Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Traffic Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House committee advances bill to restrict automated speed-camera programs outside school zones
Summary
The House Transportation Committee voted to report Senate Bill 99 with amendments that largely preserve automated speed enforcement in school zones but tighten rules and create criminal malfeasance language for local officials who knowingly violate statutory requirements for camera programs.
The House Transportation Committee on May 19 advanced Senate Bill 99, a measure by Sen. Kathy that would restrict automated speed- and red-light-camera programs outside school zones while adding enforcement language and procedural changes for mailed citations.
The bill’s amended form keeps photo enforcement in school zones but includes multiple technical and substantive changes lawmakers said are intended to address complaints about program administration. Committee members and many law-enforcement representatives spent more than two hours of public testimony debating whether the changes would protect motorists and students or hobble local safety programs.
Sen. Kathy, the bill’s author, told the committee she and constituents regard some automated enforcement as an “industry” that can run afoul of state rules and that she added a provision to include malfeasance in office in the statute “so that if you don’t follow the law, it’s a crime.” The amendment package (identified in the record as 3,007 and later consolidated) also restored red-light camera authority and required that mailed citations include either a return postage-paid envelope or an online attestation method to contest the citation without added cost.
Supporters, including chiefs of police and mayors from across the state, said photo enforcement—especially in school zones—changes driver behavior, reduces speeds, and is a force multiplier where departments lack officers for routine enforcement. Bob Dallas of the National Vision Zero Network said aggressive education followed by automated enforcement can reduce the share of speeders substantially. Local officials from small towns testified that the programs had sharply reduced crashes and generated money dedicated to public safety work.
Opponents, including the bill’s author, argued that some municipalities have not fully complied with last year’s Act 103 rules, generating public complaints; Sen. Kathy said the malfeasance language is meant to create “teeth” where local entities ignore statutory requirements. Several legislators asked who would monitor compliance; committee testimony referenced possible roles for the attorney general, DOTD, or state police in complaints-based oversight.
Committee debate also covered: technical signage and paint requirements; whether vendors or local governments should host challenge videos and appeal mechanisms; how programs should handle declining citation volumes if the cameras successfully reduce speeding; and whether revenue dependencies might create perverse incentives. Witnesses said programs already include video links for motorists to review incidents and that many jurisdictions removed appeal fees to ease challenges.
After public testimony from more than 30 witnesses, Representative Schammerhorn moved to report SB 99 with the adopted amendment set. The committee approved reporting the measure with amendments by roll-call vote, 7 yeas to 5 nays.
What happened next: With committee passage, the amended bill will go to the House floor for further consideration with the adopted technical fixes and malfeasance clarification intact. The measure retains explicit exemptions and limits for school zones as amended in committee.
Sources: Committee proceedings and public testimony during the May 19 House Transportation Committee hearing.
