BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1362
Page 1
Date of Hearing: June 28, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION
Bonnie Lowenthal, Chair
SB 1362 (Simitian) - As Amended: May 25, 2010
SENATE VOTE : 31-1
SUBJECT : Automated Traffic Enforcement Systems
SUMMARY : Imposes requirements on the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems. Specifically, this bill :
1)Strikes the authority granted to government agencies to
provide notice to motorists of the presence of automated
traffic enforcement systems by posting signs at all major
entrances to the city, leaving in statute a requirement to
post signs at each intersection where a system is operating.
2)Sets forth additional requirements, limitations, and
procedures for government agencies seeking to use automated
traffic enforcement systems, including:
a) Guidelines developed for the selection of the location
of automated traffic enforcement systems must provide for
the placement of these systems based solely on safety, as
demonstrated by collision data;
b) Guidelines must be made available to the public,
including on the government agency's website if applicable;
c) Prior to installing an automated traffic enforcement
system, a government agency must collect collision data at
that location for six months;
d) Automated traffic enforcement systems may be used to
provide evidence of a right-turn, left-turn, or red light
violation only if the data collected indicates a
significant number of collisions occurred as a result of
one of these specific violations; and,
e) Government agencies, or their agents, are prohibited
from contacting registered vehicle owners, prior to issuing
a notice to appear in court, to ascertain the correct
SB 1362
Page 2
identity of an alleged traffic violator without first
making the vehicle owner aware that he or she is not
required to provide the information and will not suffer any
adverse action if the information is not provided.
3)Provides that the requirements for changes in guidelines and
for data collection prior to installation of automated traffic
enforcement systems apply only to systems installed after
January 1, 2011.
4)Voids citations in cases where a government agency contracts
with a system operator for any part of the system's operation
related to advance collision studies, regular inspection and
maintenance of warning signs, oversight of signal phases and
timing, or advance issuance of a notice to appear for purposes
of identifying an alleged violator's correct identity.
5)Directs the court to dismiss any citation issued as a result
of an automated traffic enforcement system if the court finds
the system was not operated in compliance as prescribed by
law; also suspends the authority of the government agency to
use an automated traffic enforcement system until the court
finds it is in full compliance with applicable laws.
6)Prohibits a government agency from considering revenue
generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating
the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to
operate an automated traffic enforcement system.
7)Requires an automatic traffic enforcement system operator, in
cooperation with a government agency, to submit an annual
report to the Judicial Council on specific data captured by
the system as well as a comparison of safety data before and
after installation of the system.
8)Prescribes specific contact information that must be included
in a notice to appear; requires any other notice, including a
courtesy notice, to be on a form approved by the Judicial
Council and to clearly state, in "a clear and prominent
fashion" that the registered owner is not required to provide
the information and that failure to do so will not result in
any adverse action.
EXISTING LAW :
9)Provides authority for automated traffic enforcement at places
SB 1362
Page 3
where a driver is required to respond to an official traffic
control signal, upon condition that certain requirements are
met, including those related to:
a) Notification to motorists of the presence of the system
through the use of signage;
b) Specific traffic signal timing and intervals;
c) Specific tasks associated with operation of the system;
and,
d) Confidentiality of data collected by the system.
10)Prohibits a contract between a government agency and a
manufacturer or supplier of automated traffic enforcement
equipment from including provisions for the payment or
compensation to the manufacturer or supplier based on the
number of citations generated, or as a percentage of the
revenue generated, as a result of the use of the equipment.
FISCAL EFFECT : Unknown
COMMENTS : According to the author, this bill is intended to
ensure that automated traffic enforcement systems are operated
for safety, not revenue, and that due process is afforded for
citations issued as a result of these systems. Existing law
authorizes the use of automated traffic enforcement systems with
minimal restrictions on the government agencies using the
systems.
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.
Installation of these systems was justified primarily because
motorists running red lights are a serious traffic problem with
potentially catastrophic results to other drivers, and it is a
difficult violation for a police officer to witness and enforce
at the time it is committed.
SB 1362
Page 4
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 automated
traffic enforcement systems, or "red light cameras," at
intersections. Major modifications were made to the statutory
authority by AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003,
as a result of an audit by the State Auditor that generally
concluded local governments needed to exert more control over
the operation of the automated traffic enforcement systems.
The author seeks further controls on the program to ensure that
the systems are used solely for safety purposes, that motorists
are given ample notice of their use, and that due process is
provided in adjudicating resultant citations.
The League of California Cities (League) opposes SB 1362 stating
that, while "SB 1362 does not expressly prohibit the use of red
light cameras in cities and counties?the proposed surveying,
citation process, and reporting requirements would increase
operating costs to the point that the red light camera systems
would be fiscally unfeasible for local agencies to maintain.
The League's specific concerns with SB 1362, including the
requirement that only sworn police officers can issue automated
traffic enforcement citations, thereby prohibiting qualified law
enforcement agency employees, such as retired sworn police
officers, from assuming this function at substantially lower
cost. The League argues that this requirement will drive
program costs so high that the program would no longer be
affordable and, as a result, safety benefits of these systems
will be lost.
The California Police Chiefs Association (Association), also
opposed to this bill, raises additional concerns. The
Association points out that SB 1362 takes functions associated
with operating an automated enforcement system (such as
establishing guidelines for selecting intersections to locate
such systems, regularly inspecting the equipment, regularly
inspecting and maintaining warning signs, and overseeing the
timing of the signal lights) and makes them mandatory. SB
1362 also sets up compliance with each of these activities as
a defense to the issuance of the citation for running a red
light, effectively vitiating red light enforcement. The
Association argues that "Conditioning the validity of the
ticket on compliance with activities such as regular
maintenance of warning signs will result in law violators
SB 1362
Page 5
demanding discovery of the local government's compliance with
all of the activities and asserting the most minor issue [such
as the definition of "regular maintenance"] as a defense to
beat the citation."
Moreover, SB 1362 will require government agencies to conduct
collision studies for at least six months and permit
installation of an automated traffic enforcement system only
if a "significant need" is demonstrated. The Association
asserts that violators will challenge their citations by
challenging the study and the conclusion that a "significant
need" was established.
Suggested amendments: SB 1362 was heard in the Assembly
Transportation Committee on June 21, 2010. The bill invited a
lively debate but did not secure passage. At the chair's
suggestion, and the author's concurrence, the bill was put over
a week to see if amendments could be drafted to assuage the
committee's concerns. The amendments identified below do just
that:
11)Leave in place the requirement that signs must be posted at
intersections equipped with an automated traffic enforcement
system but qualify that the signs need only be placed in the
direction for which the systems are being used.
12)Strike provisions requiring placement of an automated traffic
enforcement system only at locations for which six months of
collision data has been collected for the type of violation to
be enforced. Instead, require a government agency to adopt a
finding of fact establishing that the system is needed at a
specific location for reasons related to safety.
13)Strike provisions that require government agencies to do
specific activities related to operating an automated traffic
enforcement system; also strike provisions that direct courts
to dismiss any citation if a court finds that the system was
not operated in compliance with prescribed operating
requirements as well as provisions that suspend the use of the
system until full compliance is established.
14)Direct courtesy notices to notify a registered owner that
failure to provide requested information does not relieve him
or her, or the alleged violator, from any responsibility or
liability associated with the alleged violation.
SB 1362
Page 6
15)Strike provisions making data collection requirements
prospective (amendments to guidelines requirements make these
provisions unnecessary).
16) Strike provisions that render null and void any citation if
a government agency engages in a contract that violates
specified actions, such as failing to regularly maintain
signage.
17)Strike requirements that manufacturers or suppliers of
automated traffic enforcement system report to the Judicial
Council on the number and percentage of citations contested
and dismissed; instead, require that they report on the number
and percentage of citations paid in full.
18)Restore the ability of a qualified employee of law
enforcement to issue a citation.
19)Modify provisions related to the use of an altered "notice to
appear" form to allow, rather than require, a court to dismiss
a citation if the form has been materially altered.
20)Add provisions that authorize a peace officer or qualified
employee of a law enforcement agency to dismiss the citation,
if appropriate.
Related legislation :
Earlier this year, this Committee heard AB 2729 (Ammiano) that
will expand the authority to use automated traffic enforcement
systems to include the enforcement of unlawful turns explicitly
at one specific location in San Francisco. AB 2729 is currently
pending in the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee.
AB 2567 (Bradford) authorizes a local public agency to issue
citations based on photo-evidence of parking violations
occurring in street-sweeping parking lanes. AB 2567 is pending
in Senate Rules Committee.
AB 1336 (Eng) of 2009 was nearly identical to AB 2567. It was
vetoed by the Governor over privacy concerns and fear that the
bill could lead to the "unwarranted proliferation of camera
enforcement in many other arenas."
SB 1362
Page 7
AB 101 (Ma), Chapter 377, Statutes of 2008, authorized the City
and County of San Francisco to issue citations based on
photo-evidence of transit-only lane parking violations.
AB 23 (Ma) of 2007 would have provided the San Francisco with
the explicit authority to automatically enforce an illegal right
turn violation at the intersection of Market Street and Octavia
Boulevard. That bill passed Assembly in 2007 but failed in the
Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and was ultimately
gutted and amended to deal with a different subject.
AB 1022 (Oropeza), Chapter 511, Statutes of 2003, added
conditions and restrictions to the use of automated traffic
enforcement systems.
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
Amalgamated Transit Union
California Teamsters Public Affairs Council
Opposition
California Police Chiefs Association Inc.
League of California Cities
South Bay Cities Council of Governments
Analysis Prepared by : Janet Dawson / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093