Most Recent Action
Comprehensive legislation sponsored by Senate Transportation Chairman Jim Tracy and House Transportation Vice Chairman Vince Dean (HB1500/SB1684) was signed into law. Public Chapter No. 425 makes significant changes to the traffic enforcement camera landscape.
Among these changes is the requirement that a municipality conduct a traffic engineering study prior to the installation of a new unmanned traffic enforcement camera. Such a study must be completed in accordance with the standard engineering practices of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) and certified by a licensed engineer specializing in traffic engineering. A traffic camera vendor is prohibited from conducting the study or even participating in the selection of the engineer.
Also present in the legislation are the hurdles it places on municipalities to ticket vehicles turning right (and left onto a one-way) at red lights. Now to ticket a vehicle, solely using unmanned camera evidence, for failure to come to a complete stop before turning at a red light, the evidence must clearly show the vehicle with a front tire before the stop line when the signal is red and subsequently show the same vehicle with a rear tire past the stop line while the signal is red. Furthermore, to ticket a vehicle, using solely unmanned camera evidence, for making an unlawful right turn on red, a clearly marked "No Turn on Red" sign must be in place.
With respect to speed cameras, the legislation prohibits any unmanned camera within one mile of a reduction of the speed limit of 10 or more miles per hour. This provision does not however apply to reductions in and around school zones. All cameras, whether monitoring for speed or other violations, must now be preceded by signage 500 to 1,000 feet in advance.
The bill also changes the procedures for noticing and fining alleged violators. Now a POST-certified officer must review the evidence, and if a violation is determined, a notice of such must be sent to the alleged violator within 20 days of the occurrence of violation. This notice must state the amount of the fine, which cannot exceed $50, and also state any additional fees or costs that could result from a failure to pay or from being found guilty after contesting the violation. Violators still have 30 days from the mailing date to pay a citation. Now, however, additional fines and costs can be assessed after this period lapses.
Despite the fact that these provisions will impact current contracts, it seems clear that all provisions of the bill will be enforceable on and after the July 1, 2011, effective date.
last updated 7/1/2011
HB1500/SB1684 has passed the House Transporation Committee and it on its way to House Finance Sub Committee. The bill prohibits issuing a citation for right on red violations with evidence solely based from a traffic surveillance camera unless right on red turns are prohibited and the intersection is clearly marked "No Right on Red."
Other features include limiting the fine to $50. Should the violator elect to contest the citation in court or the fine is not paid within the prescribed time period court costs or late fees could then be assessed. The legislation also requires a traffic engineering study be completed prior to installation of a traffic surveillance camera and that all violations be reviewed by a POST-certified or state-commissioned officer prior to issuing a citation. Traffic enforcement cameras which monitor speed shall not be allowed within two miles of a reduction in speed limits.
HB802/SB1117 by Rep. Vance Dennis failed in committee on March 22.
That bill would have shifted a traffic citation given based on photographic evidence from being a civil citation to criminal citation. Cities would no longer mail citations, but instead a police officer or city employee would need to deliver the citation and obtain the violator's signature. And because it is now a criminal citation, violators could be required to appear in court. These two changes would make operating camera enforcement programs cost prohibitive.
On March 15, the transportation subcommittee heard six bills concerning traffic enforcement cameras with a range of intent from out-right bans to more subtle tweaking of their use. All of these bills were rolled to the final calendar of the year, with the exception of Rep. Mathew Hill's bill, which doesn't deal with cameras directly, but instead removes the requirement for a vehicle to come to a full and complete stop before turning right on red.
Summaries for all of these bills can be found in the TML bulletin for the week of March 14.
updated 3/17/2011
As expected, many pieces of legislation were filed this year by various legislative sponsors seeking to restrict or abolish the use of traffic surveillance cameras.
Most noteworthy is comprehensive legislation filed by Senate Transportation Chairman Jim Tracy and House Transportation Vice Chairman Vince Dean. SB 1684/HB 1500 would prohibit issuing a citation for right on red violations with evidence solely based from a traffic surveillance camera.
The House Transportation Subcommittee heard the bill on March 1 and adopted an admendment to address right on red citations. If by local law turning right on red is prohibited and signage is posted stating the violation, then the citation issued from a traffic surveillance camera is valid. The bill was also amended to change the number of days from 10 to 20 days that the city will have to review the violations by POST certified officer prior to issuing the citation. The bill, as amended, moved to the full Transportation Committee for consideration.
Also of concern is HB 33 by Rep. John Ragan which requires 95% of revenue generated by traffic enforcement cameras be earmarked solely for educational purposes by the local government utilizing the camera. This bill was approved Feb. 23 in subcommittee and was referred to the March 1 calendar of the full House State and Local Government Committee. The committee voted to place the legislation on the last calendar that the committee meets this legislative session.
updated 3/1/2011
Installations of Cameras
At the request of TML, TDOT has recently provided guidance to regional staff and municipalities in determining where installations of cameras may occur.
In general, this guidance provides that a municipality has authority to install a traffic signal within their jurisdictional boundaries on intersections that cross a state highway as well as the authority to install a traffic enforcement camera to enforce compliance with these traffic signals provided the signal meets the criteria of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD).
In addition, municipalities may utilize speed cameras on state highways where the municipality has jurisdiction to alter and enforce the speed limits. This guidance only prohibits the installation of a traffic signal or traffic enforcement camera on "fully controlled access" highways defined as having no at-grade intersections or drive way access. Local governments requesting TDOT to fund an installation of a traffic signal or to conduct the required study for such signal will result in having to receive TDOT approval prior to installation.
Legislation of Traffic Enforcement Cameras
On Dec. 7, 2010, Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Jim Tracy held a hearing to review the use of traffic enforcement cameras by municipal governments.
It is anticipated that legislation will be filed again this year to regulate the use of these safety cameras.
Legislation seeking to restrict or prohibit the use of these cameras has repeatedly been pursued over the last several General Assemblies. By in large, the Legislature acknowledges the value of these cameras with regard to public safety and traffic control, but have repeatedly expressed concerns that these cameras are used as a mechanism to increase revenue.
Following a comprehensive study performed by the House Transportation Committee two summers ago, legislation was filed last year that contained numerous provisions harmful to muncipalities' ability to utilize these cameras.
TML, along with other interested parties, most notably the Tennessee Police Chiefs Association, were successful in defeating this legislation in the waning days of the 2010 session.
To review a copy of legislation proposed last year by House Transportaion Committee Chairman Bill Harmon click here.
The Tennessee Attorney General has repeatedly opined the use of the such cameras is legal under state law.
At the request of TML, TDOT has recently provided guidance to regional staff and municipalities in determining where installations of cameras may occur.
In general, this guidance provides that a municipality has authority to install a traffic signal within their jurisdictional boundaries on intersections that cross a state highway as well as the authority to install a traffic enforcement camera to enforce compliance with these traffic signals provided the signal meets the criteria of the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices.
In addition, municipalities may utilize speed cameras on state highways where the municipality has jurisdiction to alter and enforce the speed limits.
This guidance only prohibits the installation of a traffic signal or traffic enforcement camera on "fully controlled access" highways defined as having no at-grade intersections or drive way access
Local governments requesting TDOT to fund an installation of a traffic signal or to conduct the required study for such signal will result in having to receive TDOT approval prior to installation
Background
The Tennessee Municipal League and the Tennessee Chiefs of Police Association, among others, were asked to help draft a set of standards for regulating the use of traffic safety cameras. Chaired by Rep. Phillip Johnson, representatives from the Tennessee Department of Safety, the Department of Transportation, the Tennessee Sheriff's Association, and the American - Engineers Council also served on the rule-making committee.
The working group was given until April 1, 2009, to promulgate the rules and submit to Rep. Bill Harmon, chairman of the House Transportation Committee and sponsor of a comprehensive bill (HB3024) filled to regulate the use of traffic enforcement cameras by local governments - both red light and speed cameras.
To view a copy of the working group's proposal, click here.
Other previous recommendations made by the Transportation Study Committee included the following directives:
The Comptroller's Office must conduct a study on traffic safety cameras, reporting back to the General Assembly no later than Jan. 15, 2011;
No local government may place or operate a traffic safety camera on any highway receiving state financial aid, unless engineering solutions for safety have been exhausted and payment to the vendor is not based on a percentage of citations;
- Contracts must be submitted to the Comptroller and the Comptroller's Office may conduct an audit for the purposes of reviewing a contract's compliance with law;
- Traffic safety camera violations must follow a graduated scale of $10 for the first offense; $25 for the second; and $50 for third and all subsequent offenses.
- Court costs will be limited to $10 on all penalties; and
- No local or county government may enter or renew ay contract with a vendor for the operation of traffic safety cameras until July 1, 2012.
In 2008, when the legislative session began, the Transportation Committees in the House and Senate were more understanding of municipal use of automated cameras for law enforcement. Thanks to the outstanding presenatations made in the fall of 2007 by Chiefs of Police, city attorney's, and members of TDOT, TML was able to communicate a clearer understanding of the affectiveness of these cameras to reduce crashes at dangerous intersections and regulate speeds in troublesome areas - View recap video.
Still, suspicions about the abuse of this new technology persisted with some legislators and legislation was introduced to regulate the use of this technology. Through our partnership with the Chiefs of Police, we were able to amend or kill those bills which over reached and retain the ability for municipalities to use traffic enforcement cameras.
SB3258, as amended, would require local governments to notify traffic offenders caught by surveillance cameras at least two times prior to assessing late fees or any other penalties for non-payment of citations.
SB3258(Burchett)/HB3069(McCord) is now Public Chapter 962.
SB3423, as amended, would require that once a red light surveillance camera is installed, the duration of the caution light may not be altered for the sole purpose of increasing revenues.
SB3423(Burchett)/HB3854(McCord) is now Public Chapter 964.
In 2007 -
In conversations with Chairman Pinion’s staff TML has learned the work of the Joint Transportation Study Committee is now complete and no formal recommendations will be made to the full general assembly. However, it is possible that the chairman or other interested legislators may pursue legislation regulating municipalities’ utilization of red light or speed enforcement cameras this session. TML staff will remain in contact with Chairman Pinion’s office and inform our membership of any legislation proposed in this area.
Background
The General Assembly created a study committee comprised of members of the Tennessee Senate and House to review issues related to transportation funding. In addition, the study committee examined law enforcement’s use of cameras.
At the October 30, 2007, meeting of this study committee, officials from several municipalities were present and spoke to the effectiveness of their red light camera programs. The Chief Engineer with the Tennessee Department of Transportation gave testimony regarding state concerns along interstate highways and state highways and opined that the use of red light cameras and speed enforcement cameras can be valuable tools. Collectively, the presenters focused on increased safety and the reduction in motor vehicle accidents and fatalities as the primary, if not sole reason, for the use of these cameras.
Before the October 30 meeting, Rep. Phillip Pinion,D-UnionCity, and Sen. Jim Tracy, R-Shelbyville, said they were inclined to push legislation banning local governments from the use of cameras to enforce traffic laws.
Afterward, however, the chairmen of the House and Senate Transportation Committees said they had changed their minds insofar as a general ban goes, although they still would favor banning cities from using cameras for traffic law enforcement on Interstate highways. Both chairmen expressed their belief that the use of cameras on the interstate should be the sole domain of the state. They also implied that smaller cities should not have blanket authority to install cameras. However, no definition of “smaller” cities was debated at that time.
Traffic light cameras have proven to be a very effective tool in reducing traffic violations and accidents. It is imperative this authority be preserved for not only those municipalities currently utilizing these cameras but for those desiring to do so in the future.
