Automated traffic enforcement system programs.

Senator Ashby, joined by Assembly Members Pellerin and Wicks, advances a framework to authorize cities and counties to operate automated traffic enforcement systems that detect violations of traffic control signals, accompanied by a defined civil-penalty schedule, a stepped review process, and enhanced privacy safeguards. The core aim is to formalize local authority to enforce signal violations through automated means while establishing a structured system of notices, hearings, and appeals for violators.

Key provisions establish the program requirements and enforcement mechanics. A designated jurisdiction may place automated traffic enforcement systems at intersections where drivers must stop, provided the system is clearly signposted and calibrated to standards accompanying existing traffic-control-device rules. The program requires warning notices for an initial period (60 days under the section governing automated signal enforcement) before citations are issued, and a public notification prior to beginning enforcement. The bill also restricts certain activities to government-operated functions, limits contractor roles, and forbids contracting practices that tie compensation to the number of citations. Confidential information and evidence collected by the system are subject to strict handling and retention limits, with protections intended to keep driver-identifying data confidential and accessible only for purposes related to the program and enforcement. Photographic and video records are generally confidential and not treated as public records, with specific provisions governing access by the registered vehicle owner. The design of the program requires attention to where systems are placed, including considerations of relative safety risk and potential impacts on equity, and directs that data and impact reports be prepared to inform deployment decisions.

The procedural framework for violators, oversight, and financing dominates the middle of the bill. Notices of violation must, where practical, reference the specific section violated and provide a clear photograph or video link, with a deadline of 30 days to respond or contest. The process comprises an initial administrative review, followed by an administrative hearing if requested, and then a potential appeal in a small-claims or other superior court setting, with the hearing conducted by independent examiners trained to specified standards. A civil-penalty schedule is established, with escalating amounts tied to prior violations: up to $100 for a first offense in a three-year window, up to $200 for a second, $350 for a third, and $500 for a fourth or more, with caps on additional processing or late fees and protections for emergency vehicles and for cases where criminal penalties apply. A variety of protections and procedures govern the hearing, including opportunities for installment payments, potential community-service alternatives, and de novo review on appeal, with explicit timelines and evidentiary rules. The bill requires indigent relief, including reduced penalties, payment plans with modest installments, and a process to demonstrate eligibility. Revenues from such programs are first allocated to program costs, with explicit provisions to maintain existing traffic-calming expenditures and to reinvest excess revenue in eligible projects, such as traffic-calming measures, with specified mechanisms for governance and reporting. Finally, the bill imposes reporting obligations on manufacturers and directs published reports on violations, citations, outcomes, and program performance, subject to confidentiality constraints.

In broader policy context, the authors ground the initiative in findings about red-light running and traffic safety, noting disparities in traditional enforcement and highlighting automated systems as tools for reliability, consistency, and equity in enforcement practices. The proposal references national data on fatalities and injuries from red-light running and points to studies suggesting camera programs can reduce certain crash rates in signalized intersections. It also situates the program within the existing landscape of speed-enforcement pilots and emphasizes civil-liberties considerations, public transparency, and collaboration with community stakeholders to shape deployment through impact reporting and public review. Some provisions are structured to interact with other measures and to become operative only upon companion legislation or at a specified future date, reflecting a staged approach to implementation and governance.