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
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.
·
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.
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
ped@transalt.org
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.
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.
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]
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 an initial investment, generally 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]
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.
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.
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.
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]
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]
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]
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 where they are installed.
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. Cost Per Camera:
$200,000
Annual Program Income (FY 2000): $8.6
Million Income Per Camera:
$245,714
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. [29]
Appendix A
|
|
Clockwise from upper left: speed camera pictures during
the day, at night, in the snow, and in the rain.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A speed camera installed
on a roadway.
|
|
|
A speed camera installed
in a police vehicle.
|
|
Appendix B
US Speed Camera Vendors
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.
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 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.
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 violation-monitoring 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
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 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.