Comment

Comment by Leanne King on March 25, 2014 at 5:55pm

UPDATE:  3/24

Analysis of HB 7005, red light cameras, as amended

 

Here's my analysis of HB 7005 as amended today. It passed the Transportation and Economic Development Appropriations Subcommittee unanimously, and every government lobbyist that spoke was in favor of it. Déjà Vu from last session when a good bill was gutted in the Senate via amendment.

Amendment #039251 (24 pages)
GOOD POINTS:
1. Department (DHSMV) removed throughout for issuing tickets.
2. Adds 70% requirement for locally retained funds (out of the $75) must be used for traffic safety projects.
3. Limits use of photographic evidence outside “any proceeding to enforce this section” (this was opposed by law enforcement government lobbyists).
4. Adds second (reporting to state) date of April for local users. DHSMV will notify DOT of non-reporting. Report to include “details of engineering countermeasures, traffic studies performed, and crash data by type of crash.” Suggest “type and cause”
Upon notification of non-reporting, DOT sends certified notice to local user. Users failing to submit reports 60 days past receipt of certified notice must disable cameras.
5. Annual report required (language change) to include “details of engineering countermeasures taken, traffic studies performed, and crash data by type of crash” (I suggested changing this to "type and cause" but this did not happen).
6. Kangaroo court costs maximum lowered from $250 to $100.
7. Installation requirements strengthened to include identifying engineering countermeasures intended to reduce violations and new installs must be based on the results of a traffic engineering study which documents the implementation and failure of any engineering countermeasure appropriate for the specific location. The study must be signed and sealed by a professional engineer licensed in this state.
8. Deletes DHSMV traffic infraction enforcement officers.
9. Limits tag suspension to only listed tag (removes “any”, which suspended ALL tags owned).
10. Adds requirement that 70% of local revenue go to traffic safety.

NEUTRAL POINTS:
1. Replaces careful & prudent right turn with right or left turn if pedestrians are adjacent or the operator of the motor vehicle fails to yield to a pedestrian or bicyclist or another vehicle. (There are arguments to be made for both variations, an attempt to add a speed limit via another amendment was withdrawn).

BAD POINTS:
1. Does not prevent new cameras from being installed (language deleted).
2. Fine raised from $83 back to $158.
3. Traffic citation replaced by notice of violation throughout; deletes the certified mail part due to this; also deletes the ability to go to county traffic court- kangaroo court is locked in. Adds “hold on vehicle registration” instead of traffic citation for court option.
4. Adds tag numbers (in addition to DL numbers) to the list sent to DHSMV for non-appearance. This will impact business-owned vehicles that do not have a driver license number associated with the tag.
5. Annual report will not ID red light violation crashes unless type AND cause are added.
6. Enforcement of 60-day disabling of cameras is completely voluntary- no sanctions or restriction of NOVs issued. No "teeth".

---

Amendment #231599 (2 pages)
Allocates $5.1 million in recurring revenue from state to several funds “impacted” by bill.

BAD POINT:
State revenue has fluctuated, this is a guaranteed payment, likely an unfunded liability. It is all ill-gotten gain in violation of principles of American justice.

---

This bill now moves to the final committee, Economic Affairs. A hearing date has not been set as yet.

 

 

Paul Henry
Liberty Lobbyist and Founder of Floridians Against REAL ID. Find us on Facebook

Comment by Leanne King on March 21, 2014 at 7:50am

: SB 144, red light cameras- temporarily postponed, more calls and emails needed

While the bill was scheduled for a hearing this morning, it was temporarily postponed until next week. I do not have a new date as yet but will send out the info when it is posted. Apparently the concern was there were not enough votes to pass it. My thanks to Jim Phend of the Melbourne Motorists Association and Catherine Baer of the Tea Party Network for traveling to the legislature and speaking in favor of repeal of the camera scheme.

Several camera scheme proponents- all government lobbyists and there on our tax dollar- spoke in favor of the scheme. What I noticed was that they realize the safety argument has been lost since red light violation crash data cannot support it. The talking point now being pushed is how the scheme "changes driver behavior". This is usually supported by fewer "violations" being issued, such as Tampa's drop from over 6,000/month in March 2013 to under 2,400 in February 2014. What is not mentioned by scheme supporters is that the cities were forced to add just 4/10 of a second to their yellow time last fall (thanks to work by WTSP investigative journalist Noah Pransky), and after this took place, fewer violations were seen. Think what could happen if a full second were used.

One supporter did comment how the scheme saves lives. In that regard, in your calls and emails to the below list, please share the following points taken from the Department of Highway Safety's "Traffic Crash Facts" annual publication (exception- 2011 data never published by the state, gleaned from a scheme vendor news release):
Fatal red light violation crashes in Florida, past 9 years (2013 not yet published):
2004: 96
2005: 96
2006: 123
2007: 107
2008: 76
2009: 56
2010: 53 (Camera scheme law effective July 1, 2010)
2011: 76
2012: 56

Two main points can be seen:
Without the use of a camera scheme, fatal crashes fell by more than half from 2006-2009.
In the first full year of the scheme (2011) there was a huge increase.

One thing that was pointed out by several senators on another bill was that they had not heard anything from anyone on the issue. I'm sure that is not the case with the camera scheme, but nonetheless we should use the time to redouble our efforts to convince the committee members via their listed aides that they must vote for repeal. I have included Sen. Clemens in this list although I consider him a lost cause due to his filing of a amendment to SB 1342 last session that gutted the camera scheme reform bill and turned it 180 degrees.
Sen. Brandes (SPONSOR)
Chris Spencer 850-487-5022
spencer.chris@flsenate.gov

Comment by jean winters on March 20, 2014 at 1:11pm

Orlando installed and then did away with these cameras.  To bad City Council didn't learn from Orlando and save Jax taxpayers their money.

Comment by Shann and Matt Cohrs on March 19, 2014 at 5:40pm

I recently received a bill for 158.00 for running a red light. I had a semi in front of me and when it cleared the light, i saw it was red....i panicked and kept going....not fair...