As NV lawmakers speed toward red light camera law, civil rights groups want to pump the brakes

By Michael Lyle, Nevada Current

Amid growing numbers of traffic fatalities across Nevada, state lawmakers during interim meetings last year discussed whether red light and speed cameras or enhanced infrastructure would be the best way to improve road safety.

A long-awaited bill, backed by state traffic safety officials and Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, to authorize traffic enforcement by automated camera was heard Monday.

However, legislation to study, let alone mandate the traffic infrastructure side of the equation “has never materialized,” Nick Shepack, Nevada state director of the Fines and Fees Justice Center, told state lawmakers.

Lawmakers agreed last year to create legislation “on traffic safety infrastructure that creates safety on all streets and focuses on high impact areas as well as authorizes the use of safety cameras,” Shepack said.

“We are missing the first half of the bill,” he said.

The three-hour hearing kicked off a robust discussion about repealing Nevada’s law, adopted in 1999, banning the use of speed and red light cameras.

Senate Bill 415, heard Monday by the Senate Growth and Infrastructure Committee, would allow local jurisdictions to use automated traffic enforcement, such as red light cameras, if they chose to do so.

Drivers could face a $100 find for running a red light under the legislation.

The bill would require jurisdictions that want to use cameras to conduct a 60-day public awareness campaign on automated traffic enforcement.

For the first 30 days in use, camera-automated enforcement would only result in warnings.

Andrew Bennett, the chair of Nevada Advisory Committee on Traffic Safety, presented amended language for the bill alongside Clark County Sheriff Kevin McMahill, the National Transportation Board, and Clark County Commissioner Michael Naft.

The ACLU of Nevada, the Nevada Fines and Fees Justice Center and Clark County Public Defender’s officer presented a counter presentation to the bill about the concerns of automated traffic enforcement.

They noted the use of automated enforcement across the country has been overused in low-income communities and communities of color and opens up the potential for sensitive data to be collected and shared. The legislation, as heard, still comes with too many lingering questions, they told lawmakers.

“We view this as a half-baked proposal,” said Athar Haseebullah, the executive director of the ACLU of Nevada. “This is not ready to move forward. This body routinely engages in study. We say put it to a study. If this body is so compelled, put it to a ballot question.”

‘Seems like a conflict of interest’

McMahill told state lawmakers Monday that while he wasn’t “a proponent of big government” it was the growing number of traffic accidents, and deaths, that changed his mind.

“I’m not a proponent, really, of traffic cameras, until the last 10 years or so,” he said. “The bottom line is that I’m sick and tired of people dying on our roadways because of the bad behavior of other drivers.”

Roughly 160 people were killed on Clark County roads last year, McMahill said.

“We’re here today because 3,535 people have lost their lives in Nevada on our roadways over the last decade,” Bennett added.

The growing number of deaths, he said, demanded urgency. Traffic officials previously told lawmakers during the interim session that the number of fatalities in the state from 2019 to 2022 has increased 36%.

“The National Conference for state legislators shows that 33 states currently allow the use of this technology in all or specific situations,” Bennett said, adding that automated enforcement “saves lives.”

“I think there are certain aspects of government that we should not privatize,” Democratic state Sen. Rochelle Nguyen, chair of the Senate Growth and Infrastructure committee. “I do have some concerns that we are privatizing our law enforcement officers in enacting legislation like this, because that’s what we’re doing.”

The bill would enable local jurisdictions in setting up traffic cameras, though the Nevada Department of Transportation would be tasked with setting up enforcement procedural regulations.

People would be mailed the citation and would have 90 days to respond. They could also contest the ticket if they weren’t driving.

The citations “are not classified as moving violations and will not impact a driver’s record or license,” Bennett said.

Republican state Sen. Ira Hansen questioned how a $100 fee outlined in the language – a fine people wouldn’t get until months after the fact – would actually prevent people from speeding or running red lights.

“I mean 100 bucks,” Hansen said. “No demerit. No insurance notification. Because, you know, those are things when you start paying an extra 500 bucks a year, $1,000 a year … that has an impact.”

Bennett said the language was to find a balance between concerns presented by groups like the Fines and Fees Justice Center.

Hansen also questioned how many of the traffic fatalities last year where a driver ran a red light or was speeding stemmed from the driver being intoxicated or on drugs.

Bennett said he wasn’t able to get that information prior to the hearing.

Since the idea of automated enforcement gained traction in Nevada, opponents have warned that some jurisdictions across the country have used red light cameras as a revenue source.

An amendment to the bill Bennett presented said any additional funds collected from enforcement would be allocated to cover the cost of the program. Any additional funds after that would be used exclusively for engineering improvements in that jurisdiction, he said.

The legislation also prohibits per-ticket contracts and profit sharing with the vendors.

Nguyen said the bill needs more guardrails to prevent excessive fines and fees.

”That money still goes to law enforcement,” she said. “It seems like a conflict of interest.”

Sponsors also amended their original bill to add a provision prohibiting governments from sharing information with immigration enforcement agencies.

Haseebullah said the provision was “a nice gesture” but he is wary of its practical effect.

“It would require us to have information access to everything in their possession, and we don’t,” he said. “I don’t know if relying on the ACLU to put in public records requests to the same bodies hiding this information or charging us sums of money in order to get this data is an effective solution.”

Deter behavior

The bill’s opponents urged lawmakers to refocus on traffic infrastructure, including using items like roundabouts or changing the design of streets, to reduce accidents.

“You make the roads less wide,” Shepack said. “You build in buffer lanes between the crosswalks and the streets. In Vegas we have a huge problem with a bus stop being in the middle of the block. It’s 118 degrees and people have to run across four lanes of traffic. You can put in certain medians to deter this behavior.”

Clark County Commissioner Michael Naft suggested many of those ideas have been “implemented today in unincorporated Clark County and I would dare to say in the other jurisdictions who spoke today as well.”

“That doesn’t mean the work is done,” Naft said. “We have much more to do when it comes to infrastructure. There are billions of dollars we could spend on infrastructure to ensure everyone is safe in our community. Alternatively, we have this route, which does allow a path for some consequence, for some action to be taken when someone violates the law and for some accountability to be had.”

The committee took no action on the bill.

Nevada Current is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Nevada Current maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Hugh Jackson for questions: [email protected].