Nevada SB 43 – AN ACT relating to traffic laws; authorizing the installation and use of an automated traffic enforcement system by a governmental entity under certain circumstances
AN ACT relating to traffic laws; authorizing the installation and use of an automated traffic enforcement system by a governmental entity under certain circumstancesFull Bill Text
UPDATE April 13, 2019: Pursuant to Joint Standing Rule No. 14.3.1, no further action allowed unless re-referred to Finance or Ways & Means Committees.
SB 43 was introduced on February 4, 2019 and referred to the Senate Growth & Infrastructure Committee. The Committee scheduled a public hearing on February 19, 2019.
SB 43, if enacted, would introduce automated traffic (photo) enforcement to the State of Nevada. The NMA is opposed to photo enforcement, whether red-light cameras or speed cameras. Additional opposition points from NMA Nevada Activist Chad Dornsife, who provided them in written and oral testimony at the February 19th committee hearing:
- Automated enforcement financially attractive because it creates the ability to write citations en masse.
- The primary beneficiary is the camera vendor.
- The camera vendor and municipality have to first identify an engineering defect, then weaponize it.
- Absent a standard to rein in errant practices, due process is denied.
- Lessor standards of law designed to expedite fine collections predicated on a guilty until proven innocent core, with no real means of defense, violates every concept of fairness and due process. This predatory system preys largely on a defenseless motoring public using onerous fines for being caught up in nefarious practices.
- I believe in this federally regulated field that full constitutional rights apply. That means a legitimate violation must be based on a factual unsafe act and the motorist has the right to cross examine the foundation of all exercise of police powers therein.
- When put to a vote by the people, photo enforcement has been overwhelmingly defeated with very few exceptions by margins as great as 86 percent. https://www.thenewspaper.com/news/36/3655.asp
- The purported large fines to be collected are fool’s gold. Aside from a few administrative or agency jobs, most of the money goes to the camera vendor. What’s more, there is usually a minimum amount clause in the contract. Many agencies actually lose money, thereby disincentivizing corrections of the monetized defect. Many contracts also contain a clause where the defect cannot be corrected without violating the contract.
- If the vendor is paid $1 million, that comes directly out of the local economy by a factor of 4 or 5. That’s $5 million of churn (local benefit) that will be exported to the vendors home domicile.
- California had more than a 100 entities with cameras. Once the state imposed a fact-based statewide standard, all but 30 cities took the cameras out. The remaining 30 are relying on a loophole for turning movements and I’m on a committee that is going to eliminate these loopholes: the California Traffic Control Device Committee – Subcommittees for setting signal timing standards and speed limits. Set up by the legislature using subject matter experts and stakeholders, this group oversees state laws and practices.
- Under the 11th Amendment, only the state is immune from federal law suits; cities and counties are not. Knowing Nevada practices sooner or later the lawsuits will come and be relentless given the facts.
- It took four years, but California’s engineering standards and practices are now fact based for signals and speed limits and offer excellent guidance for Nevada as our state’s augmented standard. The expert subcommittee had 20 subject matter experts, stakeholders and those representing the rights of the motorists.