Date: 02/25/2015

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB15-1098

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION & ENERGY

Votes: View--> Action Taken:
Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion p
Refer House Bill 15-1098, as amended, to the Commi		Pass Without Objection
PASS


01:30 PM

Representative Tyler, Chair, called the meeting to order. A quorum was present.

01:30 PM -- HB 15-1098

Representatives Humphrey and Van Winkle, co-prime sponsors, came to the table to present House Bill 15-1098. A copy of an Insurance Institute for Highway Safety statement for the committee was distributed to the committee (Attachment A). This bill prohibits the use of automated vehicle identification systems (AVIS), including photo radar and red light cameras, by state and local governments for the purposes of enforcing traffic laws or issuing citations for the violation of traffic laws. The bill also repeals the authorization that the Colorado Department of Public Safety (DPS), at the request of the Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT), use an automated vehicle identification system to detect speed violations in a highway maintenance, repair, or construction zone. Under the bill, a governmental entity may use an automated vehicle identification system to assess tolls and civil penalties on toll roads and highways, and to issue citations for violations related to high occupancy vehicles and high occupancy toll lanes. The representatives noted that there are a variety of studies showing whether or not red light cameras are effective at reducing accidents at intersections. Amendment L.001 (Attachment B) was distributed to the committee.

150225 AttachA.pdf150225 AttachA.pdf 150225 AttachB.pdf150225 AttachB.pdf

01:38 PM

Representative Humphrey read some comments from various public officials about the efficacy of AVIS technologies. He noted that many people in Colorado are looking for a ban to the use of this technology.

01:39 PM -- Mike McClelland, representing the Aurora Police Department, spoke in opposition to the bill. An overview of a photo enforcement working group, formed by various Colorado police departments, was distributed to the committee (Attachment C). He said that Aurora has implemented its photo red light program with integrity while following best practices. He said that all citations are reviewed by a police officer and detailed the number of citations issued in 2014 via AVIS technologies. He explained the results of a study to assess the reduction in accidents at Aurora intersections, how the revenue from the program is spent on various city programs, and noted that none of the revenue from AVIS goes into the city's general fund. Mr. McClelland stated that AVIS make drivers in the city cognizant of their driving behavior. He responded to questions on what citizens who receive citations in rural areas should do if they want to contest the citation, the revenue that Aurora receives from these technologies, fines that can be levied on individuals who do not pay the original citation, and if Aurora has seen a reduction in accidents at intersections that do not utilize AVIS.

150225 AttachC.pdf150225 AttachC.pdf

01:53 PM

Mr. McClelland responded to further questioning on what drivers can do in situations where someone else who is driving their vehicle commits a traffic infraction that is captured by an AVIS; what the impact would be on the city if the bill passes and the ability of the police department to cite drivers for traffic violations is reduced; if the department could position police officers at intersections instead of using AVIS; the decrease in accidents that Aurora experienced after installing red light cameras; if Aurora attempted traffic engineering techniques before installing red light cameras; what Aurora's criteria for installing a red light camera is; what the view and perspective of the red light cameras is; whether a driver trying to move out of an intersection for another car could be issued a citation; when a citizen can go to court to contest a citation; whether the number of rear end crashes at Aurora intersections was affected by the installation of red light cameras; which types of crashes are the most destructive to life and property; whether the department could reduce its traffic fine to be in line with the operating costs of their red light cameras; how effective the extension of yellow traffic signals could be in reducing accident occurrence; if a police officer can be more accurate in catching a red light violation than AVIS; and the intensity of the camera flash used on red light cameras.

02:15 PM -- Paul Houston, representing himself, spoke in favor of the bill. Mr. Houston told the committee that the bill had been killed by special interests many times in the past, and that he had spoken with numerous police officers who were not in favor of the use of AVIS. He stated that local governments using an AVIS do not follow due process for issuing citations.

02:24 PM -- Mitch Morrissey, representing the Denver District Attorney's Office, spoke against the bill. He said that AVIS is life-saving technology and should not be banned. He showed a photo of a driver who was captured by a red light camera, which was subsequently used to solve a murder the driver committed before running the red light. He said that there are an average of 17 hit and runs in Denver per day and that AVIS technologies change driver behavior. Mr. Morrissey said that the use of AVIS could be improved, but should not be banned. He responded to questions regarding available data that shows that AVIS reduce accidents, how often photos from red light cameras are used to help solve crimes, if Denver would benefit from more red light cameras, whether speed photo radar vans are effective, and if there is anything that can be done to mitigate the brightness of flashes used on red light cameras.

02:44 PM -- Chris Hinds, representing himself, spoke in favor of the bill. He said the bill boils down to whether AVIS technologies are effective and how much revenue they generate. He said that fines should be based on deterring behavior and not deriving profit. He noted that drivers stopping in crosswalks is a common issue in Denver and that the revenue from AVIS citations could be spent on an education campaign for drivers to help deter speeding and running red lights.

02:49 PM -- Haven Rohnert, representing the Colorado Cross-Disability Coalition (CCDC), spoke against the bill. He said that AVIS technologies make roads safer for those with disabilities.

02:52 PM -- Dustin Varney, representing Greenwood Village Police Department (GVPD), spoke against the bill. He told the committee that the GVPD was trying to be proactive about traffic accidents that occur at intersections by using AVIS and that banning the use of these technologies would be irresponsible. He said that there are ways to improve the way these technologies are utilized, but they should not be banned. He discussed a photo red light committee that was formed between Colorado cities that utilize such technologies. He responded to questions on whether a uniformed officer posted at a red light would be a more effective deterrent to drivers than a red light camera, if GVPD reviews all citations before sending them out to violators, whether AVIS are an effective tool in helping law enforcement protect Colorado's citizens, if Greenwood Village is deriving profit from its AVIS program, and if Greenwood Village has considered lowering its violation rates.

03:18 PM -- Sara Shirk, representing the CCDC, spoke against the bill. She said that AVIS improve driver behavior and reduce accidents. She added that children with disabilities are at a greater risk of being hit by a vehicle than other children. She said CCDC supports improving state laws surrounding AVIS, but not banning them.

03:21 PM -- Kim Ferber, representing the City of Littleton, spoke against the bill. She said Littleton's red light camera program began in 2009 and that it currently uses photo red light technology at five intersections. She responded to questions from the committee.

03:24 PM -- Mike Farr, representing Denver Police Department, and Frank Locantore, representing WalkDenver, spoke against the bill. Mr. Locantore distributed the written testimony (Attachment D) of WalkDenver's executive director, Gosia Kung, and read it to the committee.

150225 AttachD.pdf150225 AttachD.pdf

03:29 PM -- Charles Baker, representing the Commerce City Police Department, spoke against the bill. He detailed Commerce City's red light photo program, distributed a position paper on HB15-1198 (Attachment E), and stressed the importance of AVIS. He responded to questions on the need for and efficacy of photo red light cameras in Commerce City and traffic engineering employed by the city.

150225 AttachE.pdf150225 AttachE.pdf

03:38 PM -- Curtis Garrett, representing the Denver Coalition for People with Disabilities, spoke against the bill. He explained the problems faced by people with disabilities when a driver stops in a crosswalk, and why photo red light cameras are an important deterrent in Colorado. He responded to questions on the efficacy of AVIS technologies.

03:42 PM -- Mark Chuck, Robert Rock, Ted Porres, and David DiGiacomo, representing Denver Police Department and the City of Denver, spoke against the bill. The witnesses testified to the number of accidents seen in Denver intersections and the efficacy of Denver's AVIS program. A study by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (Attachment F) and an illustration of why Denver wants to reduce driver speeds (Attachment G) were distributed to the committee. The witnesses responded to questions on whether intersections that have red light cameras in Denver have seen accident reductions, if Denver drivers have generally been driving more safely in recent years, if Denver keeps track of revenue earned at each intersection that deploys red light cameras, whether some intersections are generating too much revenue in relation to the number of accidents seen at that location, the impact AVIS technologies have on speeding in Denver, if the city has seen a reduction in accidents at intersections that have pedestrian crossing countdown displays, and if the city has noticed a change in driver behavior when it uses roadside displays that show a driver the speed he or she is travelling at.

150225 AttachF.pdf150225 AttachF.pdf

04:11 PM -- Robert Hendry, representing the City of Boulder, spoke against the bill. He discussed the city's red light camera and speed photo radar programs and how they had been effective in reducing speeding and accidents.

04:15 PM -- Craig Horton, representing Fort Collins Police Department, spoke against the bill. He discussed the city's various programs for addressing speeding and drivers running red lights, and how it attempts to modify driver behavior with tools such as AVIS.

04:20 PM -- Vivian Stovall, representing herself, spoke against the bill. She said that she believes the technologies to be effective in modifying driver behavior and that they reduce the risk of her being hit by a vehicle. She noted that she had been hit by a vehicle in Denver three times in the past.

04:25 PM -- Diana Goldberg, representing Sungate Kids Children's Advocacy Center, spoke against the bill. She said that the use of red light cameras was not a "gotcha" program, and that she did not believe they are used as revenue generating tools. She responded to questions on the revenue generated from red light cameras and photo radars and how it is spent by municipalities.

04:28 PM

Representative Van Winkle explained that Amendment L.001 changes the bill to avoid it affecting the collection of tolls by the E-470 Public Highway Authority.
BILL:HB15-1098
TIME: 04:28:57 PM
MOVED:Carver
MOTION:Adopt amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:Neville P.
VOTE
Becker J.
Buck
Carver
Coram
Esgar
Kraft-Tharp
Melton
Moreno
Neville P.
Nordberg
Winter
Mitsch Bush
Tyler
YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


04:29 PM -- Julie Farrar, representing CCDC and herself, spoke against the bill. She said that as a person with a disability she frequently has to be concerned with drivers, and that she believes AVIS technologies are effective in modifying driver behavior.

04:35 PM

Representatives Humphrey and Van Winkle made their closing comments on the bill, stating that there are traffic engineering techniques that can be used as an alternative to red light cameras and photo radar vans to modify driver behavior. They said they believe that AVIS technologies are primarily revenue generators for cities, that numerous studies have been published that concluded AVIS programs should be terminated in many Colorado cities, and that there is a potential for abuse of the technologies. The committee discussed the merits of the bill and the amount of revenue that cities are currently generating from AVIS technologies.

BILL:HB15-1098
TIME: 04:45:24 PM
MOVED:Coram
MOTION:Refer House Bill 15-1098, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. The motion passed on a vote of 8-5.
SECONDED:Nordberg
VOTE
Becker J.
Yes
Buck
Yes
Carver
Yes
Coram
Yes
Esgar
No
Kraft-Tharp
Yes
Melton
Yes
Moreno
No
Neville P.
Yes
Nordberg
Yes
Winter
No
Mitsch Bush
No
Tyler
No
Final YES: 8 NO: 5 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: PASS

04:46 PM

The committee adjourned.