Existing law requires the driver of any vehicle, upon meeting or overtaking any schoolbus equipped with required signs that is stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading any schoolchildren and displaying a flashing red light signal and stop signal arm, if equipped with a stop signal arm, to bring the vehicle to a stop immediately before passing the schoolbus and to not proceed past the schoolbus until the flashing red light signal and stop signal arm cease operation. A violation of these provisions is a crime.

This bill would authorize a school district to install and operate an automated schoolbus video enforcement system, as defined, for the purpose of enforcing the violation described above. The bill would require the county to transfer to the school district, on a monthly basis, the base fines paid for violations of the provisions described above when the violation was captured by the automated schoolbus video enforcement system and the image or video was used to convict the offender. The bill would also authorize a school district to assess a $150 civil penalty for the conduct described above if (1) the conduct was captured by an automated schoolbus video enforcement system installed and operated by the school district and (2) the driver of the vehicle was not criminally prosecuted for the violation described above based on the same instance. The bill would require a school district that establishes a civil penalty program to issue nonbinding warning letters to drivers for the first 6 months and to establish administrative hearing procedures in accordance with due process. The bill would require additional signage on schoolbuses relative to the video enforcement system. The bill would prohibit a school district from using automated schoolbus video enforcement systems or information gathered from those systems for any purpose other than those authorized by these provisions. The bill would require the Legislative Analysts Office to prepare and submit a report to the Legislature regarding the effect and efficacy of the various automated schoolbus video enforcement systems used by school districts on or before January 1, 2019, and every 2 years thereafter, as specified.

By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Existing law requires the driver of any vehicle, upon meeting or overtaking any schoolbus equipped with required signs that is stopped for the purpose of loading or unloading any schoolchildren and displaying a flashing red light signal and stop signal arm, if equipped with a stop signal arm, to bring the vehicle to a stop immediately before passing the schoolbus and to not proceed past the schoolbus until the flashing red light signal and stop signal arm cease operation. A violation of these provisions is a crime.

This bill would authorize a school district to install and operate an automated schoolbus video enforcement system, as defined, for the purpose of enforcing the violation described above. The bill would require the county to transfer to the school district, on a monthly basis, the base fines paid for violations of the provisions described above when the violation was captured by the automated schoolbus video enforcement system and the image or video was used to convict the offender.

By imposing additional duties on local governments, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program.

The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.

This bill would provide that, if the Commission on State Mandates determines that the bill contains costs mandated by the state, reimbursement for those costs shall be made pursuant to these statutory provisions.

Date of Hearing: April 18, 2016

ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION

Jim Frazier, Chair

ABPCA Bill Id:AB 2360 (

Author:Alejo) – As Amended Ver:April 13, 2016

SUBJECT: School buses: passing violations: automated video enforcement

SUMMARY: Authorizes automated video enforcement of school bus passing violations. Specifically, this bill:

1. Authorizes a school district to install and operate school bus video enforcement systems as a means of enforcing the requirement that drivers stop when a school bus displays a flashing red light signal and a deploy stop signal arm.
2. Defines an "automated school bus video enforcement system" as a video system that monitors and records motor vehicles overtaking or passing a school bus when the school bus is stopped and displaying a flashing red signal system and a deployed stop signal arm, if so equipped.
3. Requires a county to transfer, on a monthly basis, to the school district whose school bus was involved in the violation, the base fines paid for violations captured by the automated school bus video enforcement system if the image is used to convict the offender.
4. Provides that a school district may assess a civil penalty of $150 for passing a bus with red lights flashing and a deployed stop arm if the violation was captured by the automated school bus video enforcement system and the driver is not prosecuted for a criminal violation for the same violation.
5. Authorizes a school district to establish a civil penalty program required to issue non-binding warning letters to drivers for a violation for the first six months of the school bus video enforcement program.
6. Requires that a school district that assesses civil penalties for a violation must provide:
7. An administrative appeal process that includes, at a minimum, notice provisions, a neutral hearing officer, an opportunity to appeal, and any other due process procedures;
8. A process whereby the camera system vendor is required to fund the cost of the hearing officer; and,
9. That persons challenging the assessment of the civil penalty be provided access to the images or data evidencing the persons violation without charge.
10. Requires that a school bus equipped with a video enforcement system also be equipped with highly visible signage on the rear of the bus notifying motorists of the requirement to stop when red lights are flashing and that the video enforcement system is in effect.
11. Requires that the school bus video enforcement system not be activated until at least six seconds after the stop arm is deployed or, if no stop arm is available, at least 6 seconds after the school bus has stopped and red lights are flashing.
12. Requires that the video enforcement vendor provide required signage at the vendor's expense.
13. Provides that images captured by the video enforcement system are confidential and must be encrypted and, unless demanded by subpoena, be available only to the school district, contractor, law enforcement, or the offender for the purposes of appeal and that images captured not be used for purposes other than enforcement.
14. Requires the Legislative Analyst's Office prepare and submit a report to the Legislature on or before January 1, 2019, and every two years thereafter regarding the effectiveness of the school bus video enforcement systems used by school districts in the state.
15. Makes findings and declarations regarding the right of public access to the meetings and writings of local public bodies and officials and state agencies as well as the protection of privacy of a person whose image is captured by a school bus video enforcement system.
    

EXISTING LAW:

1. Requires school bus drivers to operate flashing red warning signals and stop arm signs when a school bus is approaching a stop or is stopped to unload pupils.
2. Requires a driver to stop when a school bus displays a flashing red signal and the stop signal arm is deployed and to remain stopped until the flashing red light signal and stop arm turned off by the school bus driver.
3. Authorizes a school bus driver who witnesses a vehicle violating the stop warnings to report the violation within 24 hours and furnish the vehicle license plate number, vehicle description, and time and place of the violation to law enforcement.
4. Requires local law enforcement, upon receiving notification from a school bus driver of a vehicle failing to stop when stop warning signals are deployed, to issue a warning letter to the registered owner of the vehicle as identified by the bus driver.
5. Prohibits local law enforcement, when issuing a letter of warning, from entering the alleged violation on the registered owners driving record.
6. Sets the penalties for overtaking a school bus when signals are displayed at $150 base fine (about $600 after surcharges and penalties are assessed) and one point on the driver's record.
7. Authorizes local jurisdictions to apply increased penalties for school bus passing violations. Some jurisdictions, such as Los Angeles County, set second violations for this offense at $500 (exceeding $1,000 with penalty assessments) and a point on the driver's record and third violations, occurring within three years of two or more separate violations, is punishable by suspension of driving privileges for one year.
8. Specifies that automated enforcement systems may be operated by a governmental agency, in cooperation with law enforcement, at the a limit line of an intersection, or other authorized location, if the government agency utilizing the system meets the following requirements:
   1. That signs are used to identify the presence of the system;
   2. That public announcements are made noticing the installation of the system at least 30 days prior to the commencement of the enforcement program;
   3. That prior to issuing citations, warning notices are issued for 30 days;
   4. That uniform guidelines for the operation of the system;
   5. That only those citations that have been reviewed and approved by law enforcement may be delivered to violators;
   6. That automated enforcement may be contracted out to a manufacturer or supplier;
   7. That the registered owner or any individual identified by the registered owner as the driver of the vehicle at the time of the alleged violation be allowed to review the photographic evidence of the alleged violation;
   8. That a governmental agency installing an automated traffic enforcement system not consider revenue generation, beyond recovering its actual costs of operating the system, as a factor when considering whether or not to install or operate the system; and,
   9. That the system operator submit an annual report to the Judicial Council that includes information on the number of violations captured, the number of citations issued, the type of violation, the number and percentage of citations that are dismissed in court, and the number of traffic collisions at each intersection prior to and after installation of the system.

FISCAL EFFECT: Unknown

COMMENTS: According to the author, school children are placed at significant risk when drivers fail to stop, as required by law, when school buses display designated stop signals (flashing lights and a deployed stop arm). He notes that according to national statistics, this offense is a common occurrence as evidenced by national surveys conducted by the National Association of State Directors of Pupil Transportation (NASDPT). For California specifically, NASDPT reports that approximately 21,040 school bus stop sign violations go unenforced in California daily. The author adds that, in most cases, these offenses are not observed by peace officers.

To address this problem, the author has introduced AB 2360, modeled after legislation in other states, to authorize the use of automated video enforcement devices on school buses. Specifically, this bill would authorize a school district to install and operate video enforcement systems on school buses as a means of identifying and citing drivers who fail to stop when a school bus is displaying a flashing red light signal and deployed stop signal arm, where applicable. This bill goes on to specify that the school districts that operate the video enforcement systems would receive, on a monthly basis, the base fine amount of $150 per violation captured by the system if the image is used to convict the offender.

To protect the safety of school children, existing law requires that school bus drivers illuminate red flashing lights and lower the stop arm on buses, if so equipped, when the bus is stopped to load or unload pupils. Drivers traveling in both directions are required to stop when the signal lights are illuminated and remain stopped until the warning system is turned off by the bus driver. As required by AB 1297 (Morrow), Chapter 739, Statutes of 1997, school bus drivers are required to activate the warning system beginning 200 feet before the bus stop, regardless of whether or not the pupils are crossing the street.

Existing law provides that the penalty for failing to stop when a school bus is displaying flashing signals lights and a lowered stop arm is a $150 base fine and one point on the driver's DMV record for a first offense. With court costs and penalty assessments, the actual out-of-pocket cost of the ticket is $695. Local jurisdictions are also authorized to add increased penalties for this offense. For example, a second offense for this violation in Los Angeles County is punishable by a fine of $500 (with out-of-pocket costs exceeding reaching nearly $1,500) and third violations, occurring within three years of two or more separate violations, is punishable by suspension of driving privileges for one year.

Red light cameras are the most common form of photo enforcement used in California to cite moving violations. Red light cameras were first installed to address what was a growing problem of catastrophic right angle accidents resulting from rampant red light running. For intersection enforcement, red light cameras capture an image of the vehicle as it enters the intersection after the red signal is displayed. Photographs are taken of the vehicle and the driver as it passes the intersection stop bar (pavement marking) after the red signal is illuminated. The photo evidence is then reviewed by a law enforcement officer, and if the photographic evidence demonstrates that the vehicle passed the stop bar after the red light was displayed and if the driver can be clearly identified as the owner of the vehicle, a citation is issued.

Red light cameras have spurred substantial debate and legislative action since they were first allowed nearly two decades ago. Some argue that the cameras violate privacy and, as a result, numerous privacy protections have been added in statute. Many others contend that the systems are being used less to reduce catastrophic accidents and more for the financial gain of the local jurisdictions and contracted red light camera vendors. For this reason, numerous laws have been enacted to prohibit local jurisdictions from profiting from red light camera installation and to clearly document the need for the systems prior to installation. Still others contend that, rather than increasing safety, the cameras instead increase the number of intersection accidents as evidenced by the increase in rear-end collision-type accidents that occur after the systems are installed.

Writing in support of this bill, WALK San Francisco contends that video enforcement systems on school buses would serve to hold drivers accountable and reinforce the law that drivers need to stop when reds are flashing and the stop signal arm is deployed. Also writing in support, the California School Employees Association notes that AB 2360 offers an innovative way to increase student safety while also providing added revenue for California's public school system.

Writing in opposition to AB 2360, California Association of Counties asserts that this bill fails to set the standard that local jurisdictions demonstrate the need for the system prior to installations. Also writing in opposition, the New Way of Life Re-Entry Project (ANWOL) points out that using automated ticketing to enforce this violation creates a system ripe for abuse. They also note that these costly tickets would be especially difficult for low-income individuals due to their inability to pay the fines and loss of the driving privilege, which is a penalty associated with this violation, could affect an individual's ability to work, therefore keeping the individual in poverty. ANWOL notes this bill would add another unnecessary burden on lower income families.

Committee comments: The data generated by NASDPTS, that bus drivers observe over 21,000 drivers unlawfully passing stopped school buses daily, does not seem to correlate with accident data provided by law enforcement. For example, the California Highway Patrol (CHP) reports that since 2010, a total of 4,930 citations were issued for this violation and that there have been only 28 collisions for this violation since 2013. Of these 28 incidents, fortunately only three involved injuries and none were fatalities.

Aside from these issues, the committee has a number of concerns related to the practical application of the use of video enforcement systems on school buses. First, it is unclear how schoolbus mounted video enforcement system could function fairly given the mobile setting. For example, for red light cameras installed at intersections, the "stop bar" pavement marking is used to clearly delineate the location before which a car is required to stop and beyond which the vehicle is considered to have "run" the red light. With regard to passing school buses, there would be no clear pavement markings available for motorists to know exactly where they are required to stop or at what point they will have "passed" the bus. Additionally, given that the bus driver controls when the flashing lights illuminated, the systems inherently lacks regulated "timing" that motorists rely upon to know when to begin braking in order to make a safe stop. While the author has attempted to address this issue by placing specified times at which the photo enforcement system would be deployed after the signal lights are illuminated, there is no way to ensure that motorists receive ample notification. The result is likely to be what is observed at camera controlled intersections where motorists slam on their brakes resulting in rear end collisions that could, ultimately, result in greater risk of injury to schoolchildren.

This bill carries over many of the same practices and protocols that tainted the original red light camera enforcement at intersections. Those systems were originally justified on the honorable premise that automated enforcement was critical to deterring catastrophic broadside collisions caused by drivers running red lights. In that same vein, this bill seeks to protect children from serious injury by impatient drivers ignoring warning indicators as school buses are loading and unloading. Red light cameras, however, soon faced well-substantiated criticisms that local jurisdictions were increasingly installing them for revenue-generation purposes, rather than based on safety needs. As a result, significant restrictions were imposed on their use, such as safety need for the cameras had to be well-documented, police officials were required to review photos, and vendors were not allowed to receive financial compensation based on the number of citations issued. Unfortunately, these same protections that were imposed to ensure the integrity of red light camera installations are not included in this bill.

Related legislation: SB 681 (Hill) reduces the base fine for “rolling right turn” violations.
SB 681 is on the suspense file in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

Previous legislation: AB 666 (Wieckowski) of 2013 would have, among other things, required violations recorded by an automated traffic enforcement system to be cited as civil violations, subject to a civil penalty, administrative process, and appeal in superior court. AB 666 was returned to the Chief Clerk by the Assembly Judiciary Committee pursuant to Joint Rule 56.

AB 1287 (Chiu), Chapter 485, Statutes of 2015, deletes the sunset on the City and County of San Francisco's authority to do automated enforcement of parking violations in transit-only traffic lanes, otherwise known as the Transit-Only Lane Enforcement (TOLE) program

REGISTERED SUPPORT / OPPOSITION:

Support

California Bicycle Coalition

California School Employees Association

California Walks

Community Now

Safe Routes to School National Partnership

Mission Union School District

Parents of Sarah Oberhauser

San Antonio Union School District

WALKSacramento

Walk San Francisco

Opposition

California Teamsters Public Affairs Council

California Association of Counties

A New Way of Life Re-Entry Project

National Motorists Association

Safer Streets LA

Analysis Prepared by: Victoria Alvarez / TRANS. / (916) 319-2093