BILL ANALYSIS
SB 1362
Page 1
Date of Hearing: August 4, 2010
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
SB 1362 (Simitian) - As Amended: August 2, 2010
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:11-1
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable:
SUMMARY
This bill imposes additional requirements on the use of
automated traffic enforcement systems. Specifically, the bill:
1)Prohibits a governmental agency that proposes to operate an
automated traffic enforcement system from considering revenue
generation beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the
system, as a factor when considering whether to install such
as system within its jurisdiction.
2)Requires that, by no later than January 1, 2012, the systems
be identified by signs posted within 200 feet of an
intersection where a system is operating, visible from
directions where the automated system is being utilized.
Currently, the systems can be identified by signs posted at
each intersection (visible to traffic going in all directions)
or on signs posted all major entrances to the city.
3)Requires that, prior to installing a system after January 1,
2012, the government agency adopt a finding of fact
establishing that the system is needed at a specific location
for reasons related to safety.
4)Requires that when a government agency contacts a registered
vehicle owner for the purpose of ascertaining the correct
identity of an alleged traffic violator, it make the owner
aware that he or she is not required to provide the
information, and that failure to provide the information will
not result in additional responsibility or liability
associated with the alleged violation.
SB 1362
Page 2
5)Requires a manufacturer or supplier that operates an automated
traffic enforcement system to submit annual reports to the
Judicial Council that include - to the extent this information
is readily available to the manufacturer or supplier -
information on the number of (a) alleged violations, (b)
citations issued by type of violation, (c) citations paid in
full, and (d) traffic collisions at each intersection
occurring before and after the installation of the system.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown, potentially significant reduction in fine and penalty
revenues, potentially in the range of several million dollars
annually, (state and local special funds), to the extent that
the bill reduces use of automated traffic enforcement systems
in the future.
2)Partly offsetting reduction in court costs resulting from
fewer contested citations.
3)Minor costs to Judicial Council to compile and maintain
reports from operators of automated traffic enforcement
systems.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale . According to the author, the 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
2)Background . Automated enforcement systems have been authorized
for use by local governments since 1998. Current law
authorizes use of these systems subject to various
requirements relating to posting of signs to notify motorists
of the presence of the system, adherence to traffic signal
timing and intervals standards, and confidentiality of data
collected by the system. Current law also 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.
SB 1362
Page 3
1)Fiscal issue . The governor's budget proposal assumes $400
million from expanded usage of systems for speeding
enforcement. It is based on voluntary participation by local
governments. This bill's provision prohibiting a local
jurisdiction from considering revenue impacts of new
enforcement systems may be in conflict with this and related
budget proposals.
Analysis Prepared by : Brad Williams / APPR. / (916) 319-2081