Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Automated Enforcement And Traffic Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances automated-enforcement bills; judiciary warns of court-processing strain
Summary
The House Committee on Transportation approved measures expanding automated speed and red-light enforcement and strengthened penalties for damaging traffic cameras, while the judiciary flagged potential impacts on court workloads and the DOT discussed operational centralization.
The House Committee on Transportation advanced a set of measures on Feb. 13 to expand use of automated speed enforcement and red-light imaging, and to criminalize intentional damage to traffic cameras.
The committee approved amended HB 1166, which appropriates funds into an Automated Speed Enforcement Assistance Program Special Fund; HB 235, directing more automated enforcement locations on Oahu’s North Shore; and HB 334, authorizing traffic cameras and mailed citations and establishing a class C felony for intentional disruption or damage to a traffic camera. Each measure passed with technical or scope amendments and with implementation timing and funding details left for further committee review.
Arne Stilimon of the Judiciary urged the committee to consider court impacts, noting the Wahiawa District Court already processes automated citations and that additional cameras could increase workload. "With the current existing cameras, we're averaging about almost 2,000 additional citations monthly that are being processed," Stilimon said, urging consultation on site selection and operational plans.
The Department of Transportation testified in support of expanding automated enforcement but asked the committee to allow coordination with counties and the courts and to consider centralized e-ticketing to simplify processing. "If all of these e-ticketing can go through one location ... it would be easier for everybody," a DOT representative said. The DOT also said decisions about where to deploy devices must be guided by crash history, traffic volumes and multimodal conflict.
Civil liberties groups opposed some provisions in testimony during the hearing. The committee retained language classifying intentional damage or obstruction of traffic cameras as a class C felony but narrowed scope in amendments and expanded applicability to state- and county-owned cameras while limiting other sections to those portions necessary for enforcement.
Ending: The committee adopted committee-report language to note judiciary concerns and to defer precise appropriation amounts and implementation scheduling to allow counties and courts to prepare; bills will advance with those caveats to further review.
