Slowing Speeds, Saving Lives

The Case for Automated Speed Cameras in NYC

Winter 2003 127 W 26th St. Suite 1002 New York, NY 10001

1

Table of Contents Introduction p. 2 How Do Speed Cameras Work? p. 4 Speed Kills p. 5 Speed Camera Facts p. 6 Misconceptions About Speed Cameras p. 7 Speed Camera Success Stories p. 8 The Red Light Camera Precedent p. 10 Appendix A: Speed Camera Photos p. 11 Appendix B: US Speed Camera Vendors p. 12 Appendix C: Speed Camera Enforcement Programs in the US p. 13 Appendix D: Previous NY State Speed Camera Legislation p. 13 Appendix E: Correspondence from J. Michael Bell, Portland OR Police Dept. p. 14 Appendix F: Model NY State Legislation p. 16 End Notes p. 19

2

Introduction Anyone who has ever walked or driven along the Grand Concourse, Queens Boulevard, Flatbush Avenue, or Manhattan avenues knows that deadly speeding is rampant on NYC streets. A 1999 study on Queens Boulevard by the NYC Department of Transportation found that 25% of motorists exceeded 40 mph – 10 mph over the speed limit.

Unfortunately, as the continued speeding and deadly carnage on Queens Boulevard has shown, the police cannot be everywhere at all times. However, automated speed cameras – proven in hundreds of locations internationally and over two dozen in the U.S. – can provide tremendously effective, 24 hour a day speeding enforcement that squashes speeding, and saves lives.

NYC’s automated red light camera enforcement program has conclusively demonstrated that automated enforcement is a successful, cost-effective means of reducing traffic accidents, injuries, and deaths, and that the public supports automated enforcement. For NYC, speed cameras are the logical next step beyond red light enforcement: they employ the same technology as red light cameras, and help police to target an equally dangerous driver behavior - speeding.

Speed cameras are a cost effective and fair law enforcement tool that: •

Decrease the number and severity of crashes, and the number of traffic deaths.

•

Lower overall traffic speeds.

•

Enforce traffic laws without discrimination.

•

Free up police officers for more serious crime prevention.

•

Increase the overall perception of traffic enforcement.

•

Put the cost of the program on violators, rather than taxpayers.

3

•

Reduce the number of high-speed chases and hazardous situations for officers.

•

Are supported by the public as a means of reducing speeds and crashes.

Deadly speeding is rampant in NYC. Speed cameras will save lives and prevent injuries.

To get speed cameras for NYC, the state legislature should pass state legislation with a three-year sunset clause that would pilot speed cameras. The legislation would introduce 10 cameras in the first year of the program, and 10 more in the second year, for a total of twenty speed cameras. Program revenues and effectiveness would be evaluated at one and two-year intervals in reports submitted by the NYC Chief of Police to the governor, president of the senate, and speaker of the assembly. The legislation would expire three years from the start date, unless the sunset clause was extended or repealed before such date.

In order to begin a speed camera program in NYC, home rule legislation must be passed by the NYC City Council, and State legislation must be passed by the State Assembly and Senate, and signed into law by Governor Pataki. Transportation Alternatives will be pursuing all of these paths vigorously in the 2001 legislative session.

Contact: Neel Scott, Campaign Coordinator Transportation Alternatives 115 W. 30th St. Suite 1207 New York, NY 10001 (212) 629-8080 [email protected]

4

How Do Speed Cameras Work? Speed cameras – also known as ‘photo radar’ – are a proven automated technology for regulating speeding. 1 Speed cameras have been used in Europe for over 30 years, and in the U.S. since 1987, when Paradise Valley AZ became the first town to institute the system. 2 Speed cameras combine several pieces of existing equipment—a high-speed traffic camera, Doppler radar, and a computer monitoring system. This equipment has been used together or separately in law enforcement for years.

A typical speed camera picture. New technology ensures that almost all license plates are readable.

Speeders who exceed a pre-selected threshold speed trigger the camera and are photographed. The photo contains a rear view of the vehicle – showing only its license plate, not the driver – with the date, time, speed and location noted on the photograph. A citation is mailed from a central facility to the vehicle owner. As with NYC’s red light camera program, a fine but no points are assigned to a driver’s license. The speed camera unit itself consists of a low power, narrow-beam (generally 5 degrees), Doppler radar antenna aimed at a 20 degree angle across a road. 3 This angle and low power ensure that radar detectors are incapable of detecting the photo-radar until they are in the beam, while still allowing the unit to make accurate speed measurements on roadways up to 5 lanes wide. 4 The camera is usually in a box mounted on a pole. One of 50 red light cameras in NYC. Speed cameras are very similar.

The narrow beam of a speed camera aimed is aimed at a 20 degree angle across the road. Speed cameras can cover up to six lanes of traffic.

5

Speed Kills Many motorists see speeding as a victimless crime – especially when they get behind the wheel. They’re late to work, they’re running behind schedule – what difference does it make? The answer is a lot - speed limits exist for a reason.

The faster a motor vehicle goes, the greater the risk of serious injury or death to those in and outside a vehicle in a crash. •

Crash severity increases disproportionately with vehicle speed—a frontal impact at 35 mph is one-third more violent than one at 30 mph. 5

•

The chance of death when struck by a car at 40 mph is 70%, at 30 mph, 40%, and at 25 mph, 25%. 6

Speeding is one of the most prevalent reported factors in all crashes. •

Speed is a factor in 31% of all fatal crashes. It kills an average of 1,000 Americans every month.

•

Each year, more than 15,000 people die in speed related crashes, and 80,000 people are seriously injured. 7

•

Speed related crashes cost society more than $29 billion each year, with health care

costs alone totaling more than $4 billion per year. 8

6

Speed Camera Facts Speed cameras decrease the number and severity of crashes, and the number of traffic deaths. According to the British Medical Journal, the number of deaths in a test corridor in London reduced threefold, from 68 to 20, and the number of serious injuries fell by over a quarter, from 813 to 596, over the course of two years. 9 Speed cameras lower overall traffic speeds. Speed cameras lower average traffic speeds, and are especially effective at reducing the number of speeders driving more than 15 mph over the speed limit. 10 Speed cameras increase traffic enforcement. Speed cameras can issue 2 to 3 times as many tickets as with traditional radar enforcement. 11 Speed cameras free up police officers for more serious crime prevention and additional traffic enforcement. Speed cameras allow officers to work on other traffic problems or crime prevention, if needed. Speed cameras increase the overall perception of traffic enforcement. When accompanied by an advertising and outreach campaign, speed cameras slow down drivers even on untreated streets. 12 Speed cameras put the cost of the program on violators, rather than taxpayers. A speed camera program, after The public conclusively supports the use of speed an initial investment, generally cameras. pays for itself. As a related example, the FY2000 cost for NYC’s red light camera program was $7 million, and the FY2000 revenue for the program was $8.6 million. 13 Speed cameras enforce traffic laws without discrimination. Speed cameras do not discriminate based on race or other factors. Speed cameras reduce the number of high-speed chases and hazardous situations for officers. Routine traffic stops often escalate into dangerous encounters. High-speed chases are extremely dangerous for police officers and the public. The public supports photo radar as a means of reducing speeds and crashes. A nationwide telephone survey conducted in 1995 found that 66% of U.S. residents favor using cameras to enforce speed limit laws. 14

7

Speed cameras are more efficient, practical and cost effective than ever. Digital cameras, character recognition software, and high-speed networking allow speed camera systems to process citations cheaply, securely and nearly instantaneously.

8

Misconceptions About Speed Cameras 1. It’s not fair. Speed camera violators lose the opportunity to face their accuser. Alleged violators still have the opportunity to argue their case in court.

2. The gap between an alleged violation and the receipt of notice of a violation does not constitute a reasonable notice, and compromises the ability of the defendant to prepare an adequate defense. All citations would be mailed within six business days of the alleged offense, or the violation will be dismissed. This has been upheld as a reasonable notice in other locations.

3. Speed cameras target the owner of a vehicle—who may not be the driver. While it’s true that the owner of a vehicle might not have been the driver, a speed camera citation would not represent a moving violation, but rather a fine. Currently in NYC, parking and red light fines make the same assumptions.

4. Speed cameras don’t discourage speeding—they’re just a cash cow for the city. Speed cameras have been proven to reduce speeding and accidents, especially excessive speeding and severe accidents (see ‘Speed Camera Success Stories’ below). New York City speed camera legislation would have a provision putting any revenues from a speed camera program back into the program. A review of existing speed camera programs shows that none are bringing in significant revenues above costs.

Speed cameras photograph only the license plate – not the driver.

5. Speed cameras cannot determine whether a driver is licensed, insured, competent or sober. While it’s true that speed cameras do not address these issues directly, they significantly reduces speeding, and frees up police resources and manpower to deal with these problems.

6. This is ‘Big Brother’. Not so – only the license plates of speeding vehicles are photographed. The motoring public is accustomed to red light cameras and approves of them. Speed radar is no different.

9

Speed Camera Success Stories London According to the British Medical Journal, the number of deaths in a test corridor in London were reduced threefold, from 68 to 20, and the number of serious injuries fell by over a quarter, from 813 to 596 after speed cameras were installed. 15

Norway The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety reported that speed cameras reduced all injury crashes by 20 percent in Norway. 16

Victoria, Australia After 15 months of speed camera operation, the incidence of speeding dropped from 23% to 11%. 17 After eight years of the program, the number of road deaths dropped from 777 in 1989 to 378 in 1997, a 51% reduction. This 1997 total is the lowest since monthly records were first compiled in Victoria in 1951. In the same time period, collisions were reduced by 22%, and serious fatalities by 34%. 18

British Columbia Research showed a 7% reduction in crashes and a 20% decline in deaths after British Columbia’s speed camera program was started. The percent of speeding vehicles declined from 66% in 1996 to 40% in 1999. 19 Speed cameras in Australia.

Portland, OR J. Michael Bell, Captain, Traffic Division of the Portland Police Department stated: “The use of photo radar is an efficient and effective enforcement tool and a good use of personnel time.” 20 On one street in Portland, 88% of vehicles traveled in excess of 11 mph or greater over the speed limit. After eight deployments of speed cameras, only 12% of vehicles were traveling 11 mph or greater over the limit. 21

Fort Collins, CO Speed cameras reduced the accident rate per vehicle mile traveled (VMT) by 16% between 1995 and 1999. 70% of the fines issued were paid. 22

Beaverton, OR The percentage of vehicles speeding declined by 28% on streets with speed cameras.

23

10

Campbell, CA James A. Cost, the Chief of Police in Campbell, CA, stated: “After one year of operation, the numbers of speeding vehicles decreased by 63%. I know of no other traditional method which could have possibly achieved these results.” 24

Sandy, UT Town officials attributed a 27% reduction in crashes and a 7 mph reduction in the 85th percentile speed in one year to the deployment of speed cameras. 25

Paradise Valley Town officials have credited speed cameras with a 40% reduction in collisions since 1987.

26

National City, CA Speed cameras were credited by the town government with reducing accidents by 26% in a 10-month period. The number of crashes per six-year period decreased 51% (from 1304 to 628) before and after the program was started in 1991. 27 Deputy City Attorney Linda Harter stated: “It’s the only thing that’s been truly effective in slowing traffic since the invention of the automobile.” 28

11

The Red Light Camera Precedent NYC’s successful red light camera program provides an important precedent for speed cameras. The program uses the same technology as speed cameras, but targets red light runners. The logistics and operation of the program are also the same. NYC’s red light camera program issues citations, not moving violations; does not photograph the driver; presumes that the owner of the vehicle is the driver; is unmanned; and has not been successfully attacked on due process or privacy grounds. Background

In 1993, the NYC City Council and NY State Legislature passed laws authorizing NYC to establish a red light camera program. The program began with 18 cameras, was increased to 25, then 35 and most recently to 50. The program was the first of its kind in the United States and was awarded the Ford Foundations Award for Innovation in Government. Currently NYC has installed 35 red light cameras at locations in all 5 boroughs. Unlike red light summonses issued by a police officer, no points are assessed a light runners drivers license. However, a $50 fine or “Notice of Violation” is issued to the vehicles owner - not the driver, as is the case if an officer is present - through the mail. Effectiveness Red light running at locations with cameras has dropped from an average of 32 vehicles a day to 21, a 34% reduction. While there has been no review of red light accident data in NYC, extensive studies conducted in Phoenix, Arizona and London, England found that the cameras reduce crashes by 40% or more One of 50 red light cameras in NYC. The where they are installed. program has been extremely successful. Notices of Liability (NOL), FY 2000: 140,000 Per Camera: 4,000 % of Recorded Violations Resulting in fine : 51%. Expected to be 65-80% in FY 2001. Cost The red light program generates slightly more in fines than it incurs in expenses. Thus, NYC is employing, at essentially no cost, a traffic safety method that reduces red light running and crashes. Annual Program Cost (FY 2000): $7 million. Annual Program Income (FY 2000): $8.6 Million

Cost Per Camera: $200,000 Income Per Camera: $245,714

12

Compliance 66% of motorists issued red light fine by camera pay within the first 30 days. 20% of motorists issued red light summons by officer pay within the first 30 days. 3.8% of motorists contest red light camera fines / NOL. 85% are convicted. 20% of motorists contest red light summonses issued by police officer. 30% are convicted. Appendix A

Clockwise from upper left: speed camera pictures during the day, at night, in the snow, and in the rain.

29

13

A speed camera installed on a roadway.

A speed camera installed in a police vehicle.

Appendix B US Speed Camera Vendors American Traffic Systems PO Box 9891 4141 N. Scottsdale Road, Suite 335 Scottsdale, AZ 85251 Phone: (480) 922-2100 Fax: (480) 994-5508 http://www.atstraffic.com/ Aviar, Inc. P.O. Box 162184 Austin, TX 78716 Phone: (512) 295-5285 Fax: (512) 295-2603 http://www.aviarinc.com/ Electronic Control Measurement, Inc. P.O. Box 888 Manor, TX 78653 Phone: (512) 272-4346 Fax: (512) 272-4966 Eastman Kodak Company Motion Analysis Systems Divisions 11633 Sorrento Valley Rd. San Diego, CA 92121-1097 Phone: (619) 481-8182 Fax: (619) 481-9142 Imaging Systems 50 Mall Rd. Burlington, MA 01803 Phone: (617) 273-3388 Fax: (617) 272-9726 Http://www.alphatech.com/ Kustom Signals, Inc. 9325 Pflumm Lenexa, KS 66215-3347 Phone: (913) 492-1400 Fax: (913) 492-1703 Laser Technologies, Inc. 7070 S. Tucson Way

Englewood, CO 80112 Phone: (303) 649-1000 Fax: (303) 649-9710 http://www.lasertech.com/ Le Marquis International, Inc. 2201 Corporate Blvd. NW Suite 1017 Boca Raton, FL 33431 Phone: (407) 998-7199 Fax: (407) 998-8199 Lockheed Martin IMS 188 The Embarcadero, Suite 450 San Francisco, CA 94105 Phone: (415) 512-9493 Fax: (415) 512-0844 http://www.lmco.com/ Peek Traffic Systems, Inc. 3000 Commonwealth Blvd. Tallahassee, FL 32303-3157 Phone: (904) 562-2253. Fax: (904) 562-4126 http://www.peek-traffic.com/ Pulnix America, Inc. 1330 Orleans Dr. Sunnyvale, CA 94089 Phone: (800) 445-5444 Fax: (408) 747-0660 http://www.pulnix.com/ Redflex Traffic Systems Inc. 120-A Solano Street Tiburon, CA 94920 Phone: (415) 789-9001 Fax: (415) 789-5451 Traffic Safety Systems, Inc. 24 Girard Road Winchester, MA 01890 Phone: (617) 729-8920 Fax: (617) 526-5000

14

Appendix C Speed Camera Enforcement Programs in the United States Mesa, Arizona Paradise Valley, Arizona Scottsdale, AZ Tempe, Arizona Beverly Hills, CA Campbell, California San Jose, California Boulder, Colorado Denver, Colorado Ft. Collins, Colorado Washington, DC Beaverton, Oregon Portland, Oregon Clark County, Washington Appendix D Previous New York State Speed Camera Legislation A09412, S841 Sponsor: Colman Authorizes the town of Ramapo to establish a photo radar demonstration program. 2000 Died in Transportation. S06032 Sponsor: Morahan Authorizes the towns of Clarkstown, Haverstraw, Orangetown, Stony Point and Ramapo to establish a photo radar demonstration program. 1999, 2000 Did not have an Assembly sponsor, or a home rule message from Rockland County. Died in Local Government. A03786 Sponsor: Thiele Authorizes the town of East Hampton, county of Suffolk to establish a photo radar demonstration program. 1999, 2000 Died in Transportation.

15

Appendix E Correspondence from J. MICHAEL BELL Captain, Traffic Division, Portland, OR Police Department I have been asked to share with you my experience as Commander of the Traffic Division in regards to photo radar within the City of Portland. Photo radar has been in existence since approximately January of 1996. It was done with a grassroots movement by citizens requesting photo radar to improve neighborhood livability within residential and school zones. After the enabling law was passed by the Oregon Legislature, a photo radar test period was implemented. Traffic Division and the Portland Department of Transportation took up the original project. There was no personnel or equipment and material funding, and for the first year the Bureau of Transportation Management paid the cost of the US Public Technologies, (now Lockheed Martin IMS) processing of the photo radar violations. Initially, we started with one leased van and a small number of targeted locations in an effort to determine whether or not photo radar was successful. Upon the conclusion of the test program, it was shown that photo radar was successful in reducing speeding. The Portland Bureau of Transportation, the Portland Police Bureau, and the Oregon Department of Transportation then did a joint report and presentation to the Oregon State Legislature on the findings. The Legislature removed the Sunset Clause and allowed the City of Portland and the City of Beaverton to continue to use photo radar. A copy of the photo radar executive summary report may be found on the web site of the Portland Police Bureau at http://www.teleport.com/~police. After the programs Sunset Clause was removed by the State Legislature, the Portland Bureau of Transportation transferred the entire program over to the Police Bureau with still no funding and no additional resources. The photo radar program was so successful in our experience with regards to reducing neighborhood speeding and the negative impact of traffic on the neighborhoods, that we obtained a second photo radar van. Staffing still came from within existing resources, but the City Council did give the Police Bureau monies to cover the Lockheed Martin IMS contract costs. The use of photo radar is an efficient and effective enforcement tool and a good use of personnel time. The Portland Police Bureau Traffic Division's experience with photo radar and the equipment provided by Lockheed Martin IMS has been very positive. The Traffic Division currently operates two photo radar vans that we own with Lockheed Martin IMS supplying the radar and camera equipment. We have deployed photo radar in over four hundred locations. We have seen over 141,069 speeding violations (not citations), had extremely positive feedback from the community, and very few problems or complaints, even from the drivers that were cited. As an example of some success, I offer the following. Several years ago, we looked at five specific locations where photo radar was targeted. We evaluated those locations by examining the impact of speeding violations as a percent of all traffic and the number of violators through the particular locations. We found at one location our first recorded deployment was May 15, 1997, total vehicles through photo radar during that particular time, 1918, 88% of those vehicles were in excess of 11 miles an hour over the posted speed limit, (1692 vehicles). July 7, 1997, same location, after a maximum of eight, four hour deployments, there were 794 vehicles through, 12% of those were in excess of 11

16

miles an hour over the posted speed limit, (94 vehicles) an 86% decrease in speeding at that location. At a second location, March 25, 1997, first deployment 475 vehicles, 26% 11+ miles per hour over the posted speed limit, (125 vehicles cited). October 4, 1997, fifteen deployments later (a maximum four hours each), 483 vehicles through the location), 3% 14 vehicles were 11+ miles per hour over the speed limit, an 88% decrease in speed violations. There were three other locations that we reviewed. Those locations showed reductions in speeding vehicles from 13% of the traffic, 11% speeding, (a 15% decrease.), another location 10% of the vehicles were speeding on the first deployment, 8% after additional deployments, a 20% decrease. And the final location 17% of the vehicles were speeding, on the first deployment, 12% were speeding, 6 deployments later. All of the locations had periodic deployment, and the study was not a scientific study. However, it does appear that photo radar helped reduce speeding and improve neighborhood livability. Portland's experience with our contractor, Lockheed Martin IMS has been exceptional. I have found the company to be more than helpful in their effort to increase our issuance rate, decrease the problems we experienced with dark interiors, windshield glare, motor vehicle registration, and equipment problems and improve the overall program. One recommendation that I would have to any agency considering starting a photo radar program, would be to issue citations to the registered owner, and not try to do a gender match with issuance of the citation to the driver or presumed driver. The Portland Police Bureau, and State of Oregon experience is a unique one given some of the challenges and local requirements we had. With many of those issues now resolved, photo radar has been a very successful and useful tool in the enforcement of speed violations. In regards to public awareness and community support, I have not had a single citizen complaint regarding Officers being rude, inconsiderate, or being callused when issuing a traffic citation. The Portland Police Bureau has not experienced major problems with the citing of registered owners and the loaning of vehicles to friends, relatives, etc. Our experience has been that the great majority of drivers are in fact the registered owners. We have found, that the people cited under the photo radar program are for a great part, honest, law abiding citizens who have gotten into a habit of traveling the streets in familiar areas much too rapidly. Photo radar ultimately provides a very shocking wake up call to those individuals and they have responded by reducing their speed on our streets. In conclusion, my experience as Captain of the Traffic Division, has been that the Portland Police Bureau partnership with Lockheed Martin IMS, the courts, Neighborhood Associations, the "Reclaiming Our Streets Committee," and the drivers of this city in regards to photo radar has been a very positive and rewarding experience. I know that there are a number of studies that have been conducted, among them one in Mesa, Arizona. Those studies are scientific and they lend validity to the experience Portland, and other cities have had with the photo radar program.

17

Appendix F Model Legislation AN ACT authorizing and directing the city of New York to establish a photo radar monitoring demonstration program and providing for the repeal of such provisions upon the expiration thereof The People of the State of New York, represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows: Section 1. (a) The city of New York, is hereby authorized and directed to establish a demonstration program installing and operating speed limit photo radar devices within the city of New York, imposing monetary liability on the owner of the vehicle for failure of an operator thereof to comply with the maximum speed limits in such city in accordance with the provisions of this act. For the purposes of this act, the city of New York’s chief of police shall determine which locations shall be used in such demonstration program. The program shall include 10 speed cameras in its first year, and the introduction of 10 more cameras in the second year, for a total of 20 cameras. (b) Upon the establishment of the demonstration program pursuant to subdivision (a) of this section, the owner of a vehicle shall be liable for a penalty imposed pursuant to this act if such vehicle was used or operated with the permission of the owner, express or implied, in violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law, and such violation is evidenced by information obtained from a speed limit violation-monitoring system. (c) For purposes of this act, “owner” shall have the meaning provided in article 2-B of the vehicle and traffic law. For purposes of this act, “speed limit violation monitoring system” shall mean a photo radar device operating independently of a police officer, which automatically produces one image of each vehicle at the time it is used or operated in violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law. (d) A certificate, sworn to or affirmed by a technician employed by the city of New York or its vendor or contractor in which the charged violation occurred, or a facsimile thereof, based upon inspection of photographs, microphotographs, videotape or other recorded images produced by a speed limit violationmonitoring system, shall be prima facie evidence of the facts therein. Any photographs, microphotographs, videotape or other recorded images evidencing such a violation shall be able for inspection in any proceeding to adjudicate the liability for such violation pursuant to a local law or ordinance adopted pursuant to this act. (e) An owner liable for a violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law pursuant to the operation of the demonstration program established pursuant to this act shall be liable for monetary penalties in accordance with a schedule of fines and penalties promulgated by the commissioner of motor vehicles. The liability of the owner pursuant to this act shall not exceed the limits imposed pursuant to subdivision (h) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law for each violation; provided, however, that such

18

schedule may provide for an additional penalty not in excess of twenty-five dollars for each violation for the failure to respond to a notice of liability within the prescribed time period. (f) An imposition of liability pursuant to this act shall not be deemed a conviction as an operator and shall not be made part of the operating record of the person upon whom such liability is imposed nor shall it be used for insurance purposes in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage. (g) A notice of liability shall be sent by first class mail to each person alleged to be liable as an owner for a violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law pursuant to this act within six business days of the alleged occurrence of the alleged violation. A manual or automatic record of mailing prepared in the ordinary course of business shall be prima facie evidence of the facts contained therein. 2. A notice of liability shall contain the name and address of the person alleged to be liable as an owner for a violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law pursuant to this act, the registration number of the vehicle involved in such violation, the location where such violation took place, the date and time of such violation and the identification number of the camera which recorded the violation or other document locator number. 3. The notice of liability shall contain information advising the person charged of the manner and the time in which he or she may contest the liability alleged in the notice. Such notice of liability shall also contain a warning to advise the persons charged that failure to contest in the manner and time provided shall be deemed an admission of liability and that a default judgment may be entered thereon. 4. The notice of liability shall be prepared by the city of New York or its designee, or by any other entity authorized by such department to prepare and mail such notification of violation. Such notice of liability shall be mailed within six business days of the alleged violation. (h) Adjudication of the liability imposed upon owners by this act shall be by the court or by the traffic violations bureau of the city of New York it duly established to have jurisdiction over traffic infractions. (i) If an owner receives a notice of liability pursuant to this act for any time period during which the vehicle was reported to the police department as having been stolen, it shall be a valid defense to an allegation of liability for a violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law pursuant to this act that the vehicle had been reported to the police as stolen prior to the time the violation occurred and had not been recovered by such time. For purposes of asserting the defense provided by this subdivision it shall be sufficient that a certified copy of the police report on the stolen vehicle be sent by first class mail to the court having jurisdiction. (j) In the city of New York the adjudication of liability imposed upon owners pursuant to this act shall be by a court or traffic violations bureau having jurisdiction. An owner who is a lessor of a vehicle to which a notice of liability was issued pursuant to subdivision (g) of this section shall not be liable for the violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law, provided that he or she sends to the court or traffic violation bureau having jurisdiction a copy of the

19

rental, lease or other such contract document covering such vehicle on the date of the violation, with the name and address of the lessee clearly legible, within thirty-seven days after receiving notice from the court or traffic violations bureau of the date and time of such violation, together with the other information contained in the original notice of liability. Failure to send such information within the thirty-seven day time period shall render the owner liable for the penalty prescribed by this act. Where the lessor complies with the provisions of this subdivision, the lessee of such vehicle on the date of such violation shall be deemed to be the owner of such vehicle for the purposes of this act, shall be subject to liability for the violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law pursuant to this act and shall be sent a notice of liability pursuant to subdivision (g) of this section. (k) If the owner liable for subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law pursuant to this act was not the operator of the vehicle at the time of the violation, the owner may maintain an action for indemnification against the operator. (l) Nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the liability of an operator of a vehicle for any violation of subdivision (d) of section 1180 of the vehicle and traffic law. (m) The chief of police of the police department of the city of New York shall submit two reports on the results of the use of a speed limit violation monitoring system to the governor, the president of the senate and the speaker of the assembly by December 31, 2002 and December 31, 2003 respectively. Such reports shall include but not be limited to the following: 1. A description of the location where speed limit photo radar monitoring systems were used; 2. The number of violations recorded at each locations and in the aggregate on a daily, weekly, and monthly basis; 3. The total number of notices of liability issued; 4. The number of fines and total amount of fines paid after first notice of liability; 5. The number of violations adjudicated and results of such adjudications including breakdowns of dispositions made; 6. The total amount of revenue realized; and 7. The quality of the adjudication process and its results. This act shall take effect on the one hundred twentieth day after it shall have become a law and shall remain in full force and effect for 3 years, where upon such date this act shall expire and be deemed repealed; provided, however, that any rules or regulations necessary for the implementation of this act on its effective date shall be promulgated on or before such a date.

20

End Notes 1 Turner S, Polk AE; Overview of Automated Enforcement in Transportation; ITE Journal, June 1998, 20. 22 Gilbert, Daniel T., Sines, Nina J., and Bell, Brandon E.; ‘Photographic Law Enforcement’; Legal Research Digest; Number 36; December 1996. 3 Blackburn, Robert R. and Gilbert, Daniel T.; Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws; National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1995 4 ‘Speeding is a Snap’; http://www.photocop.com/ 5 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Q&A: Speed and Speed Limits; http://www.his.org/safety_facts/quanda/speed_limits.htm 6 Ernish, E and Harrison, P; Streets for People; Transportation Alternatives, New York, 1998. 7 Ibid 8 Ibid 9 West, R.; ‘The Effect of Speed Cameras on Injuries from Road Accidents’; British Medical Journal 1998; 316: 5-6. 10 Blackburn, Robert and Gilbert, Daniel; Photographic Enforcement of Traffic Laws; Transportation Research Board; Washington, DC, 1995. 11 Photo Radar Demonstration Project Evaluation; Cities of Beaverton and Portland, Oregon; January, 1997. http://www.teleport.com/~police/radar.html 12 Makinen, T. & Rathmayer, R.; The Experiment of Automatic Speed Enforcement: Final Report. Technical Research Center of Finaland; Espoo, Finland, 1994. 13 Coccola, Tom; Phone Interview, NYC Department of Transportation Press Office; August 2000. 14 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Status Report; Vol. 33, No. 10; December 5, 1998. 15 West, R.; ‘The Effect of Speed Cameras on Injuries from Road Accidents’; British Medical Journal 1998; 316: 5-6. 16 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Status Report; Vol.32, No. 3; March 22, 1997. 17 Automated Enforcement in Transportation; The Institute for Transportation Engineers, December 1999. 18 Ibid 19 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Q & A: Speed Law Enforcement; http://www.highwaysafety.org/safety_facts/qanda/speed_lawenf.htm. 20 Captain J. Michael Bell, Traffic Division, Portland Police Department; Email Correspondence; July 24, 2000. 21 Photo Radar Demonstration Project Evaluation; January 1997, Cities of Beaverton and Portland, Oregon. http://www.teleport.com/~police/radar.html 22 Correspondence: Officer Tom McClellan, Fort Collins Police Department, July 2000. 23 Photo Radar Demonstration Project Evaluation; January 1997, Cities of Beaverton and Portland, Oregon. http://www.teleport.com/~police/radar.html 24 Cost, James A.; Photo Radar Report; City of Campbell, CA, May 1991. 25 Officer Jon Thompson, Sandy Police Department; Email Correspondence; July 14, 2000. 26 Automated Enforcement in Transportation; The Institute of Transportation Engineers, December, 1999. 27 Insurance Institute for Highway Safety; Q&A: Speed and Speed Limits; http://www.his.org/safety_facts/quanda/speed_limits.htm 28 Ibid 29 Jackson, Penny; Freedom of Information Letter Response; NYC Department of Transportation Office of Litigation Support and Records Management, January 3, 2000. Coccola, Tom; Phone Interview, NYC Department of Transportation Press Office; August 2000.