There is a traffic jam of bills related to red-light camera technology inside the Capitol these days as a third bill has been introduced on the controversial issue.

That bill would create a study to measure the public safety impact of the use of red-light and speed photo enforcement cameras. The study also would look into claims that cities using the technology are motivated by the revenue collected from tickets.

“We want to make evidence-based decisions when making public policy decisions of this magnitude,” said Rep. Dan Pabon, D-Denver, who is sponsoring the study bill.

Pabon’s bill makes it the third red-light camera-related measure that lawmakers will be working on, with less than a week to go in the session.

Another effort, Senate Bill 276, would require voter approval if cities wish to use red-light camera technology. The bill would tack on stiff penalties if cities refuse to go to the voters.

A House counterpart titled House Bill 1098 originally sought an outright ban of the use of red-light and photo speed radar systems. However, that bill is expected to be amended to include a voter-approval provision, but without the penalties that are a part of the Senate version.

Efforts to ban red-light cameras in the state have become a bit of tradition at the General Assembly in recent years, with each past effort falling short.

Municipalities oppose banning the technology, pointing to its positive impact on public safety. Opponents say speed photo and red-light camera systems are put in place by cities to drive revenue. They also point to constitutional concerns.

Senate version moves forward

Arguments from both sides of the debate were heard during an April 28 committee hearing on Senate Bill 276.

The bill would not ban red-light camera technology, but cities that wish to begin or continue using it must get approval from voters on elections held as early as November 2016.

“We want governments to face a giant electorate in 2016,” Sen. David Balmer, R-Centennial, who is a bill sponsor, told the Senate Business, Labor and Technology Committee.

“That’s why the municipalities are so opposed to this bill because they do not want to face the voters.”

Cities would be required to dismantle red-light camera systems within two months of losing an election.

The bill also has bite in cases where municipalities refuse to abide by the law. Balmer said that cities that ignore the law would have federal highway funding stripped.

Balmer and Democratic Senate Minority Leader Morgan Carroll of Aurora, also a co-sponsor, cited several areas of concern with the use of red light cameras.

Carroll said red-light camera technology can result in “wrongful ticketing.” She used an example of a driver who rolls through a red light on a snowy day because it would be safer than slamming on the breaks at an icy intersection.

Carroll also pointed to criminal justice concerns. She said that motorists accused of committing a traffic violation are required to prove their innocence, an undue burden-shifting in a society where one is presumed innocent.

Carroll also said there are constitutional right-of-confrontation issues that the technology presents.

“You fundamentally can’t cross examine a machine,” she said.

And Carroll blasted the use of “perpetual surveillance” in societies where citizens are increasingly under the watchful eye of authorities.“If you are under surveillance 24-7, yes you will capture more people that way,” she said.

But police officers who testified in opposition to the bill insist the technology reduces accidents and saves lives.

Robert Hendry, a retired Boulder police officer who now manages the city’s photo enforcement program, cited city data from 2008 that reported a 57 percent decrease in traffic violations and a 65 percent drop in accidents at six intersections were cameras are mounted.

Lt. Craig Horton, a traffic unit commander for the Fort Collins Police Department, said speed compliance in 30 mile per hour zones was just 34 percent in the late 1990’s. Since photo radar technology began being used, the compliance rate has increased to 68 percent, Horton said.

The officers took issue with claims that cities make large amounts of money off the technology. Hendry said Boulder breaks about even when it comes to cost and revenue, while Horton said the ticket revenue in Fort Collins is minimal.

The officers said lawmakers shouldn’t be dictating what methods police use to enforce laws in their cities.

“How and when we choose to allocate our resources should be our prerogative,” Hendry said. “Jaywalking is a crime. Whether or not we enforce it, it’s up to us. But is that going to become a legislative issue…?”

The committee did not see things the officers’ way. Members instead voted to move forward with the legislation by a 7-2 vote.

House bill survives

Meanwhile, another red-light camera restriction effort nearly died during an April 24 House committee hearing before getting new life, thanks to a Longmont lawmaker.

The original intent of House Bill 1098 was to ban the use of red-light cameras and photo radar technology altogether. But sponsors had to agree to a key change in order for the bill to survive the House Appropriations Committee.

An expected bill amendment will allow cities to seek a vote from citizens if they intend to continue using the technology. The vote would need to be held by November 2017.

That change allowed Rep. Jonathan Singer, D-Longmont, to cast a yes vote during the committee hearing.

“If this was just an outright, turn the red light cameras off tomorrow bill, I would have been a no,” Singer said. “But this allows local governments to make the arguments to their citizens that this is something that is worth the sacrifice in civil liberties and is not a revenue generator, but is actually a public safety mechanism.”

The bill looked dead after committee members and original bill co-sponsors Pabon and Brittany Pettersen, D-Lakewood, renounced their support.

How close was Singer to being the deciding no vote?

“I was 99 percent on my way to voting against it,” Singer said.

“I got a lot of pressure from the Municipal League and cities,” he said. “Certainly, after I passed the bill out of committee, I got a lot of phone calls from city council members that I actually don’t represent because I don’t think there are any red light cameras in Longmont.“We do have red lights, though,” Singer quipped.

But the bill — which took three months after it was introduced to receive a vote in the Appropriations Committee — faces an uncertain future.A full House vote on the bill was delayed multiple times this week, leaving some to wonder whether the bill might be killed on the calendar.However, Rep. Steve Humphrey, R-Severance, a bill sponsor, remained optimistic about its chances. Humphrey said his version is “more palatable” than the Senate bill — Singer called the harsh penalties tied to Senate Bill 276 as “draconian.”

“I would be extremely disappointed if we didn’t get a vote in the House,” Humphrey said. “A lot of time and energy went into this. There are a lot of folks out there who are eager to see this bill advance.”

— Twitter: @VicVela1