Automated Enforcement Saves Lives - AB 666 (Red Light Camera Reform)

Red Light Camera Reform – AB 666

Why it’s essential for safer streets

 

California law is clear and the data indisputable: red means stop and red light cameras save lives.  A 2011 study by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety found red light cameras led to:

 

·         62% reduction in fatal red light running crashes in San Diego

·         53% reduction in fatal red light running crashes in Sacramento

·         44% reduction in fatal red light running crashes in Santa Ana

·         34% reduction in fatal red light running crashes in Long Beach

 

Last year, the General Assembly took the first steps toward reforming the red light camera program. Now, we need take these efforts further to ensure we have a program that builds on this success and ensures those who break the law and run red lights are held accountable.

 

Legislation introduced in 2013 keeps the state’s traffic safety camera programs focused on safety, establishes a reasonable fine structure and reduces the burden on the state’s court system to ensure scofflaws do not get away with breaking the law and those who wish to contest a red light ticket can easily do so. The result will be the preservation of a critical life-saving law enforcement tool and safer roads for all California road users.

 

Problem

Excessive fines have made California’s red light camera penalty the highest in the country. The fine for running a red light in California is $140. But too many additional fees have been added over the years which have very little to do with the administration of a traffic ticket, which has left motorists with inflated fines close to $500.

 

Proposed Solution – AB 666

To lower fees and restore confidence in the red light camera program’s public safety goals, citations should be administered at the municipal level to reduce court-related fees, decreasing out-of-pocket fines to 50% to 60% of the current amount, while ensuring a substantial fee is in place to deter dangerous red light running.

Problem

Overburdened courts California processes all moving violations as criminal violations. This means all citations must be processed by the courts. 

 

Proposed Solution – AB 666 

To operate an efficient, effective red light camera program that deters dangerous driving and improves road safety, many states impose an administrative penalty - not a criminal violation. Through this process, appeals are processed administratively, freeing the court for other obligations

Problem

Drivers often evade citation. California law only allows identified drivers to be cited. Because of this, many car owners and drivers have found ways to make identification difficult or impossible and avoid citation.

  

 Proposed Solution – AB 666

To ensure scofflaws are held responsible for dangerous driving, the vehicle owner must take responsibility for the citation and pay the civil fine, but no points would be imposed against the vehicle owner if he or she is not the driver. Points will only be imposed on the vehicle owner when he or she is identified by the camera as the driver. Californians can be assured red light cameras are acting as an effective public safety tool.

 

Traffic Safety Coalition

www.TrafficSafetyCoalition.com || info@trafficsafetycoalition.com

Cal-Green Building Code Saves Energy, Water and Landfill Space; Savings Drop Right To The Bottom Line For Most Businesses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxVJOSBFoQ0


While California has set the bar high for green construction practices, Gov. Jerry Brown has the opportunity to lead and encourage the state and local jurisdictions to do more. Gov. Brown can bring those parties to the table to improve upon the CALGREENprovisions by challenging local governments, builders, and industry leaders to establish resource conserving buildings and neighborhoods. He can also encourage his administration to continue to retrofit existing state buildings to become more energy efficient while building new state facilities that surpass current CALGREEN requirements. This will further California’s leadership in green building practices.

California’s leadership in green technology matters is increasingly being challenged in places like New York City. New York recently passed a package of legislation known as the Greener, Greater Buildings Plan aimed at improving the energy efficiency of the city's commercial buildings. Some analysts say it is the most comprehensive legislation of its type in the nation. California must continue to invest or cede leadership in this area of technology development.

CALGREEN and the Green Building Initiative are important achievements that demonstrate California’s leadership in resource conservation and set an example of how to build the future on a greener foundation.

Tom Sheehy is the former Acting Secretary

of the State and Consumer Services Agency
and Chaired the Building Standards
Commission in 2010 when it adopted CALGREEN.
He currently has a government affairs practice
with Greenberg Traurig in Sacramento.

We need An Economic Growth Agenda

By Thomas L. Sheehy

Our friends on the left are into redistribution not growth. The last Democrat we had in the White House who understood the need for GROWTH was President Bill Clinton. President Clinton passed NAFTA, cut capital gains rates and supported domestic energy exploration and development (oil, gas and renewables). He was a true pro-growth President. If the focus in California was on GROWTH and not redistribution, we would all be much better off I am thoroughly convinced.

The economic pie needs to be expanded and not  simply cut into thinner slices. The private sector specializes in creating wealth and the government simply moves it around. Government also creates the regulations that can help make markets function properly, but when over reached, can destroy profitable ventures and kill high paying jobs. We need to support an environment where entrepreneurs are willing to take reasonable risks without the government breathing down their back or telling them they are bad because they are not paying their "fair share" of taxes.

With a successful growth agenda and growing economy, tax revenues will flood the national treasury, bring down the deficit and provide necessary resources for our public infrastructure, social safety net and national defense needs. All this can be done by EXPANDING the pie, not just reshuffling rates and burdens.

Where is Bill Clinton when you REALLY need him?

ISPA Supports Industry- Driven, Cost-Effective Mattress Recycling solutions (SB 245).

California ISPA-supported mattress recycling legislation has been introduced in California. Senate Bill 245 would create an industry-managed mattress recycling program that would be funded by a small fee collected from consumers at retail. ISPA is working with state Sen. Lou Correa (D-Santa Ana) on the bill, which is an industry-friendly alternative to legislation introduced by state Sen. Loni Hancock (D-Oakland). Hancock’s bill would require mattress manufacturers to set up and fully fund a system to collect and recycle used and illegally dumped mattresses. ISPA defeated similar legislation in California last year. ISPA believes the system proposed by Hancock would be costly and inefficient and would ignore the current infrastructure that exists for collecting used mattresses when new products are delivered to consumers. The state estimates that Hancock’s bill could cost the industry more than $100 million a year.

To support its efforts to enact Correa’s SB 245, ISPA has created a coalition called Californians 4 Mattress Recycling and asks that everyone in the industry who manufactures, operates, sells or has customers in California to join the group at www.ca4mattressrecycling.org.

Red Light Camera Reform – AB 666

 

Red Light Camera Reform– AB 666

WHAT OPPONENTS ARE CLAIMING AB 666 DOES VS. WHAT AB 666 WILL ACTUALLY DO

• FICTION:Eliminates Your Right to a Trial if You Get a Red Light Camera Ticket

Ø  TRUTH - A violator may elect to pursue an appeal through an administrative hearing process established in accordance with current CA statute regarding civil matters. A contestant may seek further review by appealing to the superior court.

· FICTION: Makes You Responsible for the Ticket Even When Someone Else Is Driving

Ø TRUTH - All notices of violation provide a notice of non-liability which can be submitted by the registered owner indicating the defense of the violation. If the registered owner was not the driver of the vehicle at the time of the violation, and does not return an executed notice of non-liability, as is the case with all civil penalties, the registered owner will be liable for the citation.

 
 

· FICTION:Sets up Kangaroo “Administrative Hearing” Courts Run By Those Who Gave You the Ticket

Ø TRUTH - The administrative hearing process will follow that currently used for parking violations and toll evasion. This process requires certified examiners and for the hearing to be conducted in accordance with written procedures to ensure an independent objective, fair and impartial review of automated violations.

 
 

· FICTION:No Evidence Other than the Ticket Itself is Needed to Convict You

Ø TRUTH - All evidence is reviewed by a law enforcement officer and if they deem it appropriate, a citation is issued. This evidence reviewed includes a minimum of 3 still photos, as well as a 12 second video clip of the incident. The video evidence is admissible as are all computer-generated data and presumed to be accurate. The alleged violation can be contested by a showing that a malfunction occurred with the equipment.

 
 

· FICTION:No Right to Face Your Accuser

Ø TRUTH - If a violator elects to appeal through the initial review, hearing process or the superior court, they will have the right to address a representative from the issuing agency. California statute deems evidence submitted in conjunction with a notice of automated violation as prima facie evidence, but it can be challenged by showing that a malfunction occurred.

· FICTION:You Are Assumed Guilty and Have to Prove Your Innocence

Ø TRUTH - All notices of violation provide a notice of non-liability which can be submitted by the registered owner indicating a defense of the violation.

 
 

· ASSERTION:You Will Have to Pay a Fee If You Want Your Case Heard in Court

Ø TRUTH - Yes, a fee will be required in accordance with subsection (b) of Section 70613 of the Government Code; a filing fee for the notice of appeal to the superior court shall be required. If the appellant prevails, this fee, together with any deposit of an automated violation penalty shall be promptly refunded by the issuing agency in accordance of the judgment of the court.
 

· FICTION:Expands the Use of Photo Enforcement to Other Traffic Violations

Ø TRUTH -Automated enforcement is currently permissible in California for Rail Crossing violations, parking violations, toll violations and intersection violations. AB 666 does not expand authority past these already permissible offenses

The goal of AB 666 is to improve the current red light intersection programs by:

Ø Reducing the burden on the courts by migrating to an administrative violation;

Ø Reducing the fine and fee levels;

Ø Improving collection provisions to prohibit scofflaws;
 

Ø Broadening compliance which will likely equate to a wider safety impact.

Correa Mattress Bill Compared to Hancock's

 

Comparison Between

Senator Lou Correa’s Industry-Supported Mattress Recycling Bill (SB 245) and

Senator Loni Hancock’s Legislation (SB 254)

 

Feature	Correa Bill (SB 245)	Hancock Bill (SB 254)
Who runs the recycling program?	Requires a single non-profit organization to plan and operate one unified statewide recycling program, achieving better efficiency and economies of scale (Sec. 48803)	Would inefficiently require potentially hundreds of different mattress manufacturers to organize and operate multiple recycling programs – a recipe for chaos (Sec. 42987(a))
How would recycling program be funded?	Funded through consumer sales transaction – Will create a sustainable, fair, efficient and transparent funding source (Sec. 48810)	Manufacturers made wholly responsible for funding the program, which will threaten jobs, raise consumer prices and create enforcement and compliance difficulties (Sec. 42987(b))
How are recycling goals set?	Organization would set realistic goals based on practical experience that will create continuous improvement consistent with real world constraints, allowing recycling volumes to grow in a sustainable manner (Sec. 48806.5)	Unrealistic and arbitrary goals rigidly set in statute without regard to economic and practical realities, which will expose businesses to excessive fines and threaten jobs (Sec. 42987(c))
How is illegal dumping addressed?	Creates incentives to curtail illegal dumping that makes recycling discarded mattresses and cleaning up mattress dumps financially attractive (Sec. 48804(c))	Makes manufacturers wholly responsible for already illegal actions by Californians – an Impractical, costly and ill-defined solution that won’t work (Sec. 42987(b)(4))
How much is government involved in the program?	Minimizes government control – Organization will design and implement the program with appropriate government oversight, reducing costs	Substantial government involvement – Would add costs and inefficiency, create bureaucratic delays
Impact on California jobs?	Low cost, efficient management and sustainable funding method will not disrupt manufacturing/retail sectors or existing collection practices, and practical recycling goals will create new recycling jobs		Inefficiency, high costs and commercial uncertainty will threaten jobs at existing mattress manufacturers and retailers; impractical recycling goals will make future recycling jobs unsustainable, while simultaneously raising consumer costs

Overall benefits of Correa Bill (SB 245) –

·         Increases volume of mattresses recycled;

·         Creates recycling jobs, without hurting manufacturing and retail jobs

·         Provides private sector solution that places least financial burden on government and industry;

·         Uses market incentives to address blight caused by illegally dumped mattresses;

·         Distributes financial responsibility uniformly and efficiently;

·         Bill is patterned on successful recycling legislation for other consumer products enacted in
        California and elsewhere.

Mattress Recycling That Makes Sense

February 25, 2013

An effort to recycle used mattresses

By Lou Correa

According to CalRecycle, recycling is the practice of recovering used materials from the waste stream and then incorporating those same materials into the manufacturing process.

Californians -- consumers, business leaders and elected officials alike -- are proud of their efforts to protect the environment through recycling and reuse.  Industries across every sector of the economy – from beverages to construction – have refined their processes and infrastructure to reduce waste and increase recycling to enhance sustainability wherever possible.

One area of recycling where California can improve relates to used mattresses.  At the end of their lifecycle, mattresses place tremendous strain on our landfills and contribute to community blight when they are illegally dumped in our neighborhoods. Across the United States, millions of used mattresses are discarded each year, ending up in landfills where they can take up 23 cubic feet of space each.

In California, we can and we will do better.  Which is why I am pleased to introduce SB 245, a measure that balances landfill pressures and environmental objectives with industry concerns.  SB 245 will strike a balance that incentivizes Californians to recycle used mattresses, thus easing the burden on our landfills and communities, while retaining valuable employers, creating new jobs and business opportunities.

Some of the specifics of SB 245 include creating a better and safer used mattress recycling program. It creates a non-profit mattress recycling organization whose duty will be to plan, implement and administer a state system to collect discarded used mattresses, dismantle them and recycle their materials for use in new products.

The organization will fund the system by collecting a nominal fee at retail on the sale of new mattresses and box-springs.  Many states follow a similar approach for other consumer products, including tires, batteries, motor oil, electronic devices, paint and carpet.

Another critical component to SB 245 is that it will essentially eliminate the problem of illegal mattress dumping.  SB 245 creates a financial incentive to encourage parties (including retailers that pick up used mattresses from consumers, municipal transfer stations, and groups that pick up illegally dumped mattresses) to send used mattresses to mattress recyclers.

The organization’s activities will be transparent, open to public input and subject to annual performance and financial audits that will be published on its website.  Further, the state’s oversight authority will confirm whether the organization has met its statutory obligations.

The goals set forth in SB 245 establish a sound foundation to move California forward in further preserving and protecting our communities from blight while creating new jobs and business opportunities.

A good mattress is essential to a healthy and productive lifestyle.  Yet, what we do with this bulky product at the end of its useful life is a challenge. I am confident this proposal will create a win-win solution for California consumers, environmentalists and industry.

SB 245 is not only about good environmental stewardship; it’s also about good business.

--

Ed's Note: Sen. Lou Correa, D-Santa Ana, represents the 34th Senate District.