BILL ANALYSIS �
AB 2128
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 2, 2012
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Felipe Fuentes, Chair
AB 2128 (Cook) - As Introduced: February 28, 2012
Policy Committee:
TransportationVote:13-0
Urgency: No State Mandated Local Program:
No Reimbursable: No
SUMMARY
This bill requires lengthening of yellow light intervals and
requires "rolling-right-on-red" (RROR) traffic light violations
be subject to a base fine of $35. (Current law provides law
enforcement discretion over how to classify such a violation.
Depending upon this classification, the violation may be subject
to a $100 fine or a $35 fine.) Specifically, this bill:
1)Requires the Department of Transportation (Caltrans) or local
authority to use the speed of prevailing traffic (85th
percentile) on a given roadway to determine the minimum yellow
traffic light change interval.
2)Requires, at an intersection with an automated enforcement
system in operation, the minimum yellow light change interval
to be set at one second beyond the minimum time designated by
the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
3)Requires a driver to stop at red light before turning right
and makes failure to do so subject to a base fine of $35.
FISCAL EFFECT
1)Unknown loss of annual revenue, potentially in the millions of
dollars. Actual state revenue loss will depend on the annual
number of RROR violations that, absent this bill, would have
been subject to the $100 base fine, which triggers $100 in
state penalty assessment, as opposed to the $35 base fine,
which triggers $40 in state penalty assessment. (General
Fund.) As shown, annual forgone state revenue ranges in the
millions of dollars.
AB 2128
Page 2
----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------- In addition, the bill would result in state revenue losses for
each RROR violation, as follows:
A loss of $26 in state DNA identification fees,
which statute sets at $3 per $10 base fine, or part
thereof.
A loss of $30 dollars in state court construction
fee revenue, which statute sets at $5 per $10 base fine,
or part thereof.
A loss of $13 in state surcharge fees, which statute
levies at 20% of the base fine amount.
Annual state revenues losses for the bulleted items shown
above would, like losses associated with state penalty
assessment, vary with the number of RROR violations issued
annually.
The state would also lose revenue to the extent the yellow
light interval provisions of this bill result in reduced red
light violations. However, this committee lacks data to
establish that the bill's yellow light provisions would result
in fewer red light violations or, if they did, the magnitude
of the reduction; therefore, this analysis does not place a
dollar amount on this potential revenue loss.
1)Loss of local annual revenue comparable to the loss in annual
state revenue.
COMMENTS
1)Rationale. The author contends this bill better aligns the
penalty for certain traffic violations with the gravity of
those violations and increases transportation safety by better
aligning minimum traffic light timing with driver behavior.
2)Background.
a) Red Light Violations and Base Fines. The vehicle code
establishes base fines for various traffic violations.
Generally, those fines correspond to the seriousness of the
violation. Current law establishes a base fine of $100 for
a driver who runs a red light or who turns left onto a
two-way street in violation of a red light. In addition,
current law establishes a base fine of $35 for driver who
makes a right turn against a red light, oftentimes referred
to as a RROR turn. Current law is written, however, in a
AB 2128
Page 3
way that allows law enforcement the discretion to cite RROR
turns at the higher, $100 base fine for running a red
light.
Some have complained the $100 base fine for RROR violations
is disproportionate to the danger posed by such maneuvers.
These complaints have increased along with the greater use
of automated traffic control systems, such as red light
cameras, that subject many drivers to RROR fines. In
addition, those subject to fines have, in recent years,
faced a long and costly list of add-on penalties and fees,
the most significant of which is the state's penalty
assessment add on of $10 per $10 of base fine, or fraction
thereof. As a result of these add ons, a driver cited with
a RROR base fine of $100 must pay a total of $531 in fines
and fees.
b) Yellow Light Change Intervals. The bill attempts to
address an effect of recent legislation that allows
Caltrans and local authorities, for purposes of determining
the minimum required duration of yellow traffic light
intervals, to round speed limits down to the next
five-mile-per-hour increment below the prevailing speed.
The author contends this practice reduces traffic safety by
resulting in yellow light intervals that are too short,
given the prevailing speed of traffic. The result,
according to the author, is increased traffic collisions.
The bill also requires yellow light intervals at
intersections with red light cameras to be, at a minimum,
one second longer than they would otherwise be. The author
and proponents contend such intersections are the location
of a disproportionately large number of traffic collision
and that lengthening the yellow light interval would
increase traffic safety. It is unclear, however, why the
author limits the yellow light interval requirement to
intersections with red light cameras. It seems the safety
benefits, whatever they may be, would exist independent of
the presence of red light cameras.
3)Related Legislation. This bill's RROR base fine reduction is
substantially the same as that found in AB 909 (Hill, 2010),
which passed the Assembly 63-11 but was vetoed by the
governor, who expressed safety concerns. AB 909's RROR
provisions were not heard by the appropriations committee of
either house.
AB 2128
Page 4
4)Support . This bill is supported by the California Teamsters
Public Affairs Council, Safer Streets LA and other
transportation and motorist organizations, who contend the
bill increases traffic safety and better aligns traffic
violation penalties with the gravity of traffic offenses.
5)Opposition . This bill is opposed by the California Police
Chiefs Association, who argue the bill undermines the
effectiveness of red light camera enforcement and implies RROR
turns are not dangerous traffic violations.
Analysis Prepared by : Jay Dickenson / APPR. / (916) 319-2081