Traffic Camera Lobbyists Fight Back In Tenessee And Arizona

The Newspaper
by The Newspaper

Lobbyists for municipalities and photo enforcement companies have succeeded in gutting attempts to place even the most minor of restrictions on the use of red light cameras and speed cameras in Arizona and Tennessee. For more than a year, the Tennessee General Assembly debated the wisdom of restricting the use of automated ticketing machines. A special study committee was established where state House members listened to testimony almost exclusively from representatives of cities and the private, for-profit companies that operate traffic cameras. The committee now has nothing to show for its effort.

On Wednesday, the Senate Transportation Committee voted to scuttle its version of a bill that, although sold as a “restriction” on the use of cameras, reflected a compromise designed to ensure no party with a financial interest in the use of the devices would be offended. As amended in the House, the proposal would have:

  • Required warning signs, already in use in most jurisdictions
  • Prohibited red light camera tickets on a yellow or green light
  • Made the registered owner of a vehicle responsible for crimes committed by anyone else driving the car
  • Authorized the state transportation department to use speed cameras on freeways by declaring “work zones”
  • Forced a city council vote before installing cameras, which is already done
  • Required an engineering study, including setting yellow times at the already lowered ITE standard
  • Required a speed camera accuracy check once every six months
  • Allowed the state comptroller to audit any photo ticketing contract
  • Set the fine at $50, which is what cities already charge

Even though the legislation would have had virtually no effect if enacted, lobbyists feared that a meaningful restriction could have emerged from a conference committee reconciling the difference between the House and Senate-passed measures. For them, it was safer to drop the bill entirely. Earlier this year, the House committee had agreed to some minor protections for motorists, all of which were stripped out by the House amendment (

view HB1341, as amended, 90k PDF).

Despite the dropping of the freeway speed camera program in Arizona yesterday, red light cameras are still active among municipalities statewide. In the name of protecting motorists, lawmakers enacted a signal timing “reform” that makes no difference to either existing practice or existing law. On Monday, Governor Jan Brewer (R) signed House Bill 2338, which adds the following line to the section of state code tasking the Arizona Department of Transportation with designating a manual setting standards for the use of traffic control devices: “The manual shall include the specification that the yellow light duration must be at least three seconds” (

view HB2338, 20k PDF).

The legislation made no other change. Page 28 of Arizona Department of Transportation’s Supplement to the 2003 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices already states: “A yellow change interval should have a duration of approximately three to six seconds.” This line is taken verbatim from the federal manual, which is incorporated by reference as law in all fifty states (

view MUTCD excerpt, 40k PDF).

[Courtesy: Thenewspaper.com]

The Newspaper
The Newspaper

More by The Newspaper

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 4 comments
  • Contrarian Contrarian on May 07, 2010

    Many thanks to TTAC for helping shine the light of scrutiny on these despicable con-men. Once again the mainstream media ignore the truth and the new media steps in.

  • OMG_Shoes OMG_Shoes on May 08, 2010
    “A yellow change interval should have a duration of approximately three to six seconds.” Uh...what the fuсk is that supposed to mean, exactly? Does 2 seconds count because it's approximately 3? How about 1.75 seconds, which is more than half of 3, and so could logically be called "approximately 3"? Sheesh. Talk about an unreasonably vague specification tailor-made for the benefit of the red light camera operators.
  • SCE to AUX Range only matters if you need more of it - just like towing capacity in trucks.I have a short-range EV and still manage to put 1000 miles/month on it, because the car is perfectly suited to my use case.There is no such thing as one-size-fits all with vehicles.
  • Doug brockman There will be many many people living in apartments without dedicated charging facilities in future who will need personal vehicles to get to work and school and for whom mass transit will be an annoying inconvenience
  • Jeff Self driving cars are not ready for prime time.
  • Lichtronamo Watch as the non-us based automakers shift more production to Mexico in the future.
  • 28-Cars-Later " Electrek recently dug around in Tesla’s online parts catalog and found that the windshield costs a whopping $1,900 to replace.To be fair, that’s around what a Mercedes S-Class or Rivian windshield costs, but the Tesla’s glass is unique because of its shape. It’s also worth noting that most insurance plans have glass replacement options that can make the repair a low- or zero-cost issue. "Now I understand why my insurance is so high despite no claims for years and about 7,500 annual miles between three cars.
Next