Nevada’s Legislative Consideration of Automated Traffic Enforcement
Critics note the use of automated enforcement across the country has been overused and opens up the potential for sensitive data to be collected and shared. (Photo: Hugh Jackson/Nevada Current)
Rising Traffic Fatalities Prompt Legislative Action
In response to a troubling increase in traffic fatalities across Nevada, state lawmakers have began discussions regarding the efficacy of automated traffic enforcement such as red light and speed cameras, compared to enhanced road infrastructure.
A new bill aimed at allowing localities to use automated enforcement has been presented, backed by officials from the Nevada Department of Transportation and the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department.
The Legislative Framework
The recently introduced Senate Bill 415 proposes the elimination of the 1999 law that prohibits the deployment of speed and red light cameras in the state. If enacted, this legislation would enable local jurisdictions to implement automated traffic enforcement systems at their discretion.
Violations, such as running a red light, could result in a $100 fine, with the bill mandating a public awareness campaign prior to implementation. During the initial 30 days of enforcement, only warnings would be issued.
Calls for Comprehensive Infrastructure Solutions
Despite the push for automated solutions, experts argue that improvements in traffic infrastructure are equally critical. Nick Shepack, Nevada’s state director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, highlighted, “We are missing the first half of the bill,” referring to the lack of focus on road safety improvements.
Shepack suggested adopting design changes like narrower lanes and adding buffer zones to enhance pedestrian safety. Such alterations are believed to be crucial in reducing accidents.
Opposition and Concerns Raised
Some organizations, including the ACLU of Nevada and the Nevada Fines and Fees Justice Center, have opposed the automated camera enforcement bill. They express concerns about the potential misuse of sensitive data and the disproportionate impact on low-income communities and communities of color. Athar Haseebullah, ACLU of Nevada’s executive director, remarked, “This is not ready to move forward. We say put it to a study.”
Statistics Highlighting the Urgency
Statistics from local authorities underscore the necessity for action. Clark County Sheriff Kevin McMahill stated that approximately 160 fatalities occurred on county roads last year. Over the last decade, more than 3,535 lives have been lost in Nevada due to traffic-related incidents, with a significant increase in fatalities—up 36% from 2019 to 2022.
Financial Implications and Revenue Concerns
Lawmakers have raised questions regarding the financial implications of automated enforcement. Senator Ira Hansen expressed skepticism about the deterrent effect of a $100 fine absent demerits or insurance notifications. Concerns were voiced regarding potential revenue generation from fines, which some argue could be used as a financial resource by local governments.
The bill includes provisions stipulating that funds generated from fines would first cover the cost of implementing the program, with any surplus allocated to traffic engineering improvement projects. Additionally, it prohibits profit-sharing agreements with enforcement vendors.
Awaiting Further Action
The Senate Growth and Infrastructure Committee has yet to reach a decision on Senate Bill 415, ensuring that the ongoing conversation about road safety in Nevada remains a pressing issue. Locals continue to advocate for a balanced approach that prioritizes both law enforcement and infrastructure optimization.