Safe Routes to School National Partnership
Mission Union School District
Parents of Sarah Oberhauser
San Antonio Union School District
WALKSacramento
Walk San Francisco
Opposition
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
AB 2360
Page 13
California Association of Counties
A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project
National Motorists Association
Safer Streets LA
Analysis Prepared by:Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093