State Automated Enforcement Laws

Kaye Beach

Aug 13, 2011

The IIHS rates the states on their automated enforcement laws.

Oklahoma get a “poor” rating.  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder and the beholder in this case is the IIHS or Insurance Institute For Highway Safety. . .

CAUTION! The IIHS is an insurance industry public relations and lobbying organization that publishes politically motivated faux studies to support, and promote, its collective self–interest, not the people or the general welfare of the public. Read More

Photo Radar Scam info

Automated enforcement laws

August 2011

Automated enforcement refers to the use of cameras to enforce traffic safety laws. Although many states have laws explicitly authorizing automated enforcement, not all states where cameras are in use have such laws, nor are they always necessary.

A common type of automated enforcement program is for red light violations. The use of cameras to enforce speed limits is less common, but increasing. The technology is also used to catch drivers who fail to pay a toll, drive past a stopped school bus, or disobey a railroad crossing signal. In states that have automated enforcement laws, some authorize enforcement statewide, while others permit use only in specified communities.

A few jurisdictions treat automated enforcement citations just like parking tickets in that the registered owner is liable. Similarly, just as parking tickets do not result in points or are not recorded on a driver’s record, many jurisdictions do not assess points or make a record of automated enforcement citations.

The following table summarizes automated enforcement laws in each state and the District of Columbia. The table also includes ratings of red light camera laws. The Institute rates red light camera laws because research has shown that these programs save lives. The ratings criteria take into account both the breadth of the law and the operation of cameras in the state.

See the Table here

State Lawmakers Rally to Oppose Photo Enforcement

Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Washington and Virginia legislators consider banning automated ticketing.

In the face on an onslaught by the insurance and traffic camera lobbyists to convince the public that red light cameras and speed cameras save lives, state lawmakers around the country are fighting back.

Representatives in Florida, Iowa, Missouri, Washington and Virginia from both the Democratic and Republican parties have noted the lack of effectiveness of automated ticketing machines in their respective states and have proposed severe restrictions or outright bans on their use. Later today, the Virginia House Militia, Police and Public Safety Committee will discuss legislation that places a moratorium on further red light camera deployment in the commonwealth.

“No locality shall implement or expand a traffic light signal violation monitoring system on or after July 1, 2011,” House Bill 2327 states.

Read More

The Oklahoma Spy Cam Revenue Scheme- A Pop Quiz for Jari and Mary

Kaye Beach

Oct. 24, 2010

The issue of using traffic cameras as a source of revenue enhancement was raised at the Oct 20, 2010 Oklahoma Gubernatorial Debate.  This issue was one of import t0o many Oklahoma residents but had they not insisted upon raising the issue, I doubt that it would have broken the surface of the mainstream media.  If you wonder if your voice counts, the answer is a resounding yes!

Kudos to the grassroots activists and the alternative and mainstream media in Oklahoma for helping the people to be heard and their issues addressed.

AxXiom

Reference:

Gov. Brad Henry’s Budget Proposal for FY 2011 which was unveiled at the State of the State address proposed;

Automated Enforcement of Vehicle Insurance

The Governor’s budget proposes that the State of Oklahoma better protect Oklahomans from uninsured motorists by increasing drivers’ compliance with compulsory vehicle insurance laws through implementation of an automated enforcement system.

The automated system can be implemented at no cost to the state. It is estimated that the state will collect $95 million in revenues from this program.

Pg A-5

Private company to set up network of cameras to track Oklahoma drivers and issue insurance tickets to generate $95 million a year.

Oklahoma is preparing an unprecedented statewide deployment of automated ticketing machines designed to generate $95 million in revenue. Instead of using red light cameras and speed cameras, the Oklahoma Department of Public Safety (DPS) is preparing to sign a contract with a for-profit company that will track all passing motorists with a network of at least twenty automated license plate recognition (ALPR, also known as ANPR) cameras. The devices would also “generate significant additional revenues” by issuing $250 citations for expired insurance using the Oklahoma Compulsory Insurance Verification System (OCIVS) database that went live in July 2009.

“DPS envisions a system of automated enforcement of vehicle insurance which incorporates, at a minimum, the following processes: capture vehicle license plate data from stationary locations along selected highways using cameras (and) barcode scanners,” a DPS request for information dated October 16, 2009 explained. “Oklahoma’s new license plates include a barcode.”

The proposal includes a requirement for the ability to keep “daily statistics and related data on vehicles for which license plate data was captured,” which could include logging the date, time and location any particular vehicle passes a stationary camera. The two largest red light camera vendors, Australia’s Redflex Traffic Systems and American Traffic Solutions (ATS), which is one-third owned by Goldman Sachs, offer a nationwide tracking service that uses automated ticketing machines. ATS has filed a bid for the Oklahoma contract along with several other companies including InsureNet.

Read More From The Newspaper

InsurNet Bills Traffic cameras as answer to Chicago’s budget deficit

Traffic cameras billed as answer to Chicago’s budget deficit

Red-light cameras have been combined with short yellow lights to catch drivers and raise city revenues across the country. Now an insurance-checking camera company has presented Chicago with a new twist on the idea—instead of speeders, go after the uninsured.

By Joel Hruska | Last updated March 17, 2009 11:30 PM

The Windy City, like a lot of other metropolitan areas of late, is facing major budget deficits in the face of the recession’s strong bite. State and local governments alike have been hunting for additional sources of revenue, so it’s not surprising that a Chicago alderman would entertain the possibility of installing red light cameras along the city’s major thoroughfares and intersections. This time around, though, the company trumpeting the addition of these digital watchdogs isn’t portraying them as useful tools for catching speeders—instead, camera provider InsureNet claims to have developed “a simple yet complete answer that delivers totally accurate, instant insurance status verification. An additional unique advantage is that this system is also non-invasive, ensuring protection for every insurer and policyholder.”

The Chicago Sun-Times
quotes InsureNet president Dr. Jonathan Miller on what the city might expect to earn with the system in 2009. “Certainly, it will be well in excess of $100 million,” Dr. Miller said. “We think at least $200 million. And the upward projections are far higher.” InsureNet would charge a collection fee of “just” 30 percent in exchange for its services. Clearly, this type of system—installed at no small cost—is all about making money.

InsureNet’s website and supporting documents (PDF) are so thickly slathered with PR frosting  that it’s hard to ascertain how the company’s system actually works. Sweeping statements are a way of life; the InsureNet system “addresses all problems…stream(lines) the entire vehicle insurance process…provides dramatic benefits…saves and provides the average State Government with hundreds of millions of dollars annually and saves the Insurance Industry even more.” But wait, there’s MORE:

InsureNet is provided free of charge to law enforcement agencies, private residents, and vehicle insurers, 24/7/365. The National Law Enforcement Communication System (NLETS) it uses has never been compromised, the company assures us, and the entire InsureNet system actually lets insurance companies do less than they do now. Finally, if you haven’t had enough by now, InsureNet is safer, “totally accurate,” and provides all parties “with reliable, automatic, and totally safe data which is completely free of all personal details.” Got all that?

Even if we assume that InsureNet’s database and citation system works well and accept the company’s allegation that nearly one-in-four drivers on the road is uninsured (the Insurance Research Council, or IRC, estimates the rate may hit one-in-six by 2010), there are serious questions to consider when evaluating who, exactly, is going to pay the city of Chicago the several hundred million that Dr. Miller is dangling in front of the cash-strapped aldermen.

In a recent report (PDF), the IRC wrote that it “found a strong correlation between the percent of uninsured motorists and the unemployment rate: An increase in the unemployment rate of one percentage point is associated with an increase in the uninsured motorist rate of more than three-quarters of a percentage point.”

It’s not hard to connect the dots on this one. If unemployed workers are the most likely to cancel their insurance, and InsureNet’s system targets the uninsured, than the city of Chicago would, in effect, be balancing the books on the shoulders of those least able to afford it. Indeed, the city could find itself confronting a virtual mob of angry citizens who are funding social services and unemployment benefits out of their own unemployment checks. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/03/traffic-cameras-billed-as-answer-to-chicagos-budget-deficit.ars

Related posts;

Oklahoma

Lawmaker Opposes Plan to Use Cameras to Ticket Uninsured Drivers

Oklahoma DPS Desperately Seeking Automated Enforcement

Nov. 28, 2009

Shedding some light on the recent news about automated enforcement of mandatory insurance law

link

 

October 16, 2009
To: All Interested Vendors
Re: Request for Information
The State of Oklahoma, Department of Public Safety, is requesting information regarding a system of automated enforcement of vehicle insurance

Project Description
DPS envisions a system of automated enforcement of vehicle insurance which incorporates, at a minimum, the following processes:
• capture vehicle license plate data from stationary locations along selected highways using: cameras
• barcode scanners. Oklahoma’s new license plates include a barcode. All license plates will be replaced with the new license plate by December 31, 2009. It should be noted that some license plate mounts or surrounds obscure, partially or in whole, the barcode.
• other technology proposed by the responder

The Department of Public Safety (DPS) has developed, created, and currently administers, in cooperation with insurance carriers licensed to sell personal lines vehicle insurance in Oklahoma, a dynamic system for verification of vehicle insurance by motor license agents of the Oklahoma Tax Commission (OTC) at the time of vehicle registration, law enforcement when making a roadside vehicle stop, and courts when allowing a person to provide proof of the existence of vehicle insurance on the date a citation was written for no insurance.

The current system is called the Oklahoma Compulsory Insurance Verification System (OCIVS).
Obviously, this type of enforcement of vehicle insurance laws, by its natures, is limited to personal contact with the individual. DPS is now interested in expanding the verification process to include a system of automated enforcement of vehicle insurance that will encompass a larger target group without expending manpower.

 

• use the captured data to obtain registration data from OTC. Basically, the license plate number would be used to obtain the VIN and the owner’s name and address from OTC. The VIN is necessary for the insurance verification process.

• use the VIN to inquire against OCIVS to verify whether vehicle insurance exists for the vehicle. OCIVS would reply to the inquiry with a “Confirmed” or “Unconfirmed” response.

• In some cases, the insurance company would provide a reason along with an “Unconfirmed” response notification to the owner of a vehicle for which an “Unconfirmed” response is received. The notification would be by first-class mail to the owner’s address provided by OTC. T

The notification would include:

• • vehicle information
• • the date and time insurance was unable to be confirmed for the vehicle
• • a statement of violation of state law, including the statutory citation
• • a fine or administrative penalty (to be determined later) to be paid by the owner as directed on the notification
• • a statement of the consequences of failure to pay (to be determined later)
• • record keeping that would provide DPS with daily statistics and related data on vehicles:
• • for which license plate data was captured
• • for which registration data was obtained from OTC
• • for which insurance verification inquiries were made, and the results of those inquiries
• • for which notification was mailed to the owner

This system would be limited to vehicles covered by personal lines vehicle insurance policies; vehicles covered by commercial policies are not part of OCIVS and therefore would be exempt from this system. While this system of automated enforcement of vehicle insurance only considers application to
vehicles registered in Oklahoma with inquiries against OCIVS, responses which include vehicles registered in any or all other states will be considered. It will be each responder’s responsibility to determine how to access registration and insurance information from a state other than Oklahoma.

RFI Response Instructions
The State is asking all interested parties to submit a response containing the following information:
• Your interest in providing the services/supplies.
• A brief description of past experience providing similar services/supplies.

• Your opinion, based on your past experience, on whether the State has identified all the major components necessary to complete this project? If not, please provide information on other necessary components.
• A list of potential problems/risks that the State may encounter during this project, and any ideas or suggestions about how such problems/risks should be addressed in a solicitation.
• Your best estimated information on how each process would be accomplished, including specific methodology, software, hardware, connectivity, security, etc., and the estimated time frame in which each process would be accomplished.
• Your best estimated time frame for completing the project.
• The State of Oklahoma and DPS would not provide any funding for this system; all costs would be the responsibility of the successful bidder, should the system be bid and awarded.
The method of payment to the successful bidder would be reimbursement from funds received from fines or administrative penalties. With this in mind, please provide an estimate of income your company would find necessary and sufficient to provide the services/supplies required to implement, administer and support this system. This estimate should be given in monthly increments.

See Document;

http://www.dps.state.ok.us/…/RFI%20automated%20insurance%20enforcement%20OKLAHOMA.pdf