By on April 1, 2011

Lawmakers in four states this week advanced legislation that would, if passed, either place mild restrictions on or outright ban the use of automated ticketing machines by municipalities. The Florida state Senate Transportation Committee on Tuesday voted 4 to 2 to approve an outright prohibition on the use of red light cameras — just one year after the legislature had given in to the lobbying effort of localities in authorizing their use. Senate Bill 672 must now clear the Senate Community Affairs Committee before being considered by the full Senate.

The Tennessee Senate Transportation Committee voted 8 to 0 Wednesday to move a far less impressive measure. Senate Bill 1684 has almost a dozen provisions, none of which will have much effect on the cities currently operating red light camera and speed camera programs. The official legislative analysis of the measure estimates that local governments would lose $689,700 if the bill becomes law and the state $30,800. The analysis notes that most of the “restrictions” simply reflect what cities are currently doing.

“According to the Tennessee Association of Chiefs of Police, it is current practice to reject citations for right turn violations when there is no evidence indicating a vehicle has crossed a stop line after a traffic light has signaled red,” the legislative analysis noted. “Multiple citations are not issued for each distinct and separate offense. Citations are currently rejected when registration information captured by surveillance cameras does not match that of the cited vehicle.”

Of the substantial changes in the measure, only four local governments would feel the legislation’s ban on the use of a “litigation tax” and $75 fees imposed on red light camera ticket recipients. Another provision banning the use of a speed camera within one mile of a significant speed limit change would affect ten cameras and cost municipalities that depend on this type of trap a total of $404,585. The bill must now be clear the Senate Finance, Ways and Means Committee before moving on to a floor vote.

In Iowa the state House voted 90 to 8 Wednesday to adopt HF 549, which would have legitimized the use of red light cameras and speed cameras in the state for the first time. Under the legislature’s rules, however, the deadline for passage through a Senate committee has expired, effectively ending the bill’s chance of final passage. Cities in Iowa have increasingly turned to cameras after the state supreme court ruled that localities did not require the legislature’s permission to install them (view ruling). Most of these jurisdictions were upset that the bill would have reduced the amount of a red light camera fine to $50 — the only substantive provision in the measure.

South Carolina’s Senate on Wednesday delivered a unanimous rebuke to Ridgeland Mayor Gary W. Hodges. A state law passed last year, backed by a a pair of attorney general opinions, declared the Ridgeland speed cameras on Interstate 95 illegal. Hodges ignored the opinions and claimed he had the legal right to use the cameras that have since generated about $1.3 million worth of citations. The Senate had previously given preliminary approval to Senate Bill 336 on March 3, but today’s vote sent the measure to the House for its approval. If signed into law, the bill would force Ridgeland’s cameras to come down. A class action lawsuit is pending to force Hodges to issue refunds to the vehicle owners ticketed by the unsanctioned program.

[Courtesy:Thenewspaper.com]

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

No Comments on “Legislative Update: Four States Advance Traffic Camera Modification Bills...”

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Subscribe without commenting

Recent Comments

  • Re: Junkyard Find: 1986 Buick Somerset

    ChiefPontiaxe - The Regal Somerset Edition started out in 1980, not 1985. My Cousin Stanley had one in two-tone navy and manila (both interior and exterior were...
  • Re: EPA Mandates Real-World Testing For All Automakers

    Land Ark - Well, I certain am not calling for the abolishment of EPA (they don’t refer to themselves as “The”) since Mrs. Land Ark...
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    jc130 - People are “Fans of the Toyota Camry” in the same way they are fans of stainless steel refrigerators.
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    Frantz - On of many reasons leases are on the upswing for new cars is consumer concern for all the new technologies out in cars. Turbos have been used on long life vehicles for...
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    VoGo - 28-cars-later, I hear you, but why should Toyota offer you a V6 Camry for 27K, when they can force you into a 37K EZ or a 32K Avalon? If the rest of the market is...
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    jc130 - “Fans of the Toyota Camry…” Now there’s a straw man for you.
  • Re: Junkyard Find: 1986 Buick Somerset

    PrincipalDan - My high school best friend had one in the early 1990s. Came off the “budget” lot at the Car Dealer his Dad was a salesman at. The trunk had...
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    bomberpete - The 75-77 Buick V-6 had uneven crankshaft firing, but they improved it considerably in 78-79. We must have been lucky, because that 78 Century accelerated smoothly if...
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    sirwired - Can a modern V-6 provide tons of power with pretty decent economy given the power produced? Sure! But the power (and certainly the economy) of a modern Turbo-4 (and...
  • Re: Toyota May Kill V6 Camry

    CoreyDL - I rarely see V6 Camry models. I see V6 Accords very often. If you’re gonna spend the change on a V6 Camry, might as well just jump to the Avalon. There’s a...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Staff

  • Authors

  • Brendan McAleer, Canada
  • Marcelo De Vasconcellos, Brazil
  • Matthias Gasnier, Australia
  • Tycho de Feyter, China
  • W. Christian 'Mental' Ward, Abu Dhabi
  • Mark Stevenson, Canada
  • Faisal Ali Khan, India