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.