BILL ANALYSIS



C.S.H.B. 916
By: Seidlits
4-10-95
Committee Report (Substituted)


BACKGROUND

Many drivers in this state fail to heed traffic signals to their
own detriment and to the detriment of other drivers and
pedestrians.  Many feel that there are not sufficient numbers of
law enforcement personnel in this state to effectively supervise
even the busiest traffic intersections in this state.  

PURPOSE

H.B. 916 adopts a photographic traffic-control system that has been
implemented in other states and countries to enforce traffic-control laws without the need for the presence of law enforcement
personnel through the use of photographic equipment synchronized
with traffic-control devices.

RULEMAKING AUTHORITY

It is the committee's opinion that this bill does not expressly
grant any additional rulemaking authority to a state officer,
department, agency or institution.

SECTION BY SECTION ANALYSIS

SECTION 1. Defines "photographic traffic-control system" and
"traffic-control signal".

SECTION 2.     (a)  Authorizes a municipality, by ordinance, to
               implement a photographic traffic-control system and
               provide that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable
               for a civil penalty if the motor vehicle runs a red
               light.
           (b) States that a municipality must prescribe the amount
           of the civil penalty should they choose to adopt an
           ordinance under this Act.  The civil penalty may not
           exceed the maximum fine prescribed by the Uniform Act
           Regulating Traffic on Highways.
           (c)  Sections 2-8, except 5(4) and 5(5), of Article
           6701d-24, Revised Statutes (relating to administrative
           adjudication of parking offenses), shall apply to an
           ordinance adopted under this Act.
           (d)  An ordinance adopted under this act may provide
           that a photograph taken by a photographic traffic-control system is admissible in an administrative
           adjudication hearing and is evidence enough to support
           a finding that the vehicle identified in the     photograph ran the red light.  Exceptions from liability
           are provided for owners of rented,     leased, and
           stolen cars.
           (e) States that the imposition of a civil penalty is not
           a conviction under this act.

SECTION 3.     Provides that a municipality that implements a
               photographic traffic-control system under this Act
               may install and operate the system or contract for
               the installation and operation of the system. 

SECTION 4. This Act, or any ordinance adopted by a municipality
           under this Act, will not affect the enforcement in the
           municipality of Section 33(c), Uniform Act Regulating
           Traffic on Highways.

SECTION 5.     Effective date: September 1, 1995.

SECTION 6.     Emergency clause. 


COMPARISON OF ORIGINAL TO SUBSTITUTE

In Section 1, the substitute adds (b) which states that a
municipality must prescribe the amount of the civil penalty should
they choose to adopt an ordinance under this Act.  The civil
penalty may not exceed the maximum fine prescribed by the Uniform
Act Regulating Traffic on Highways, and reletters the following
subsections accordingly.  The substitute also adds (e) which states
that the imposition of a civil penalty is not a conviction under
this act.  

The substitute also adds Section 4, which states that this Act, or
any ordinance adopted by a municipality under this Act, will not
affect the enforcement in the municipality of Section 33(c),
Uniform Act Regulating Traffic on Highways.

SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE ACTION

Pursuant to public notice posted on February 22, 1995, HB 916 was
considered by the Committee on State Affairs in a public hearing on
February 27, 1995.  The Chair laid out HB 916 and recognized Rep.
Seidlits to explain the bill.  The following person testified for
the bill:  James McCarley representing the City of Plano, the Texas
Municipal League, and the Texas Police Chiefs Association; Sgt. Sam
Cox representing the Austin Police Department; and Ron Zimmerman
representing himself.  The Chair recognized Rep. Seidlits to close. 
The Chair left HB 916 pending.  HB 916 was considered by the
Committee on State Affairs in a public hearing on March 6, 1995. 
The Chair laid out HB 916.  The committee considered a complete
substitute for the bill which was adopted without objection.  The
bill was reported favorably as substituted with the recommendation
that it do pass and be printed, by a record vote of 11 ayes, 0 nay,
0 pnv, 4 absent.